ITEM NO: 1 SUBJECT: KATOOMBA TOWN CENTRE …Outcomes Report and Town Centre Revitalisation Strategy...

CITY PLANNING PROGRAMOrdinary Meeting, 22/6/99

ITEM NO: 1

SUBJECT: KATOOMBA TOWN CENTRE STRATEGY FINAL REPORT

FILE NO: C02472

Recommendations:

1. That the report by the Group Manager Strategic Planning be received.

2. That Council endorse the Katoomba Charrette Outcomes Report and Town CentreRevitalisation Strategy as a way forward for the revitalisation of the Katoomba TownCentre.

3. That Council endorse the Katoomba Charrette Economic, Employment and VisitorStrategy as a supporting strategy and discussion paper to the Katoomba CharretteOutcomes Report and Town Centre Revitalisation Strategy.

4. That a range of options related to the proposals for a central median in KatoombaStreet be examined as part of the Katoomba Streetscape Improvement planningproject and that further consultation be undertaken with the local community duringthe development and refinement of those options.

Report by Group Manager, Strategic Planning:

1. BACKGROUND

In October 1998 Council, in partnership with the NSW State Government, conducted aCharrette to develop a strategy for the revitalisation of the Katoomba Town Centre. Thefollowing two documents have been prepared as a result of the Charrette process.

• Katoomba Charrette Outcomes Report and Town Centre Revitalisation Strategy(Revitalisation Strategy).

• Katoomba Charrette Economic, Employment and Visitor Strategy.

At its meeting of the 27 April 1999, Council resolved to place the above two documents onpublic exhibition.

CITY PLANNING PROGRAMItem 1 - Ordinary Meeting, 22/6/99

2. PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to:

• Report to Council the results of the public exhibition of the Katoomba CharretteOutcomes Report and Town Centre Revitalisation Strategy and the Katoomba CharretteEconomic, Employment and Visitor Strategy.

• Recommend actions in relation to the Katoomba Charrette Outcomes Report and TownCentre Revitalisation Strategy as a result of the submissions received.

• Seek Council’s endorsement of the Katoomba Charrette Outcomes Report and TownCentre Revitalisation Strategy and the Katoomba Charrette Economic, Employment andVisitor Strategy.

• Provide an update on the actions resulting from the strategy that are presently under way.

3. SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED

The Katoomba Charrette Outcomes Report and Town Centre Revitalisation Strategy and theKatoomba Charrette Economic, Employment and Visitor Strategy were placed on publicexhibition between 30 April and 31 May 1999.

Two submissions were received as a result of the public exhibition of the two documents.Both submissions dealt with issues in the Revitalisation Strategy. The comments raised in thesubmissions are as follows:

A. Submission 1

In general the submission provided positive comment and endorsement of the strategywhile also making the following suggestions:

• All building facades should be graded in order of heritage significance and thelevel of change to any building should be in line with this significance. Nobuildings should be made to fit into any style or period.

• Lighting should not be limited to a heritage style.• The Civic Centre represents a building from a particular period. It should be

respected as much as any other contribution to the Streetscape. Any use andredevelopment of the site should respect the history of the building.

• Library opening hours should be extended immediately.• A bus stop should be located across the road from the proposed new one in front

of the Carrington to capture the traffic that goes down the hill.• A median strip down the middle of Katoomba Street will cause as many

problems as it solves. A raised pedestrian crossing will also provide the samebenefit.


CommentThe grading of facades according to their heritage significance is supported and can beincorporated into the Conservation and Refurbishment of Facades in Katoomba TownCentre Consultancy that is presently under way. Similarly, it is appropriate thatbuildings should not be made to artificially fit into any particular style and restorationsshould respect the era of the building. As such this can be highlighted as a parameterwithin the current consultancy.

Comments regarding the architectural style of the Civic Centre are acknowledged andcan be considered at the time that design work for the renovation of the site isundertaken as well as part of the Streetscape Improvement Plan. However, it needs tobe acknowledged that the existing building presents significant limitations offunctionality and presentation and this was the subject of considerable public commentin both the lead-up to, and during, the Charrette. As a key public facility occupying animportant location, linking Katoomba Street and the former TAFE (east) site, it iscritical that the Civic Centre contributes positively to the streetscape of the TownCentre and provides an inviting, attractive and functional facility for all users.

The extension of library hours at the Katoomba Library was strongly advocated by thelocal community during the Charrette. In the near future Council will be undertakinga detailed survey of households across the City to identify both the demand andpreference for extended opening hours at each of its libraries. This will provideinvaluable information for Council’s consideration.

In regard to the proposed additional bus shelter opposite the Carrington Hotel, thismatter will be addressed in the Streetscape Masterplan where a more detailed analysiscan be undertaken.

As noted in the submission the Revitalisation Strategy proposes a centre median stripthat would run down Katoomba Street.

This facility was specifically designed in response to the widespread concernsexpressed by the community regarding the perceived difficulties experienced bypedestrians in crossing Katoomba Street.

In summary, the objectives of the median strip are to:

(a) split the crossing of Katoomba Street into two shorter legs in which each leg isconfronted by traffic travelling in a single direction;

(b) provide a relatively safe haven at the mid point of the crossing;(c) enforce natural breaks in the traffic flow as vehicles pause to allow parking

movements and thereby provide greater opportunities for pedestrians to crossand, at the same time,

(d) provide a distinctive streetscape element that will enhance the revitalised mainstreet of the Town Centre.


However, despite the fact that this issue has only been identified in one submission inthe current round of public exhibition, strong concerns have been raised about themedian strip in previous forums since the Charrette, particularly by some shop tradersand local bus companies. The major concerns relate to the resultant narrow width ofthe travelling lanes after installation of the median and the potential disruption totraffic and bus schedules caused by current double-parked loading and unloadingpractices. Presently vehicles can manoeuvre around double-parked service vehiclesand this opportunity would, in most cases, be denied by a full central median.

These concerns are shared, to varying extent, by a number of Council staff and it isconsidered that this feature of the Town Centre Strategy requires further focussedconsideration.

This matter will be considered in detail as part of the Streetscape Improvement Planproject and it is anticipated that options will be investigated that may include theprovision of a slightly narrower series of shorter median sections at strategic intervalsas an alternative to a full central median as well as improved methods of managingloading and unloading.

It is also intended that this matter will require more focussed community consultationand collaboration to develop a broadly supported design.

B. Submission 2

In general, submission 2 provides positive comment and endorsement of the strategywhile also making the following comments about the strategy.

• The proposed Cultural Centre should have a computer link to the communityinformation database.

• The recommendation of a cyber cafe as a part of the Civic Centre alterations andadditions may not be viable due to the present growth of this type of activity inMain Street.

• Details of any proposed extension to the library need to be further discussed withrepresentatives from the library.

CommentA computer link to the community information database is supported as an appropriateelement in the proposed cultural centre. Council has engaged the services of aconsultant team who specialise in the establishment of arts and cultural facilities toundertake a feasibility study to determine what would be included in a cultural centre /city art gallery. As a part of this study the consultants will investigate such matters asthe link to the Community Information Database.

The proposed changes to the Katoomba Civic Centre and library that are flagged in theRevitalisation Strategy are at this stage a broad concept. When design workscommence for the Civic Centre detailed consultation with library staff will occur andthe feasibility of the proposed cyber café will be investigated.


The issues raised in the submissions can be taken into account in the variousimplementation projects for the Town Centre and, consequently, no changes to theRevitalisation Strategy are recommended. No submissions were received in respect ofthe Katoomba Charrette Economic, Employment and Visitor Strategy and it will berecommended that this document be endorsed as a supporting ideas strategy for thebroader Revitalisation Strategy.

C. Submission 3

Submission 3 made the following three comments:

• The centre of any Revitalisation Strategy should be a Town Square and that theCarrington would provide such an opportunity.

• Any Cultural/Arts Centre that is proposed on the TAFE site should provideinformation to inform the local community.

• The park area in front of Council should be given over for skateboarding.

CommentThe Revitalisation Strategy identifies a number of sites suitable for public gatheringand activity spaces including railway goods yard and the redeveloped forecourt of theCivic Centre.

As Council will be aware from previous reports and briefings from the Charrette, thePermanent Conservation Order covering the Carrington Hotel and associated gardensfronting Katoomba Street denies the use as a formal public space as well as anysubdivision to allow transfer to public ownership. There appears to be no opportunityto redress this situation at present, however further investigations in this matter areoccurring.

One of the proposed specific functions use of the Cultural Centre is that it would be toinform and work with the community.

Council is about to start construction on a purpose built temporary skateboardingfacility at the end of Goldsmith Place. This project involved extensive consultationwith the local skateboard community and would provide better facilities than presentlyexist in front of Council Chambers.

4. STATUS OF PROJECTS PRESENTLY UNDER WAY

Several of the projects are identified in the Revitalisation Strategy and supporting actions arepresently under way. These include the following selected projects:

• Katoomba Charrette Outcomes Report and Town Centre Revitalisation Strategyand the Katoomba Charrette Economic, Employment and Visitor Strategyfinalised (subject to endorsement of the recommendations to this report).

• Temporary car parking on TAFE (East) site opened in time for Winter MagicFestival.

• Consultants for Heritage Facades Improvement Program selected and well underway


• Brief for Streetscape Masterplan prepared following collaboration with the MainStreet Committee and process for selecting consultants under way.

• Project manager who will be responsible for implementation of actions inRevitalisation Strategy commences employment with Blue Mountains CityCouncil on July 5.

• Youth arts program at the Upper Mountains Youth Centre has commenced withthe $15,000 funding from the State Government.

• Changes to all turning movements at the intersection of Prior Lane and KatoombaStreet have been established.

• Designs completed and exhibited for the temporary skateboard facility at the endof Goldsmith Place.

• Extensive work undertaken with State Property regarding Master-planning for thekey State Government sites.

• Australia Street consultancy engaged to undertake Feasibility Study for City ArtGallery/Cultural Centre as a part of the redevelopment of the TAFE (east) site.

• Consultants engaged to re-design the Katoomba - Waratah, Lurline - Waratah andPark-Bathurst intersections. Designs will be completed at the end of June withconstruction commencing early in the coming financial year.

• Extensive discussions have occurred with a range of main stream universities toundertake tertiary courses in Katoomba.

• Council has formally decided to prepare a draft LEP to rezone key governmentsites and introduce appropriate planning controls to facilitate the implementationof the Town Centre Strategy.

• Colour pallets and associated background consultancies undertaken for a numberof shop owners for the repainting and renovation of facades.

5. CONCLUSION

In general the comments raised as a result of the public exhibition were of a positive natureand continued the positive commitment to revitalising Katoomba that developed with thecharrette.

It is consequently recommended that Council endorse the two strategies to ensure acontinuation of the implementation of the actions that have commenced towards revitalisingKatoomba.


ITEM NO: 2

SUBJECT: DEFERRAL OF CORE VILLAGE AREAS FROM DRAFT LOCALENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1997

FILE NO: C01205

Recommendations:

1. That Council receives the report by the Group Manager, Strategic Planningidentifying the areas to be deferred from Draft LEP 1997.

2. That Council notifies DUAP of the areas to be deferred from Draft LEP 1997.

3. That Council only consider applications for ‘spot’ rezoning in the deferred corevillage areas of Hazelbrook, Springwood, Wentworth Falls and Blaxland whereapplications are consistent with the following objectives:• To protect the urban fabric, scale, character and heritage significance of the core

village areas prior to the completion of detailed planning studies and planninginstruments.

• To promote consolidation of appropriate residential opportunities and commercialactivities in close proximity to major public transport nodes.

• To ensure that redevelopment is in a form that protects the amenity of adjoiningresidential areas in relation to noise generation, traffic intrusion, scale andprivacy.

• To protect environmentally sensitive lands, buffers to environmentally sensitivelands, areas of high scenic value and land that has inappropriate physicalcharacteristics (ie bushfire risk, steep slope, and watercourses) from development.

• To facilitate proposals that would result in the creation of substantial permanentemployment and where such proposals meet the objectives identified above.

4. That Council defer consideration of any new applications for ‘spot’ rezoning in thecore village areas of Blackheath, Mount Victoria, Katoomba (other than thoserequired to implement the Katoomba Town Centre Strategy), Leura, Lawson andGlenbrook in view of the planning studies and revised planning instruments that willbe prepared for these core village areas as a priority.



Background

At its meeting on the 23 March 1999, Council endorsed an approach to the completion ofDraft LEP 1997 that defers the core village areas. Deferral of these core village areas willallow Council to consider the planning issues for these areas in detail and with increasedopportunities for involvement by the local communities. The need for more detailed planningin the core village areas was foreshadowed by Commissioner Carlton in his report into DraftLEP 1997 and also by the high level of community concern that was demonstrated aboutproposals to achieve urban consolidation.

Council resolved that a further report be prepared in response to the following:

“That a further report is prepared for Council’s consideration during June 1999outlining the methodology and timeframe for completion of updated environmentalplanning instruments for the core village areas and the integration of Draft LocalEnvironmental Plan 1997 and Local Environmental Plan 1991.”

Purpose of this Report

The purpose of this report is to comply with the Council resolution of the 23 March 1999 andprovide the following:

• Provide a report on the progress of the revision of Draft LEP 1997 for Council’sinformation;

• Identify the “core village areas” that are to be deferred from Draft LEP 1997 and therationale for the deferral of these areas;

• Outline the intended process and indicative timings for preparation of environmentalplanning instruments for the core village areas and the integration of LEP 1991 and DraftLEP 1997;

• Present a interim policy to guide Council consideration for spot rezoning applications inthese core village areas.

Progress of Draft LEP 1997

The following progress has been made on the revision of Draft LEP 1997:

• Additional vegetation mapping, urban character mapping and revised bushfire hazardmapping is presently underlay and is envisaged to be completed in July 1999;

• A brief for the heritage study/register has been completed and circulated for expressionsof interest;

• A brief has been prepared for the aerial laser scanning and submissions have beenreceived from providers. This will provide information on detailed terrain, watercourseand canopy height. Commissioning of this aerial laser scanning is the subject of aseparate report to Council and is integral in the revision of Draft LEP 1997;

• A GIS strategy for analysis of the additional base information is being developed alongwith the required software/hardware;


• Revision of the provisions and format of the LEP document in line with CommissionerCarleton’s Report including workshop discussions with the H&D Group;

• Watercourse buffer model being prepared;• Core village areas identified for deferral;• Review of the Draft Development Control Plans has commenced in conjunction with the

H&D Group.

Identification of Core Village Areas

It is proposed that ten (10) core village areas will be deferred from Draft LEP 1997. Theseareas are the commercial centres of:

• Mount Victoria;• Blackheath;• Katoomba;• Leura;• Wentworth Falls;• Lawson;• Hazelbrook;• Springwood;• Blaxland (GWH); and• Glenbrook.

These core village areas are generally the larger commercial centres, are in close proximity tomajor public transport nodes (railway stations) and/or are areas that have a complex mix ofheritage and character issues that should be considered when proposing a mixed use “village”zone. The extent of areas to be deferred is outlined in Attachment 1.

The core village areas, identified in Attachment 1, are generally comprised of areas proposedto be zoned “village” as well as adjoining areas proposed to be zoned “multi unit housing”where these adjoining areas are integral to future consideration of the village centre. It shouldbe noted that the proposed “multi unit housing” zone in Wascoe Street, Leura, and the MannStreet area in Glenbrook will be considered under the first stage of Draft LEP 1997.

A number of smaller commercial centres have not been identified as “core village areas” andare not to be deferred from Draft LEP 1997. These are areas identified as performing lowerorder local shopping and service roles, generally not located around major public transportnodes or railway stations. Planning for these areas is not as complex as the larger centres andcan be addressed in the short term.

It is proposed that these smaller centres be considered in the first stage of the revision of DraftLEP 1997.

Preparation of Planning Instruments for Core Village areas

The deferred core village areas will remain under the provisions of LEP 4 until superseded asoutlined in the Council report of the 23 March 1999.


The process for the preparation of new planning provisions for the deferred core village areaswill begin during the 1999-2000 financial year. This process will complete individual studiesand prepare detailed, place specific planning instruments for these areas to supplement DraftLEP 1997 (for areas wider than the deferred core village areas, where appropriate). Thesestudies will involve considerable consultation with the individual village communities,dependant on the nature and extent of previous consultation.

Out of these studies detailed, place specific LEP amendments will be prepared. This willinclude desired character statements, structure plans with appropriate land use precincts andwill take into account issues of exempt and complying development. For individual villageareas, development control plans (DCPs) will also be prepared for issues such as mixed-usedevelopment, as well as consideration of general town improvement guidelines.

It is estimated that the planning studies and collaboration with local communities will take atleast three (3) months for each village area.

Given the extent of planning work that has been undertaken to date for Lawson and the needto resolve future role, character and structure of the town centre ahead of Highway widening,it is proposed that this will be the first village to be completed.

Priority of Core Village Area Studies

In line with the findings of Commissioner Carleton’s Report and in recognition of thepressing planning issues that need to be resolved, the core village areas that require attentionas soon as possible and are proposed to be completed in the first round include Lawson,Glenbrook, Leura and Blackheath. In addition, a detailed LEP will be prepared for theKatoomba town centre as a result of the Katoomba Charrette.

The proposed timetable for the commencement of town centre studies is:

• Planning for the Lawson core village area will follow-on from and complement theRTA/Council “Lawson Township Study” process. Planning instruments for Lawson willnot revisit the issue of form of the road widening but will develop appropriate land useplanning frameworks and development control for the Lawson core village area. It isenvisaged that this will commence in July-August 1999 and will take approximately threemonths.

• Planning for Glenbrook is envisaged to be commenced in November 1999 and also takeapproximately three months to complete. The high priority for Glenbrook is due to thehigh levels of concern raised in submissions to Draft LEP 1997.

• Planning for the core village area of Leura is to be commenced in February 2000. Leurahas been given a high priority due to the concerns that were expressed by CommissionerCarleton in relation to the impact of medium density development in and surrounding thevillage centre.


• Council has previously identified Blackheath as being a priority area for a township studyparticularly with regard to the need to address the issues of parking and the provision of atown square. Given their proximity, it is proposed that the village of Mount Victoria beconsidered at the same time. This approach will also benefit from the collaboration withthe communities of both villages through the Community Area Planning process for Area1 that will occur in late 1999 and early 2000. It is proposed to commence this project inMay-June 2000.

The other towns that have been identified for the preparation of updated planning instrumentswill be conducted from July 2000 until June 2001. A number of these towns, such asBlaxland and Springwood, have already been the subject of considerable recent Councilplanning attention. It should be noted that these timeframes for the completion of the corevillage areas is preliminary and may need to be refined by the range of issues that are presentin each village. Council will be informed of any required departures from this program.

In addition to the core village areas, the integration of LEP 1991 and the finalised Draft LEP1997 into one consolidated environmental planning instrument is proposed as a medium tolong term goal. It is envisaged that this will occur following the completion of the corevillage area studies and corresponds with a rolling program of area strategic planning acrossthe Blue Mountains.

Consideration of Spot Rezoning in Deferred Core Village Areas

Due to the delay in the revision of LEP 4 for the core village areas, certain guidelines forCouncil consideration of applications for spot rezoning are proposed. The clear specificationof Council’s approach to dealing with the issue of spot rezoning in the core village areas willallow the flexibility to consider appropriate development in the short term as well asmaintaining a consistent approach.

The purpose of these guidelines, in relation to consideration of spot rezoning, is to:

• Provide a framework for the consideration of rezoning applications for core village areasprior to the completion updated environmental planning instruments;

• Allow consideration of applications for a range of appropriate business and residentialredevelopment that is consistent with specified objectives.

These guidelines are proposed to relate to the following core village areas only:

• Hazelbrook;• Springwood;• Wentworth Falls; and• Blaxland.


It is proposed that Council consider applications for rezoning of land in these core villageareas only where it is demonstrated that one or more of the following objectives, as relevant,would be achieved by such rezoning:

• To protect and enhance the urban fabric, scale, character and heritage significance of thecore village areas prior to the completion of detailed planning studies and planninginstruments.

• To promote consolidation of appropriate residential opportunities and commercialactivities in close proximity to major public transport nodes.

• To ensure that redevelopment is in a form that protects the amenity of adjoiningresidential areas in relation to noise generation, traffic intrusion, scale and privacy.

• To protect environmentally sensitive lands, buffers to environmentally sensitive lands,areas of high scenic value and land that has inappropriate physical characteristics (iebushfire risk, slope, and watercourses) from development.

• To facilitate proposals that would result in the creation of substantial permanentemployment in the village and where such proposals meet the other objectives identifiedabove.

Council should not consider a rezoning application in these identified core village area unlessit is satisfied, by means of a detailed assessment, that carrying out of a development would beconsistent with the above-specified objectives.

These objectives should be only one consideration when assessing an application forrezoning. Consistency with these objectives should not preclude Council’s assessment of theindividual site and application merits or in any way restrict the potential for Council to refuseapplications where these applications are considered inappropriate.

The core village areas in Blackheath, Mount Victoria, Katoomba, Leura, Lawson andGlenbrook have been excluded from consideration of ‘spot’ rezoning as planning studies andrevised planning instruments will be prepared for these village as a priority. Therefore, anyapplications for rezoning in these villages should be deferred and considered in the context ofthe proposed town centre planning studies as opposed to being considered separately.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the deferral of the core village areas allows Council the opportunity to considerthe issues of urban consolidation, environmental impacts, retention of the heritage and thedistinct character and identity of the village areas in the context of more detailed studies andassessment of individual characteristics.

In the interim, a consistent approach has been proposed for the consideration of spot rezoningin deferred areas. The approach outlined in this report offers Council the opportunity to dealwith these applications in a consistent manner, while not restricting Council’s ability to refuseapplications on merit.


Attachment

Figure 1.1 Mount Victoria Core Village Area


Attachment

Figure 1.2 Blackheath Core Village Area


Attachment

Figure 1.3 Katoomba Core Village Area


Attachment

Figure 1.4 Leura Core Village Area


Attachment

Figure 1.5 Wentworth Falls Core Village Area


Attachment

Figure 1.6 Lawson Core Village Area


Attachment

Figure 1.7 Hazelbrook Core Village Area


Attachment

Figure 1.8 Springwood Core Village Area


Attachment

Figure 1.9 Blaxland Core Village Area


Attachment

1.10 Glenbrook Core Village Area


ITEM NO: 3

SUBJECT: AIRBORNE LASER SCANNING - DIGITAL TERRAIN MODEL FORDRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1997

FILE NO: C03118

Recommendations:

1. That Council, in accordance with section 55 (3) of the Local Government Act 1993,resolves not to call tenders for the commissioning of aerial laser scanning because asatisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders due to the extenuatingcircumstances and the unavailability of competitive tenderers as detailed in the reportby the Group Manager, Strategic Planning.

2. That Council accepts the submission submitted jointly by BHP Engineering Pty Ltdand EnerQuest Systems LLC for the completion of aerial laser scanning andgeneration of a Digital Terrain Model for a fixed fee of $126,000 subject tosatisfactory compliance with the pilot phase requirements of the project brief.

3. That the Common Seal of Council be affixed to any necessary documents.


Background

At the meeting of the 23rd March 1999 Council resolved the following

“That council, as a matter of priority, make available the resources identified in this report toallow completion of Draft Local Environmental Plan 1997 within the required timeframes.”

It was identified within this report that to revise Draft Local Environmental Plan 1997 it isnecessary to increase the accuracy of base information. The commissioning of an accurateDigital Terrain Model (DTM), by aerial laser scanning, is one of the essential elementsrequired to gain this more accurate information.

Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) provides an accurate, cost efficient and prompt method tocollect spatial information and establish a Digital Terrain Model for an area such as the BlueMountains LGA. This information will be analysed by Council providing height, slope,aspect, vegetation height, vegetation density, catchment areas, hydrology, volume calculationsand escarpment identification. While initially for the revision of Draft LEP 1997, thisinformation will be widely used within Council for a variety of land use planning andenvironmental management purposes with potential future use by State GovernmentAgencies.


Project Brief

A project brief was prepared by the City Planning Branch with reference to the Health andDevelopment Group and the Environmental Management and Information Services Branches.This project brief broke the overall project into two distinct stages that are discussed below.

Stage 1 – Pilot Study

Due to the emerging nature of the technology that is involved, a pilot study is to be completedfor the Katoomba area, and the results analysed by Council, prior to the commissioning of thebulk of the project. This will allow for Council to refine the necessary specifications forStage 2 to ensure that the end result is appropriate for the tasks required and can beincorporated into the GIS.

Stage 2 – Balance

Stage 2 will be to conduct information collection for the balance of the 40,000 hectares andpresent the accurate, timely and compatible information to Council initially for input into therevision of Draft LEP 1997. Attachment 1 to this report outlines the complete study area.

In addition to the core task of aerial laser scanning, the information is to be presented in aformat that was appropriate for the development of Council’s GIS.

Future Aerial Laser Scanning

While not included within this project brief, it is envisaged that future aerial laser scanningwill be required for areas in the Blue Mountains LGA including Megalong, the Mounts andKings Tableland. This has not been included in this brief to allow for the review of the levelof detail required for these areas as well as to allow for further discussions with StateGovernment Agencies such as the National Parks and Wildlife Service about joint fundingarrangements.

Selection Process

During the finalisation of the project brief, two companies were approached for indicativequotations for the completion of this swath aerial laser scanning. The results of thisconsultation was that an indicative costing of $80 000 - $90 000 was envisaged for the corecomponents of this project. This costing would not require a subsequent formal tenderingprocess because it was believed that the value of the project would be less than $100 000. Acopy of the preliminary quotations and dialogue between these companies and Council isavailable on Council’s file if required.

In the development of the project brief it was found that the use of the specialised swath aeriallaser scanning technology is relatively new to Australia and the range of providers for theseservices is severely limited. Therefore, the process of testing of the market was through aselective market testing process.


The measures that were taken to test the market for this project included:

• Initial literature searches for companies providing aerial laser scanning on the internet andthrough professional journals;

• Discussions with eight (8) known aerial mapping providers about the provision of aeriallaser scanning services which determined that there was a limited range of providers.Only two (2) of these companies provided the swath aerial laser scanning which wasspecifically required under this project brief;

• Expressions of interest were sought from four (4) aerial mapping companies which wereknown providers of aerial laser scanning, even though it was known that two of thesecompanies did not provide swath aerial laser scanning. This was done to allow for a rangeof quotations and approaches to the completion of this project.

Expressions of Interest for the above services were sought in May 1999. Council receivedexpressions of interest from three (3) of these companies.

On the basis of the initial budget estimates it was considered unnecessary to call for tendersfor the proposed contract.

Summary of Offers

Three (3) submissions were received for the aerial laser scanning from:

• AAM Geodan;• A joint venture by BHP Engineering Pty Ltd - EnerQuest Systems LLC; and• LandInfo.

LandInfo, in its submission, indicated that it was unable to render the services sought byCouncil.

The Selection Committee comprised of the Manager Information Services Branch, PrincipalStrategic Planner City Planning, Council’s GIS Analyst and a delegated H&D representative.The committee reviewed the submissions and procedures and was satisfied as to the fairnessof the process.

Evaluation of the two submissions was completed as outlined below.

Selection Criteria BHP/EnerQuestSystems LLC

AAM Geodan

Appreciation of the task and brief (10/80) 9 6Demonstrated experience in ALS (10/80) 7 8Demonstrated ability to meet timeframes(10/80)

7 6

Value for money (20/80) 14 5Accuracy and completeness (10/80) 8 7Compatibility with BMCC GIS (10/80) 10 8Innovative Approaches (10/80) 8 6TOTAL (weighting identified above) 63/80 46/80


The two submissions were priced at $126,000 (BHP) to $217,800 (AAM Geodan) for thecapture of raw data, filtering of raw data and conversion to a format compatible withCouncil’s GIS. BHP-EnerQuest Systems demonstrated a better understanding of the brief,offer superior technology providing a more concise data model and provided the best valuefor money. Therefore, the preferred provider selected by this committee was the submissionby BHP Engineering - EnerQuest Systems LLC for $126 000 and the engagement of thiscompany is submitted for Council’s approval.

