Ordinary Meeting No. 4318 · 2020. 12. 23. · Clr Peter Astridge Clr Simon Frame Clr Murray Butt...

Sesqu icen tenary Ce lebra t ion

Hunte r 's H i l l Counc i l

Ordinary Meeting

No. 4318 13 February 2012 at 7.30pm

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Prayer

Attendance, Apologies,

Declarations of Interests

A Confirmation of Minutes

Civic Ceremonies

B Mayoral Minutes & Reports

Tabling of Petitions

Addresses from the Public

C Notice of Motions

(including Rescission Motions)

Reports from Staff

D Development & Regulatory Control

E Works & Services

F Corporate Governance

G Customer & Community Services

H General Manager

J Committees

K Correspondence

L Delegates Reports

M General Business

N Questions With or Without Notice

Z Council in Committee of the Whole

HUNTER'S HILL COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

4318 - 13 February 2012

INDEX

A - CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1. Confirmation of Minutes of Ordinary Meeting 4317 held 12 December 2011 1

D - DEVELOPMENT & REGULATORY CONTROL

1. 10 Viret Street, Hunters Hill 1 2. 11 Crescent Street, Hunters Hill 11 3. 9 Glenview Crescent, Hunters Hill 17 4. NSW Planning Review 35 5. Delegated Authority 37 6. Legal Matters 39 7. Supplementary Report – 56-58 Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill

(Under Separate Cover) 40

E - WORKS & SERVICES

1. Nomination of Kelly’s Bush for National Heritage Listing 1

F - CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

1. Summary of Council's Investment as at 31 December 2011 1

H - GENERAL MANAGER

1. Adoption of Delivery Program, Operational Plan & Resourcing Strategy 2012/13 – 2015/16

1

2. Sesquicentenary Celebrations Time Capsule 32 3. Constitutional Recognition of Local Government – Contribution of Funds 34

J - COMMITTEES

1. Report of Councillor Workshops & Briefings held 12 December 2011. 1 2. Minutes of the Mainstreet Committee - Hunters Hill Village held

30 November 2011 2

3. Minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel (CAP) Meeting held 7 December 2011

5

4. Minutes of the Sustainability & Biodiversity Committee held 1 February 2012 11 5. Minutes of the Sustainability & Biodiversity Committee held 2 November 2011 14 6. Minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel (CAP) Meeting held 16 November

2011 – Resubmitted from OM 4317 with Amendments. 19

K - CORRESPONDENCE

1. Leichhardt Council: Traffic Congestion 1

M - GENERAL BUSINESS

1. Meetings - Various Committees of Council 1

A

Confirmation of

Minutes

A – Confirmation of Minutes

4318 - 13 February 2012

Index

1. Confirmation of Minutes of Ordinary Meeting held 12 December 2011 1

………………………………….. Councillor Susan R. Hoopmann MAYOR

...................................... Barry Smith

GENERAL MANAGER

MINUTES OF ORDINARY MEETING NO.4317 – 12 December 2011 A1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No.4317 held on 12 December, 2011 This is page

COMMENCEMENT The meeting opened with Prayer at 7.32pm.

IN ATTENDANCE The Mayor Councillor Susan Hoopmann, Deputy Mayor Councillor Richard Quinn, Councillors Peter Astridge, Murray Butt and Ross Sheerin. Councillor Simon Frame arrived at 8.20pm.

ALSO PRESENT The General Manager Barry Smith, the Group Manager Corporate Governance Debra McFadyen, the Group Manager Development and Regulatory Control Steve Kourepis and the Group Manager Works and Services David Innes.

APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Clr Meredith Sheil. Clr Sheil has requested leave of absence as per General Manager’s report Item H3.

431/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Astridge that Leave of Absence be granted to Councillor Meredith Sheil.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Ross Sheerin declared an interest in Item D5, the interest being in relation to a non-pecuniary interest as agent representing the owner of the property.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 432/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Butt that the Minutes of

Ordinary Meeting No. 4316 held 28 November, 2011 be confirmed.