The quotations that were submitted varied from the initial indicative costing for the followingreasons:

• Due to the emerging nature of the technology, Council staff were developing a betterunderstanding of the project needs during discussions with providers. This resulted in themodification of the project specifications.

• The original estimates were based on the delivery of raw irregular ground data and thefinal quotations included the filtering and interpolation of information and the collectionof canopy height information. This added additional costs to the project but will result ina higher quality outcome for Council.

• The final quotations that were received from BHP-EnerQuest Systems for raw unfiltereddata was consistent with the initial quotations ($84 000).

The selection committee determined that the inclusion of the data filtering and analysis wouldprovide a higher quality result, even though this was in excess of the initial quotations.

Due to the specialised nature of the technology required for this project, and the demonstratedlimited range of providers, it is considered that under section 55 (3) of the Local GovernmentAct that this constitutes exceptional circumstances and that a formal tendering process is notrequired to be completed.

Reasons for Recommendation for Not Proceeding to Tender

Section 55(3) of the Local Government Act states in part:

“This section does not apply to the following contracts … a contract where, because ofextenuating circumstances, remoteness of locality or the unavailability of competitive orreliable tenderers, a Council decides by resolution (which states the reasons for the decision)that a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders.”

It is quite clear from the processes already described that there are both extenuatingcircumstances and an unavailability of competitive tenderers in this matter. This is detailedbelow.


Extenuating Circumstances

The extenuating circumstances in relation to this issues are:

• Initial belief that works would be valued at less than $100 000.• The redundant and inefficient nature of duplication of the previous market testing

processes through a subsequent formal tender.• The urgency to commission aerial laser scanning to proceed with the revision of Draft

LEP 1997.• Exhaustive nature of the market testing checks that have already been completed.

Unavailability of Competitive Tenderers

• Highly specialised nature of the emerging technology means that there are limitedproviders.

• Detailed market testing and investigation has only brought forward one provider that isclose to Council’s budget estimates for this project.

For these reasons it is contended that the quoted section of the Local Government Act (section55(3)) is completely satisfied.

Financial Impact

The proposed expenditure of $126,000 for this project in excess of the money that wasinitially budgeted for this project ($80,000). The additional $46,000 will be generatedthrough both minor savings in the Strategic Planning Group budget and redesign of certainother projects within the current and next year’s business plan in view of the high priority ofthis element of work in the review of Draft LEP 1997.

There is the potential for Council to on-sell this information, particularly to State GovernmentAgencies and private enterprise. This is a potential ongoing source of revenue for Council.

Comment by Group Manager Assets and Corporate Services

As indicated above, funds of $80,000 have been specifically allocated. There is confidencethat the most of the balance required can be generated from savings in the 1998/99 Budget forthe Strategic Planning Group with a small portion, if any at all, possibly being required fromthe 1999/2000 Budget.

Conclusion

Commissioning of BHP Engineering - EnerQuest Systems LLC to complete the aerial laserscanning will allow Council to proceed within the timeframe for the revision of Draft LEP1997 as well as providing an invaluable source of information for land use planning andenvironmental management in the Blue Mountains.


Attachment

COMMUNITY & RECREATION PROGRAMOrdinary Meeting, 22/6/99

ITEM NO: 4

SUBJECT: AGEING & DISABILITY DEPARTMENT AGED CARE WORKER –HACC FUNDING – DEED OF FUNDING AGREEMENT

FILE NO: C00016

Recommendations:

1. That Council accept the funding grant from the Ageing & Disability Department for1999/2000.

2. That Council affix the Common Seal to the Deed of Funding Agreement.

3. That Council accept the new funding arrangements from the Ageing & DisabilityDepartment and agree, while the current financial arrangements continue, to attachthe Common Seal to the Deed of Funding Agreement in subsequent years.


Council has received an offer of recurrent funding from the Minister for Ageing and Ministerfor Disability Services New South Wales for the continued funding of the Aged ServicesDevelopment Officer. The department’s letter of the 24 May 1999 is shown as Attachment 1.

This offer of funding represents 50% of the current salary of the position and is to be indexedeach year at the same level as all Home and Community Care funded services. These fundingarrangements replace the old arrangements under which Council needed to claim funds eachsix months in arrears. Funds will now be available to Council at the beginning of each yearand represent a more secure and predictable arrangement.

Council is required to endorse the Funding Agreement which applies for the period 1 July1999 to 30 June 2000.

The current annual cost of the Aged Services Development Officer position is $56,474 withthe Ageing and Disability Department contributing $23,305 per annum, approximately 50%of salary costs. The Council contribution of $33,169 is included in the 1999/2000 budget.

Aged Services Development Officer

Council has employed an Aged Services Development Officer, within the Social and CulturalPlanning Branch, for a number of years through these funding partnership arrangements. Thisposition has had a number of benefits for Council and the community including:

• Ensuring that the needs of older people and people with disabilities in the Mountains areidentified and communicated to State and Federal Governments.

COMMUNITY & RECREATION PROGRAMItem 4 - Ordinary Meeting, 22/6/99

• Provision of regular support and training to Home and Community Care Services in theMountains.

• Organisation of Seniors Week annually.

• Attraction of Home and Community Care funding to the Mountains including the likelyfunding of three new projects this year.

The Aged Services Development Officer is a key position within Council and has enabledCouncil to be responsive to the needs of the large population of older people and people withdisabilities who live in the Mountains.

COMMUNITY & RECREATION PROGRAMItem 4 - Ordinary Meeting, 22/6/99

Attachment 1

COMMUNITY & RECREATION PROGRAMOrdinary Meeting, 22/6/99

ITEM NO: 5

SUBJECT: COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE/DONATIONS - RECOMMENDATIONSBY COUNCILLORS

FILE NO: C00944

Recommendation:

That Council approve the following donations from the Councillors’ Minor Local ProjectsVote:-

Organisation Amount

Post Natal Depression Support Team $300Blue Mountains District Ladies’ Golf Association Inc $100Aboriginal Cultural and Resource Centre $150Glenbrook Swimming Club $150

Report by General Manager:

On 1 November 1994 Council adopted a statement of broad principles for the provision ofcommunity assistance/donations.

The following recommendations for donations, which appear to fall within the ambit of thebroad principles, have been received and are submitted for approval.

Minor Local Projects

RecommendingCouncillor

Organisation Purpose Amount

Cr R Harris Post Natal DepressionSupport Team

Pamphlets to promoteservice

$300

Cr R Harris Blue Mountains DistrictLadies’ Golf AssociationInc

Blue Mountains CityCouncil Salver forAnnual Tournament

$100

Cr J Derum Aboriginal Cultural andResource Centre

Donation $150

Cr R Clarke Glenbrook SwimmingClub

Assistance with trainingprograms

$150

DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT PROGRAMOrdinary Meeting, 22/6/99

ITEM NO: 6

SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL COUNCIL MEETING

FILE NO: C01055

Recommendation:

That Council vary its adopted meeting schedule by way of the inclusion of an additionalCouncil Meeting to be held on Tuesday, 29 June 1999, in the Council Chamber, Civic Place,Katoomba, commencing at 7.30 pm.


In accordance with its practice of scheduling Council Meetings on the second and fourthTuesdays of each month, with allowance for school holidays etc, Council has scheduled thefollowing meetings:

22 June 1999 (4th Tuesday)20 July 1999 (Tuesday after school holidays)27 July 1999 (4th Tuesday)

On review of the number of reports that are now ready to be put to Council, and having regardto the break necessary to accommodate the July school holidays, it is proposed that Councilshould schedule an additional Council Meeting to be held on Tuesday, 29 June 1999commencing at 7.30 pm.

Advance notice of the possibility of this proposal has been included in the Blue MountainsGazettes of 16 June and 23 June. Other avenues for public information would also bepursued.


ITEM NO: 7

SUBJECT: POLL OF ELECTORS: FUTURE DISPOSITION OF LOT 1, DP937525, MACQUARIE ROAD, SPRINGWOOD (OPTIONS FOR APROPOSED SPRINGWOOD TOWN SQUARE)

FILE NO: C02501. Z20/024

Recommendations:

1. That in accordance with Clause 373 of the Local Government Act 1993, and Clause28 of the Local Government Meetings Regulation, Council resolve itself into aCommittee of the Whole to consider this matter.

2. That Council in Committee consider the report by the General Manager and therecommendations 3 and 4 contained therein.

3. That further to Council’s decision to conduct a Poll on the proposed SpringwoodTown Square by way of “polling the booths which fall within the area that is levied forthe improvements to the Springwood Town Centre”, Council issue Poll Papers to theundermentioned electors:

a) electors with a Faulconbridge, Hawkesbury Heights, Springwood, ValleyHeights, Winmalee or Yellow Rock address as shown on the electoral roll whovote at the Principal Polling Place (ie Council Headquarters, Katoomba) or atany of the following booths:

(i) Blaxland East Public School(ii) Ellison Public School(iii) Faulconbridge Public School(iv) Springwood Civic Centre(v) Valley Heights Bushfire Brigade(vi) Warrimoo Public School and(vii) Winmalee Public School

b) electors resident at the Declared Institutions in Ward 3 described as:

(i) Buckland Convalescent Hospital(ii) Endeavour Nursing Home(iii) Lewin Lodge(iv) Springwood Hospital (subject to address check) and(v) Springwood Nursing Home

c) electors who meet the qualifications to lodge a postal vote with aFaulconbridge, Hawkesbury Heights, Springwood, Valley Heights, Winmaleeor Yellow Rock address as shown on the electoral roll

DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT PROGRAMItem 7 - Ordinary Meeting, 22/6/99

d) electors who meet the qualifications to lodge a pre-poll vote with aFaulconbridge, Hawkesbury Heights, Springwood, Valley Heights, Winmaleeor Yellow Rock address as shown on the electoral roll

e) electors temporarily resident at the Blue Mountains District Anzac MemorialHospital, Katoomba with a Faulconbridge, Hawkesbury Heights, Springwood,Valley Heights, Winmalee or Yellow Rock address as shown on the electoralroll

f) electors qualified for inclusion on the non-residential roll whose qualificationderives, at least in part, from the ownership of “residential” rateable land witha Faulconbridge, Hawkesbury Heights, Springwood, Valley Heights,Winmalee or Yellow Rock address or land categorised as “business” withinthe centre of activity known as rating sub-category “Springwood”

g) electors qualified for inclusion on the roll of occupiers and ratepaying lesseeswhose qualification derives, at least in part, from “residential” land with aFaulconbridge, Hawkesbury Heights, Springwood, Valley Heights, Winmaleeor Yellow Rock address or land categorised as “business” within the centre ofactivity known as rating sub-category “Springwood”.

4. That Council alter the decision detailed at Minute No. 248 of 8 June 1999 FROM:

“That Council conduct a Poll on the proposed Springwood Town Square alongthe following bases.

1. Size Approach.

Following a lengthy planning process, Council is proposing toconstruct a Town Square in the Springwood Commercial BusinessDistrict. Space for the Square will be set aside in the parking areabetween the Westpac Bank and the nearby Oxley Pharmacy.

Two models for the Town Square are being considered. The modelshave the same width on Macquarie Road (the width of the presentcarpark), but vary in the depth each extends into the carpark.

ANSWER ‘YES’ TO ONE – AND ONLY ONE – OF THE FOLLOWINGOPTIONS:

Option A:

This provides for a civic space of approximately 780 squaremetres in area, extending to a depth of 35 metres fromMacquarie Road to approximately the rear building line of theadjacent buildings, forming a civic space of approximatedimensions 35 m x 22 m at an approximate cost of $600,000.

OR


Option B:

This provides for a civic space of approximately 350 squaremetres in area, extending to a depth of 16 metres fromMacquarie road to a point slightly short of halfway along theadjacent buildings, forming a civic space of approximatedimensions 22 m x 16 m at an approximate cost of $150,000.

Note: The relative proportions of both proposals for Springwood TownSquare are illustrated in the undermentioned diagrams.

2. Defer the section 68 report until the results of the Poll are known.”

TO:

“That Council conduct a Poll on the proposed Springwood Town Square alongthe following bases.

1. Size Approach.

Following a lengthy planning process, Council is proposing toconstruct a Town Square in the Springwood Commercial BusinessDistrict. Space for the Square will be set aside in the parking areabetween the Westpac Bank and the nearby Oxley Pharmacy.

Two models for the Town Square are being considered. The modelshave the same width on Macquarie Road (the width of the presentcarpark), but vary in the depth each extends into the carpark.


Option A:

This provides for a civic space of approximately 780 squaremetres in area, extending to a depth of 35 metres fromMacquarie Road to approximately the rear building line of theadjacent buildings, forming a civic space of approximatedimensions 22 m x 35 m.

OR


Option B:

This provide for a civic space of approximately 350 squaremetres in area, extending to a depth of 16 metres fromMacquarie Road to a point slightly short of halfway along theadjacent buildings, forming a civic space of approximatedimensions 22 m x 16.

Note: The relative proportions of both proposals for Springwood TownSquare are illustrated in the undermentioned diagrams.



Preamble

At its meeting of 8 June 1999, Council further considered the matter of a possible Pollconcerning the dimensions of a Springwood Town Square and resolved as follows:

“That Council conduct a Poll on the proposed Springwood Town Square along thefollowing bases.

1. Size Approach.

Following a lengthy planning process, Council is proposing to construct aTown Square in the Springwood Commercial Business District. Space for theSquare will be set aside in the parking area between the Westpac Bank and thenearby Oxley Pharmacy.

Two models for the Town Square are being considered. The models have thesame width on Macquarie Road (the width of the present carpark), but vary inthe depth each extends into the carpark.


Option A:

This provides for a civic space of approximately 780 square metres inarea, extending to a depth of 35 metres from Macquarie Road toapproximately the rear building line of the adjacent buildings, forminga civic space of approximate dimensions 35 m x 22 m at anapproximate cost of $600,000.

OR


Option B:

This provide for a civic space of approximately 350 square metres inarea, extending to a depth of 16 metres from Macquarie Road to a pointslightly short of halfway along the adjacent buildings, forming a civicspace of approximate dimensions 22 m x 16 m at an approximate costof $150,000.

Note: The relative proportions of both proposals for Springwood Town Squareare illustrated in the undermentioned diagrams.


(Minute No. 248 refers)

and by a further decision:

“1. That Council receives a report on the feasibility of polling the booths whichfall within the area that is levied for the improvements to the SpringwoodTown Centre.

2. That Council receives more accurate costings of the two options beingprepared for inclusion in the poll questions.”

(Minute No. 249 refers)

This report addresses both parts of the second decision (ie Minute No. 249):

Voting Constituency

The material facts pertinent to this matter are:

1. Minute No. 285 of 24 June 1997, describes the Springwood Town CentreImprovement Special Rate area as follows:

“…. That whereas the Council is of the opinion that:

(a) all rateable land categorised as ‘business’ within the centre of activityknown as rating sub-category ‘Springwood’, and

(b) all rateable land categorised as ‘residential’ contained within thecentre of population known as rating sub-category ‘K’, incorporatingthe townships of Faulconbridge, Winmalee, Springwood, Yellow Rock,Valley Heights and Hawkesbury Heights,


benefits or will benefit from the Springwood Town Centre Improvementsoutlined in ‘this Report’; or contributes or will contribute to the need for suchimprovements; or has or will have access to such improvements, it is herebyresolved that a Springwood Town Centre Improvements Special Rate of0.01749 cents in the dollar be made and levied on all rateable land detailedabove for the purposes of repaying money, to the sum of $700,000, borrowedto contribute to the cost of the said improvements.”

2. Clause 69 of the Local Government (Elections) Regulation 1998 states “ a person whois qualified as an elector in respect of a ward …. is entitled to vote at any placeappointed for the ward.” In addition to the booths within the wards, the ElectoralCommissioner normally permits voting from the wards in “cross-boundary” booths,voting from all Wards at the Principal Polling Place, and from all (electoral) Wards atthe two hospitals.

3. The polling booths of Ellison Public School, Springwood Civic Centre, ValleyHeights Bushfire Brigade and Winmalee Public School comprise the Ward 3 boothsfor inclusion in terms of Council’s resolution.

4. The Faulconbridge Public School booth is the only Ward 2 booth for inclusion interms of Council’s resolution.

5. Blaxland East Public School and the Warrimoo Public School booths straddle theboundary between Ward 3 and Ward 4 and would attract some Springwood Districtvoters heading east. The Electoral Commissioner permits both Ward 3 and Ward 4voters at these booths as they are “cross-boundary” booths (in the same way as Ward 2and 3 votes are permitted from Faulconbridge Public School). Address checks wouldbe required to confirm eligibility for a Poll Vote.

6. Clause 64 of the Local Government (Elections) Regulation requires there to be a“Principal Polling Place”. For logistical reasons this is the Council Chambers atKatoomba. Because it is the Principal Polling Place, votes from all wards areaccepted.

7. Buckland Convalescent Hospital, Endeavour Nursing Home, Lewin Lodge,Springwood Hospital and Springwood Nursing Home comprise residential propertywithin the Special Rate Area and residents should be eligible to vote in the Poll (anaddress check would be required at Springwood Hospital).

8. The Returning Officer has indicated that he will not refuse a vote to anyonetemporarily resident at Blue Mountains District Anzac Memorial Hospital, Katoomba(an address check would be required).

9. Relevant Pre-Poll and Postal Voters should be eligible for inclusion.


10. Some electors included in either the Non-Residential Roll or the Occupying andRatepaying Lessees Roll would also be eligible for inclusion. (Some extraclerical/administrative steps would be necessary to identify eligible voters). It shouldbe noted that electors with residential voting qualifications are not eligible for a“second” vote.

In summary, and subject to appropriate checks to confirm the “residential” or “business”address of the intending voter, it is feasible to take (address qualified) poll votes from thefollowing booths etc to satisfy the intent of Council’s resolution:

i) Principal Polling Place (Council Chambers, Katoomba)ii) Postal Votesiii) Pre-Poll Votesiv) Residentially qualified declared institutions and the Blue Mountains District

Anzac Memorial Hospitalv) Blaxland East Public Schoolvi) Ellison Public Schoolvii) Faulconbridge Public Schoolviii) Springwood Civic Centreix) Valley Heights Bushfire Brigadex) Warrimoo Public Schoolxi) Winmalee Public Schoolxii) Non Residential Rollxiii) Occupiers and Ratepaying Lessees Roll

It is emphasised that the Electoral Commissioner is most unlikely to approve an expansion ofthe list to permit poll votes (and by implication election votes) from other booths. Such acourse of action would be administratively difficult, and would inevitably slow the electionand the election count, and cause greater likelihood of error.

Relevant maps are included and a detailed map will be available for Councillors’ perusal atthe Council Meeting.

Indicative Costings

There is abundant source material from which various (and equally valid) costings may bederived. However, in essence, it is a case of the extent of the works proposed. Factors suchas area, access, levels, materials, number of features and quality features all have relevance.

The primary source materials on which costings are based are the Council reports of 27February 1996, 25 March 1997 and 26 May 1998. Copies of these reports are providedseparately for the information of Councillors.


Larger Option: The Council report of 26 May 1998 denotes this as “Option 2” and describesit as:

“The ‘upper section’ of the site for the length of the Westpac lot (approximately780m2) be used as a dedicated public use/s which satisfy Part XIII of the LocalGovernment Act 1919 outlined in Option 1 and the rear portion of the lotapproximately 310m2 being a portion of the ‘lower section’ of the southern carpark beused for parking and access for the lower carpark as currently exists.”

The report goes on to note that the School of Arts site is raised specifically at page 23 underSection 7.6 of the Springwood Master Plan which provides:

School of Arts Site

• Create a Town Square by extending the footpath level into an open piazza.• View to National Park retained from street level.• Possible small amphitheatre/seating area at southern end with access to retail shop fronts

along Raymond Lane by ramp and staircase.• Appropriate location for fountain or statue/sculpture.

The report then goes on to state:

“It is estimated that this option would cost in the vicinity of $550,000-$600,000depending on the detail and materials.”

This estimate was based on the concept design provided in the Springwood Masterplan andassumes a good quality of materials and finish. Notwithstanding, there are alternatives withinthis denoted area that would permit various cost treatments subject to final working drawingsand decisions on features, and quality, material and finish.

Smaller Option: The Council report of 26 May 1998 denotes this as “Option 3a” anddescribes it in the following way:

“This is the most economical and provides for a level platform at street level whichwould provide seating, landscaping, paving or turfing and some site interpretation.The remainder would remain carparking and Council could decide what special eventsif any it would approve to occur in the carpark area (eg Markets, town festivals andentertainment).”

The Council report of 25 March 1997 details four options for the development of this smallerarea ranging from the (then) cost of $50,000 to $300,000.

The third of these options is detailed as follows:

“Pave the area in at least three major level changes (minor retaining walls, concretesteps, shade trees and seats) to present a cascading appearance which could culminatein the lower end in an amphitheatre-type space which could be used on occasion foroutdoor activities, carols by candlelight, Christmas concerts etc. This would costapproximately $100,000.”


Further assessment of these works provides an indicative 1999/2000 cost closer to $150,000.However, again it is a question of the nature and extent of the works.

Again, all the estimates were presented as indicative with no architectural plans accuratelycosted.

General Comment on Costing

The previous reports relating to the Town Square concentrated on the issue of making adetermination about the future establishment or not of a Town Square with decisions aboutcosts being secondary and based on estimates.

Making comparisons between previous reports and previous options is difficult and may notassist the debate when Council has not yet been asked to make final decisions based onarchitectural design, design features or quality of materials.

The most appropriate comparison based on area and quality of finish would be to makecomparisons between options considered in the report of the 26 May 1998 and in particularOption 2 ($550,000-$600,000) and Option 3b ($175,000-$225,000).

In conclusion, given the preliminary stage of any designs, Council’s lack of formalconsideration of what should be included in a Town Square and the lack of details on thequality of finish or features in the time available, it is not considered that current estimatesinform the debate sufficiently.

Procedural

If Council were to make any variation to its resolution of 8 June 1999, certain proceduralmatters should be observed.

Sub-Clause 372(1) of the Local Government Act, 1993 states:

“A resolution passed by a council may not be altered or rescinded except by a motionto that effect of which notice has been duly given in accordance with the council’scode of meeting practice.” (italics by General Manager)

Clearly it is not possible for any three councillors to give the appropriate notice when they arenot familiar with the contents of this report.

However, a mechanism does exist to resolve this impasse. Sub-clause 372(6) of the samelegislation states:

“A motion to which this section applies may be moved on the report of a committee ofthe council and any such report must be recorded in the minutes.”

It is therefore possible for Council to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole. TheCommittee could then consider this matter and make recommendations to the Council to alterthe previous resolution should it so desire.


Attachment


ITEM NO: 8

SUBJECT: CODE OF MEETING PRACTICE - AMENDMENTS TO MOTIONS

FILE NO: C01672

Recommendation:

That Council, as an immediate but interim measure, vary Section 3.9.4 of its Code of MeetingPractice, being that section entitled “Amendments” by:

Deletion of the words “a) alters the nature of the motion” and

Substitution of the words “a) substantially alters the subject or the essential practicaleffect of the motion.”


Preamble:

At its meeting of 8 June 1999, Council considered a legal opinion that indicated that, in regardto amendments, Council’s Code of Meeting Practice could be construed to “effectivelyprevent the moving of any amendment which would alter the nature of an original motion”(underlining added).

In other words, a strict interpretation of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice would disallowmany otherwise legitimate amendments.

The legal opinion, from Dunhill Madden Butler, Solicitors, goes on to state:

“We also suggest that …. Council give consideration to the question of whether cl3.9.4 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice should perhaps be amended so as torelevantly provide that an amendment may not ‘substantially’ alter the nature of amotion.”

This suggested change would no longer disallow any amendment which alters the nature ofthe motion but would preclude only those that “substantially alter the nature of the motion.”

This report responds to this suggestion and to Council’s resolution of 8 June 1999 “that areport come to the next Council Meeting detailing options for clarifying Section 3.9.4 of theCode of Meeting Practice (Amendments).


Code of Meeting Practice Extract:

The relevant extract from Council’s Code of Meeting Practice states:

“3.9.4 Amendments

An amendment shall be out of order and rejected by the Chairperson if it:

a) alters the nature of the motion; or

b) amounts to a direct negative; or

c) has the effect of reversing an amendment already adopted; or

d) is substantially the same as an amendment previously rejected.

An amendment to defer a matter is an acceptable form of amendment.

See 3.9.3 above for dealing with withdrawal of amendments.

Only one motion and one proposed amendment shall be before Council at anyone time.

If an amendment is carried, the effect is that the original motion is amendedaccordingly. The motion in its amended form becomes the motion before themeeting. Unless there is a further amendment, the motion in its amended formshall then be put to the vote without further debate.

If an amendment has been rejected then a further amendment may be movedand so on.

Before an amendment is put to the vote a Councillor may foreshadow theintention to move a further amendment and shall state the form of theforeshadowed amendment. No discussion may take place on a foreshadowedamendment until the amendment has been dealt with. The amendment shall beput to the vote before the foreshadowed amendment is moved because only onemotion and one amendment can be before Council at any one time.

After the amendment has been dealt with the foreshadowed amendment may beformally moved and seconded.”

The sub-clause that reads “…. a) alters the nature of the motion ….” clearly needs betterdelineation. No change is viewed as being necessary at this juncture to sub-clauses b), c) ord) or to the remainder of Section 3.9.4.


Definitions and Opinions:

The Local Government Meetings Regulation does not assist in this situation, being content toprovide the following definition: “amendment, in relation to an original motion, means amotion moving an amendment to that motion.” (Clause 3 Definitions).

Other sources are more definitive but, however, are not absolutely consistent in emphasis viz:

Joske’s Law and Procedure at Meetings in Australia (Seventh Edition) states:

“An amendment must relate to the matter involved in the motion and not to somethingelse” but

“An amendment to leave out all words of a motion except the initial word ‘that’ and toinsert other words is in order, provided it is not irrelevant and does not amount to adirect negative” and

“The competency of an amendment depends on the general scope and not theparticular terms of a motion. An amendment must not be of such nature that theoriginal motion loses its identity.”

Renton’s Guide for Meetings and Organisations (Sixth Edition) defines an amendment as:

“An amendment is an alteration or proposed alteration to the terms of a motion,designed to improve the motion without contradicting it. It is brought forward by aperson who is not content either to affirm or to negative the motion in its originalform.

An amendment can be to leave some words out, or to leave some words out and insertothers in their place, or to add new words.” Furthermore:

“Nor must an amendment so alter the substantial nature of the motion that itresults in a motion relating to an entirely different subject. For example, in themotion: ‘That the government encourage greater ownership of homes byindividuals’, it would not really be appropriate to add the words ‘bynationalising the trading banks’. The effect of carrying such an amendmentwould be to produce a motion dealing primarily with bank nationalisation, aquestion far removed from that of home-ownership.”

Dunhill Madden Butler in their recent opinion provided to Council delineate the matter inthis way:

“Words, or even some subject-matter can be omitted from a motion, and additionalwords may be added, by an amendment but the effect should not be to ‘contradict’ orfundamentally alter the ‘substance’ of the original motion either in its subject-matteror essential practical effect.”


Recommended Change:

The aforementioned indicate the shades of opinion that exist in this area and the formidableresponsibilities that encumber chairpersons who have to make “on the spot” rulings in oftenvery difficult circumstances.

Renton’s definition provides a helpful and practical starting point by its use of the words“designed to improve the motion without contradicting it” and “brought forward by a personwho is not content either to affirm or to negative the motion in its original form.” Possibly,these words could come forward in a preamble to this section when a complete review of theCode of Meeting Practice occurs.

The two relevant considerations are the effect of the proposed amendment on the substance ofthe motion, and/or the “essential practical effect” of the amendment. Accordingly, therecommended substitution takes the form of “a) substantially alters the subject or theessential practical effect of the motion.”