REPORTS FROM STAFF

DEVELOPMENT & REGULATORY CONTROL (Pages D1 – D65) 1. DA NO. 2011/1095: 29 ALEXANDRA STREET, HUNTERS HILL PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF Mr. Karl Romandi Architect for Applicant addressed the meeting on the subject

matter. 433/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Butt that:

A. Council, as the consent authority, is satisfied that the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 to vary the garden area standard of clause 16A of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 is well founded under the circumstances of the case and is consistent with the aims of the Policy.



Development Application No.2011/1095 for the carrying out of alterations and additions to the integrated development (dual occupancy) at No.29 Alexandra Street, Hunters Hill approved, subject to the following conditions:

Special Conditions:

1. Pursuant to the provisions of the Environment Planning & Assessment Act 1979 this approval shall lapse and be void if the building work or use to which it refers is not physically commenced within five (5) years after the date of approval.

2. The development consent No.2011/1095 relates to the plans prepared by Karl Romandi & Helen De Luis Pty Ltd Architects numbered 1002 – 10, 11 & 13 to 15 dated July 2001, as received by Council on 10 August 2011, except where modified by conditions of this consent.

3. The colours of external materials being in accordance with plan No.1002-11 and No.1002-14 as prepared by Karl Romandi & Helen De Luis Pty Ltd as received by Council on 10 August 2011.

4. Compliance with the requirements of the Basix Certificate No.A119607 dated 10 August 2011.

5. Stormwater from downpipes and tank storage overflows being piped to Council’s gutter in Foss Street.

6. The landscaping of the site being carried out in accordance with plan prepared by Secret Gardens of Sydney drawing No.LC-01 Rev. A dated 16 March 2011 as received by Council on 10 August 2011.

Standard Conditions:

A4 to A9, B1, B7 ($1,000), C1 to C5, C19, C31 to C35, C40, C44, C45, D1 to D3, D9, D10, L7, PE1, PE4 to PE7, S1 & W1.

RECORD OF VOTING Yes Absent

Clr Peter Astridge Clr Simon Frame Clr Murray Butt Clr Meredith Sheil Clr Susan Hoopmann Clr Richard Quinn Clr Ross Sheerin

2. DA NO. 2011/1013: 3-7 COWELL STREET, GLADESVILLE

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 434/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Quinn that at 7.40pm,

Standing Orders be suspended to allow Councillors to view plans.

RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS

435/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Butt that at 7.50pm, Standing Orders be resumed.



436/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Quinn that:

A. A “Deferred commencement” consent No.DA2011/1013 be approved pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 in respect of Nos.3-7 Cowell Street, Gladesville, for alterations and additions to the existing mixed development.

The development consent as contained in Schedule 2 shall not operate (or be issued) until such time as the matters contained in Schedule 1 are finalised to the satisfaction of Council. Unless these Schedule 1 conditions, as set out below, are given compliance within two (2) years of the date of this resolution, the consent will not be able to be acted upon.

Schedule 1

1. The deletion of the solid balustrading from around the areas on level 5

marked ‘non-trafficable roof’ as shown on the current plans. 2. The ‘non-trafficable roof’ areas on level 5 being shown as metal deck

roofing on amending plans to ensure that such areas are not used in the future as unauthorised roof terraces for apartment Nos.6 and 9.

Schedule 2

B. That Development Application No.2011/1013 for alterations and additions

to the existing mixed development at Nos.3-7 Cowell Street, Gladesville, be approved, subject to the following conditions:

Special Conditions:

1. Pursuant to the provisions of the Environment Planning & Assessment Act 1979 this approval shall lapse and be void if the building work or use to which it refers is not physically commenced within five (5) years after the date of approval.