The recommended alteration to the Code of Meeting Practice is proposed as an interimmeasure and would come forward for further consideration as part of the necessary review ofthe Code of Meeting Practice required during the first year of the “new” Council. By thattime, its appropriateness can be ascertained.

Councillors will, of course, be aware that there are other matters that should be included inthis review including the issue of the declarations required of public speakers.

Timing:

Section 363 of the Local Government Act 1993 states that “a council may amend a codeadopted under this Part by means of a code so adopted.”

Council’s Code of Meeting Practice is silent on the means by which it may be amended.However, the alternatives are immediate adoption or public exhibition of the changes.

Section 362 of the legislation, when referring to a Council’s initial (first) Code of MeetingPractice, makes it quite clear that when amendments (to the Code of Meeting Practice) are notsubstantial they may be adopted without public exhibition.

As the proposed amendment (to the Code of Meeting Practice) is simply directed towardsfurther definition of Council’s original intent and relates only to the procedures of debate, thematter is commended to Council for immediate (but interim) adoption.


ITEM NO: 9

SUBJECT: COUNCILLOR FEES - 1999/2000

FILE NO: C01947

Recommendation:

That Council now set the Annual Councillor Fee and the Additional Mayoral Fee for1999/2000.


Sections 248 and 249 of the Local Government Act state:

“(s248) Fixing and payment of annual fees for councillors248 (1) (Annual fee) A council must pay each councillor an annual fee.(2) (Annual fee to be fixed accordingly) A council may fix the annual fee and, if itdoes so, it must fix the annual fee in accordance with the appropriate determination ofthe Remuneration Tribunal.(3) (Consistent) The annual fee so fixed must be the same for each councillor.(4) (Minimum fee) A Council that does not fix the annual fee must pay the appropriateminimum fee determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.

(s249) Fixing and payment of annual fees for the mayor249 (1) (Annual fee) A council must pay the mayor an annual fee.(2) (Additional fee) The annual fee must be paid in addition to the fee paid to themayor as a councillor.(3) (Annual fee to be fixed accordingly) A council may fix the annual fee and, if itdoes so, it must fix the annual fee in accordance with the appropriate determination ofthe Remuneration Tribunal.

(4) (Minimum fee) A council that does not fix the annual fee must pay theappropriate minimum fee determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.

(5) (Deputy Mayor) A council may pay the deputy mayor (if there is one) a feedetermined by the council for such time as the deputy mayor acts in the office of themayor. The amount of the fee so paid must be deducted from the mayor’s annual fee.”

The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal has recently made a determination concerningthe categorisation of councils and the fees to be paid during the year 1999/2000 to Councillorsand Mayors.


A copy of the determination has been separately provided to Councillors who will be awarethat the determination would permit Council to increase both the Mayoral Fee and CouncillorFees. However, Council can alternatively resolve that the annual Councillor fee for1999/2000 remain unchanged from that of 1998/99 and 1997/98, and the same apply to theMayoral Fee and the provision set aside for the Deputy Mayor when acting in the role ofMayor.

It is not possible to leave this matter aside for the “new” Council.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAMOrdinary Meeting, 22/6/99

ITEM NO: 10

SUBJECT: RECYCLING CONTRACT R1/96 - BONUS PAYMENT - BLUEMOUNTAINS RECYCLING CENTRE

FILE NO: C02372

Recommendation:

That Council note the report on the kerbside recycling contract R1/96 participation survey for1999.

Report by Group Manager, Operations:

1. Introduction.

Council awarded the kerbside recycling contract to Blue Mountains Recycling Centre tocommence on 1st April 1997. The service contract is for a period of 3 years for the collectionand removal for recycling of recyclable materials within the City.

The contractor currently collects:

• steel cans• liquidpaperboard containers (milk cartons)• aluminium cans• paper & cardboard• glass containers• PET plastic

2. Contract performance incentives.

One of the aims of the collection contract is the awarding of a contract bonus to thecontractor for exemplary performance. This is measured in two ways:1. Increases, above a target level, of the amounts of materials collected2. Increases, above a target level, in the participation rates

Council officers and the contractor have agreed that, given the strong growth in the amountsof materials collected, the more meaningful measure of the performance of the recyclingcontract is the level of community participation as measured by the survey detailed in thisreport.

As was reported to Council, Blue Mountains Recycling Centre were awarded the contractbonus ($12,000) for the 1998 contract period for above target increases in the participationsurvey.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAMItem 10 - Ordinary Meeting, 22/6/99

3.1 Participation survey results – 1999 .

To assess the changes in the participation levels over the preceding 12 month period of thecontract, Council officers conducted a participation survey over a 6 week period in March &April 1999 (Autumn).

The streets selected to be surveyed and the survey methodology were based on previousparticipation surveys conducted by the Litter & Recycling Research Association - LRRA(now called the Beverage Industry Environment Council - BIEC). The survey used a total of58 streets with in excess of 3,000 households surveyed across the city each week of the sixweek program. This methodology ensured a representative mix across the city with a samplesize of approximately 10% of households.

Year: Total Participation % :1993 61.21994 54.61997 69.41998 76.01999 73.0

As can be seen, participation has actually decreased since the previous survey. However,participation still exceeds the level at the commencement of the current contract.

3.2 Discussion of results.

The surveyed total recycling participation rate remains high with over 70% of Blue Mountainshouseholds participating in the service on a regular basis. This rate is a reflection of thepopularity of the service.

Some factors that may have affected the survey results include:• Road works in Mt Victoria (6 weeks)• Heavy rain (1 week)• Easter public holiday period

3.3 Extra capacity

An extra issue that was surveyed was the use of a second container or extra material being leftbeside the single crate provided by Council.

The survey found that 26% of households required extra capacity in excess of the 50 litrecrate. This will require further investigation and research for the review of the up coming re-tendering of the recycling service for April 2000.


4. Collected amounts of recyclables.

The following is a summary of the amounts collected by total and by type:

Year:(12month period April

to April)

Total recyclables collected(Tonnes) :

Percentage increase over theprevious year (%):

1997 4,180.4 11%1998 4,520.75 8%

1999 4,898.55 7.7%

As can be seen from the table above, the recycling program continues to enjoy a stronggrowth rate in the levels of recycling materials collected.

5. Conclusion

The participation audit indicates that there are no grounds for the payment of a performancebonus this year. However, there has been a substantial increase in the volume of materialcollected and the are strong signs that many residents are making substantial commitments tothe recycling program.

It will be recommended that Council note the report and the recycling participation surveyresults for 1999.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAMOrdinary Meeting, 22/6/99

ITEM NO: 11

SUBJECT: SYDNEY REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO 20HAWKESBURY NEPEAN RIVER

FILE NO: C00995

Recommendations:

1. That Council give In-Principle support to the concept of amending Sydney RegionalEnvironmental Plan No 20 Hawkesbury Nepean River, to include the Middle Nepeansub-catchments within the Blue Mountains, in the definition of ‘conservation area subcatchments’, subject to a satisfactory resolution of the issues raised in Item 3 of theserecommendations.

2. That Council seek comment on the proposal to amend the conservation area sub-catchment definition, and the statements regarding the effect of the SREP provisions,from the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, Hawkesbury Nepean CatchmentManagement Trust and Hawkesbury Council

3. That any request to include the Middle Nepean sub-catchments in the conservationarea sub catchment definition in the SREP would be made on the basis that there isrecognition from Department of Urban Affairs and Planning;• That the provisions of the SREP apply such that the strategies for the planning

policies in clause 6(2) relating to the control of land uses in environmentallysensitive areas, are recommendations which must be considered in the making ofplans and the assessment of development; and

• That there is a need for a more precise definition of ‘clearing’ for whichdevelopment consent is required.

• That Action Plan Table at 2.8.1 should be amended to incorporate the wording inthe exhibited document ,to that of ‘Prefer that new development should be locatedin areas which are already cleared in conservation area sub-catchment’, in orderto more appropriately convey the weight attaching to this provision, which is thatof a recommendation rather than a mandatory requirement.

4. That Council request advice and assistance from DUAP and the Hawkesbury NepeanCatchment Management Trust regarding the identification of a more appropriatedefinition of ‘clearing’. This revised definition should be appropriate to areas whichare dedicated to urban use and should accommodate programs which controlenvironmental weeds and regenerate natural bushland.

5. Council request advice from DUAP, regarding the potential to contain the REPprovisions within the LEP’s and thus maximise the ability of the LEP to act as a singlereference for purposes of determining relevant land use provisions as they apply toBMCC as part of the hydrological catchment.


6. Council ensure that the current review of DLEP 97 which recognises the need toimprove the environmental protection measures, results in consistency between therelevant SREP 20 objectives including those applying to the conservation area sub-catchment.

7. That representations be made to the State government and the Hawkesbury NepeanTrust to expedite the research, understanding of catchment processes and developmentof appropriate guidelines which will support better cumulative impact assessment atthe project control level.

8. In the medium term, Council continue to develop a comprehensive approach to theincorporation of appropriate natural resource and water quality managementprovisions within the consolidating local environmental plans, with a view to reducingthe number of layers of planning instruments applying to the City and achievingappropriate place-based controls.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council has requested advice as to whether the Middle Nepean sub catchments of theHawkesbury River within of the Blue Mountains, should be included in the definition ofconservation area sub catchments under the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 20 –Hawkesbury Nepean River. That Plan contains policies, strategies and development controlprovisions aimed at maintaining and improving the health of the catchment. Within theSREP, those areas considered to be of the greatest conservation significance because they arenear pristine and are environmentally sensitive areas, are designated ‘conservation area subcatchments’ and special additional provisions apply to them.

The majority of the Blue Mountains local government area is included in the existingconservation area sub-catchments. The body of the report describes the classifications of thevarious sub-catchments and they are illustrated in the map at Attachment 1.

The Middle Nepean sub catchments within the Blue Mountains, are surrounded by the Groseand Glenbrook/Erskine Creek conservation area sub catchments. The recommendations forinclusion were originally based upon the percentage cover of bushland remaining within acatchment those with 80% cover were nominated. The following sections of the report detailthe current conditions and circumstances applying to the various sub catchments in the City.The Middle Nepean catchments within the Blue Mountains were largely excluded becausethey were assessed together with the floodplain area around Penrith and Mulgoa, and areawhich has largely pasture or urban development.

The report describes in some detail the import of those provisions under SREP 20 whichapply specifically to the conservation area sub-catchments.

The advantages and disadvantages of including the Middle Nepean catchments in theconservation area sub catchment definition are summarised below.


Advantages of inclusion of Middle Nepean in Conservation Area Sub Catchment• The designation of conservation area sub-catchment is consistent with the Council policy

which applies across the City. All of the natural areas within Blue Mountains City havehigh conservation status. It is not an appropriate policy position to exclude the MiddleNepean sub catchments within the Blue Mountains. The Middle Nepean sub catchmentsshare with other sub catchments through the City significant natural values derived fromthe high biological diversity, presence of rare or threatened species, high water qualitytargets consistent with recreational uses and maintenance of aquatic ecosystems, and thelandscape value of the area is very high, with the escarpment to the River having regionalvisual significance under the SREP.

• The consistent application of the SREP policy for conservation area sub-catchmentsacross the City would simplify the interpretation and application of strategies.

• Conservation area sub catchment status gives appropriate policy context and weight to theenvironmental and conservation goals of the area. The statement of conservation goalswithin a regional context, not simply a local context, can be seen to reinforce thesignificance of these conservation values.

• The acknowledgment of regional significance can lend weight in deliberations in otherforums such as development assessment through the Land and Environment Court, andwhen funding bodies are considering applications for assistance with environmentalprotection measures.

• The Council’s existing policies and programs are highly consistent with the intent of theSREP conservation area sub-catchment policies. Integration of the policy at regional andlocal level would be facilitated, and Council can further that integration in it’sdevelopment of more place-based local environmental plans.

Potential Disadvantages of inclusion of Middle Nepean in Conservation Area SubCatchment

• The concept of conservation area sub catchments can be difficult to reconcile with the factthat they apply to urban areas in the Blue Mountains. This concept is logical in a policycontext if it is understood that not all parts of a conservation area sub catchment aresensitive, significant environments which must be protected. Within Blue Mountains City,urban development dominates the ridges of the conservation area sub catchments, and theupper intermittent reaches of the streams at the urban interface are often significantlyimpacted. In these circumstances the conservation area sub catchment designationreinforces the need to protect the receiving environment. It is necessary to minimise theimpact of new development and to address and remediate the adverse impacts fromexisting development.

• The interpretation of two of the provisions applying to conservation area sub catchmentshas caused confusion. The relevant provisions are elaborated in the body of the report, butthe critical point is that the policies contain recommended strategies which the Councilmust take into consideration when preparing plans and considering applications for thecarrying of development. Argument is put at times that the recommended strategies in factimpose mandatory prohibition upon those plans or proposals which are in conflict with thestrategies. This confusion is of concern because it undermines public confidence inadministration and can generate opposition to plans and proposals on incorrect grounds. Itwould therefore be very beneficial to have clear interpretation of the relevant provisionson the public record.


• The existing clause of the SREP (cl 11(3)), relating to development control requirementsin conservation area sub-catchments should be clarified to ensure that it is practical andcapable of full implementation. The need for a clear and better definition of ‘clearing’ is aparticular need.

Common understanding and interpretation of the SREP provisions and a clarification of the‘clearing’ definition can overcome these potential disadvantages. The recommendationstherefore contain a statement regarding the interpretation attaching to the relevant provisionsapplying to conservation area sub-catchments, and a request for DUAP assistance indeveloping a more appropriate definition of clearing.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

When Council considered a report on Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 20 –Hawkesbury Nepean River in January 1999, it resolved that a further report come back toCouncil on the addition of the Blue Mountains section of the Middle Nepean Catchment Areato the Conservation Sub-Catchment status.

This report addresses a number of relevant issues in order to arrive at a recommendation.Section 1 describes the conservation area sub-catchment concept and the definition of thosesub catchments by SREP 20; Section 2 describes the known characteristics of the MiddleNepean sub-catchments; Section 3 describes and discusses the provisions of the SREP as theyrelate to the conservation area sub catchments. The interpretation of the SREP 20 provisionshas been reviewed and is supported by a legal opinion. Section 4 discusses some of thecurrent trends in catchment management particularly as they relate to land use planning.;Section 5 is the Conclusion.

1. THE IDENTIFICATION OF CONSERVATION AREA SUB CATCHMENTS

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 20 – Hawkesbury Nepean River provides a strategicapproach to catchment focused land use planning and development control. The Action Planwhich must be read with the Plan, also lists actions aimed at remediating and managingexisting land use throughout the catchment. Conservation area sub-catchments are definedwithin SREP 20 as being ‘those that are subject to relatively minimal human interference andare consequently in a reasonably pristine environmental condition, being the sub-catchmentsof Glenbrook and Erskine Creek, Webbs Creek, the Colo River, the Grose River and theMacdonald River, as shown on the map’.

The strategy document accompanying the SREP explains that the conservation area sub-catchment classification was applied to sub-catchments where bushland covers more than80% of the area. These areas are seen to make a significant contribution to maintaining theoverall health and ecological integrity of the catchment. Conservation area sub-catchments areidentified within SREP 20 for the purpose of applying policies and development controlrequirements aimed at minimising any the impact of new development.


The City of Blue Mountains contains the only urban areas designated as conservation areasub-catchments. Glenbrook and Erskine Creek and the Grose River are the existingconservation area sub catchments within the Blue Mountains City local government area andthey cover approximately 70% of that area. All other conservation area sub-catchments withinSREP 20 contain only small areas of rural settlement or isolated dwellings along theHawkesbury River.

The Map at Attachment A shows the sub-catchments within the City and their status underSREP 20 and the recently imposed SEPP 58 ‘Protecting Sydney’s Drinking Water’. SREP 20applies to the entire City.

The only parts of the City not defined as conservation area sub-catchments are;q the Coxes River catchment and the Lake Burragorang catchment which largely comprise

the land south of the Highway and draining to the west of Kings Tableland, andq the Middle Nepean sub-catchment to the west of the Nepean River, comprising

Fitzgeralds Creek and Frasers Creek which lie wholly within the City generally drainingeasterly from the GWH and Hawkesbury Road, and the upper reaches of Shaws Creekand Lynchs Creek, generally draining the land easterly from the ridge through the StColumba’s site at Springwood, and northerly from Hawkesbury Road. Beyond the BlueMountains City Council urban area, the Lynchs Ck and Shaws Ck sub-catchments liewithin Hawkesbury local government area, comprising rural residential large lotsubdivisions and the Blue Mountains National Park.

The Table in the Environmental Planning Strategy for SREP 20 described the land uses withinthe declared conservation area sub-catchments as follows;

Sub-catchment Bushland Grazing Orchard UnseweredPeriurbanAnd urban

SeweredUrban

Other

Colo River and Webbs Ck 89.3% 9.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0 0.7%

Macdonald River 95.9% 3.3% 0 0.2% 0 0.6%

Grose River, Erskine andGlenbrook Creeks

90.9% 3.3% 0.4% 1.7% 2.3% 1.4%


2. SUB-CATCHMENT CHARACTERISTICS- MIDDLE NEPEAN SUB-CATCHMENT WEST OF THE NEPEAN RIVER.

The Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Trust has provided data for the MiddleNepean sub catchments north of Mt Riverview as follows;

Sub-catchment Bushland Total area(ha)

%Bushland

Lynchs Creek 2289.4 2887.1 79.3

Shaws Creek 993.9 1169.2 85

Frasers Creek 1323.5 1507.5 87.8

Fitzgeralds Creek 2291.5 2757.5 83.1

Total 6898.3 8321.3 82.9.The figures indicate that these Middle Nepean sub-catchments, meet the criteria adopted bythe SREP study of 80% bushland coverage. The sub-catchments of Lapstone Creek, KnapsackCreek and Tunnel Gully draining direct to the Nepean River, have not been included in thesefigures. These catchments are more highly urbanised.

The nomination of conservation area sub catchments on the basis of 80% bushland coveragein the catchment is a relatively coarse tool for the purpose of determining whether thesecatchments meet the principal criteria, that of being relatively pristine catchments. TheMiddle Nepean sub-catchments appear to have been excluded in the first instance becausethey were assessed against the 80% bushland rule, together with the sub-catchments of thePenrith plains.

In common with much of the City, all of the Middle Nepean sub-catchments within theBMCC area contain significant urban development on the ridgelines and plateaux, with largelot residential subdivision also featuring in the Fitzgerald Creek and to a lesser extent, FrazersCreek sub-catchments. However for the most part, the development is confined to relativelynarrow ridgelines, other than at Sun Valley and in the Glenbrook area.

The relatively extensive natural bushland remaining in these sub-catchments containssignificant vegetation communities identified under EMP 1( Alluvial bench woodland,Alluvial forests and swamps) and EMP 2 (Eucalyptus deanei & Syncarpia glomulifera forests,and E sclerophylla woodlands on alluvium, creek line vegetation). The shale sandstonetransition forest has recently been listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act isalso located in the lower mountains. The significant vegetation, steep slopes, streams andareas which have regionally significant visual values, are located throughout the lowermountains area and represent significant constraints to development in general, and inparticular to new subdivision.


LEP 1991 governs the largest area of land within the Middle Nepean sub-catchments. Muchof this land is publicly and privately owned bushland zoned Environmental Protection, orRec- EP, with Bushland Conservation zones along Singles Ridge Road and Paterson Roads,and the Rural Conservation zone at Sun Valley. There are a number of sites zoned ResidentialBushland Conservation, but once again there are few sites with major subdivision potential,one of these being the Winnicoopa Road site, which is currently the subject of an appeal tothe Land and Environment Court. The limits to urban development were firmly establishedacross the City by the planning study which generated LEP 1991. Under LEP 1991, the landuse outcomes are strongly determined by the environmental capacity of a site and the locality.For the most part urban development has been largely contained to infill within the existingfootprint of the urban area. Seven sites were identified under LEP 1991 as having some as yetundetermined potential for residential development and zoned ‘Residential Investigation’. StColumba’s is one such site. Within the Council planning studies there is no suggestion of, norany support for any extension of potential urban areas within BMCC into the non urbanzones.

LEP 4, now DLEP 97, governs most of the urban area. DLEP 97 is currently being reviewedin response to the exhibition and the report on the public hearing. That review will strengthenthe role and recognition of environmental constraints in determining the capacity of the landto accept additional development, bringing the instrument more into line with the other parentplanning instrument, LEP 1991.

Under the revised DLEP 1997, the existing relatively low density residential zones whichcharacterise the existing urban areas will continue to prevail. No non urban zones areproposed for new urban zoning under DLEP 1997. The St Columba’s site, identified underLEP 1991 as having some development potential, is being assessed in detail under DLEP 97process. The St Columba’s site falls partly within the Springwood Creek and thence GroseValley conservation area sub-catchment and partly within the Lynchs Creek sub-catchmentwhich is not part of a conservation area sub-catchment. The conservation area sub-catchmentprovisions were a subject of the submissions and the report on the public hearing into DLEP97. The Commissioner’s report recommends that the uncleared land on the St Columba’s sitewithin the conservation area sub-catchment be zoned Environmental Protection, largely on thebasis of the policy and strategies under SREP 20.

3. CONSERVATION SUB-CATCHMENT PROVISIONS WITHIN SREP 20

The provisions which apply specifically to Conservation Sub-Catchments are described in theTable at Attachment B.

Clause 4 of SREP 20 relevantly provides that the general planning considerations set out inclause 5 and the related recommended strategies set out in clause 6 which are applicable to adevelopment must be taken into consideration by a consent authority determining anapplication for consent to carry out development. They should also be taken intoconsideration in the preparation of planning instruments and development control plansrelating to land to which SREP 20 applies.


The general considerations contained in clause 5 are;• the aim of the plan, which is to protect the environment of the Hawkesbury Nepean

system by ensuring that impacts of future land uses are considered in a regional context.• the strategies listed in the Action Plan,• whether there are feasible alternatives to the proposed development and the how impacts

will be mitigated.• the policies and recommended strategies within Clause 6

The Effect of SREP 20 – Pt 2 Policies and Strategies

The relevant policy under clause 6(2) of SREP 20 for environmentally sensitive areas definesthose areas to be conservation area sub catchments, the river and riverine corridor, wetlandsand national parks. The policy states that ‘The environmental quality of environmentallysensitive areas must be protected and enhanced through the careful control of future land usechanges and management and remediation of existing uses.’

The strategies include paragraph (c) which states “Minimise direct and indirect adverseimpacts on …conservation area sub-catchments in order to protect water quality andbiodiversity” and paragraph (h) which specifically applies to conservation area subcatchments and states “New development in conservation area sub-catchments should belocated in areas that are already cleared.” These strategies take a precautionary approach byseeking to restrict development to existing levels within what the instrument has identified asnear pristine sub catchments.

Argument has on occasion been put that the Council is bound by that the strategies andactions contained within Part 2 of the SREP and the Action Plans. This argument is notagreed.

The policies listed under Part 2 of the SREP provide clear objectives and direction for thepurpose of development control and plan preparation. The strategies are required to beconsidered in accordance with clauses 4 and 5 of SREP 20 on the basis that they will assist inachieving the policy objectives. This approach is also consistent with the language andprocedures in the EPA Act in the relevant sections; S68(4)(d)(ii) &(iii), which require that inmaking a submission for the making of a plan, the council must submit a statement whichspecifies the environmental planning instruments that have been taken into consideration andgiving details and justification of any inconsistency with any planning instrument referred toin sub clause (ii). The information to users contained in the front of the REP also places thestrategies and actions in this context. These include statements to the effect that ‘Part 2 alsoincludes a list of recommended strategies to enable all proposals to achieve the specificpolicies’ (p8).

The Action Plan to the SREP contains more detail on the implementation of the policies inclause 6 of the SREP. Two actions are included specific to conservation area sub-catchmentsat 2.8 in Part A of the Action Plan. Under 2.8.1 of that Table, the language used withinstrategy 6(2)(h) ‘New development in conservation area sub-catchments should be located inareas that are already cleared’, has been inappropriately translated, to the more definitiveterms of ‘Locate new development in already cleared areas’.


It is relevant that the exhibited draft Action Plan contained a qualifier to this action ‘Preferthat new development be located in areas which are already cleared.’ The guiding nature ofthe provision is clearer under this approach and this or like wording would be more helpful tothe interpretation and understanding of the SREP by the community. Failure to recognise thatthe strategies are not a mandatory prohibition on development that may conflict with aparticular recommended strategy would in all likelihood, render some existing lots ( ie thosewithout cleared areas) undevelopable. An interpretation that Council is bound by therequirement to locate development in already cleared areas is also anomalous beside clause11(3) which requires consent for buildings and works which require clearing in conservationarea sub-catchments. It would therefore be helpful if the wording in the Action Table at 2.8.1was to be altered to its original form, that of ‘Prefer that new development should be locatedin areas which are already cleared in conservation area sub-catchments.’

A Restriction on any further rezoning for urban purposes- St Columba’s Site

The second strategy under 2.8.1 of the Table to the Action Plan, states “Do not rezone anyfurther land for urban development in the conservation area sub-catchments.” The onlyproposal for rezoning in these Middle Nepean sub catchments which may be affected by thisprovision, is the St Columba’s site, which is zoned Residential Investigation under LEP 1991.Submissions were made at the public hearing into DLEP 97, that that part of the site withinthe Grose Valley conservation area sub-catchment should not be supported for subdivisionbecause this would be, amongst other things, inconsistent with the provisions andrecommended strategies within the SREP. The Commissioner’s report recommended that theDLEP not provide for residential subdivision over that part of the site within the conservationarea sub catchment and the area covered by bushland was recommended for an EnvironmentalProtection zoning.

The submissions from the community to the Commissioner also foreshadowed thatDepartment of Urban Affairs and Planning would be approached in an attempt to amendSREP 20 to classify the Middle Nepean catchments as conservation area sub-catchments,including the catchment which covers the other half of the St Columba’s site.

The abovementioned general comments regarding the force of the SREP 20 conservation areasub catchment provisions in the preparation of LEP’s, apply to the case of St Columba’sproposals for rezoning to permit residential subdivision. The declaration of a conservationarea sub catchment status over the balance of the St Columba’s site would add some weight tothe environmental protection considerations at the plan preparation stage, but it would notautomatically preclude the support and submission of the a DLEP which permits someresidential development.

If a DLEP was proposed which was inconsistent with the strategy recommendations of notrezoning any further land for urban development and of locating new development in alreadycleared areas, the S68 submission for the making of the plan would have to justify thedeparture and demonstrate how the protection of the environmentally sensitive area, being therelatively pristine values of the sub-catchment, was nevertheless met by the proposal. The keyto the correct approach is that the assessment and proposed plan provisions must besufficiently rigorous to ensure the protection of the environmental values of the catchment.


The RES I sites identified by LEP 1991, were an outcome of a rigorous planning study, EMP1, which effectively did what the SREP has subsequently reinforced. It provided for strictlimits to expansion of the City and designated a small number of sites that required furthermore detailed study to define the precise limits within those sites. No final zoning of RES-Isites can be considered without a comprehensive study. That comprehensive study is beingundertaken as part of the preparation of DLEP 97.

The Effect of SREP 20 – Pt 3 Development Control

Clause 11(3) is a development control provision which is imposed by the Regional Plan andhas the force of development control provisions within the local instruments. The clause isdescribed in more detail in Attachment B. This clause applies only within conservation areasub-catchments.

Clause 11(3) requires development consent for any building, work or land use, includingclearing, except for building, works or land uses that the consent authority considers to beminor and which do not involve clearing or onsite effluent disposal. The definition of‘clearing’ is very wide. It notionally applies to any scale of vegetation removal, includingherb and shrub layers in remnant native bushland in the backyards of small residential lotsacross the Mountains and to introduced vegetation which is deemed to otherwise havesignificance in terms of scenic or water quality values. The listed exemptions are notsufficiently wide and it is recommended that they contain some definition of minor clearingwhich does not require consent.