2. The development consent No. (2011/1013) relates to the plans prepared by

Olsson & Associates Project No.1011 numbered DA20 to DA27 Issue H dated 16 November 2010 as received by Council on 18 February 2011, DA28 to DA30 & DA32 to DA36 Issue J & K dated 1 December 2011 as received by Council on 2 December 2011, DA31 Issue I dated 17 November 2011 as received by Council on 23 November 2011, except where amended by conditions of this consent.

3. Payment to Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate of a

contribution under Section 94 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 for embellishment or provision of public services or amenities such as open space, drainage, roads, cycleways, community facilities and traffic management. That contribution to be made in accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan adopted on 23 June 2003 and a copy of the plan is available from Customer Services Centre.



The amount payable being: $188,730.00.

a) Embellishment of Open Space – ($7,020) Account No. 133421.0520 c) Stormwater Drainage – ($5,040) Account No. 133423.0520 d) Community Facilities – ($2,160) Account No.133424.0520 e) Local Area Traffic Management – ($54) Account No. 133425.0520 f) Bikeways – ($450) Account No. 133426.0520 h) Community Facilities in Gladesville Shopping Centre – ($169,830)

Account No. 133428.0520 i) Contributions Plan – ($36) Account No. 133429.0520 j) Acquisition of Open Space – ($4,140) Account No. 133430.0520.

4. Compliance with the Basix Certificate No.343232 dated 20 December

2010. 5. The finished surfaced being provided in accordance with “Materials and

Finishes’ as prepared by Olsson & Associates Architects, Project No.1011 plan No.DA40 Issue H dated 16 November 2010, as received by Council on 18 February 2011

6. To ensure compliance with this determination, a registered surveyor has to

submit a report confirming the overall height of the building does not exceed 15 metres above existing ground level.

7. The floor space ratio of the overall development not exceeding 1.5:1 as

required by clause 4.4 of Local Environmental Plan No.1 (Gladesville Village Centre) 2010.

8. Solar power being provided to the new residential units and common areas

by way of photo voltaic cells to be integrated into the design of the building works to the satisfaction of Council.

9. The applicant submitting a construction management plan for the new development. The movement of trucks is limited to Cowell Street (no further than the north west boundary except for essential manoeuvring into the site) than only from Victoria Road and no other routing is permitted in the area other than the use of Pittwater Road, Burns Bay Road and Ryde Road. All construction vehicles including tradesmen and workers vehicles shall park in the basement carpark during the construction phase.

10. A separate development application will have to be submitted to Council for subsequent Strata Subdivision of the additional units and accompanying car parking spaces resultant from this development consent.

Standard Conditions: A4 to A9, B1, B7($6,300), C1 to C4, C6, C19, C31 to C35, C44, FS1, FS2, PH1 to PH8, S1, S8, W1. C That the applicant be advised to reduce the size of the terrace proposed for

units 6 and 9 on level 5 and invited to submit a section 96 application to this consent to provide appropriate outdoor private open space areas for units Nos.6 and 9, ensuring that minimal impacts are experienced on noise, loss of privacy and amenity to the existing adjoining residential properties.



RECORD OF VOTING Yes Absent

Clr Peter Astridge Clr Simon Frame Clr Murray Butt Clr Meredith Sheil Clr Susan Hoopmann Clr Richard Quinn Clr Ross Sheerin

3. DA NO. 2011/1108: 11 MAYFIELD AVENUE, WOOLWICH PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF Mr. Don Bonnitcha (Clarification) and Mr. John Greenwood (In support) addressed

the meeting on the subject matter. Councillor Peter Astridge foreshadowed a motion to defer this matter to the General

Purpose Committee for a site inspection. 437/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Butt, seconded Clr Quinn that:

A. The Council as the consent authority being satisfied that the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 to vary the height provisions under Clause 15, of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 is well founded.

B. The Council as the consent authority being satisfied that the objection

under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 to vary the garden area provisions under Clause 16A, of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 is well founded.