This clause is of particular import because it raises significant issues regarding theimpracticality of requiring consent for such a wide definition of ‘clearing’. Council haspreviously considered the proposition that all removal of native vegetation should requireconsent but rejected it as unworkable over such large areas of the City. It is considered to besimilarly unenforceable in the present SREP 20 format. State Planning Policy 4 DevelopmentWithout Consent modifies the operation of c11(3) in the SREP by permitting some minoractivities without consent provided that relevant development standards are met. However, therelationship between the two provisions is not sufficiently clear.

The identification of minor clearing which does not require consent, would enable theinstruments to be firmer about when consent for clearing is required. This may address theissue where-by clearing is currently a by-product of ancillary development in some situations.A more precise definition of clearing which exempts some minor clearing could ensure thatthe other more significant clearing can then become a development standard to be consideredwhen determining compliance of development exempted from the need for consent underSEPP 4.

In addition to the need to clarify the exact circumstances when consent is required for minorclearing, it is recommended that the exemptions within SREP 20 should also extend toenvironmental weeds removed under bush regeneration programs.

These shortcomings in the clearing controls in particular have been raised with both theHawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Trust and Dept of Urban Affairs and Planning.There is recognition from these agencies that the definition and/or application of clearingcontrols would benefit from clarification and more certainty.


Summary comment on the effect of SREP 20 and relationship to local policy andplanning instruments

In brief, once the DLEP 97 review is finalised, the provisions within the local planninginstruments (LEP 1991 and DLEP 97) will be highly consistent with the SREP 20requirements. Thus the Council already has a solid policy and planning instrument base fromwhich to refine an approach which effectively replaces the development controls within theSREP with local controls. The inclusion of all relevant control requirements within the oneplan is consistent with the current planning reform agenda, making for simpler understandingfor community, proponents and implementation authorities alike.

The Management Plan requires that strict limits be placed upon new development consistentwith the environmental capacity of the land and the protection of natural areas. The Council’spolicies do not distinguish between the conservation area sub-catchments and the land outsideof those catchment. The policies having similarly high aims for all of the catchmentsreceiving runoff from the urban area. The provisions in the LEP 1991are highly consistentwith the REP and in some cases go beyond the requirements in SREP 20. Examples includethe measures to protect locally significant vegetation, the Environmental Constraint andProtected Areas requirements, the consolidation requirements for existing lots in someparticularly constrained areas, and the recent Draft Amendment 25 provisions relating tosubdivision design and development. The Environmental Planning Studies from which theLEP’s are derived, and the ongoing development of vegetation and water quality protectionmonitoring and policy formulation, are all contributing significantly to the building of an evenstronger relationship between the determination of permissible development and theenvironmental capacity of the locality.

Therefore, whilst the Council is supportive of the conservation area sub-catchment conceptacross the City, this relatively comprehensive approach should be complemented byconservation area sub-catchment provisions which are more discriminating in the way thatthey recognise and relate to development on small lots within the existing urban areas. Theurban areas are already largely committed to residential use. Whilst the intent of theconservation area sub-catchments is consistent with the Council’s policies and plans acrossthe City, it is considered that the application of development controls such as those containedin clause 11(3) of the SREP, relating to existing development in the urban areas, would bemore appropriately and correctly addressed in the LEP in the longer term.

4. INTEGRATED CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTALPLANNING INSTRUMENTS

There is increasing emphasis on the integration of natural resource management and land usecontrol mechanisms. The Healthy Rivers Commission Report into the Hawkesbury NepeanRiver, the recent McClelland Inquiry into Sydney Drinking Water and the Green Paper on thereview of plan preparation under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, allforeshadow this requirement. More accountability is sought for the outcomes of catchmentmanagement.


A new REP will replace SEPP 58 which currently applies over the Drinking Watercatchments in the City. The brief for the new REP requires that it must include water qualityobjectives for the catchment, a provision that development must be refused unless thatdevelopment will have a neutral or beneficial effect on the quality of water, and action planswhich must address existing development that does not have a neutral or beneficial affect.

These requirements represent a strengthening of current Total Catchment Management andWater Quality policies within SREP 20, and the Council’s own policies under theManagement Plan and LEP’s . the City is almost entirely covered by conservation area sub-catchment designation and drinking water catchment values, the highest standard of waterquality objectives performance management are applicable to the Blue Mountains area.

Whilst there has been considerable success in achieving a better relationship between theenvironmental capacity of the locality and the development potential of land at the planpreparation stage, the application of water quality criteria at the project control level is oftenver difficult, principally because of the lack of strategic information and science necessary toprove adverse impact in cumulative impact situations.

In the face of limited data on the existing water quality, the means by which water quality isadversely affected and the lack of clarity on how water quality objectives should be applied,there will be continuing limitations on the effective implementation of this general standard atthe project level.

It is considered essential that there be a concerted effort by state government to provide thenecessary strategic water quality information and decision making framework which is moresupportive of assessment of cumulative impacts in this setting of uncertainty, if Councils areto be in a position to translate water quality objectives to outcomes in a development controlsetting.

There are a number of policy issues other than land use controls that can be affected by thedesignation of all catchments within the City as either conservation area sub-catchments ordrinking water catchments. This report does not propose to pursue and discuss this widerrelevance of the designation of catchment values, other than to note that these designationsshould be then be used consistently for the wider natural resources management and mayaffect for example, the performance standards applying to sewerage treatment plants. Thismay have import for Sydney Water and the EPA, if integrated catchment management is tobecome a reality and sub-catchment designation is used to set performance standards.

However, the necessity to carefully consider the applicable short and medium term targets interms of the science of water quality and catchment dynamics, should not detract from thedevelopment of a more comprehensive catchment management approach guided by tools suchas the designation of appropriate sub-catchment values.

The clear designation of the conservation value of all of the sub-catchments within the City isalso consistent with remedial programs by the Council, the state funded Urban Runoff ControlProgram, and the Sewer Backlog and Priority Programs. It serves to reinforce the value andimportance of these programs catchment wide.


5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The determination of appropriate development control and plan making policy based uponwhether the site lies within conservation area sub-catchments as currently designated, is notconsidered to be justified. The conservation area sub-catchment designation is a very blunttool. Whether or not an area is designated as a conservation area sub-catchment in the BlueMountains context, is more the result of the size of the sub-catchment being considered, thanthe condition and significance of the area in question. The Middle Nepean sub-catchmentsappear to have been excluded in the first instance because they were assessed against the 80%bushland rule, together with the sub-catchments of the Penrith plains. When they are assessedon their own merits these sub-catchments generally meet the broad standard and are consistentwith the conservation area sub-catchment classification applying to the waterwaysdischarging into the Nepean immediately to the north and south.

The aims of the conservation area sub catchment are relevant to the management of all of theBlue Mountains City area. They are already installed in the Management Plan, in one of theparent planning instruments and the other parent instrument is currently being strengthened toachieve a similar result. The objectives and general intent of SREP 20 conservation area sub-catchments are already largely applicable across the City and the exclusion of the MiddleNepean sub-catchments is anomalous on this basis. Initial discussions with DUAP in a recentSREP 20 forum with local government, indicate that changes to the instrument are unlikely tobe made in the near future. Those discussions also touched upon the issues associated withthe appropriateness of the detail of the current conservation area sub-catchment provisions. Itwas apparent from those discussions that the Department intended and supports a morediscriminating and fine grained application of the SREP 20 policies and objectives withinlocal planning instruments and is likely to prefer that approach to the correction of anomalies.

The moves by Blue Mountains Council toward a more place-based LEP approach derivedfrom an area strategic plan is consistent with the incorporation of catchment- based policy.There are already place-specific objectives within LEP 1991 relating at the first order ofplace, to the City, thence to the sandstone plateau, the Megalong Valley and The Mounts.Catchment related planning is the appropriate place for many resource managementinitiatives. . If objectives for the major sub-catchments within the City can be distinguishedthrough the current state REP proposals, then these may be added as place objectives andwould provide a logical location for incorporation of water quality objectives within planninginstruments. This approach does however require the marrying of hydrological and humansettlement catchments, which are different ‘places’ within the Blue Mountains context.

The approach of containing the REP provisions within more place-based local instruments isconsistent with the aims of the current review of plan making within NSW. However, theremay be strong resistance to this approach until there is an agreed mechanism whereby theState can ensure that local plans can be altered to incorporate any updates in state policy.These concepts should be developed through the current forums of the review of the EPA Actand other opportunities that may present through the SREP20 and Sydney Drinking WaterREP preparation.


This report concludes that the conservation area sub catchment designation is consistent withthe Council policies of protecting the receiving catchments and natural areas within the BlueMountains. These policies are as relevant to those Middle Nepean sub catchments within theCity, as they are to the balance of the City area, other than the Megalong Valley where ruralactivities are more dominant than elsewhere. It is therefore recommended that DAUP berequested to include the Middle Nepean Catchments in the definition of conservation areasub-catchments, provided that the interpretation and application of the recommendedstrategies which apply to conservation area sub-catchments is clear.

The existing parent instrument, LEP 1991 is already highly compatible with the policies underSREP 20, and the objectives of the current review of DLEP 1997 are addressing many of therelevant issues. The ongoing development of vegetation management and watercourseprotection provisions is arguably providing the Blue Mountains with more fine-grained andtargeted tools for the protection of sensitive environmental areas than that contained in theSREP. This translation of the general regional policy to the more particular local policy isappropriate.

The Council is well placed to develop a consolidated planning instrument through the areaplanning process. This consolidated instrument can more explicitly incorporate clearcatchment management policy within the local planning instruments. The longer term aimwould be to develop local environmental plans that incorporate the development controlprovisions, whilst continuing to rely on the strategy component of the SREP for the widerpolicy setting.


Attachment 1


Attachment 2

LAND USE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMOrdinary Meeting, 22/6/99

ITEM NO: 12

SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. S.99/0009 FOR ANINTEGRATED 2 INTO 72 RESIDENTIAL LOT SUBDIVISION OFLOTS 400 AND 401, DP 591224, 25 THE MALL, WARRIMOO

FILE NO: S99/0009

Recommendation:

That Development Application No. S.99/0009 for a 2 into 72 Residential Lot Subdivision ofLots 400 and 401 DP 591224, 25 The Mall, Warrimoo, be determined pursuant to S.80 of theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by refusing the application for thefollowing reasons.

• The proposed subdivision would have an unacceptable adverse environmental impact onthe locality.

• The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the aims, objectives and relevant zoneobjectives of LEP 1991.

• The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with LEP 1991 as it would be amended byadopted Draft Amendment 25 – particularly sub-clauses 34.1 and 34.4.

• The proposed subdivision is prohibited, in the absence of a SEPP 1 objection, by sub-clause 34.4 of LEP1991.

• The proposed subdivision does not comply with the provisions of DCP 27 – Subdivision.• The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with Sydney Regional Environmental Plan

No. 20 Hawkesbury-Nepean River (No. 2 – 1997).• The proposed subdivision does not comply with the provisions of DCP 10 – Blue

Mountains Town Character Guidelines.• The traffic generated from the proposed subdivision (and subsequent dwelling

construction) would have an unacceptable traffic impact on surrounding streets.• The proposal would be a significant over-development of the site.

Report by Group Manager, Health and Development:

Reason for report Due to the scale of the subdivision and the significant publicinterest.

Applicant Don Fox Planning Pty LtdDX 4721 Pennant Hills

Owner Bendent Pty Limited

Application lodged 11 March 1999

Property address Lots 400 and 401 DP. 591224, 25 The Mall, Warrimoo

LAND USE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMItem 12 - Ordinary Meeting, 22/6/99

Development controls Zoning – Part Residential 2(a1) under LEP 4 (Proposed LivingConservation under Draft LEP 1997) (being onestandard block fronting the Great Western Highway)

Part Residential Bushland Conservation (8 lots/ha)under LEP 1991

Part Environmental Constraint Area (32% of the site)under LEP 1991

Attachment 3 shows the current zoning of the site.Development Control Plan No. 10 – Blue Mountains CharacterGuidelinesDevelopment Control Plan No. 27 – SubdivisionRegional Environmental Plan No. 20 – Hawkesbury NepeanRiver (No. 2 – 1997)

Site description The subject land is located at the south-eastern side ofWarrimoo, between The Mall and the Great Western Highway.Attachment 1 shows a plan of the locality.

The site has three road frontages, two to the Great WesternHighway and one to The Mall. The frontages to the GWH arelocated immediately east of the Newsagent/Post Office andimmediately east of the old Antique Shop (Hurleys Butcher).

The site is bounded on the north and east by a mix of commercialand residential development fronting the Great WesternHighway, on the west by residential development fronting TheBoulevarde, Arthur Street and The Mall. The land to the south isCouncil Public Reserve.

The site comprises two allotments having a total area of 12.76hectares.

The site is characterised by a deep gully and watercourseextending from the north-western corner of the site to the southside of the site. The site includes numerous rock outcrops andledges and is moderately vegetated. The vegetation on the site isan “open woodland” with moderate tree cover with minimalunderstorey. The understorey is typical of sites with substantialrock outcrops and minimal soil depth.

The site is steep, with a large part of the site exceeding a slope of20%. Three other watercourses are on the site, draining to themain gully.

A ROTAP Species, Lomandra Fluviatilis was located in themain gully within the ECA. A number of Aboriginal sites werelocated on the site (and are shown on Attachment 2).

The site does not contain any Schedule 3 vegetation units.


It is proposed to subdivide the two existing allotments into72 residential lots and a public reserve. A plan of the proposedsubdivision is provided in Attachment 2.

The residential lots range in size from about 580 m2 to 2640 m2

and have a variety of size as shown below. It is noted that overhalf the lots are less than 700 m2.

Less than 700 m2 38 lots700 m2 to 1000 m2 19 lots1000 m2 to 2000 m2 14 lots

Proposal

Greater than 2000 m2 1 lot

Public Exhibition The application was advertised for a period of 28 days from31 March to 30 April 1999 in the Blue Mountains Gazette aswell as written notification to adjoining and nearby properties.

One hundred and twenty one (121) submissions were received,including 2 petitions of 61 signatures and 106 signatures.

Non-resident submissions were received from Blue MountainsConservation Society, RAID, Warrimoo Public School P&CAssoc., Warrimoo School Council, SWAG and HawkesburyNepean Catchment Management Trust.

Issues from submissions

The submissions included the following concerns:

• Loss of amenity • Traffic hazard to school children• Impact on essential services and shop

and transport facilities• The Mall and internal access roads are

too narrow• Threat of bushfire • Inappropriate road names• Loss of privacy • Capacity of local school• Service roads are too narrow • Land too steep• Noise pollution • Loss of bushwalking areas• Loss of village atmosphere • Impact on watercourse• Loss of Aboriginal sites/ artefacts • Increase in traffic volumes• Social problems • Small lot sizes• Loss of flora and fauna, including rare

species• Non-compliance with various policies

• Loss of buffers that trees create


Assessment Issues The following issues are considered relevant to this application:• Integrated development• SREP 20 (Specific Planning Policy No. 2)• LEP 1991, particularly, clauses 10, 11.3 and 34.4• Draft Amendment 25• DCP 10• DCP 27 – Flora and Fauna,

Watercourse Protection,Allotment Design Principles andBushfire Management

• Traffic and access

Discussion of Issues

1. Integrated Development

The application is an “integrated development” under Section 91 of the EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Act because the application requires an approval from the NationalParks and Wildlife Service (for consent to destroy an aboriginal site), from the EnvironmentProtection Authority (for construction of pollution control devices in a subdivision of morethan 50 lots) and from the Department of Land and Water Conservation (for works within40 metres of a “river”).

Council is required to obtain from each relevant state agency the “general terms” of anyapproval that would be imposed on the development, unless Council proposes to refuse theapplication. Each of the mentioned agencies have been requested to provide the commentsand general terms of any approval that they might give to the application.

National Parks and Wildlife Service has indicated that sub-surface investigation of the siteproposed to be destroyed (within proposed Lot 32) is required before it would give Councilthe general terms of its approval to destroy the site. The other two sites are to be retained inareas proposed to be dedicated as Public Reserve.

The Environment Protection Authority has indicated the general terms of its approval for thepollution control devices that would be required for the subdivision. These general termsmust be included in any conditions of consent should Council resolve to approve the proposedsubdivision. The EPA has made no comment about whether the subdivision would or wouldnot have a significant environmental impact.

The Department of Land and Water Conservation has advised that further information isrequired before it would give its general terms of approval. Specifically, DLWC state that“due to the generally sensitive and difficult nature of the site it is recommended that Councilrequire the production of a detailed and comprehensive Soil and Water Management Plan tothe satisfaction of Council and the DLWC …… prior to granting DA approval”.

DLWC has indicated that the topography, soil types and character of the site are such thatthey seriously question whether the development can be effectively undertaken withoutsignificant adverse impact, both during and after construction of the development (andsubsequent dwellings).


DLWC has also noted that part of the site is mapped as “state protected land” under theNative Vegetation Conservation Act 1997. DLWC has verbally advised that the affected partis located within the Environmental Constraint Area. (DLWC has not provided a map or planclearly delineating the area affected, however in the circumstances it is not considerednecessary.) The “state protected land” mapping means that any clearing on that land will alsorequire a further approval from DLWC, before the subdivision can proceed. It does, however,recognise the steep nature of the site.

The applicant has been forwarded a copy of these agencies’ comments.

2. Environmental Planning Instruments and Draft Environmental PlanningInstruments

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No.20 Hawkesbury-Nepean (No. 2 – 1997)

SREP20 sets out a series of planning policies that must be considered in the determination ofany development application. Specific Planning Policy 2 – Environmentally Sensitive Areasindicates at (h) that “New development in conservation area sub-catchments should belocated in areas that are already cleared.”

The site is located within the Glenbrook Creek Conservation Area Sub-catchment and isreasonably well vegetated. The subdivision and subsequent dwelling construction proposalwould be likely to result in the substantial clearing of the majority of the site that is not“protected” by the ECA hatching. This amount of clearing is considered to be inconsistentwith this specific planning policy of SREP20.

Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 1991

LEP 1991 includes a number of provisions which apply to this subdivision proposal.

a. Environmental Matters

Sub-clause 10.5 provides that Council must not consent to the application unless thedevelopment incorporates effective measures, satisfactory to the Council, to ensure no adverseenvironmental impact occurs in respect to a range of matters, including watercourses, thehydrological aspects of the locality and rock outcrops.

The site includes numerous rock outcrops, which are considered to be likely to besignificantly adversely affected by construction of roads and subsequent dwellings, if thesubdivision proceeds.

The proposal includes the development, in part, of some land hatched as EnvironmentalConstraint Area. Sub-clause 11.3 requires that Council must be satisfied, by means of adetailed environmental assessment, that the development will not compromise the objectivesof the Protected Area.


Although the application includes a discussion of the potential impacts on the ECA land, theapplication is considered to be inconsistent with the objectives of the ECA. The applicant hasnot demonstrated that there will no adverse impact on the watercourses in the locality,although the proposal includes temporary sediment control basins and litter traps. Havingregard to the advice from DLWC, it is considered that the application will have an adverseenvironmental impact.

b. Lot Yield

Clause 34.1 of the LEP provides the maximum lot yield calculations. A maximum of 70 lots(based on the useable land area x density 8/ha) are potentially permitted in the area of Lots400 and 401 zoned Residential Bushland Conservation. As indicated previously, part of Lot401 is zoned Residential 2(a1) under LEP 4, however, the proposal indicates that this area isto be part of the access road to the Great Western Highway. The proposal includes 72residential allotments and 7 areas of public reserve (which could be considered as 1allotment). No objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 was received aspart of the application for the 2 additional lots (above the 70 maximum). Accordingly, thesubdivision is prohibited under the provisions of sub-clause 34.4(a) of LEP 1991.

c. Summary

As a consequence of these non-compliances, the proposed subdivision is considered to beinconsistent with the aims and objectives of LEP 1991 and the Residential BushlandConservation zone objectives.

Draft Amendment 25 to LEP 1991

Council, following exhibition, has adopted Draft Amendment 25 to LEP 1991. Amendment25 proposes to amend Clause 34.4 of LEP 1991 by excluding land steeper than 1 in 5 (20%)from the maximum lot yield calculation. Based on the slope plan submitted by the applicant(which is incorrectly labelled), the maximum lot yield for the site would be 39 lots. Thesubdivision proposal as such does not comply with this provision of Draft Amendment 25.

Draft Amendment 25 will also require that each lot (other than for a public purpose or in anintegrated housing development) includes at least 720 m2 of land which is not ‘developmentexcluded land’. Development excluded land is defined in Draft Amendment 25 (as adoptedby Council) as:

‘development excluded land’ means any part of a lot, as determined by Council:a) which is land zoned Environmental Protection; orb) which is designated on the Map as Environmental Constraint Area, together

with any buffers required to protect any such Areas; orc) on which any Schedule 3 Vegetation Unit is located, together with any buffers

required to protect that unit; ord) which is the habitat of any endangered or vulnerable species of flora or fauna,

as nominated in the Threatened Species Act; ore) on which any rare species of flora is found; or


f) which comprises a stream or any buffers required to protect that stream; orhas a slope in excess of 20% ; or

g) on which there is any significant landscape or special feature which in theopinion of Council is worthy of preservation.

Of the 72 lots proposed in the subdivision, the following table indicates the number that donot comply with this requirement.

Reason No. of lotsLess than 720 m2 of site area in total, restrictedby ECA and slope > 20%

40 lots

Restricted by ECA hatching and Slope > 20% 4 lotsRestricted by Slope > 20% 21 lotsTotal not complying 65 lots

Hence, only seven (7) lots would comply with the Development Excluded Land provision ofAmendment 25, although there is scope, with some substantial re-configuration of the layout,to increase this to approximately 30. This number, however, may be reduced depending onthe exact location of significant landscape features (such as rock outcrops) which are worthyof preservation.

The proposed subdivision does not comply with the provisions of Draft Amendment 25 and isconsidered to be inconsistent with the aims and objectives of LEP 1991 (as would be amendedby Draft Amendment 25).

3. Development Control Plans (DCP)

DCP 10 (Blue Mountains Character Guidelines)

DCP 10 generally discusses the character of the Blue Mountains and reflects the contrasts ofthe older villages with an appropriate recognition of the environmental fragility of the area.The road layout proposed and the character and relationship of the proposed allotments to theslope of the land and the likely environmental impacts from the development are consideredto be inconsistent with principles of DCP 10.

Development Control Plan 27 (Subdivision)

DCP 27 includes a number of controls relating to Flora and Fauna, Watercourse Protection,Allotment Design and Bushfire Management. It is considered that the application fails tosatisfactorily comply with the provisions of the DCP in these areas.

(a) Flora and Fauna

The proposal (and expected future dwelling construction) will result in extensiveclearing of the site, which is considered to be undesirable in this steep site.


(b) Watercourse Protection

The proposal is considered likely to have a significant adverse affect on thewatercourses through and downstream of the site. Despite the potential for somecontrolling of the discharges from the existing upstream development, the potential fora substantial increase in the number of dwellings in this catchment upstream from theNational Park on this particularly difficult site is considered to be inappropriate. Theadvice from DLWC indicates their substantial reservations about the ability tosatisfactorily control the impacts on the downstream watercourses.

(c) Allotment Design Principles

The proposal is not consistent with the allotment design principles of DCP 27, in thateach proposed allotment does not include sufficient, suitable land capable ofaccommodating dwellings. Generally, the principles outlined in Draft Amendment 25regarding “development excluded land” are reflected in this section of the DCP.

The layout and size of the allotments are considered inconsistent with the subdivisionpattern and character of the area.

(d) Bushfire Management

Council’s DFCO has assessed the application and notes that the bushfire threat of thesite is “high”. He agrees that the applicant has made a reasonable effort to design thesubdivision, but he notes the likely impacts of providing the bushfire managementmeasures for the proposal. Of particular concern are the road widths and the provisionof fire protection zones within the Environmental Constraint Area. These areas aresteep and any substantial loss of vegetation (required for the fire protection zones) isconsidered likely to significantly increase the risk of erosion problems. This isconsidered to be unacceptable.

Overall, the proposal is considered to be inconsistent with and does not comply with DCP 27.

4. Traffic and Access

One of the major issues raised by the residents is the capacity of the streets within Warrimooto cope with the additional traffic. The streets of particular concern include The Mall andFlorabella Street. These two streets, although being narrow, are appropriate for the existingvolumes of traffic in the area. It is expected that the volume of traffic along these streetswould increase significantly if the subdivision was approved, and would potentially increasethe pedestrian / vehicle conflicts in the approaches to Warrimoo Public School.

Any potential for upgrading of these streets to cope with the additional traffic volumes, wouldbe likely to significantly affect the character of this part of Warrimoo. This would beinconsistent with DCP 10 Blue Mountains Character Guidelines.

The proposed access to the service road adjacent to the Great Western Highway would beimmediately east of the Warrimoo Shops. The road reserve into the site is proposed to beonly 12.2 metres, which is not considered to be acceptable.


Conclusion

The development application for the proposed subdivision of Lots 400 and 401 DP 591224 isinconsistent with SREP 20, LEP 1991, Draft Amendment 25, DCP 10 and DCP 27. Theproposed subdivision is considered likely to have significant adverse impact on theenvironment of the area and is considered to be a significant over-development of the site.

It is recommended that Council refuse the application.


Attachment 1


Attachment 2


Attachment 3


ITEM NO: 13

SUBJECT: SECTION 96 AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONSENTNO. X98/1176 – PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF BODINGTONHOSPITAL AGED CARE FACILITY ON LOT 2, DP 793331, NOS. 6-26BODINGTON DRIVE, WENTWORTH FALLS

FILE NO: X98/1176

Recommendations:

1. That Council proceed with the closure of that part of Bodington Drive traversing Lot 2DP 793331 and Lot 51 DP 751646 which is public road, as shown on the planforming Attachment 3 to this report.

2. That the General Manager be authorised to negotiate the amount of compensationwhich the applicant should pay for that part of Bodington Drive which is public road.

3. That the application submitted pursuant to Section 96(2) of the EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Act 1979 seeking to modify Development ConsentNo. X98/1176 for the Redevelopment of Bodington Hospital Aged Care Facility onLot 2 DP 793331, Nos. 6-26 Bodington Drive, Wentworth Falls be approved subjectto:

i) Condition No. 2 being amended to read:

2) To confirm and clarify the terms of Council’s approval, thedevelopment shall be carried out in accordance with the approvedstamped plans prepared by Allen Jack & Cottier, Job No. 95150numbered DA.101 (issue B), DA.102 (issue D), DA.105 (issue D),DA.106 (issue I), DA.107 (issue J), DA.109 (issue D), DA.111 (issueD), DA.12 (issue A), and the unnumbered, plan titled ‘Right of Way’Proposal dated 08-02-99 and accompanying supportive documentationexcept as otherwise provided or modified by the conditions of thisconsent.

The Conservation Plan prepared by Tropman & Tropman Architectsshall be submitted to the Heritage Council’s ConservationManagement Plan Committee for comment and eventual endorsement.”

ii) The following additional Conditions being included in the Consent:

22) “Documentary evidence from the Land Titles Office shall be providedprior to the issue of a Construction Certificate demonstrating that boththe part Crown and part Public road sections of the road reserve ofBodington Drive adjoining Lot 2 DP 793331 and Lot 51 DP 751646have been closed and ownership transferred to the Catholic HealthCare Services Ltd.


This section of land is to be consolidated with the land the subject ofdevelopment into a single parcel and evidence of consolidation fromthe Land Titles Office obtained prior to the issue of a ConstructionCertificate.”

23) “A Right of Carriageway, suitable for future vehicular traffic and infavour of Lot 49 DP 751646, is to be provided from the proposedeastern end of Bodington Drive to the western boundary of Lot 49DP 751646 generally as shown on the plan titled ‘Right-of-Way’Proposal dated 08-02-99 and submitted with the application.

Evidence of creation of the Right of Carriageway from the Land TitlesOffice shall be obtained prior to the issue of a ConstructionCertificate.”


Reason for report Development Consent No. X98/1176 was originally granted byCouncil at its meeting on 8 December 1998 and accordingly thisapplication seeking to modify that Consent is reported to Councilfor determination.