C. A “Deferred Commencement” consent be granted pursuant to Section

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

Schedule 1

1. Privacy louvered screening has been proposed to the northern elevation of

bedroom No.3 and to the southern elevation of the existing terraces on levels 2 and 3. Detailed plans are to be provided in relation to the materials and configuration (angle of view, fix or not fixed) of the proposed louvers.

2. That the proposed roof solar panels are to be of non-reflective material.

Specifications and details are to be submitted to Council. 3. That the railings/balustrades to the terraces are to be finished in a dark and

recessive earthy tone/colour, and details to be submitted to Council.

4. No details have been submitted for the proposed front fencing, such as height and dimensions, and amended plans to be submitted to Council.



5. That the eastern waterfront elevation roof of the existing dwelling is not to be altered, and the existing roof form is not to be altered. Amended plans are to be submitted to Council reflecting this amendment.

6. The proposed landscape plans are to be amended as follows:

• Delete the Pyrus, Tristaniopsis, Michelia proposed for the northern boudary at the rear and substitute with a species which will not grow higher than 3 metres in height from ground level.

• Delete the Betula (Silver Birch). • Delete the tree (3) Tristaniopsis proposed for the southern boudary

at the rear. • An additionasl Pyrus colleryana ‘Aristocrat’ (45 litre container is to

be planted in lieu of the Angophora costata at the front of the property.

7. Amended plans are to be submitted showing a garage door to the proposed

level 2 floor plan as the current plans indicate a wall and a door in front of the existing four (4) car stacker garage.

Schedule 2

That Development Application No.2011/1108 for the alterations and additions at No.11 Mayfield Avenue, Woolwich, be approved, subject to the following conditions:

Special Conditions:

1. Pursuant to the provisions of the Environment Planning & Assessment Act 1979 this approval shall lapse and be void if the building work or use to which it refers is not substantially commenced within five (5) years after the date of approval.

2. The development consent No.2011/1108 relates to the plans prepared by John Greenwood and Associates P/L, numbered DA.01-DA.08, DA.12 – DA.14, issue A, dated 23 September 2011, schedule of colours and finishes dated 21 September 2011.

3. Any new connections into Council’s stormwater trunk drain being done under Council supervision only, the connection is to be to the obvert (top) of Council’s pipe and finished flush with the inside wall of the pipe. No masonry structures are to be built above the pipe.

4. Development to be in a accordance with BASIX Certificate No.A123481,

date of issue 20 September 2011. 5. That the proposed front entry reflection pool is not to have a depth greater

than 300mm.


A4-A9, B1, B7, C1-C5, C14, C15, C35, C40-C42, C44, D13, DC1 ($2,800.00), FS2, L2, L4, PE4, S1, SP3



RECORD OF VOTING Yes Absent / Against

Clr Murray Butt Clr Peter Astridge - Against Clr Susan Hoopmann Clr Simon Frame - Absent Clr Richard Quinn Clr Meredith Sheil - Absent Clr Ross Sheerin

4. DA NO. 2011/1110: 8A JOUBERT STREET, HUNTERS HILL

PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF 8.20pm Councillor Simon Frame entered the meeting during consideration of this matter. Mrs Elizabeth Gyory (Objector) addressed the meeting on the subject matter. 438/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Butt that a “Deferred

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

Schedule 1

Prior to the release of the Strata Plan, evidence is to be provided to Council indicating the completion of all conditions of consent (DA07/1079) including any amendments under the provisions of s96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and completion of the building works on the site in accordance with Development Application No.07/1079 and Final Occupation Certificate to be issued.

Schedule 2

That Development Application No.11/1110 for the strata subdivision of Lot 2 DP 1107265 at No.8A Joubert Street, Hunters Hill, be approved, subject to the following conditions:

Special Conditions:


2. The development consent No.11/1110 relates to the plans prepared by John T. Higgins, numbered sheet 1 of 2 and sheet 2 of 2, dated 24 August 2011, date stamped by Council 27 September 2011.

3. Submission of original plan of subdivision, plus five (5) copies under the provisions of the Strata Titles act together with the appropriated linen plans of strata subdivision, suitable for endorsement by the certifying authority.

Note: the following details are to be submitted with plan of subdivision:

(a) The 88B instrument



(b) Any surveyor’s certificates required by other conditions in this consent.

(c) The section 73 compliance certificate.

4. All civil works including site drainage, any public footpath repairs and any new driveway crossovers being completed to Councils Manager, Public Works and Infrastructure approval prior to release of Linen Plan. All fees and charges pertaining to inspections, connections and restorations to be paid.


SD1, SD2, SD3, SD5.

RECORD OF VOTING

Yes Absent / Against Clr Murray Butt Clr Peter Astridge - Against Clr Simon Frame Clr Meredith Sheil - Absent Clr Susan Hoopmann Clr Richard Quinn Clr Ross Sheerin

5. REPORT OF LEGAL MATTERS 439/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Butt that the report be

received and noted. 6. REPORT OF DELEGATED AUTHORITY 440/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Butt that the report be

received and noted.

WORKS & SERVICES (Pages E1 – E8) 1. TREE PRESERVATION ORDER – APPROVALS / REFUSALS 441/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Butt that the report be

received and noted. 2. MARGARET STREET BOAT RAMP - TENDER 442/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Sheerin that:

1. Council accept the tender of Sydney Marine Constructions dated 2 November 2011 in the amount of $499,280 (ex GST) for the reconstruction of a boat ramp and associated floating pontoon at Margaret Street, Woolwich.

2. The General Manager be granted delegated authority to execute all necessary documentation.

3. Council advise all tenderers of its decision.



3. THE PRIORY – RESTORATION WORKS TENDER 443/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Butt, seconded Clr Quinn that:

1. Council accept the tender of A.J. Bristow & Sons Pty Ltd dated 25 November 2011 for restoration work at The Priory, Salter Street, Gladesville.


3. Council advise all tenderers of its decision.

4. A report be brought forward on the status of The Priory Restoration and Preservation Trust.

4. NSROC ASPHALT TENDER 2011-2013

444/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Astridge that:

1. Council accept the tender of Downer EDI dated 21 June 2011 for profiling of road pavements and the supply, delivery and laying of asphaltic concrete products for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2013.

2. Council accept the tender of OZ Pave dated 22 June 2011 for patching of road pavements for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2013.

3. Tenderers be advised of Council’s decision.


CORPORATE GOVERNANCE (Pages F1 – F3) 1. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL INVESTMENTS AS AT 30 NOVEMBER 2011

445/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Butt, seconded Clr Astridge that the report be

received and noted. 2. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORTS AS AT 30 SEPTEMBER 2011 446/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Butt, seconded Clr Astridge that the report be noted

and the variations adopted.

CUSTOMER & COMMUNITY SERVICES (Pages G1 – G2) 1. PROPOSED ROAD LEASE 45 THE POINT ROAD, WOOLWICH (MOUNT MORRIS

STREET) 447/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Quinn that:

1. Council renew the road lease over that part of the unmade road reserve (Mount Morris Street) adjacent to 45 The Point Road, Woolwich to the registered owner.



2. The lease be for a 5-year period from the date of execution for the sum of $7,830 per annum, adjusted annual for CPI and reviewed after 5 years.

3. The Lessee to meet all legal costs associated with the lease.

4. The Mayor and General Manager be granted Delegated Authority to execute the documentation as required.

GENERAL MANAGER (Pages H1 – H12) 1. SYDNEY AIRPORT 448/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Quinn that the report be

received and noted. 2. REVIEW OF MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT – POSITION PAPER ISSED BY

DIVISION OF LOCALGOVERNEMENT, OCTOBER 2011 449/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Butt that

1. The report be received and noted. 2. The comments contained in the report be endorsed for inclusion in a

submission to the Division of Local Government by the due date. 3. Councilors and staff advise the General Manager by 30 December 2011 of

any issues they may have for inclusion in the submission. 3. LEAVE OF ABSENCE COUNCILLOR MEREDITH SHEIL 450/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Astridge that Leave of

Absence be granted to Councillor Meredith Sheil for Ordinary Meeting of Council scheduled for 27 February. 2012 and that her apology be recorded for all relevant Committee meetings until 11 March 2012.