Applicant Catholic Health Care Services LtdLevel 2, 16-18 Bridge Street, Epping

Owner Trustees of Catholic Health Care Services Ltd

Application lodged 12 April 1999

Property address Lot 2 DP 793331 and Lot 51 DP 751646, Nos. 6-26 BodingtonDrive, Wentworth Falls


Background Council at its meeting on 8 December 1998 resolved to grantConsent to Development Application X98/1176 for theredevelopment of the existing Bodington Hospital Aged CareFacility, 6-26 Bodington Drive, Wentworth Falls. Thedevelopment involves the demolition of two existing buildingsidentified as wards JK and LM and construction of a two storey80 bed nursing home .

An existing road reserve owned by Council and the Departmentof Land and Water Conservation (DLWC) presently bisects thesite and provides the legal means of access to both the Hospitaland an adjoining property to the east. The proposed building, asshown in the approved Development Application is located clearof the road reserve (Attachment 1).

In the original application, however, the applicant indicated thatthe concurrence of the DLWC was being sought for the closureof the road reserve and subsequent purchase of the land. Theapplicant further indicated that if the road closure proceded, anapplication would then be lodged with Council seeking amodification in the footprint of the approved building, bypartially relocating it within the closed road reserve.

That application has now been submitted to Council seeking tomodify the building footprint and undertake a small extension tothe building.

Proposal The proposed modification includes:

Ø The relocation of the nursing home generally 3 metres to thesouth

Ø Construction of an additional two storey wing to the southernside of the nursing home building comprising:-

• a new laundry, storeroom and cleaners room on the lowerfloor level; and

• new kitchen, storeroom and cleaners room on the upperfloor level.

An extract of the plans showing the proposed amendments to thebuilding design form Attachment 2 to this report.

Development controls Zoning – Part Bushland Conservation (No Subdivision)(Hospital) and part Environmental Protection – LocalEnvironmental Plan 1991


Notification The original application was the subject of public exhibition andneighbour notification resulting in one submission beingreceived. In the submission concerns were raised over theclosure of the road reserve and the associated lack of access tothe adjoining property to the east. The submitters also advisedthat they had raised the matter with the management of thehospital.

There is a requirement under Section 72A of the Act that amodification must be publicly notified where the DevelopmentApplication was statutorily required to be exhibited.

The Development Application (and land use) was required to bepublicly exhibited under the provisions of Clause 31 of LEP1991. Consequently the proposed modifications were publiclyexhibited in accordance with the Act.

No submissions have been received.

Issues Assessment issues –

+ Vehicular access;

+ The likely impacts of that development on the scenic quality,environment and amenity of the adjoining area.


Council granted Development Consent X98/1176 on 8 December 1998 for the demolition oftwo buildings and construction of a two storey and part three storey 80 bed aged care facility.The application is seeking Council’s approval to modify the footprint of the approvedbuilding with such modifications to include an attached two-storey addition on its southernside. The addition will have a total floor space of approximately 390 m2 and footprint ofapproximately 200 m2.

The development has been the subject of previous assessment and the proposed amendmentsbefore Council do not introduce any new issues or matters for evaluation from a land useperspective. There is a need however to review the proposed relocation/additions to thebuilding and the provision of vehicular access to the adjoining land to the east arising out ofthe proposed road closure and any impacts on the scenic quality of the area due to theproposed relocation/additions to the building.

1. Proposed Relocation/Additions to the Nursing Home Building

The applicant has cited the following reasons as justification for the proposed relocation ofthe Nursing Home Building:-

• It will make more efficient use of the site which has limited area of flat land available fordevelopment;


• It will lessen the impact on some of the buildings on the northern side of the proposednursing home which have heritage significance;

• It will lessen impact on some of the landscape elements and provide larger lawn andgarden areas on the north facing side of the proposed nursing home.

The application also proposes the construction of an additional two-storey wing to thesouthern side of the approved nursing home building. This wing will have a total floor spaceof approximately 390 m2. This wing will provide additional laundry, kitchen, and cleaner’sroom and storeroom facilities and is aimed at providing improved services to the residents.

The applicant has cited the following reasons as justification for this modification:-

• It will provide centrally located kitchen and laundry facilities which can service thewhole development;

• It is located away from the main activity/house areas so as to minimise disturbance to theresidents;

• It will provide modern kitchen and laundry facilities resulting in improved quality of carefor the residents;

• It will reduce the need for out-sourcing of laundry services resulting in better qualitycontrol;

• It will provide better access for the delivery vans using the unloading/loading bay.

It is also submitted that the proposal will assist in reducing the impact of the development onexisting landscape features of the site and will increase its setback from an existing buildinghaving heritage significance located to the north of the proposed nursing home building.

The design, height, colour and finishes proposed for the new wing will match those approvedfor use in the main nursing home building. Whilst the proposed additional wing will result ina minor increase in the approved building footprint, the foot print for the whole building willstill be less than the site coverage of the existing buildings to be demolished.

The additional wing is located within the existing developed area of the site althoughapproximately four (4) trees will need to be removed to enable vehicular access to the existingparking area. The remaining vegetation together with the sheer distance to the site from thenearest vantage points however, will mean the proposed additions are unlikely to have anysignificant adverse impacts on privacy and visual amenity of the area.

2. Proposed Road Closure

The Bodington Hospital complex encompasses four (4) separate parcels of land. The existingdevelopment is primarily located on those sections of Lot 2 DP 793331 and Lot 51 DP751646 to the east of Tableland Road. Access to the hospital is via Bodington Drive whichbisects both lots.


The Bodington Drive road reserve comprises part Crown road reserve and part Council roadreserve. It also provides legal access to the adjoining Lot 49 DP 751646 which is privatelyowned.

The applicant proposes to close the road reserve where it traverses both Lot 2 DP 793331 andLot 51 DP 751646 and relocate the building partly onto the road reserve. This will, in effect,remove the legal means of access to Lot 49 DP 751646.

Plans showing the sections and ownership of that part of the road reserve proposed to beclosed form Attachment 3.

The applicant proposes to create a Right of Carriageway (ROW) over the subject lots infavour of Lot 49 DP 751646. The ROW generally follows the present line of BodingtonDrive through Lot 51 until its intersection with Lot 2, at which point it follows the existingservice road and fire trail, through to the western boundary of Lot 49. A plan showing theindicative position of the ROW forms Attachment 4 to this report. Having regard to theproposed ROW, the proposed road closure is unlikely to affect the existing accessarrangements to the site.

The applicant, in supporting documentation, has indicated that the Department of Land andWater Conservation (DLWC) has agreed to the proposed road closure of that part ofBodington Drive that is Crown road. A copy of the Department’s letter consenting to thelodgement of the application has been submitted to Council. It is also noted that CouncilOfficers on 11 November 1998 forwarded correspondence to DLWC advising that it had noobjections in principle to the closure of Bodington Drive subject to an alternative means ofaccess being provided to Lot 49.

No objections are therefore raised from a development viewpoint to the proposed road closurenor to the modification to the location of the nursing home. Confirmation should be providedfrom the Land Titles Office, prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate that the roadreserve has been closed and ownership transferred to the Catholic Health Care Services Ltd.Furthermore, in order to safeguard the interest of the adjoining property owners (Lot 49), anadditional condition of consent should also be included requiring the creation and registrationof the right of way prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.,

Comment from Group Manager, Operations on proposed Road Closure

There is no objection to the closure of that part of Bodington Drive which is public road, aslegal access is proposed to be maintained in favour of Lot 49 DP 751646 to the east of thedevelopment site.

Compensation for the sale of the closed public road is yet to be agreed between Council andthe applicant. It is suggested that the General Manager be delegated the authority to negotiatea satisfactory outcome on this aspect of the matter.


Conclusion

The proposed design changes satisfy the provisions of Section 96(2)(a) of the EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the development to which the consent as modifiedwould relate is ‘substantially the same development’.

No objections are raised to the proposed modification to the building location andconstruction of an additional wing subject to additional conditions being imposed on theConsent requiring confirmation of the road closure and the creation of a ‘right of way’ overthe subject land in favour of the adjoining property to the east.


Attachment 1


Attachment 2


Attachment 3


Attachment 4


ITEM NO: 14

SUBJECT: REDEVELOPMENT OF BODINGTON HOSPITAL AGED CAREFACILITY (STAGE 3) ON LOT 2, DP 793331 AND LOT 51, DP 751646,NOS. 6-26 BODINGTON DRIVE, WENTWORTH FALLS

FILE NO: X99/0492

Recommendations:

1. That Council proceed with the closure of that part of Bodington Drive traversing Lot 2DP 793331 and Lot 51, DP 751646 which is public road, as shown on the planforming Attachment 3 to this report.

2. That Development Application No. X99/0492 for Redevelopment of BodingtonHospital Aged Care Facility (Stage 3) on Lot 2 DP 793331 and Lot 51 DP 751646,Nos. 6-26 Bodington Drive, Wentworth Falls, be determined pursuant to S.80 of theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 by the granting of consent subjectto the conditions in Attachment 1 to this report.


Reason for report Application has a value in excess of $1,000,000

Applicant Catholic Health Care Services LtdLevel 2, 16-18 Bridge Street, Epping

Owner Trustees of Catholic Health Care Services Ltd

Application lodged 16 April 1999

Property address Lot 2 DP 793331 and Lot 51 DP 751646, Nos. 6-26 BodingtonDrive, Wentworth Falls


Development controls Zoning – Bushland Conservation (No Subdivision) (Hospital) Environmental Protection – Local Environmental Plan

1991

Introduction Council is in receipt of an application for Stage 3 of theredevelopment of Bodington Hospital Aged Care Facility seekingconsent to construct a convalescence hospice (hostel) for theaged, administration building and associated car parking andlandscaping works.

Stage 1 of the overall site redevelopment comprised an extensionof the existing internal road network to the new ambulance bayand construction of a temporary walkway. Development Consentfor this stage was granted on 25 September 1998 and the worksare presently in progress.

Stage 2 which involved the demolition of two existing buildingsidentified as wards JK and LM and construction of a new twostorey 80-bed nursing home was approved by Council at itsmeeting on 8 December 1998.

An application pursuant to Section 96(2) of the EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Act 1979 has also been submitted toCouncil seeking to amend the Stage 2 Consent in order to modifythe building footprint together with the construction of anattached two storey addition to the southern side of the nursinghome. These amendments also propose the closure of BodingtonDrive and provision of an alternate ‘Right of Carriageway’ toservice both the hospital and private land to the east. A reportrecommending approval of the proposed modification is listedseparately in the Business Paper.


Site description Bodington Hospital Aged Care Facility is located approximately2.6 kilometres from Wentworth Falls village. The facilityoccupies a prominent location atop a knoll with extensive scenicviews in most directions including Kings Tableland to the southand Jamison Valley to the south-west. Vehicular access isobtained via Tableland Road and Bodington Drive.

The land encompassing the Bodington Hospital complexcomprises four (4) lots in total having an area of approximately44 hectares. Approximately 10.6 hectares, representing roughly25% of the total land area, has been cleared. The existingbuildings are contained within the cleared land to the east ofTableland Road.

The site is zoned part Bushland Conservation (No Subdivision)(Hospital), part Environmental Protection and part ResidentialBushland Conservation under LEP 1991. The northern portion ofthe site is designated as a Protected Area – Land Between Towns.The designated area is located approximately 200 metres north ofthe existing and proposed development. The portion of the sitewest of Tableland Road is listed as a Protected Area –Escarpment Area. A small portion of the subject site towards thewestern boundary is also designated as a Protected Area –Environmental Constraint Area and is approximately 60 metresfrom the proposed hostel.

The existing facility comprises a six ward nursing home andancillary facilities including staff quarters, administration offices,recreation, laundry, kitchen, dining and education uses. Theexisting gross floor area of buildings on the site is 7703m2. Theexisting sealed car park areas accommodate 75 vehicles.

The site is connected to reticulated water and sewage. Sewage ispumped via a rising main to a Sydney Water sewer situated northof the Great Western Highway. The site is also connected toelectricity and natural gas.

The site is identified as an item of State Heritage Significance inLocal Environmental Plan 1991 (WF17 and WF47).


History/Background Bodington Hospital was constructed in 1908 as a 12-bed facilityfor the treatment of tuberculosis patients. The original buildingwas designed in a linear form with side verandahs to takeadvantage of the fresh air and the scenery. Despite considerableadditions and alterations to the building over time thedevelopment has managed to retain a linear form.

The hospital was converted to an elderly care facility in 1959.The nursing home was originally licensed for 150 beds but thelicence was reduced to 100 beds in 1997 due to a downgradingfrom hospital to an aged care facility.

Since 1997 no patients have been admitted to the nursing homeand there are presently 80 patients being cared for.

Accommodation is currently provided in multiple bed wards withcommunal style bathrooms and toilets. The accommodation andfacilities are dated and considered to be deficient in relation topatient privacy and the level of amenity afforded.

The existing buildings do not comply with currentCommonwealth Government standards for the Certification ofNursing Homes which places in doubt the continuance ofCommonwealth funding over the long term. Refurbishment ofthe existing buildings to the required standards is not consideredfeasible.

Stage 2 of the redevelopment previously approved by Councilinvolving the demolition of a number of the wards andconstruction of a new 80 bed nursing home has been commencedwith the existing structures demolished.


Proposal The application proposes the next stage in the redevelopment ofthe existing facilities on the site. The proposal incorporates thefollowing elements:

• Demolition of the storage, laundry and workshopbuildings.

• Construction of a single storey 40 bed hostel within2 separate buildings. These buildings will be divided into3 ‘houses’ - two of 14 beds and one of 12 beds.

• Construction of a two storey administration building.

• Removal of a limited number of existing trees.

• Carrying out of new road works, parking areas andlandscaping works.

The development is located partly on a section of BodingtonDrive which is part Crown and part Public road. It is proposed toclose this portion of Bodington Drive (which is detailedseparately in the S.96 Report on the Stage 2 amendment).

Copies of extract plans showing the development are included atAttachment 2.

Notification The application was advertised for a period of 14 days from27 April 1999 in the Blue Mountains Gazette as well as writtennotification to adjoining and nearby properties.

No submissions were received.

Issues Assessment issues –+ Provisions of Environmental Planning Instruments+ The likely impact of that Development+ The suitability of the site for the Development



1. Provisions of any Environmental Planning Instruments

(i) Local Environmental Plan 1991

Permissibility

The overall Bodington Hospital site incorporates four (4) lots and is zoned part BushlandConservation (No Subdivision) (Hospital), part Environmental Protection and part ResidentialBushland Conservation under LEP 1991. Parts of the site are also designated as ProtectedAreas – Escarpment Area, Land Between Towns and Environmental Constraint Area.

The proposed development is located entirely within the Bushland Conservation zone onLot 2 DP 793331 with the exception of four (4) car spaces in the staff car park to the southwest of the new buildings which encroach by up to eight (8) metres approximately onto landzoned Environmental Protection on the adjoining, Lot 51 DP 751646.

The hostel is considered to be a hospital as defined under LEP 1991. Hospitals are generallyprohibited in the Bushland Conservation zone, however the Zone Map to LEP 1991 describesthat part of the site as Bushland Conservation (Hospital). Under Clause 33 of the LEP, aspecified use shown on the Map, in this case a ‘hospital’, is permissible with CouncilConsent.

A hospital is also a prohibited use in the Environmental Protection zone. Clause 20 of LEP1991 however, enables Council to consent to an extension of a development by up to 20metres onto land on which that development would, in the absence of this clause, be otherwiseprohibited, provided that the development is permissible on the land from which it is extendedand Council is satisfied that the zone objectives would not be compromised.

The proposed new car park, including those four (4) spaces in the Environmental Protectionzone, will be located on land that has been previously cleared of significant vegetation and ispresently being used as a vehicle manoeuvring and parking area. Accordingly it is consideredthat the minor encroachment of the car park into the EP zone will not compromise theobjectives of the zone.

There is also a strong argument that as the portion of Lot 51 DP 751646 zoned EnvironmentalProtection on which the car park is proposed to be located is already used as part of thedevelopment, existing use rights may well apply to that portion of land.

Development Standards

The proposed development complies with the majority of the general development standardsset out in the LEP.

The applicant however, has lodged an objection under the provisions of State EnvironmentalPlanning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) to those development standards in LEP 1991 relating tobuilding height and the principal development area.


Height of Building

Under the provisions of Clause 10.6 of LEP 1991 Council shall not consent to developmentfor the purpose of a building that:

• Exceeds two storeys.

• Exceeds 8 metres in height above natural ground level at any point measured to thehighest point of the roof.

• Exceeds a maximum height of 6.5 metres measured from the eaves, gutter line or anyequivalent building element to a point on the natural ground level immediately below.

The proposed development complies with both the 2 storey and 8 metre maximum heightlimits. However the height of the eaves above finished ground level on the northern elevationof the administration building will be approximately 7.2 metres, exceeding the 6.5 metre limitby 700mm.

In the SEPP 1 submission, the applicant cites the following reasons why the height provisionsof LEP 1991 are unnecessary and unreasonable in this case:

• The building requires increased floor to ceiling height to allow at grade access andavoid the use of steps which would hinder disabled access.

• The roof style is more in keeping with the variety of roof forms on the site. Theadministration building presented the opportunity to create a skillion roof form whichwould enhance architectural character of the development.

• The skillion roof style will provide better solar access and ventilation into the buildingand avoid an ‘enclosed feeling’.

• The departure from the standard is only at the northern elevation.

• There will be limited visibility of the administration building on the site from publicplaces.

• The proposed building will not result in adverse overshadowing, privacy, view orvisual impacts to adjoining properties.

There is limited visibility of existing buildings on the site from public places withapproximately 400 metres to the nearest vantage point. Viewing locations include GenevieveRoad in Bullaburra to the east and the Great Western Highway to the north east.

The proposed development will be significantly screened from the Great Western Highway byexisting vegetation and the nursing home recently approved as part of the Stage 2development. The application proposes to excavate the site of the proposed administrationbuilding to about 400mm which will further assist in reducing the height of the building whenviewed from public spaces.


The use of appropriate building materials, finishes and colours will also aid in amelioratingthe visual impact of the development.

The SEPP 1 objection is considered to have merit. The building height variations arerestricted to the northern elevation of the administration building and reflect a design trade-offbetween topographical constraints, heritage considerations and the objective to provide amodern and functional aged care facility.

Principal Development Area (PDA)

Pursuant to Clause 30 of LEP 1991 a PDA shall have a maximum area of 2500m2, haveboundary set backs of at least 15 metres and not be located in an Environmental Protectionzone. The proposal does not comply with the development standards with the PDA as itincorporates:

• an area of 106,056m2 (excluding the road reserve);• nil setbacks to some road and property boundaries (by virtue of the extent of the

existing cleared areas); and• a portion of land zoned Environmental Protection (the four 4 western most spaces in

the proposed new staff car park located on Lot 51 DP 751646 to the south west of theproposed buildings).

Clause 30 is considered to be a development standard to which SEPP No. 1 applies. Theapplicant’s SEPP 1 submission cites the following reasons why the development standard isunnecessary and unreasonable in this case:

• The size of the PDA is needed to accommodate all buildings and garden areas. ThePDA is the existing cleared/developed area and no additional clearing is proposed.Reduction of the PDA could necessitate demolition of some of the other heritagebuildings or garden areas.

• It will provide facilities in the existing cleared and developed area and this is essentialto ensure the continued use of the site as an aged care facility.

• Draft Amendment 25 to LEP 1991 proposes to increase the maximum allowable PDAfrom 2500m2 to 5000m2 which is less onerous.

The objective of a PDA is to minimise disturbance and environmental degradation onbushland sites by controlling the extent of development.

The development site has been cleared previously and the proposed works are to be sited inexisting cleared and developed areas. The proposed hostel buildings are sited within thegeneral vicinity of the existing workshop, laundry and storage buildings

There is a strong argument that given the proposed buildings essentially replace the existingstructures and the new works are located within the existing developed area of the site, thePrincipal Development Area is not being altered and a SEPP 1 objection is not necessary.


Notwithstanding, the SEPP 1 objection is justified and the proposed development isconsidered consistent with the objective of the development standard.

(ii) Sydney Regional Environmental Plan – Hawkesbury/Nepean (SREP 20)

The Bodington Hospital site is located within the Glenbrook and Erskine Creek sub-catchments as identified in Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 20 (SREP 20).

SREP 20 requires that consideration be given to the impact of the development on theHawkesbury-Nepean river system and that the impacts of future land uses are considered in aregional context. The relevant potential impacts of this development include those associatedwith run-off and the clearing of trees.

The proposed development is unlikely to have any adverse impacts on the sub-catchments asthe proposed works are located in an already cleared area on the footprint of the existingbuildings and only minor additional clearing of individual trees is involved. The proposedconditions of consent include a requirement for the installation of erosion and sedimentationcontrols throughout the duration of site and building works to prevent siltation of downstreamareas.

(iii) State Environmental Planning Policy No. 58-Protecting Sydney’s Water Supply(SEPP 58)

SEPP 58 aims to ensure that development in the catchment areas from where Sydney’sdrinking water is drawn does not have an adverse impact on the water quality.

The subject development is located on that portion of the site to the east of Tablelands Road.While that section of Lot 51 DP 751646 located on the western side of Tableland Road iswithin the Warragamba Catchment, the remainder of the site, including the proposeddevelopment, is outside the catchment.

Accordingly SEPP 58 does not apply.

2. Likely Impact of that Development

(i) Heritage Significance

The Bodington Hospital site is identified as a Heritage Item (WF 17 and WF 47) under theprovisions of LEP 1991.

The Development Application was accompanied by a Heritage Impact Assessment and apreliminary Conservation Plan prepared by Tropman and Tropman Architects.

Council’s Heritage Advisor has advised that the application presents a workable compromisebetween providing necessary new accommodation and retaining significant elements of theoriginal hospital. The Assessment is considered to provide a useful and well laid out accountof the major heritage impact issues arising from the proposed development and in this contextthere are both negative and positive outcomes for the significant values of the site.


However, while Council’s Heritage Advisor considered the general design and siting to besatisfactory, the following recommendations have been made to lessen the impact that mayresult due to the demolition of significant fabric and landscape features:

a) The relocation to an appropriate location rather than demolition of the former E-shaped ‘Men’s Quarters” building should be investigated in consultation between theproject architects, heritage consultants and Council’s Heritage Advisor.

b) The identified industrial items of significance including the rare laundry equipmentand coal-fired boilers should be appropriately conserved and interpreted.

c) All items to be demolished or relocated including buildings, significant fittings andlandscape settings should be appropriately recorded prior to works commencing inaccordance with the Heritage Office guidelines. Particular attention in the recordingdocument should be given to features and fittings identified as having specialsignificance in the Conservation Plan and the Heritage Assessment Report. An on-sitemeeting should be arranged between applicant’s conservation specialists andCouncil’s Heritage Advisor prior to recording commencing.

d) Documentation of proposed conservation and interpretation works to all retained itemsshould be prepared to show the nature and extent of proposed preservation,restoration, reconstruction and adaptation works

e) The site survey by John Lock and Associates recording significant soft and hardlandscaping, trees, gardens, walls and paths should be submitted to Council as part ofrecording documentation.

f) All trees and plantings to be removed or damaged as a result of the development,including two significant trees on the south edge of the new nursing home, should bereplaced by new mature plantings of same species located as close to the original aspossible.

As the proposal involves demolition of structures of heritage listed buildings, the applicationwas referred to Heritage Council of NSW for comments. The Heritage Office have advised asfollows:

• It appears the applicant has not chosen the alternative option of re-using and enhancingthe original buildings and adding appropriate new facilities within the existing pattern asneeded. Many of these decisions appear to have made at stage one and two of theproposal and demolition of many significant items on the site has already occurred.

• Of some merit to the scheme is limited retention of fabric from all significant periods inthe development of the site. However the success of this approach depends on the degreeof conservation to these items and the adequacy of interpretation provided

• A thorough interpretative plan needs to be prepared and methods development toimplement the findings and recommendations of that plan. It is suggested theinterpretative plan should be referred to the Heritage Office and Council’s HeritageAdvisor for comment and possible endorsement.


• A key point in the Conservation Plan is that the site provides a relatively rare setting andlayout which is of value in demonstrating the former practice of the open air treatment ofTB. The north facing linear planning along the site contours clearly demonstrates thissignificance. The current proposal somewhat alters this linear relationship andconsequently, its significance. The proposal to partially remove Bodington Drive andconstruct an administration block built over it will reduce the lineal qualities. Thesechanges will reduce the cultural significance of the site, however adequate recording andinterpretation will assist in documentation and explaining that significance.

• The proposed new accommodation buildings are acceptable being sympathetic in theirappearance, scale and materials. However the orientation of House No. 7 opposes thelineal site planning.

• The proposed accommodation buildings are essentially inward planned and look out tocourtyards formed by adjacent buildings, connected by covered walkways. This layoutconflicts with the lineal design and significance of the former complex.

• It is commendable that the coal fired boilers will be retained, however it is recommendedthat maintenance plans and suitable interpretation should be provided. Further adviceshould be sought from industrial conservators.

• It is noted that the site is not of substantial or significant archaeological potential and thatit should not be necessary to make an application to Heritage Office for an excavationpermit. However if any relics are uncovered in the course of the works, work should ceaseand Heritage Office should be contacted to determine if an excavation permit is required.

• Prior to demolition of significant items on the site, recording should be undertaken to thestandards set out in the Heritage Council Guidelines.

While the proposal will result in demolition of much of the original fabric, the use of the siteas a medical facility is retained. The siting, location and design of the proposed buildings andextensive demolition of the early fabric is basically governed by the restricted area availablefor building construction. The proposed changes are considered necessary to achieve amodern and functional aged care facility.

It is acknowledged that the development will impact on the heritage significance of the site.Council’s Heritage Advisor and the project’s heritage consultant have both recommendedthat, if possible, the E-shaped former men’s quarters building should be relocated elsewhereon the site due to it’s high conservation value. Accordingly it is considered appropriate toimpose a condition on any consent requiring further investigations into this option.

The other comments made by Council’s Heritage Advisor and the Heritage Council of NSWhave been noted and appropriate conditions can be included in any consent ensuring that priorto demolition, adequate recording and interpretation of significant items is undertaken.

(ii) Vehicular Access and Car Parking

Access to the hospital is via Bodington Drive which bisects both lots. It also provides legalaccess to the adjoining Lot 49 DP 751646 which is privately owned.


The Bodington Drive road reserve comprises part Crown road reserve and part Council roadreserve.

The applicant proposes to close the road reserve where it traverses both Lot 2 DP 793331 andLot 51 DP 751646 and transfer ownership of the land from the Crown and Blue MountainsCity Council to the Catholic Health Care Services Ltd. This will, in effect, remove the legalmeans of access to Lot 49 DP751646. Plans showing the sections and ownership of that partof the road reserve proposed to be closed form Attachment 3.

To ensure a legal means of access is maintained to Lot 49 DP 751646, the applicant proposesto create a Right of Carriageway (ROW) over the subject lots in favour of Lot 49, extendingfrom the proposed eastern end of Bodington Drive to the western boundary of the adjoiningLot 49. The ROW generally follows the present line of Bodington Drive through Lot 51 untilits intersection with Lot 2, at which point it follows the existing service road and fire trail.

A plan showing the indicative position of the ROW forms Attachment 4 to this report.

Having regard to the proposed ROW, the proposed road closure is unlikely to affect theexisting access arrangements to the site.

The applicant, in supporting documentation, has indicated that the Department of Land andWater Conservation (DLWC) has agreed to the proposed road closure of that part ofBodington Drive that is Crown road. A copy of the Department’s letter consenting to thelodgement of the application has been submitted to Council. It is also noted that CouncilOfficers on 11 November 1998 forwarded correspondence to DLWC advising that it had noobjections in principle to the closure of Bodington Drive subject to an alternative means ofaccess being provided to Lot 49.