4. MONTHLY REPORT ON OUTSTANDING MATTERS 451/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Butt, seconded Clr Astridge that the report be

received and noted. 5. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL RATE VARIATION 452/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Butt that:

1 The draft Long Term Financial Plan and all Rate Structure Options be adopted for the purpose of public exhibition and discussion with the community.

2 Council indicate to the community that the Rate Structure options are Options 1, 2 and 3.

3 The Communication Plan be adopted and implemented. 4 IPART be advised of Councils intention to submit an application for a

Special Rate Variation



COMMITTEE REPORTS (Pages J1 – J17) 1. REPORT OF COUNCILLOR WORKSHOPS & BRIEFINGS HELD 28 NOVEMBER

2011 453/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Butt that the report be

received and noted. 2. MINUTES OF THE MAINSTREET HUNTERS HILL VILLAGE COMMITTEE

MEETING HELD 21 SEPTEMBER 2011

454/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Butt that:

1. The report be received and noted. 2. The expression of interest from Elizabeth Krassoi, of 4 Mary Street,

Hunters Hill as a member of the Hunters Hill Village Main Street Committee be accepted and Ms Krassoi be advised of Council’s decision.

3. MINUTES OF THE MAINSTREET HUNTERS HILL VILLAGE COMMITTEE

MEETING HELD 9 NOVEMBER 2011

455/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Quinn that the

1. The minutes be received and noted. 2. The Public Traffic and Traffic Advisory Committee review the installation of

1 hour parking restrictions within Pitt Street, from Gladesville Road to Howard Place, eastern side.

4. MINUTES OF THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY PANEL (CAP) MEETING HELD

16 NOVEMBER 2011 456/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Astridge that the minutes be

deferred for correction and submitted to the next Ordinary Meeting of Council on 13 February 2012.

5. MINUTES OF THE HUNTERS HILL SENIORS ADVISORY GROUP MEETING

HELD 5 DECEMBER 2011

457/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Frame that the minutes be received and noted.

6. MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF LE VESINET FRIENDSHIP

COMMITTEE HELD 9 NOVEMBER 2011 458/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Quinn that the minutes be

received and noted subject to amendment 2.1. Sue Hoopmann took the chair and declared all positions vacant and called for nominations.

CORRESPONDENCE (PRECIS) (Pages K1) 1. CORRESPONDENCE 459/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Butt, seconded Clr Quinn that the correspondence

regarding KYDS request for financial support be received and noted.



GENERAL BUSINESS (Page M1) 1. MEETINGS – VARIOUS COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL 460/11 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Butt, seconded Clr Quinn that the report listing the

various Committees of Council be received and noted. TERMINATION The meeting terminated at 8.55pm. I confirm that these Minutes are a true and accurate record of Ordinary Meeting No.4317 held 12 December 2011. ............................................. ................................... Councillor Susan Hoopmann Barry Smith MAYOR GENERAL MANAGER

C

Notice of Motions

(including Rescission

Motions)

C - Notice of Motions (including Rescission Motions)

4318 - 13 February 2012

Index

1. “Stream Watch” on the Parramatta & Lane Cove River, Sydney Harbour 1

REPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTIONS Meeting 4318 - 13 February 2012 C1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 4318 held on 13 February 2012. This is page

ITEM NO : 1

SUBJECT : “STREAM WATCH” ON THE PARRAMATTA & LANE COVE RIVER, SYDNEY HARBOUR

BUSINESS PROGRAM : NOTICE OF MOTION

REPORTING OFFICER : COUNCILLORS ROSS SHEERIN & PETER ASTRIDGE

We, the undersigned Councillors, intend to move the following Notice of Motion at the next