No objections are therefore raised from a development viewpoint to the proposed roadclosure. Confirmation should be provided from the Land Titles Office, prior to the issue of aConstruction Certificate that the road reserve has been closed and ownership transferred to theCatholic Health Care Services Ltd. Furthermore, in order to safeguard the interest of theadjoining property owners, a condition should be imposed on any consent requiring thecreation and registration of the right of way prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

The Bodington Hospital was until June 1997 operating with 150 beds and associated supportservices. Due to its downgrading from hospital to aged care status, the facility presentlyaccommodates 80 beds. The completed development, incorporating both Stage 2 andproposed Stage 3, will result in a 120 bed facility and as such involves an increase of 40 bedsover the existing potential occupancy rate. This is still 30 beds less than the 1997 operatingcapacity of 150 beds.

There are presently 75 formal car parking spaces available on site. Upon completion of Stage3, a total of 85 sealed car parking spaces will be available. In addition, the existing unsealedcar park accommodating approximately 34 spaces to the south side of Bodington Drive willbe retained for overflow parking.


Under the provisions of Council’s DCP No. 29 – Carparking, Hostel/Nursing homes arerequired to be provided with car parking at the rate of:

a) 1 space/10 beds, and

b) 1 space per 2 employees plus spaces for ambulances and visitors.

The development, upon completion of all three (3) stages, will accommodate 120 beds. Theapplicant in the Statement of Environmental Effects accompanying the application indicatesthat the maximum number of staff likely to be engaged on the site at one time is 60 (between12.00 noon and 2.00 pm weekdays).

On the basis of these figures, 42 spaces are required under the DCP for use by residents andstaff. This will result in 43 sealed spaces being available for visitors. This equates to1 space/3 beds. In addition, the unsealed car parking area to the south of Bodington Dive willprovide overflow parking for approximately 34 vehicles.

(iii) Drainage/Stormwater Management

There is a minor increase only in the extent of impervious areas as a result of thisdevelopment. The proposed development is essentially located in an existing developed areaof the site. The majority of the stormwater flows from the new buildings and impervious areaswill drain to the existing piped drainage system discharging to the dam to the north of thedevelopment site (Attachment 2). The remaining flows will drain to the existing watercourseto the south.

(iv) Availability of Utilities and Services

Sydney Water has advised that there are no objections to the proposed development subject toan application being made for a Section 73 Certificate.

Sydney Water has included the servicing of Bodington Hospital in the scheme design for thesouth Wentworth Falls backlog area under the Blue Mountains Sewerage Program. The sitepresently relies on a private sewage pumping station and this will be intercepted by a gravitysewer line once the reticulation for the residential area is constructed. The existing sewagepumping station has the capacity to accept the proposed flow.

In relation to water supply the site is served from the Wentworth Falls Reservoir Zone whichhas a designated low pressure area. Sydney Water consider that the extra water demand maycause some water pressures to drop but will determine this when an application is made forthe Section 73 Certificate.


3. The Suitability of the Site for the Development

(i) Bushfire Hazard

The bushfire hazard potential to the site is moderate to high. Fire protection zones areprovided to all sides of the existing and proposed buildings with an average depth of 40-50metres. A perimeter fire trail access is also in place to the south and east of the developmenthowever it falls short of linking with the upper access road on the northern side of thebuildings due to the swampy nature of the ground. However, heavy vehicle turning is stilleasily achieved. Council’s Deputy Fire Control Officer advises that consideration should begiven to the feasibility of linking the lower fire trail with the upper service road to provide analternative egress. Investigations indicate that this proposal has merit and is recommended tobe included as a condition of any Development Consent.

(ii) Site Contamination

The site is listed on Council’s Register of Potentially Contaminated Sites due to the presenceof a fuel storage facility. The application was accompanied by a Contamination AssessmentReport indicating that the contamination is due to an underground storage tank located in thearea to the southern side of Bodington Drive, adjacent to the laundry and maintenancebuildings.

The study indicates elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons in one of the soil samples.However, the study concludes that subject to removal of the storage tank, appropriate siteremediation and validation sampling, the site will be suitable for continued use as a nursinghome.

Accordingly conditions should be imposed on any Consent requiring implementation of therecommendations contained within the Report and evidence of site remediation beingsubmitted to Council prior to construction of building works commencing.

Conclusion

The Development Application for the demolition of the existing laundry, storage andworkshop buildings and the construction of a single storey 40-bed hostel within two separatebuildings and a two storey administration building has been considered in accordance with therelevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The development will not have any adverse impacts and represents a substantial benefit in theprovision of quality aged care within the City of Blue Mountains. The DevelopmentApplication is therefore recommended for conditional approval.


Attachment 1 - Conditions of development consent


Attachment 2


Attachment 3


Attachment 4


ITEM NO: 15

SUBJECT: APPLICATION TO AMEND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONNO. B98/0785 FOR A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL FLATDEVELOPMENT COMPRISING 68 UNITS AND A COMMONRECREATION AREA WITHIN SEVEN BUILDINGS AND AGALLERY AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS WITHIN A SEPARATEBUILDING AT LOTS 173, 175 AND PART LOT 174, DP 751627,CORNER OF GREAT WESTERN HIGHWAY AND LEURA MALL,LEURA

FILE NO: B98/0785

Recommendation:

That pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act consent begranted to the modification of Development Application No. B98/0785 for a residential flatdevelopment with a Gallery and Refreshment Room at Lot 173, 175 and part Lot 174,DP 751627, corner of the Great Western Highway and Leura Mall, Leura by amending thedeferred commencement condition to read:

“1. Within a period of twelve (12) months, investigations are to be carriedout and suitable arrangements be made with either the State RailAuthority (SRA) or the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) for thedisposal of stormwater from the site into a maintained stormwaterdrainage system. Details of the final method of stormwater disposal,including the written agreement of the SRA or RTA, as appropriate, forthe disposal of stormwater into their system, shall be submitted to theCouncil for approval.”


Reason for report The original application was determined by Council at itsmeeting on 22 December 1998 and accordingly is reported toCouncil for consideration of the subject amendment to thatconsent.

Applicant Leura Square Pty LtdPO Box 636GLEBE 2037

Owner Leura Village Caravan ParkC/- Address Above

Application lodged 11 May 1999


Property address Lots 173, 175 and part Lot 174, DP 751627, Cnr Great WesternHighway and Leura Mall, Leura.

Proposal The applicant proposes to modify the consent granted by Councilby amending the condition of the deferred commencementconsent to allow for additional time for resolution of the issue ofstormwater disposal and to provide flexibility in the proposedmethod of disposal. There are no changes proposed to theexisting operational conditions of consent.

Development controls Zoning – LEP 4: Residential 2(d) Special Purposes 9(a) (Parking) DLEP 1997: Multi Unit Housing.

Notification The application as previously submitted to Council was thesubject of public exhibition and neighbour notification resultingin six (6) written submissions being received of which four (4)objected to the proposal.

There is a requirement under Section 72A of the Act that amodification must be publicly notified where the DevelopmentApplication was statutorily required to be exhibited.

The Development Application (and land use) was required to bepublicly exhibited under the provisions of Clause 41 of LEP 4.Consequently the proposed modifications were publicly exhibitedin accordance with the Act.

No submissions have been received.

Discussion

The application is seeking Council’s approval to amend the condition of the deferredcommencement approval granted by Council on 22 December 1998. Extract plans formAttachment 1 to this report. The deferred condition currently reads as follows:

“1. Within a period of six (6) months, the written agreement of the State RailAuthority of NSW is to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council authorisingthe disposal of stormwater from the development site into the existingstormwater drainage system located in the railway corridor.”


The applicant proposes no physical changes to the design, layout or appearance of theapproved development through the amendment of the deferred commencement condition.The applicant has advised that the reasons for the amendment are as follows:

“1. It was originally anticipated that the Rail Estate (SRA) would provide us withan easement to discharge stormwater through the existing stormwater channelon railway property. The current owner has had right of use of the openstormwater channel on the railway property. Since the Development Approvalwe have had continuing numerous discussions with Rail Estate (SRA) and werefinally advised that their internal policy does not permit them to provide aneasement for discharge of the stormwater.

2. We have since been talking to the Council and the RTA to find an alternativeroute. Our drainage consultants have indicated after discussions with Councilthat there is an acceptable alternative route. The Council have requestedcertain studies to be undertaken to confirm the proposed design. This is in theprocess of being carried out.

For these reasons we require your approval for amendment of this condition toallow us a further 6 months to complete our investigations and design toCouncil’s satisfaction. However, we are anxious to proceed with the project atthe earliest possible date.”

The subject site presently drains toward the adjoining railway corridor in the south east cornerof the allotment. In times of high rainfall, some overland water also flows over the adjoiningresidential property to the east. The applicant initially proposed to utilise the eastern flowpath across the railway corridor to drain the development as well as re-using some water onsite. However, the information above now indicates that the use of the railway corridor mayno longer be feasible due to SRA requirements.

It is possible to readily drain the majority of the site to the Great Western Highway, subject toRTA approval. The applicant’s hydraulic consultant has submitted correspondence toCouncil indicating that 100% of the roof rainwater drainage and 90% of the sites imperviouscatchment can be conveyed to the point of discharge at the Great Western Highway by agravity drainage system. The remaining 10% of the sites impervious catchment is intended tobe drained to a collection pit and tank and pumped to the upstream detention tank beforedischarged to the gravity system to the Highway.

The final design will ultimately depend on the agreement of the relevant authority responsiblefor the land (ie the SRA as originally envisaged or RTA as now being investigated) and it isconsidered appropriate to provide additional time to enable the applicant to investigatearrangements for the disposal of stormwater.


To facilitate the proposed investigations and provide the time requested by the applicant, thedeferred commencement condition would need to be reworded as follows:

“1. Within a period of twelve (12) months, investigations are to be carried out andsuitable arrangements be made with either the State Rail Authority (SRA) orthe Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) for the disposal of stormwater from thesite into a maintained stormwater drainage system. Details of the final methodof stormwater disposal, including the written agreement of the SRA or RTA, asappropriate, for the disposal of stormwater into their system, shall be submittedto the Council for approval.”

Details of the final drainage system as covered by the Consent would need to be submitted toCouncil prior to release of the Building Permit/Construction Certificate.

Conclusion

As stated above, the proposal does not involve any physical changes to the development asapproved by Council on 22 December 1998, but increases the time limit specified for thesatisfaction of the deferred commencement matter while also providing the applicant greaterflexibility to resolve the outstanding issue of stormwater disposal. The amendment is notanticipated to result in any increase in the impact on adjoining residences or the locality.

It is acknowledged by Council officers that the disposal of stormwater appears able to beachieved by a number of approaches. As such no objection is raised to the proposed amendedcondition. Approval of the application is therefore recommended.


Attachment A


ITEM NO: 16

SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENTCONSENT NO. B98/0246 TO CONDUCT SMALL SCALE CLASSICALCONCERTS AND PERFORMANCES WITHIN THEAMPHITHEATRE ON PART LOTS 13, 14 AND 15, SECTION 8,DP 3469, NOS. 29-41 OLYMPIAN PARADE, LEURA

FILE NO: B98/0246

Recommendation:

That the application submitted pursuant to Section 96 (2) of the Environmental Planning andAssessment (Amendment) Act 1979 seeking to modify Condition Nos. 1 and 2 of DevelopmentConsent No. B98/0246 for small scale classical concerts and performances within theamphitheatre on Part Lots 13, 14 and 15, Section 8, DP 3469, Nos. 29-41 Olympian Parade,Leura be approved in part only and the Consent be amended as follows:

1. Condition No. 1 be amended to read:

‘1. This approval is temporary and valid only until 31 October 1999 inaccordance with the provisions of Clause 35 of Local Environment Plan 1991.The number of performances or concerts is to be no greater than one to occuron the first Saturday or Sunday of each month. There shall be no more thanone performance/concert on any day.

Note: In the event of a concert or performance being cancelled due toinclement weather, the applicant is to notify Council for agreement if theconcert or performance is to be rescheduled to an alternative Saturday orSunday.’

2. Condition No. 2 be amended to read:

‘2. Performances or concerts are to involve music of a classical nature and shallnot finish later than 5.00 pm on the day on which they are scheduled to occur.’


Zoning: Part Residential 2 (a1) under LEP 4 and Part Environmental Protection(EP) under LEP 1991. (The amphitheatre is situated within theEnvironmental Protection zone being the southern section of Part Lots14 and 15.)

The land is designated as a Protected Area – Escarpment Area underLEP 1991.


Date of Receipt: 24 March 1999

Applicant/Owner: Mr C A Evatt51 Finley RoadTurramurra

Site:

Reason for Report:

Council, at its meeting of 29 September 1998, resolved to grant a six (6) month time limitedDevelopment Consent in which to allow small-scale classical concerts and performanceswithin the Leuralla Amphitheatre subject to conditions.

An application has now been submitted to Council pursuant to Section 96(2) of theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment (Amendment) Act 1979 seeking to modify certainrestrictions imposed within the Consent. The proposed modifications relate to an extension ofthe Consent from six (6) to twelve (12) months and to enable greater flexibility in the daysand times in which the concerts may be held.

In accordance with Council’s general policy, an application seeking to modify the terms of aDevelopment Consent determined by Council must also be reported to Council forconsideration.

The Proposal:

The applicant seeks to modify the terms of the Consent to:

- Extend the Development Consent until November 1 1999 being the full twelve (12)months possible under LEP 1991.

- Permit concerts/performances to be held once a month but on any day.

- Permit concerts/performances to finish after 5.00 pm (in summer daylight savingmonths).


The proposed modification relates to Condition Nos. 1 and 2 of Development ConsentNo. B98/0246, which presently read:

‘1. This approval is temporary and valid only for a six (6) month period from1 November 1998 to 1 May 1999. The number of performances or concerts isto be no greater than six (6) with one to occur on the first Saturday of eachmonth. There shall be no more than one performance/concert on any day.

Note: In the event of a concert or performance being cancelled due toinclement weather, the applicant is to notify Council for agreement if theconcert or performance is to be rescheduled to an alternative Saturday.

2. Performances or concerts are to involve music of a classical nature and shallnot finish later than 5.00 pm on the Saturday on which they are scheduled tooccur.’

In support of the modifications the applicant indicates that he is not aware of any complaintsor adverse reaction to the concerts held thus far and therefore seeks to have the approvalextended for the full period of twelve (12) months that is available to Council to approveunder Clause 35 of LEP 1991. Further, restriction of concerts to the first Saturday of eachmonth or indeed another Saturday is considered onerous and inflexible. The applicant statesthat one concert had to be cancelled due to inclement weather, where the performers hadtravelled from Sydney and could have performed the following day (Sunday).

In respect to the Condition restricting concerts finishing not later than 5.00 pm, it is stated bythe applicant that ‘during summer daylight saving months it is often hot at 5.00 pm. Thereseems no reason why the concerts could not be held later.’

Notification of the Modification:

Section 72A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act requires that an applicationfor modification of a Consent under Section 96(2) of the Act must be publicly notified wherethe Development Application was statutorily required to be exhibited.

This Development Application (and land use) does not fall into that category, beingadvertised only in accordance with Council policy. Notwithstanding, having regard to thenature and location of the proposed development, the modification was notified tosurrounding property owners for a period of fourteen (14) days from 19 May 1999.

As a result of this notification Council received two (2) letters of support and six (6) lettersobjecting to the proposal ranging between part and total opposition. (The DevelopmentApplication originally attracted three (3) submissions in support and nine opposed to thedevelopment.)

Those in support did not raise concerns with any aspect of the proposed modifications soughtby the applicant indicating that the amphitheatre is a resource that deserves to be used more.


Those opposed did not support concerts/performances occurring on other days, in particularSundays, nor did they support concerts/performances finishing later than 5.00 pm. A numberof those submissions also raised objection to extending the period of the Consent until1 November 1999. The opposition is based upon the development’s impact on residentialamenity arising from vehicular movement and associated noise, particularly in OlympianParade which is presently subject to tourist traffic on weekends.

A number of submissions also made reference to the applicant’s statement that ‘no complaintsor adverse reactions by neighbours’ indicating that this was due to no concerts orperformances having taken place.

Assessment of Application:

The Development Consent Conditions and in particular, Conditions Nos. 1 and 2, were inessence, imposed to enable Council an opportunity to monitor the activity to ensure that it iscompatible with the existing residential amenity and streetscape of the area.

While a number of submissions questioned whether concerts/performances had actually beenheld, the applicant has advised that to date four (4) concerts have been held, with onecancelled due to inclement weather. Attendances have ranged between twenty (20) to forty(40) people per concert averaging approximately thirty (30) per concert/performance.Inspection of the area and surrounding streets did not indicate any adverse impact on thephysical appearance of the streetscape nor do Council files record any complaints arising fromthe concerts held. It should be noted however, that the Consent permits attendance by up to200 persons at any one time.

The use of the amphitheatre site for the purpose of conducting small-scale classicalconcerts/performances for viewing by the general public is a prohibited use within theEnvironmental Protection zone applying to this section of the land. Notwithstanding thisaspect, Council previously utilised the provisions of Clause 35 of LEP 1991 (Temporary Useof Land) to enable the performances to proceed on a trial basis.

Clause 35 of LEP 1991 states as follows:

‘35. Temporary Use of Land

“The Council may grant consent to the carrying out, for a maximum period of twenty-eight (28) days, whether consecutive or not, in any twelve (12) month period, ofdevelopment for any purpose otherwise prohibited in a zone, but only if the Councilimposes a condition on the grant of consent prohibiting the making of permanentchanges to the land or buildings on the land.’

The applicant seeks the extension of the consent for the twelve (12) month period.

Following this date, any further concerts/performances must be the subject of a freshDevelopment Application. In this context, given that the concerts/performances have been‘low key’, and are not impacting on the physical well being of the streetscape and amenity ofthe area, no objections are raised to the extension of the time period for the Consent up to andincluding 31 October 1999.


With respect to the request that concerts/performances be permitted to be held once per monthbut on any day, some community opposition has been received relating to uncertainty as towhich day the concert/performance would be held. This is a valid and understandableconcern of the nearby community.

The concerts/performances to date have however proven to be ‘low key’ and of minimalimpact. The applicant’s request for some additional flexibility has merit and accordingly theoption of the first Saturday or Sunday of each month, could be considered until 31 October1999. In this circumstance, the existing opportunity to re-schedule any event due to inclementweather could be retained.

The request concerning concerts/performances extending beyond or commencing after5.00p m in daylight saving months is not relevant to this application as daylight savingcommences the last weekend in October and the maximum possible term of this consent isuntil 31 October 1999. However, should an application for extended hours be received in thefuture, the residential amenity impacts would need careful consideration.

Conclusion:

Clause 35 of LEP 1991 enables Council to consider a twelve (12) month term for theDevelopment Consent.

The applicant has detailed concerts/performances that have been conducted in an acceptablemanner to date in respect to environmental impact and residential amenity.

Residential concern over concerts/performances occurring on ‘any day’ within the month areappreciated although it is reasonable that a known optional day be trialed, particularly giventhe conduct of the concerts/performances to date.

Accordingly, the modification sought is recommended for partial approval.


ITEM NO: 17

SUBJECT: LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1991 (DRAFT AMENDMENTNO. 29) AND DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO. 33 –EXEMPT AND COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT

FILE NO:

Recommendations:

1. That pursuant to S54 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Councilprepare and publicly exhibit draft Amendment No. 29 to LEP 1991 as detailed inAttachment 1 to make provision for exempt and complying development in LEP 1991and LEP No. 4.

2. That Council publicly exhibit draft Development Control Plan No. 33 Exempt andComplying Development, in accordance with the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act Regulations.


BackgroundThe Integrated Assessment legislation of July 1998 provides for new categories ofdevelopment being incorporated into the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Inessence there will ultimately be four types of development in terms of assessment/approvalprocesses.

‘Exempt development’ is minor development that can be carried out without the need fordevelopment consent. Provided that the specified criteria are satisfied, no licences orapprovals of any kind will be required. If the applicable requirements cannot be met then thedevelopment may only be carried out with the consent of Council. Part 5 assessment under theEP&A Act, being assessment of the likely environmental impact of a development, does notapply to exempt development.

‘Complying development’ is simple forms of local development which can be certified inentirety as complying with predetermined standards and policies. Each specific type ofcomplying development must fall within the category of development that is permissible withconsent under the landuse table in Council’s LEPs.

The Act does not allow exempt or complying development on land that:• is critical habitat (under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995) or• is, or is part of, a wilderness area (under the Wilderness Act 1987).


and in addition development can not be complying development on land:• to which an order under the Heritage Act 1977 applies, or that is identified as such an item

in an environmental planning instrument, or• that is identified as an environmentally sensitive area in the environmental planning

instrument providing for the complying development.

‘Local development’ is development which requires consent and is not ‘State Significantdevelopment’.

‘State Significant development’ is development that is declared by a State environmentalplanning policy or a regional environmental plan to be State significant development, anddevelopment that, in the opinion of the Minister, is of State or regional environmentalplanning significance.

A State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) for exempt and complying development willcome into effect on 1 January 2000 for those local government areas that have not madeprovision for exempt and complying development in their local environmental plans.

The aims of the SEPP for exempt and complying development is to:• allow development with minimal environmental impact to proceed without the need for

development consent, and• allow small scale and low impact development to proceed efficiently.

Complying development is a contestable activity that may be carried out if a complyingdevelopment certificate is obtained. The Environmental Planning and Assessment Actprovides for the issue of the certificate within a period of 7 days, from either the council or anaccredited certifier. Development that does not fully comply with predetermined criteria willbe required to follow the full assessment process, that is, obtain the consent of the localcouncil.

The Department of Urban Affairs and Planning has prepared two model local environmentalplans as alternative frameworks that can be used by councils to provide for exempt andcomplying development. The first model inserts the details directly into a LocalEnvironmental Plan (LEP) by the way of schedules. The second model amends an LEP in aminimal way and provides for the adoption of a Development Control Plan (DCP) whichcontains the details. A third option would be to have some matters in the LEP and some in theDCP.

Following the framework of either of DUAP's model LEPs accurately, will provide for easeof preparation and speed up consideration of Council’s draft LEP by the Department andParliamentary Counsel.

For the purposes of introducing exempt and complying development in the City of BlueMountains the second model has been followed. This approach is preferred as it necessitatesonly minor amendment of LEP No. 4 and LEP 1991 with a Council draft DCP containing theadditional criteria and conditions that must be complied with before exempt or complyingdevelopment can be carried out.


This report outlines the draft Local Environmental Plan (Attachment 1) and draftDevelopment Control Plan, a copy of which has been distributed separately to Councillorsand has been made available to the community.

Draft Local Environmental PlanA draft Local Environmental Plan forms Attachment 1 to this report and is prepared as anamendment to LEP 1991 with a Schedule also covering LEP No. 4. This is similar to theapproach to introducing heritage listings.

Draft Development Control PlanThe draft DCP comprises three basic sections. The first of these sets out the general criteria ofcompliance and the exclusions which preclude exempt and complying development frombeing carried out on certain land or needing to meet defined criteria. These matters include:• not cause interference with the amenity of the neighbourhood.• comply with any deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the Building Code of Australia.• not contravene any condition of a development consent (ie. landscaping or car parking).• clear of easements and/or public sewer mains.• land within an Environmental Protection Zone, Water Catchment or identified as a

Protected Area.

The second section comprises the Schedule of Exempt Development. The Schedule is largelybased upon Council's existing Local Approvals Policy (LAP) adopted on 24 October 1995.The LAP specifies the circumstances in which a person is not required to obtain a particularapproval from the Council for identified structures and activities.

The categories of proposed Exempt Development include:• erection of minor structures such as garden sheds, clothes hoists, certain types of fences,

minor external alterations and renovations such as recladding of roofs and walls, skylightroof windows to a restricted size and certain water tanks.

• advertising structures including business identification signs, pylon signs and real estatesigns of limited sizes.

• home businesses/home occupations as defined in current LEPs.

The third section comprises the Schedule of Complying Development. The draft StateEnvironmental Planning Policy (SEPP) prepared by DUAP has identified a range of land usesas generally being suitable for complying development and a comparison against Council'sdraft DCP is given in Table 1 below.


Table 1: Complying Development - comparison between the Draft SEPP and Draft DCP

Draft SEPP BMCC Draft DCP

Bed and breakfast accommodation No

Commercial uses and building alterations Commercial uses and internal fitout

Single storey detached dwellings in a limitednumber of identified areas only

Single and two storey detached dwellings(including additions and alterations) andassociated carports and garages Single storey additions and alterations to

detached dwellingsIndustrial and warehouse buildings Alterations & extensions (max. 200 m2) to

industrial and warehouse buildingsSwimming pools Swimming pools

Temporary buildings No

Subdivision (at the discretion of Councils) Subdivision (boundary adjustment between2 lots only)

The major concern in identifying suitable complying development pertains to safeguardingthe specific character of the Blue Mountains in terms of:

• the limitations on dwelling houses as complying development,• the environmental sensitivity and implications of exempt and complying classification,• the impacts of development on scenic quality, steep slopes, water courses, native

vegetation, etc.,• safety considerations including bushfire risk, and• the rationale for uses such as bed and breakfasts not being complying development.

The Department of Urban Affairs and Planning has acknowledged that the Blue Mountainshas a number of particular constraints which impose limits on the suitability of complyingdevelopment. These constraints include topography (ie slope) and the difficulty in protectingthe character of the villages throughout the Council area by means of prescribed andprescriptive standards. The Department have also acknowledged that the area is not asignificant producer of new residential land and the majority of residential development isinfill. The DCP retains existing provisions relating to sensitive environmental criteria.

Following a number of discussions with DUAP officers the following approach has beendeveloped for the introduction of dwellings and additions/extensions to dwellings ascomplying development:


1. That new dwellings be permitted as complying development by inclusion only, byCouncil identifying areas as being suitable having regard to issues of character. Theidentified areas, as illustrated on maps in the draft DCP are predominantly withinrelatively recent subdivisions and where development is largely of a modern design.

DUAP officers have accepted that Council will adopt a precautionary approach to theidentification of such areas. All land within the identified areas, however, will not besuitable for complying development because of the restrictions imposed by therecommended development standards, such as the restrictions on cut and fill, subfloorheights and removal of vegetation.

This approach also allows Council, through the constraint mapping process beingundertaken with draft LEP 1997, to clearly identify village character issues and assesswhether it is appropriate to expand or vary the application of complying developmentin the future.

2. That in relation to identifying contestable activities, that Council place emphasis onextensions and additions to dwellings as complying development. In this regard,between 1996 to 1999 Council received approximately 3,500 building anddevelopment applications for either new dwellings or for extensions/alterations toexisting dwellings. Extensions/alterations comprised approximately 62.5% of thoseapplications.

For additions and extensions Council can prescribe development standards andconditions of consent which safeguard the existing streetscape and character of anarea. For example, the draft DCP requires that the external finishes ofadditions/alterations match the existing dwelling in relation to the roof profile and thecolour and type of materials used.

The Complying development Schedule provides restrictions on the size, design and siting ofworks. The matters include:• detached houses not only being single storey and in defined areas must meet Council's

building line provisions, energy efficiency criteria, limit of 500mm cut and fill, floor toeave height of 2.7 metres and maximum roof pitch of 30o. The restrictions on cut and filland subfloor height renders any land with more than a gentle slope as unsuitable forcomplying development. An approval is also to be subject to a number of non-discretionary conditions relating to building works, inspections and environmentalmanagement.

The defined areas have been restricted to sewered land only and zoned under LEP No. 4.Land zoned under LEP 1991 was excluded on the basis of environmental considerations.

• alterations and additions to detached dwellings are not to exceed 50% of the existinggross floor area and meet similar bulk and scale criteria as for new houses. Non-discretionary conditions also apply.

• swimming pools being limited to 50 m2 and coping/decks to no more than 500mm abovenatural ground level.


• industrial and warehouse buildings to be no more than 200 m2 and meeting defined setbacks, heights, materials and car parking.

• commercial properties being limited to changes of use and internal fitouts. Specifiedconditions need to be included in any consent that is issued.

• subdivision is limited to boundary adjustments/encroachments between two lots only.

The draft DCP does not propose the inclusion of Bed and Breakfast establishments ascomplying development. While DUAP has sought that those establishments becomecomplying development it is considered that due to the number already in the Mountains andcommunity concern expressed in relation to recent proposals that they should remain thesubject of merit assessment.

Conclusion

The draft DCP is consistent with the provisions of EPA Act 1979 in making provision forexempt and complying development and satisfies the intention of the 1998 reforms to the Actthat sought to create a greater role for the private sector.

It is recommended that Council exhibit the draft Local Environmental Plan and the draftDevelopment Control Plan for Exempt and Complying Development for communitycomment.


Attachment 1

City of Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan 1991 (Amendment No. 29) — Exemptand Complying Development

under the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

I, the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, make the following local environmental planunder the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Minister for Urban Affairs and PlanningSydney, 1999

1 Name of planThis plan is City of Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan No. 1991 (AmendmentNo. 29) — Exempt and Complying Development.

2 Aim of planThe aim of this plan is to provide for exempt and complying development in the localgovernment area of the City of Blue Mountains.

3 Land to which plan appliesThis plan applies to all land within the local government area of the City of BlueMountains.

4 Amendment of other environmental planning instruments(1) This plan amends City of Blue Mountains Local Environmental Plan

1991 as set out in Schedule 1.

(2) This plan amends City of Blue Mountains Local Environmental PlanNo. 4 as set out in Schedule 2.

(3) This plan amends State Environmental Planning Policy No. 4 —DevelopmentWithout Consent by inserting the following words in alphabetical order inSchedule 2 (Areas not subject to clauses 6–10):City of Blue Mountains


Attachment 1

Schedule 1 Amendments(Clause 4 (1))

Clause 9AInsert after clause 9.:

9A What is exempt and complying development?(1) Development of minimal environmental impact listed in Schedule 1 to Development

Control Plan No. 33 adopted by the Council on < > is exempt development, despiteany other provision of this plan.

(2) Development listed in Schedule 2 to Development Control Plan No. 33 adopted by theCouncil on < > is complying development if:(a) it is local development of a kind that can be carried out with consent on the

land on which it is proposed, and(b) it is not an existing use, as defined in section 106 of the Act.

(3) Development is exempt or complying development only if it complies with thedevelopment standards and other requirements applied to the development byDevelopment Control Plan No. 33 adopted by the Council on < >.

(4) A complying development certificate issued for any complying development is to besubject to the conditions for the development specified in Development Control PlanNo. 33 adopted by the Council, as in force when the certificate is issued.


Attachment 1

Schedule 2 Amendments(Clause 4 (2))

Clause 10BInsert after clause 10.A:

10B What is exempt and complying development?(1) Development of minimal environmental impact listed in Schedule 1 to Development

Control Plan No. 33 adopted by the Council on < > is exempt development, despiteany other provision of this plan.

(2) Development listed in Schedule 2 to Development Control Plan No. 33 adopted by theCouncil on < > is complying development if:(a) it is local development of a kind that can be carried out with consent on the

land on which it is proposed, and(b) it is not an existing use, as defined in section 106 of the Act.

(3) Development is exempt or complying development only if it complies with thedevelopment standards and other requirements applied to the development byDevelopment Control Plan No. 33 adopted by the Council on < >.

(4) A complying development certificate issued for any complying development is to besubject to the conditions for the development specified in Development Control PlanNo. 33 adopted by the Council, as in force when the certificate is issued.


ITEM NO: 18

SUBJECT: DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN NO. 35 – COMMUNITYCONSULTATION FOR LAND USE MANAGEMENT

FILE NO:

Recommendation:

That Draft Development Control Plan No. 35 for Community Consultation for Land UseManagement and Manual of Procedures, be adopted pursuant to the provisions of theEnvironmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, for the purpose of public exhibition.


Introduction:

The purpose of this report is to submit for Council’s consideration, a draft DevelopmentControl Plan (DCP) which provides the framework for the community consultation processfor the various land use functions administered by Council.

The draft DCP has been prepared following the changes to the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act 1979 that came into force in NSW on 1 July 1998. The DCP will replaceCouncil’s existing Community Consultation Policy for Land Use Management and Manual ofProcedures and the notification procedures within Part 3 of Council’s Local Approvals Policy.

A copy of the draft DCP has been distributed separately to Councillors.

History/Background:

Council’s requirements relating to the advertising and notification of land use matters arepresently contained in Council’s Community Consultation Policy for Land Use Managementand Manual of Procedures and Council’s Local Approvals Policy. These policies, adopted in1995, were developed in response to legislative changes associated with the implementationof the Local Government Act 1993 and community expectations of an increased role in theconsultation process relating to land use management.

Both the then Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Local Government Actprescribed requirements for community consultation for various land use applications undercertain circumstances.

Section 114 of the then Local Government Act required that Council, prior to determining abuilding application, notify adjoining property owners of receipt of the application and invitewritten submissions, if in the opinion of Council, the proposal was likely to adversely impacton the enjoyment of the adjoining land. The Act also required that Council notify the ownersof other property in the vicinity, that while not adjoining, the enjoyment of which was likelybe detrimentally affected by the proposed building.


The Act also specified the matters a Council was to take into consideration when forming itsopinion as to whether a building was likely to adversely affect the enjoyment of adjoiningland.

The then Environmental Planning and Assessment Act prescribed community consultationbeyond ‘affected’ property owners for development identified in Council’s LocalEnvironmental Plans or another Environmental Planning Instrument as being ‘advertised’development or for designated development.

The present Community Consultation Policy aimed to provide a logical relationship betweenthe various legislative requirements, the timing of the community input and the determinationof the applications.

On 1 July 1998 legislative changes came into effect in NSW significantly amendingdevelopment and building control legislation including transferring the technical buildingcontrol provisions from the Local Government Act into the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act.

The amendments include the introduction of a number of new types or classes of developmentand eventually the repeal of the notification provisions under Section 114 of the LocalGovernment Act for what were previously building applications under this Act. As aconsequence of these amendments it is necessary for Councils to review their notification andadvertising policies to reflect these changes. It is appropriate that this review be undertakentogether with proposed arrangements for Exempt and Complying Development.

Development Control Plan – Community Consultation for Land Use Management andManual of Procedures.

The Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP) have recommended all Councilsreview their policies and plans for the notification and advertising of development proposalsunder the amended Environmental Planning and Assessment Act before 1 July 1999. DUAPadvise that Council may use an LEP or preferably a DCP to specify its advertising andnotification policy. The policy should include appropriate details for public exhibitions,newspaper advertisements, site notices and the notification of neighbours and organisationsfor different types of development.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act classifies development into a number ofdistinct classes according to their likely impacts on the environment and provides for specificconsultation procedures for those considered likely to have a more significant impact. Thereare no specific legislative provisions relating to the notification or advertising of the moreroutine or ancillary types of development.


The various classes of development and the proposed notification and advertising provisionsincorporated in the draft DCP are:

1) Exempt Development;

Exempt development is that minor development identified in an LEP or DCP that maybe carried out without the need to obtain Development Consent.

Previously Council’s Local Approvals Policy listed those types of buildings that couldbe erected without the need to obtain building approval under the Local GovernmentAct. Furthermore State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No 4 lists developmentthat presently can be carried out without Development Consent.

Exempt development is likely to reflect the same or similar minor forms ofdevelopment previously permissible without approval/consent under the LocalApprovals Policy and SEPP 4.

As there would be no need to obtain consent for such development communityconsultation is not proposed.

2) Complying Development;

Complying development is that form of minor development identified in an LEP orDCP that does not require merit assessment, but rather an assessment of compliancewith technical building and other non-discretionary standards.

Complying development will include routine types of development that complies withpre-determined standards designed to ensure that it has no significant environmental oramenity impacts. Furthermore the Act provides for Complying DevelopmentCertificates to be issued within seven (7) days either by Council or a privateAccredited Certifier.

Accordingly applications for a Complying Development Certificate are not proposedto be advertised or notified prior to determination. Adjoining property owners,however, would be notified upon issue of the Certificate so that they are aware of theproposed works.

3)Local Development:

The majority of applications received by Council are likely to be what is termed localdevelopment. Local development is further divided into three (3) sub-categories being:

a) General Local Development

General Local Development is that local development that is not nominated bythe Act or Council’s LEPs as Advertised Development or DesignatedDevelopment.


There are no statutory requirements for Council to formally advertise this classof development, however it is proposed that such applications be notified toadjoining property owners for a period of 14 days where there is the potentialto impact upon the neighbouring properties. This type of developmentpresently comprises the significant majority of applications presently receivedby Council.

In forming an opinion on whether a proposal is likely to impact upon theenjoyment of an adjoining property, Council Officers will take into accountmatters such as views to and from a property, overshadowing, privacy, qualityand character of the adjoining streetscape, noise and light spillage.

b) Advertised Development.

Advertised development is development, other than designated developmentthat is identified as being ‘advertised’ development by the EnvironmentalPlanning and Assessment Regulations, an environmental planning instrument(ie LEP) or a development control plan. In the Blue Mountains this includes:

• Clause 41 of LEP 4 and Clause 31 of LEP1991 which identify certainforms of development as being ‘advertised’ development for the purpose ofthe Act.

• Nominated Integrated Development, being matters where approval is alsorequired from an identified state authority.

The Act specifies that the period for Integrated Development submissions isthirty (30) days while for other Advertised Development the period forsubmissions is a minimum of fourteen (14) days. However, in order to reduceany confusion and considering other Advertised Development generally relatesto multi-residential or other sensitive developments in residential zones (egchild care, educational establishments, hospitals, places of public worship etc),it is proposed to require all advertised development to be notified for 30 days.

c) Designated Development

Designated Development is that type of development nominated by the Actthat has the potential to have a significant impact upon the environment. TheAct prescribes the form of notification and the minimum time periods for thatnotification.

The Draft DCP proposes to reflect the provisions of the Act.


4) State Significant Development.

This category of development generally includes those developments that areof state or regional importance or are major employment generatingdevelopments.

The Act also prescribes the form of notification and the minimum time periods.The Minister is the consent authority and advertising is generally theresponsibility of DUAP.

The draft DCP proposes to reflect the provisions of the Act.

Other Areas of Land Use Management

While the Draft DCP has been initiated by the recent changes to the EP&A Act the Plan hasbeen prepared to cover a wider range of consultation by Council over areas of Land UseManagement. This can benefit the Council and community by consolidating the provisions.

The other areas covered in the draft DCP are:

- Local Environmental Plans- Development Control Plans- Approvals under Section 68 of Local Government Act- Plans of Management and- Local Approvals Policies

Conclusion:

The preparation and submission of the Draft DCP to Council for exhibition purposes, arisesprimarily from changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, however theopportunity has been taken to also review and consolidate the community consultationprovisions relating to other areas of land use management.

ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT PROGRAMOrdinary Meeting, 22/6/99

ITEM NO: 19

SUBJECT: COUNCIL LAND AT 79-99 MACQUARIE ROAD (LOTS 1, 2 AND 4,DP 226942), SPRINGWOOD

FILE NO: H00362

Recommendations:

1. That Council sell the land at 79-99 Macquarie Road, Springwood, being Lots 1,2 and4 in DP 226942, to the Springwood Bowling and Recreation Club Limited, conditionalon:

(a) The final sale price to be negotiated with the Club being no less than $550,000or the amount of Council’s revised valuation, whichever is the greater;

(b) A Section 88B Instrument being created together with a Covenant registeredon the Title of the property to restrict the use of the premises to a bowling cluband ancillary uses open to members of the public;

(c) A Caveat be registered against the Title to give Council first right to purchasethe property in the event of its subsequent sale, the sale price to Council beingon the basis of the value of the land only at its current Private Recreation 6(c)zoning; and

(d) The Springwood Bowling and Recreation Club Limited being responsible forall costs of the replacement of the two tennis courts and associated facilitiescurrently on Lot 4 DP 226942.

2. That the two tennis courts and associated facilities currently on Lot 4 DP 226942 berelocated to the Springwood Tennis Centre in Spring Street, Springwood, subject tothe Springwood Tennis Club being open to the possibility of closing the tennis courtsmanaged by them in Churchill Street Springwood and the land ultimately being sold tofund new tennis courts at Summerhayes Park Winmalee.

3. That Council investigate the possibility of closing the tennis courts managed by theSpringwood Tennis Club in Churchill Street Springwood, reclassifying the land andsubsequently making the necessary arrangements to sell the land with a view that theincome received from this land sale being used to fund new tennis courts atSummerhayes Park, Winmalee.

4. That the proposed Plan of Management for Summerhayes Park, Winmalee, makeprovision for additional tennis courts to be located on that site.

5. That should the Springwood Tennis Club not be open to the possibility of closing thetennis courts managed by them in Churchill Street Springwood and the land ultimatelybeing sold to fund new tennis courts at Summerhayes Park Winmalee, then the issue ofthe relocation of the courts and associated facilities currently on Lot 4 DP 226942 befurther examined and a subsequent report come back to Council.

ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT PROGRAMItem 19 - Ordinary Meeting, 22/6/99

6. That Council’s Common Seal be affixed to any documents relating to the sale of 79-99Macquarie Road, Springwood, being Lots 1,2 and 4 in DP 226942 to the SpringwoodBowling and Recreation Club.

Report by Group Manager, Assets & Corporate Services:

This Report concerns the lease or sale of the land on which the Springwood Bowling Club islocated (Lots1 and 2, DP 226942) and the Springwood Youngerset Tennis Courts are located(Lot 4 DP 226942). It also deals with the relocation of the tennis courts.

BackgroundCouncil at its meeting of 13 October 1998 considered a report from the Group Manager,Strategic Planning regarding the reclassification and rezoning of Council land at 79-99Macquarie Road, Springwood, known as the sites of the Springwood Bowling and RecreationClub (SBRC) and the Springwood Younger Set Tennis Club (SYS). The Council resolved(Minute No. 492):

“1. That information in the Group Manager, Strategic Planning’s report bereceived.

2. That the Public Hearing Report be made available to the public at CouncilOffices and Libraries throughout the city, in accordance with Section 68(2) ofthe EP & A Act, 1979, and may be purchased for a charge of $10.00.

3. That a further report pursuant to Section 68 of the EP & A Act, 1979 bepresented to Council.

4. That the General Manager commence discussions with the SpringwoodBowling and Recreation Club to ascertain the implications of granting a longterm lease as opposed to freehold title.

5. That Council Officers investigate the relocation of the two tennis courts fromLot 4 DP 226942 to the existing tennis complex at Spring St, Springwood, orany other appropriate site.

6. That Council not seek to utilise its delegations pursuant to s.69 of the EP & AAct, 1979, and that Council officers liaise with the Regional Manager,Department of Urban Affairs and Planning to seek the Departmentsconcurrence.”

Section 68 Reports have been presented to Council and the Department of Urban Affairs andPlanning (DUAP). The Draft LEP No 132 was gazetted on 30 April 1999. The subject landhas now been rezoned to Private Recreation 6(c) under the Blue Mountains LEP No 4 andreclassified to “Operational” under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993.


A Report of the Public Hearing into the rezoning and reclassification of the site prepared bythe Hearing Chairman, Mr Andrew Kelly, has been made available to the public at Counciloffices and libraries. The Report’s recommendations, as they relate to the proposed lease orsale of the site, are set out as follows:

• That in the event that the site is reclassified from ‘community’ to ‘operational’ under theterms of the Local Government Act 1993, Council negotiate with the Springwood Bowlingand Recreation Club Ltd (the SBR Club) with a view to granting a long-term lease to theSBR Club, preferably for a term exceeding 21 years.

• That the terms of any lease granted to the SBR Club are designed to ensure that theexisting community services provided by the SBR Club on the site continue.

• That calculation of the required rental payments in any lease granted to the SBR Club takeinto account those community services provided by the SBR Club on the site.

• That whilst or before negotiating the terms of any lease, Council investigate, inconjunction with both the SBR Club and the Springwood Younger Set Tennis Club, therelocation of the two tennis courts from Lot 4 DP 226942 to the existing tennis clubcomplex at Spring Street, Springwood, or any other appropriate site.

• That the terms of any lease granted to the SBR Club reflect assistance and fundingprovided by the SBR Club in relocation the aforesaid tennis courts.

• That in the event that Council is convinced that the SBR Club is unable to raise funds forredevelopment a result of lack of freehold tenure, Council commence negotiations to sellthe site to the SBR Club on a commercial basis, subject to the safeguards outlined in MrCollins’ submissions to this hearing.

Lease vs SaleDiscussions have been carried out with the SBRC to ascertain the implications of granting along term lease as opposed to freehold title. The main issues arising from these discussionsrelate to the financing of the renovation works proposed for the clubhouse to meet fire,hygiene and safety requirements. Information received indicates that the SBRC would beunable to readily raise funds for redevelopment as a result of lack of freehold tenure and thatonly a freehold title could support the borrowing levels required for the proposed works.

Extracts from the SBRC’s written responses in respect to this matter follow:

“… the Club has approached it’s usual Banker which has stated that it is against Bankpolicy to lend money on leasehold title. Without freehold title the Bank will not evenconsider an application for a loan. While this itself seems conclusive evidence as to whya freehold title is preferable to a leasehold title, there are certain other aspects of thematter which the club believes should be given consideration.”


The Club then makes the following points in relation to this aspect:

• The Clubhouse needs urgent repair and rearrangement so that it can workefficiently.

• The Board of Directors is not prepared to spend reserves of capital attending tothese matters whilst security of tenure is at the smallest degree of risknotwithstanding what might be regarded as a long term Lease;

• The Board of Directors does not wish to be seen as allowing present facilities todeteriorate or them failing to upgrade them, particularly noting the long termsupport the Club has provided to the community.

• With freehold title the Club holds it’s destiny in it’s own hands, noting that evenwith a long term Lease there is always the possibility of some future Councilbeing difficult about renewal of a Lease. With freehold title, future Directorscould continue to improve facilities confident in the fact that, while ever it couldremain a viable Bowling Club, nobody would have the power to take thosefacilities away.

In a subsequent letter the Club wrote in relation to in relation to the issue freehold title:

“…the Executive of the Springwood Bowling & Recreation Club Ltd, having studiedthe report prepared by Mr Andrew Kelly, are fully convinced that the only outcomesuitable to the majority of concerned parties is for Council to sell the land with theDeed of Agreement to specify that there be no change to the present activities on thesite and the club be observant of the importance of the Historical Interest of the siteand surrounds.”

…..

“Whether the bowling Club retains its occupancy by lease or freehold tenure extensiverenovations and additions are required to the clubhouse, many of which are listed inpages 20 and 21 of Mr Kelly’s report. James Clifford Constructions Pty Ltd has beenapproached to prepare plans and costing for this work to standards acceptable toCouncil, most of which are necessary to meet Council, fire, hygiene and safetyregulations.

“Outside finance will be required which will be most difficult to obtain, especially atreasonable rates, while ever the club only has leasehold tenure. Approaches have beenmade to several banking institutions and while none would give a final answer beforereceiving a full detailed application, the general consensus was it was againstindividual banking policies to lend other than minimal amounts where freehold tenurecould not be offered as security. In addition to that last comment the attitude of themembers displayed at a Special General Meeting was clearly that any majorborrowing, while the club merely held leasehold title, would be most unlikely to beratified as is required by the Club’s Articles of Association.”


A freehold title offers the SBRC the ownership of the land. In return, Council receives a lumpsum payment representing the purchase price of the property. These funds have beenbudgeted to be applied to the construction of the major recreational facilities being providedat Katoomba and Valley Heights. Council would still be able to control the use of the land byregistering a positive covenant together with appropriate terms and conditions over thefreehold title. In addition, Council could register its first right of refusal to purchase the landat a value based on its current Private Recreation 6(c) zoning (under LEP 4 as amended byLEP 132), should certain circumstances arise whereby the SBRC might wish to sell the land.The lodgement of a Caveat would make any future purchasers of the property aware ofCouncil’s rights in this regard.

In general, the alternative of a long term leasehold title offers the SBRC an exclusive right ofoccupation over the property during a specific period of time. In return, Council receivesperiodical payments in the form of rentals. In a leasing arrangement Council would retain theownership of the land and control the use of the land by imposing appropriate terms andconditions.

In addition to the SBRC’s arguments for freehold title, they have stated that leasing does notprovide them with the degree of tenure they require to spend their reserves of capital on thesite. They have further indicated, in relation to an earlier Market Rental of $45,000 perannum as advised by Council’s Valuer, and a lower rental of $29,250 that was discussed afterwhen taking into account estimates of community benefit provided by the Club, that:

“…the fair Market Rental suggested at $45,000 is not considered commercially viable.Even applying a Community Benefit Discount to reduce the rental to $29,250 assuggested in previous negotiations is also not considered viable; in fact to meet eitherfigure financially the club may well find it necessary to curtail or charge for somecommunity services. Additionally any review clause in the lease document could, byvariation in the Consumer Price Index, vastly alter the rental figure in a long term, oreven short term lease situation”.

The abovementioned rental amounts only relate to the existing land on which the SBRCfacilities are currently located (ie. Lots 1 and 2). They do not related to the land on which thetennis courts are currently located (Lot 4).

Looking at the issue from the perspective of which course of action most benefits thecommunity, it is considered that the equation is very much weighted in favour of sale, withappropriate safeguard measures over the use of the site, as opposed to long term lease. Themain benefits of sale may be summarised as:

• An injection of approximately $550,000 (less costs, the majority of which havealready been incurred) to fund the major recreational facilities being provided atKatoomba and Valley Heights.

• Construction at no cost to Council of two new tennis courts in a more appropriatelocation to replace the two existing tennis courts on the land.

• Encouragement to the Springwood Bowling and Recreation Club to provide improvedfacilities on the land due to assured security of tenure.


• Safeguards to ensure that a bowling club open to members of the public remainsavailable to the community on the Macquarie Road site.

• The first right to purchase the property back in the event of the property ever beingoffered for sale.

ValuationTo assist Council in the process of concluding the negotiations with the SBRC Council’sValuer has been instructed to revise the valuation previously provided. It is expected thatadvice will received and be able to be provided to Councillors at the meeting forconsideration.

Relocation of the Tennis CourtsA comprehensive submission has been received from the Winmalee and District Tennis Club(WDTC) outlining the reasons for the two tennis courts to be relocated from Lot 4 DP 226942to their site at Summerhayes Park, Winmalee. A combined submission has been receivedfrom and the Springwood Tennis Club (STC) and the Springwood Youngerset Tennis Club(SYS) outlining the reasons for the two tennis courts to be relocated the Springwood TennisCentre in Spring Street, Springwood.

Copies of both submissions have been made available separately to Councillors forinformation.

The WDTC’s submission, which has been supported by a 326 signature petition and variousletters of support, highlights the need for additional community services and facilities in theWinmalee area due to its high growth rate. The STC/SYS submission highlights the role ofthe Springwood Tennis Centre as a central facility fulfilling both community needs andSpringwood as a central business district. The STC/SYS submission also makes clear a veryclose long term association between the STC and the SYS, the later of which has managed,maintained and improved the two courts on Lot 4 DP 226942 for over forty years.

It should be mentioned that the SBRC has agreed to fund the relocation and construction ofthe two tennis courts from Lot 4 DP226942 to the Springwood Tennis Centre in Spring Street,Springwood. A draft Plan of Management which would permit this relocation is currently onpublic exhibition. The SYS had previously written to Council indicating no objection to theproposal “on the condition that 2 additional equivalent courts ...... are provided at the SpringStreet Tennis Centre for the future use of the Springwood Younger Set Club”.

Should this not occur, the STC/SYS submission recommends that the funds the Bowling Clubwould have spent relocating the two courts to the Springwood Tennis Centre be insteadapplied to the courts in Churchill Street, Springwood, which are also managed by the STC.However, this course of action is clearly not favoured by them which they describe in theirsubmission as a “sad event”.


New courts cannot be built and leased/licensed at Summerhayes Park until an appropriate planof management is prepared. Although both the WDTC’s and the STC’s proposals aresupported in terms of the need for courts, it is considered more logical to relocate theSpringwood Younger Set Tennis Club to the Springwood Tennis Centre, particularly havingregard to their long history of association with the STC.

To address the WDTC’s submission, one option worth exploring may be the closure of thefour tennis courts in Churchill Street, Springwood, the reclassification of the land fromCommunity to Operational and then the sale of the land. The proceeds received from thisland sale could be applied towards the provision of additional courts at Summerhayes Park,Winmalee once its Plan of Management is in place.

It should be noted that the Churchill Street courts are currently managed by the STC whohave stated that they see them as an important part of their operations and that they are fullyused on a regular basis for Saturday Morning Junior Competition. In addition, the Report bythe Commissioner for the Public Hearing into draft LEP 1997 supported a recreational zoningfor the site on the basis of its existing use as tennis courts and a comment that they were“actively” used for this purpose.

Notwithstanding the above, it is still believed that the Churchill Street courts may not besufficiently used to justify their retention at that site over other sites. Their closure and theuse of the funds from the sale of the site to provide additional courts at Summerhayes Parkcould be a better use of the capital tied up in that site and help in concentrating courts at thelarger complexes. From a management perspective this is considered a good measure whichwould assist in the long term provision of well maintained courts. The proposal is thereforeconsidered one which should at least be further explored with the assistance of the STC.

The recommendations make provision for the relocation of the SYS courts to the SpringwoodTennis Centre subject to the STC being open to exploring the proposal regarding theChurchill Street courts.

ConclusionThe SBRC would appear to be not in the position to improve the facilities on the MacquarieRoad site without an appropriate form of security over the freehold title. Legal instrumentsand a Caveat can provide safeguards to restrict the use of the premises to a bowling club andancillary activities open to members of the public and ensure that Council has the right of firstrefusal to purchase the property in the event of its subsequent sale. Therefore, the actual useof the land by the community will not be adversely affected and it is considered will in fact beenhanced by having improved facilities on this site and the funds from the sale being able tobe applied to provide additional recreational facilities in the City. On this basis, it isrecommended that Council support the sale of the property to the Springwood Bowling andRecreation Club.


Attachment

ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT PROGRAMOrdinary Meeting, 22/6/99

ITEM NO: 20

SUBJECT: COUNCIL LAND - LOT 22, DP 579073, OAKLANDS ROAD,HAZELBROOK

FILE NO: C02340

Recommendations:

1. That application be made to subdivide Lot 22 Deposited Plan 579073 Oaklands Road,Hazelbrook into three lots - one for the multi-purpose family centre, the residue landsituated on the north-western side of the creek for recreation and the land situated onthe south-eastern side of the creek for residential purposes.

2. That upon receipt of the subdivision approval and on registration of the plan, the arearequired for the Bungarrabee Centre for Child & Family Services Inc. be transferredto the State Government.

3. That the residue land situated on the north-western side of the creek be reserved forrecreation purposes.

4. That following subdivision the land situated on the south-eastern side of the creek tobe sold for residential purposes and the income received be applied towardsimproving the recreation portion of the site and surrounding environment.

5. That Council’s Common Seal be affixed to all necessary documents relating to thetransfer of land to the State Government for the development of the multi purposefamily centre.

Report by Group Manager, Assets & Corporate Services:

PurposeThe purposes of this report are to:

• seek Council’s resolution to lodge an application for the proposed subdivision of Councilland, Lot 22 DP 579073, Oaklands Road, Hazelbrook into three lots;

• facilitate the proposed development of a multi-purpose family centre in the mid-mountains;

• advise Council of various options relating to the subject land and recommend the mostappropriate course of action in order to protect both Council and community interests;

• seek Council’s support to further investigate options to develop the residue land.


BackgroundCouncil purchased the subject land in 1996 for $142,500 and classified it as “operational”land under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993. Council at its meeting of 27January 1998 resolved in part:

“1. That Council support the proposed development of a Multi-PurposeFamily Centre and contribute to the project via the donation of a portion(being approximately 3,000m2) of Lot 22 DP 579073 Oaklands Road,Hazelbrook and meet any associated subdivision costs. The area of landto be donated (location) is to be identified from an overall site plan forthe area.

2. That Council and proponents approach the State Government seekingadditional funding to meet all of the developmental costs for the project,including project management and design. These costs are to includeremedial site works and drainage works in the existing creek, and serviceaccess points for possible future sporting amenities.

Also

4. That Council agree to the land being vested in the Crown and the facilitymanaged by a community based committee.”

Current StatusRecent investigations carried out by Council’s Strategic Planning Group indicate that an areaof approximately 6,000m2 (instead of 3,000m2 as originally reported) would be required forthe Multi-Purpose Family Centre to successfully accommodate the natural constraints,parking, setback, playground and building requirements. This has been established afterstudying recently received drawings from the architect.

For the purpose outlined in Item 4 of Council’s resolution above, the Bungarrabee Centre forChild & Family Services Inc. has been incorporated to manage the facility in the future. TheCommittee of Bungarrabee Centre for Child & Family Services Inc. has engaged an Architectto prepare a conceptual plan for the centre. The Committee has asked that Council submit asubdivision application for the area of land mentioned in Item 1 of the above Council Minute.It is noted that it is a matter for the Committee to determine whether it wishes to proceed witha Development Application for the building now or after receiving the subdivision approval.

A geo-technical report, flood analysis report, and a contamination report have been prepared.Copies of these reports are attached to the file for Councillors’ information if required.Council Officers from all groups have met to consider various options. It was considered thatat the same time as applying for the subdivision Council should consider the options for theresidue to enable the “best use” of the land.


Subject LandThe area of the land is approximately 1.782 Hectares. It is zoned Residential (A1) under LEPNo.4 and has a proposed zoning of Living Conservation under draft LEP 1997. The Geo-technical report states that the majority of the site is covered by up to 6 metres of fill andalluvium over inferred sandstone bedrock. The natural soil cover is shallow to non-existent.In particular, adverse settlement, low bearing capacity and difficult excavation characteristicsneed to be addressed within any development proposed upon the site. Requirements willinclude drainage, preloading, founding the proposed buildings on piers to bedrock and placingof services above the groundwater table where possible.

The Flood analysis report states that any development of the site would need to consider the100 year flood levels with a nominal 300mm freeboard allowed for setting floor levels. Anysite filling should not encroach within these flood extents without evaluation of theimplication of such filling on peak flood levels and velocities.

The Contamination report states that the site has a low risk to the environment and humanhealth and is suitable for the proposed Child Care Centre. There have been oil drums storedon a portion of the site which will require the removal of the stained soil (approx. 0.2 cubicmetres) and disposal at a Landfill site. Other material such as pipes, concrete, glass etc.should also be removed from the site.

FinancialIt has been estimated that the cost of the proposed multi-purpose family centre would be inthe vicinity of $1,050,000. It has been advised that the State Government will fund theproject up to $900,000. A sum of $100,000 has been provided in Council’s draft CapitalWorks Program Budget for 1999/2000 for the project. It is understood that the Committeeintends to raise the balance.

In terms of the value of the land, indications are that a 1,000 m2 block of residential land inthis area would sell for approximately $55,000 to $60,000. A larger lot is likely to bringcloser to $75,000. However, the return on any proposed residential subdivision for this sitewould be in the lower end of the market because of the higher than normal cost ofdevelopment.

Social/CommunityLiaison between the Area 3 Manager and the Gloria Park Committee suggests that theCommittee has an expectation that the land was originally purchased to add to the sportingrecreation facilities of the park. Netball courts have been discussed and also a junior oval.

The Area 3 Plan adopted by Council in October 1998 notes that Gloria Park is the only “area-level” sporting facility in the mid-mountains. Car parking and the heavy use of sporting fieldshave been identified as key issues in Area 3. The current parking for Gloria Park is consideredinappropriate and hazardous. The Area 3 Plan recommends as a “High” priority thepreparation of a Plan of Management to examine access and parking issues. The Plan alsonotes the expanding child and youth population of the mid-mountains and stresses the role ofGloria Park in responding to the recreational needs generated by this growth.


Options

1. To lodge an application to subdivide the subject land into two lots - one for the multi-purpose family centre (approximately 6,000m2) and the residue (approximately11,820m2) for residential development. The positive and negative aspects of thisoption can be summarised as follows:

Positives NegativesCouncil will meet local demand for achild care centre, and receive an incomefrom the sale of the residential portionand gain rates thereon.

High development cost and limitedbuilding area may attract nobuyers/developers from the marketand affect the return.

Residential use is in keeping with thezoning and the surrounding area

Community expectation is that theland will be for sporting/recreationfacility.

Cost of improving local infrastructurescan be partly offset by income received.

High impact on the environment,sedge swamps and creek areas.

No long term maintenance responsibilityas associated with recreation area andminimum noise impact in comparison torecreational use.

Loose an opportunity to provideadditional land for recreation and/orparking purposes.

2. To lodge an application to subdivide the subject land into two lots - one for the multi-purpose family centre (approximately 6,000m2) and the residue (approximately11,820m2) for recreation purposes. The positive and negative aspects of this optionare:

Positives NegativesCouncil will meet local demand fora child care centre and addressrecreation/parking issues for Gloriapark.

Council will receive no income to offsetsubstantial cost of improving thesurrounding environment and recreationareas.

Council will meet communityexpectation in which the land wasbought for recreational sportingfacility purposes.

Council is obliged to maintain the landincluding weed control, and isresponsible for public liabilitiesassociated with the use of the land.

Gloria Park and associated facilitieswill be enhanced by the potentialintegration of both passive andactive recreational activities.

The concentration of recreationalfacilities and availability of parkingwould potentially have an adverseimpact on local traffic management.


3. To lodge an application to subdivide the subject land into three lots - one for the multi-purpose family centre (approximately 6,000m2), the residue land situated on the north-western side of the creek (approximately 11,000m2) for recreation and the landsituated on the south-eastern side of the creek (approximately 820m2) for residentialpurposes. In this option, Council could sell the residential portion and apply theincome received towards improving the recreational portion and the surroundingenvironment. The net proceeds from the proposed sale of the one residential lot wouldnot be great. However, it is expected to provide some funds to initiate theimprovements to the recreational portion and surrounding environment.

The positives and negatives of this option are:

Positives NegativesCouncil will meet local demand fora child care centre, addressrecreation/car-parking issues forGloria park and receive someincome from sale of the residentialportion

Due to physical constraints and irregularconfigurations of the land, Council mayreceive only minimal returns on theproposed residential portion.

Council will meet communityexpectation in which the land wasbought for recreational sportingfacility purposes.

Council is obliged to maintain the landincluding weed control, and isresponsible for public liabilitiesassociated with the use of the land.

Gloria Park and associated facilitieswill be enhanced by the potentialintegration of both passive andactive recreational activities.

The concentration of recreationalfacilities and availability of parkingwould potentially have an adverseimpact on local trafficnetworks/management.

ConclusionHaving regard to the physical constraints and characteristics, it is considered desirable for theresidue land on the north-western side of the creek to be predominantly used as a recreationalarea. The portion of land towards the eastern end of Park Road is considered to have potentialfor residential purposes. Also, the vacant land (south-eastern section of Gloria Park) at thewestern end of Park Road and Lester Avenue is considered more suitable for parkingpurposes.

In view of the above, it is recommended that Council lodge an application to subdivide thesubject land to facilitate the multi-purpose family centre development and that the residueland situated on the north-western side of the creek be reserved for recreation and the landsituated on the south-eastern side of the creek be sold for residential purposes.


Attachment

TRANSPORT & PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAMOrdinary Meeting, 22/6/99

ITEM NO: 21

SUBJECT: KERB AND GUTTER AND PATH PAVING OWNERCONTRIBUTIONS POLICY

FILE NO: R00/0032

Recommendations:

1. That Council’s Policy in respect of requiring Kerb and Gutter and Path Paving ownercontributions be as shown at Attachment B, “Kerb and Gutter Path Paving OwnerContributions Policy, June 1999”.

2. That the revised Policy be applied to all currently unlevied accounts.


Introduction

By Minute No. 285 of 24 June 1997, Council adopted an amended Policy regarding ownercontributions to the cost of laying kerb and gutter and/or footpath adjacent to properties as perSection 217 of the Roads Act 1993. This Policy is provided as Attachment A.

There is now a need to reconsider this Policy for various reasons as detailed below and arecommended revised Policy is provided for consideration as Attachment B.

Discussion

Since adoption of the existing Policy, various issues have arisen which include:

(a) by Council’s Schedule of Rates contractor. Legal advice confirms that the amountlevied must be based on the actual cost for each project to a maximum amount.

The revised Policy provides that the maximum amount should be based on the currentrates by Council’s Schedule of Rates Contractor.

(b) Section 1 (ii) of the existing Policy provides that no land owner contributions belevied where no “direct benefit” accrues to the property.

This clause has proven difficult to interpret and has led to disagreements with somelandowners as to the meaning of “direct benefit”.

TRANSPORT & PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAMItem 21 - Ordinary Meeting, 22/6/99

It is recommended that this clause be deleted from the revised Policy as it isgenerally believed that the provision of kerb and guttering enhances the greatmajority of properties. Also, it is imperative that Council policies are imposeduniformly unless the specific application will result in an undue or onerousburden on the property owner/s.

(c) Landowners with either large frontages or corner blocks have, on occasions, beenrequired to contribute correspondingly large amounts of money. At Medlow Bath forexample some properties would be expected to pay from $2,000 to $8,330.

It is recommended in the revised Policy to limit contributions to $1,500 for 1999/2000(adjusted from time to time by Council resolution) for kerb and gutter per property.An average block of around 20m frontage may be expected to contributeapproximately $500 to $700.

The 1997/98 Management Plan included the phasing out of the contribution for Path Pavingand is therefore included in the recommended revised Policy.

Comment by Group Manager, Assets & Corporate Services

The proposed policy changes are supported.


Attachment A

KERB AND GUTTER AND

PATH PAVING OWNER CONTRIBUTIONS POLICY

(as amended 24/06/97, Minute No. 285)

1. In accordance with Section 217 of the Roads Act 1993, Council shall require adjoiningowners to contribute towards the cost of kerbing and guttering and path paving, otherthan in cases where the General Manager is of the opinion that:-

(i) The contribution towards kerb and guttering or path paving works, calculatedin accordance with Council’s policy, would place an undue or onerous burdenon the property owners in the circumstances.

or

(ii) No direct benefit accrues to the property owner by the provision of kerb andguttering or path paving.

2. That where kerb and gutter and path paving are to be constructed concurrently, then acontribution towards kerb and gutter only will be sought.

3. That the contribution sought shall be based on a cost that shall be estimated by usingthe rates available from Council’s current Schedule of Rates Contractor and as shownin the Fees and Charges of the annual Management Plan.

4. That where contributions towards kerb and guttering works are to be sought underSection 217 of the Roads Act 1993, such contributions shall be sought on thefollowing basis unless, in the opinion of the General Manager, special circumstancesapply:-

(a) The owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of kerbing and guttering (orasphaltic concrete) laid in place adjacent to the frontage of the property.

(b) The owner shall contribute 331/3% of the cost of kerbing and guttering laid inplace adjacent to the side and rear frontage of the property.


Attachment A

(c) The cost shall also cover ancillary earthworks connected with the placing ofthe kerbing and guttering.

(d) Council shall meet the full cost of laying concrete (or asphaltic concrete) onthe corners of the properties and of ramps.

5. That where contributions towards footpath paving works are to be sought underSection 217 of the Roads Act 1993, such contributions shall be sought on thefollowing basis unless, in the opinion of the General Manager, special circumstancesapply:-

(a) For the financial year 1997/1998

(i) The owner shall contribute 40% of the cost of footpath paving (orasphaltic concrete) laid in place adjacent to the frontage of the property.

(ii) The owner shall contribute 262/3% of the cost of footpath paving laid inplace adjacent to the side and rear frontage of the property.

(iii) The cost shall also cover ancillary earthworks connected with theplacing of the footpath.

(iv) Council shall meet the full cost of footpath paving and laying concrete(or asphaltic concrete) on the corners of the properties and of ramps.

(b) For the financial year 1998/1999


(ii) The owner shall contribute 20% of the cost of footpath paving laid inplace adjacent to the side and rear frontage of the property.



(c) For the financial year 1999/2000




Attachment A



(d) For the financial year 2000/2001





6. Council’s Debt Recovery Policy shall apply where owners do not or are unable to paycharges levied in accordance with this Policy.

7. That immediately following the adoption of the draft Management Plan each year,Council shall advise all adjoining owners as a courtesy of proposed new kerb andgutter and path paving construction listed in the draft plan.


Attachment B

Kerb and Gutter and Path Paving Owner Contributions Policy

June 1999

That Council’s Policy in respect of requiring kerb and guttering and foot path pavingcontributions be as follows: -

1. In accordance with Section 217 of the Roads Act 1993, Council shall require adjoiningowners to contribute towards the cost of kerb and gutter and path paving, other than incases where the General Manager is of the opinion that the contribution towards kerband gutter or path paving works, calculated in accordance with Council’s Policy, wouldplace an undue or onerous burden on the property owners in the circumstances.

2. That where kerb and gutter and path paving are to be constructed concurrently, then a

contribution toward kerb and gutter only will be sought. 3. That the amount to be contributed shall be based on actual cost with a maximum

contribution based on a cost that shall be estimated by using the rates available fromCouncil’s current Schedule of Rates Contract and as shown in the Fees and Charges ofthe current Management Plan for the period in which the work is carried out.

4. That where contributions towards kerb and gutter and path paving works are provided

for pursuant to Section 217 of the Roads Act 1993, such contributions shall be payableon the following basis unless, in the opinion of the General Manager, specialcircumstances apply:-

a) Contributions towards path paving costs be phased out over three (3) years on the

following basis:-

1999/2000 - 20% of cost 2000/2001 - 10% of cost 2001/2002 - nil

and that these charges apply to path paving laid in place to the frontage only.Frontage shall mean the boundary on the street to which the property is rated or,in exceptional circumstances, the boundary that the building faces.

b) The owner shall contribute 50% of the cost of kerb and gutter (per Clause 3) laid

adjacent to the property.

The owner shall also contribute one third of the kerb and gutter costs laid to theside and/or rear boundaries and where a corner block, that no contribution besought for the kerb return (the curved section of kerb and gutter at the intersectionof adjoining streets).


Attachment B The maximum kerb and gutter charge per property frontage will be $1,500 in

1999/2000 (adjusted from time to time by Council resolution).

c) The cost shall also cover ancillary works connected with the placing of the kerband gutter or path paving.

d) Council shall meet the full cost of path paving and of laying concrete (or asphaltic

concrete) on the corners and side boundaries of the properties.

5. Council’s Debt Recovery Policy shall apply where owners do not pay charges levied inaccordance with this Policy.

TRANSPORT & PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAMOrdinary Meeting, 22/6/99

ITEM NO: 22

SUBJECT: WALKING TRACK – EXPLORERS’ TREE, KATOOMBA

FILE NO: H00293

Recommendations:

1. That Council not proceed with the provision of the walking track at this stage.

2. That Council pursue the RTA for integration of walking track provision fromExplorers’ Tree to Narrow Neck Road, on the southern side of the highway, as part ofthe Great Western Highway (GWH) upgrade.


Introduction

At its meeting on 28 April 1998 vide Minute 200 Council resolved:

“That a report be provided to Council on the feasibility of constructing a safe walkingtrack from the Explorers’ Tree, Katoomba to Narrow Neck Road, Katoomba and suchreport review potential sources of funding for this work’.

This report has been delayed due to various staff movements in the Operations Group in thepast year.

Discussion

Council staff carried out an investigation of the area from Narrow Neck Road to Explorers’Tree. The investigation has been based on safety, care for the environment and cost ofconstruction and maintenance.

The nature of the terrain in the area between the Narrow Neck Road and Explorers’ Tree isundulating with some steep slopes. The GWH and the railway line are located on the ridgewith ground sloping away on the north and south sides. Approximately 250 metres of theGWH are located on steep embankment. The rail line is located on the north side of the GWHand runs adjacent to it. The south side of the road is densely vegetated with scattered rockoutcrops.

Four (4) possible alternatives routes have been reviewed and the advantages and constraints ofeach alternative are presented as follows:


Alternative 1: North of GWH - adjacent to the railway line.

Advantage: none

Constraints:

(i) There is not sufficient width of nature strip to provide a walking track

(ii) The provision of such a track would require crossing the heavily traffickedhighway at a minimum of two locations.

(iii) Risk in terms of accidents and property damage is high.

Alternative 2: South of GWH and away from the highway.

Advantages:

(i) From pedestrian safety point of view this route is the safest as it is locatedaway from the highway.

(ii) Pedestrians can enjoy the natural vistas as the track traverses undulatingground and thick vegetation.

Constraints:

(i) The track traverses through the steep unstable slopes and thick vegetation.(ii) Requires cutting and removal of significant established vegetation.(iii) Will require making the existing steep slope flatter by filling or providing steps

and retaining walls.(iv) Will need to provide hand rails and fences for safety at numerous locations.(v) Will require provision of erosion control structures.(vi) Will require provision of culverts and or causeways across natural water

courses.(vii) Construction as well as maintenance cost is high.

Alternative 3: South of GWH and closer to the highway, consisting of 3 separate sectionswith a total length of approximately 1,150 metres.

Advantages:

(i) Relatively easy to construct and maintain due to proximity to the road andaccessibility.

(ii) Requires little vegetation clearance.(iii) The track follows the GWH and does not require traversing through steep

slopes.(iv) Will require minimal safety handrail or fences.

Constraints:

(i) Some land will need to be acquired.(ii) Will require consent from RTA to construct walkway on the steep

embankment.

Cost is likely to be substantially less than the previous two options and more detailedinvestigation has been undertaken for this alternative.


A property boundary search will need to be carried out during more detailed survey.If part of the track passes through private property, then either the track will need to berelocated or land may need to be acquired from the private owners.

The preliminary estimate for construction of this walking track (Alternative 3) is$41,000. In addition about $600 per year will be required for routine maintenanceworks to maintain satisfactory condition.

Alternative 4: Pursue RTA for integration and provision of the walking/bicycle track as partof the GWH upgrade.

Discussions have taken place with the RTA regarding this proposal for theupgrade of the GWH at ‘Shell’ corner. The RTA has been requested toconsider integration of walking/bicycle track as part of the proposed GWHupgrade works and their response has been positive.

The RTA has invited proposals from three contractors for project developmentand the work is expected to be complete by the end of October 1999.

The RTA have acknowledged Council comment in relation to pedestrianaccess to the Explorers’ Tree and advised that it will be incorporated into theconcept development work for the GWH upgrade.

Conclusion

Alternatives 1 & 2, outlined above, do not appear to be feasible.

The provision of walking track on the south side of GWH and along side the highway(Alternative 3), is the most viable option. However, this may only be a short term solution asthe RTA is proposing to upgrade the GWH at this section which may involve displacing anyproposed walking track in this location.

As the RTA is proceeding with the design of the upgrade of the GWH, integration of awalking/bicycle track in GWH upgrade works will be a more permanent solution, at possiblyno cost to Council.

PRECIS OF SELECTED CORRESPONDENCEOrdinary Meeting, 22/6/99

ITEM NO: 23

SUBJECT: PRECIS OF SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE, 22/6/99

FILE NO: C00680

Recommendation:

That the Precis of Selected Correspondence be received and appropriate letters be forwardedwhere necessary.

1. 1/6/1999 - Karon Grant, Glenbrook

Expressing thanks to Blue Mountains City Council, Glenbrook Bushcare Group andTAFE students who worked together to provide the community with a safe crossingover the storm water gully behind Bellata Court, Glenbrook.

2. 1/6/1999 - The Hon R Debus MP, Member for Blue Mountains

Concerning Council’s request for his assistance in expediting transfer and purchase oflands to facilitate the relocation of the 1st Springwood Scouts and Guides, reading asfollows:

“I am pleased to advise that the Minister for Land and Water Conservation, HonCraig Knowles MP, has now given his approval for the transfer and purchase ofthe lands. Action in this matter is now dependant on:

1. Blue Mountains City Council providing a registered copy of the plan for thesite to be reserved. This is a matter for Council.

2. Closure of the public road within the site (Croucher Street). Statutoryadvertising of the closure must be satisfactorily completed as a requirement ofSection 34, Roads Act, 1993.

Advertising of the proposed closure is due to appear in the Penrith Press on 1June, 1999. A period of 28 days for public comment must be allowed prior toapproval and gazettal of the closure. Subject to there being no adversecomments, gazettal should take place on 9 July 1999.

3. Subject to completion of this action in (2), the new reserve for “CommunityPurposes” will be able to be gazetted on 9 July, 1999 or thereafter wheneverthe site plan for the reserve, referred to in (1) above has been registered.”

PRECIS OF SELECTED CORRESPONDENCEItem 23 - Ordinary Meeting, 22/6/99

3. 8/6/1999 - The Hon Bob Carr, Premier of New South Wales

Addressed to the Hon Bob Debus MP, Member for Blue Mountains:-

“I refer to your recent representations on behalf of Blue Mountains CityCouncil concerning the proposed auction of Faulconbridge House, the formerresidence of Sir Henry Parkes.

Although the Council’s proposal for Government acquisition of FaulconbridgeHouse has been noted, I am advised that there are adequate existing measuresto ensure the conservation of this property. Faulconbridge House and Gardensis listed as a heritage item in the local planning instrument, Blue MountainsLocal Environmental Plan. The LEP contains heritage provisions to ensurethat any proposal to carry out work on the property is properly consideredhaving regard to its heritage significance and requires the consent of BlueMountains City Council.

In view of the heritage protection provided by existing planning guidelines, thepublic acquisition of Faulconbridge House is not considered necessary at thistime.”

4. 10/6/1999 - Mr K Harrington, Secretary, Blue Mountains Vietnam Veterans andAssociated Forces Inc

Thanking Council for its financial support of the organisation.

5. 10/6/1999 - Mr T Stewart MP, Parliamentary Secretary for The Hon JohnAquilina MP, Minister for Education and Training

Reading as follows:-

“I refer to your letter to the Premier concerning the former teacher’s residenceat Blackheath.

The General Manager of Properties, Department of Education and Trainingadvises that the Department of Public Works and Services are currentlyundertaking the necessary remedial works in relation to the lead contaminatedsoil at the property.

The former residence is situated on land that is dedicated for public schoolpurposes and as such this land can only be dealt with by the Ministerresponsible for administration of the Crown Land Act, 1989. I have written tothe Minister for Land and Water Conservation requesting his assistance insecuring tenure over the premises for the Blackheath Area NeighbourhoodCentre Inc.


In regards to the possible closure of part of Leichhardt Street, an Applicationfor the Closing of a Road under the Roads Act, 1993 (Ref: C00286) iscurrently being prepared for submission to Council by officers of theDepartment’s Properties Directorate.”

6. 15/6/1999 - Mr M Parker, Faulconbridge

Reading as follows:-

“I was very disappointed that I was unable to address council on this issue. Iwould normally withdraw if I felt that the issues or information I have wouldbe brought to the council’s attention. Also, as a regular community contributorit is only fair to hear other people’s opinions and therefore it puts greatpressure on me to back down when there are more than three speakers on asubject.

It particularly concerns me that the recommendation in the report was “ThatCouncil now consider the matters outlined in the report by the GeneralManager” and as such every speaker should have been FOR thisrecommendation. Again, there needs to be clarity in the Code of MeetingPractice - are the public indicating for or against the recommendations or forand against the issues in the report. In this case where there is effectively norecommended motion then I believe all members of the public should beallowed to speak so that the council has access to all the opinions as motioncould have been proposed. (sic)

The holding of a poll of electors in regard to contentious issues at the sametime as the council election is a good idea.

Of course the poll is not binding and what really matters is the democraticallyelected councillors. However, the results on a number of issues will helpidentify whether there is a strong feeling in the community or just one or twoactivists.

As the results of the poll can be on a booth by booth basis there is no harm inasking all the questions at all the polling stations. The questions are optionaland it will give a good indication of the feeling of the people at the differentlocations in the Mountains.

I felt that the reasons in favour of a poll were well put by Councillor Harris.However, in discussions with him after the Council Meeting he indicated hewas not in favour of a poll on items such as the Valley Heights Pool,McDonalds / FastFood or development on St Columba’s Site as they had or arebeing satisfactorily handled under the current LEP, the process of Draft LEP1997 or satisfactory reports.

I also felt that the reasons against any poll were well put by CouncillorBerriman.


Seeing that we are now going to have a poll on the Springwood Town Square itis only reasonable to include questions which will assist Council in futuredecisions. I stress the word assist, this is not about taking away any decisionmaking power from the Council but about getting a clear indication of the willof the people.

I suggest that a poll should include:-

Is there too much development in the Mountains?Are too many subdivisions being approved?Do you want FastFood/McDonalds in the Mountains?Do you want FastFood/McDonalds on the Highway?Do you want FastFood/McDonalds in town centres such as Katoomba?Do you want a Heated indoor Swimming/Wave Pool at Valley Heights?Do you want a modest heated indoor Swimming Pool at Buttenshaw Park”Do you want to reduce the number of councillors to say 7?Do you want to abolish ward boundaries?Do you want housing development on the St Columba’s Site?Do you approve of the sale of the Springwood Bowling Club?Do you want a compact town square and the reclassification of the communityland to operational or an extended town square and no reclassification ofcommunity land?

Each question needs to be suitably worded to get a reasonable answer and anyadditional information needs to be unbiased and indicate the consequencessuch as the reclassification of community land to operational.

As a decision needs to be made by the Council Meeting of 22 June 1999 Irequest that the councillors review possible questions during their workshop soa definitive resolution can be made ….”

7. 11/6/1999 - Mr G Ulrich, Secretary, Blue Mountains SHHH Group

Thanking Council for its financial assistance in continuing the Group’s work assistingthe hearing impaired.

8. 11/6/1999 - The Hon Kim Yeadon MP, Minister for Information Technology

Addressed to the Hon R Debus MP, Member for Blue Mountains, reading as follows:-

“Thank you for your representations on behalf of the Blue Mountains City Councilconcerning the Year 2000 computer problem.

I have arranged for this matter to be investigated and a response will be sent toyou shortly.”

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE (8/6/99)Ordinary Meeting, 22/6/99

ITEM NO: 24

SUBJECT: REFERENDUM EDUCATION

FILE NO: C02501

Question by Councillor C Gaul (8/6/99):

“What is Council doing in regards to its resolution to commence a comprehensiveeducation process prior to the referendum in September 1999.”

Response from General Manager:

The timing of this educative progress is of the essence as it is of importance that this issuereceive maximum publicity in the eight weeks prior to 11 September.

Many residents would be aware to the Referendum, and its Questions, from the informationdistributed as a rates enclosure. Subsequently, the issue has received wide coverage in thelocal press. A detailed media release has been issued.

The following is proposed:

(1) A double sided A4 enclosure to accompany the July Rates Notice. One papersurface would cover the Questions, why there needs to be a Referendum, whythe matter is not being dealt with by a “stand alone” referendum etc. Thereverse side of the page will focus solely on the arguments for eachproposition. It is my intention to distribute the draft enclosure to Councillorsfor comment in early July.

(2) Provision of the information detailed in (1) to neighbourhood centres, Councilinformation counters, libraries etc.

(3) Half page advertisements in the Blue Mountains Gazettes of 18 August, 25August, 1 September and 8 September.

(4) Advertisements in the Public Notices Section of the Blue Mountains Gazetteand the Penrith Press on the dates as above.

(5) Area wide letter box drop by Australia Post on Monday, 6 Septemberencompassing information detailed in (1) modified by any issues that havesubsequently arisen.

(6) A program of media releases for August/September.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE (8/6/99)Item 24 - Ordinary Meeting, 22/6/99

(7) A Referendum Hot Line (staffed for limited extended hours and on Saturdaymornings and providing a ring back service for other callers) and

(8) Attractive display material to be provided for libraries, neighbourhood centres,etc.

ITEM NO: 1 SUBJECT: KATOOMBA TOWN CENTRE …Outcomes Report and Town Centre Revitalisation Strategy...

Documents

Transcript of ITEM NO: 1 SUBJECT: KATOOMBA TOWN CENTRE …Outcomes Report and Town Centre Revitalisation Strategy...