Ordinary Meeting 4318 to be held 13 February 2012:

1. That Council fully supports the continued and ongoing funding of the “Streamwatch” program by Sydney Water.

2. That Council writes to Sydney Water in support of “Streamwatch” as an important,

necessary program for the consistency of healthy waterways. 3. That Council writes to The Hon. Mr. Anthony Roberts MP Member for Lane Cove

seeking State Government support for a continued commitment by Sydney Water to fully support the ongoing funding for the “Streamwatch” program.

REASON FOR MOTION At the last Parramatta River Catchment Group (PRCG) meeting held on Thursday 10 November 2011, it was resolved by the 11 Member Councils on the Parramatta River catchment that the PRCG write to each councils General Manager advising of the proposed State Government changes to Sydney Waters’ “Streamwatch” Program and to request councils support for this Program. For more than 20 years the “Streamwatch” program has supported community groups, volunteers and schools in regularly testing our waterways for pollution. “Streamwatch” currently involves hundreds of community groups and schools at 600 sites across the network, and has inspired similar programs around the world. This Program, which has essentially been an independent watchdog in monitoring Sydney's waterways, is in the final stages of being wound down by Sydney Water. A Sydney Water spokeswoman has confirmed that Sydney Water will no longer be running the “Streamwatch” program and they are currently in negotiations with an unnamed "science and educational institution" to take over the program with initial funding support for the first three years. However, this does not provide any guarantee of longevity or quality of the program. The “Streamwatch” program costs around $340,000 a year and provides great value for money due to the high level of voluntary commitment by community groups, schools and students. As well as being an independent watchdog, it is also an important educational activity offering students the opportunity to learn lifelong lessons and respect about the fragility of clean water sources and the importance of healthy waterways.

REPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTIONS Meeting 4318 - 13 February 2012 C2


The PRCG is extremely disappointed in Sydney Waters’ decision to discontinue the “Streamwatch” program and requested that Hunter’s Hill Council raise a Notice of Motion supporting the continued and ongoing funding of “Streamwatch” by Sydney Water.

COUNCILLOR PETER ASTRIDGE

COUNCILLOR ROSS SHEERIN

D

Development &

Regulatory Control

D - Development & Regulatory Control

4318 - 13 February 2012

Index

1. 10 Viret Street, Hunters Hill 1 2. 11 Crescent Street, Hunters Hill 11 3. 9 Glenview Crescent, Hunters Hill 17 4. NSW Planning Review 35 5. Delegated Authority 37 6. Legal Matters 39 7 Supplementary Report – 56-58 Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill (under separate cover) 40

………………………………….............................. Steve Kourepis

GROUP MANAGER DEVELOPMENT & REGULATORY CONTROL

REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT & REGULATORY CONTROL

Meeting 4318 – 13 February 2012

D1


ITEM NO : 1

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO : DA20111015-1-APPEAL

PROPOSAL : ORIGINIAL APPLICATION: RAISE THE ROOF OF THE EXISTING GARAGE, REPLACING THE DOUBLE DOOR GARAGE WITH A SINGLE ROLLER DOOR, AND RAISING THE HEIGHT OF THE FRONT FENCE. S82A REVIEW: GARAGE ROOF NOT RAISED, NEW ROOF TILES OF GARAGE TO MATCH EXISTING ROOF TILES, REPLACE GUTTERS AND FACIAS TO EAVES OF GARAGE, REMOVE BRICK PIERS ABOVE EAVES, EXTERNAL WALL TO BE RENDERED AND PAINTED TO MATCH EXISTING DWELLING, REPLACE EXISTING GARAGE DOORS WITH TWO NEW PANEL LIFT DOORS AND FRONT FENCE TO REMAIN AS EXISTING.

PROPERTY 10 VIRET STREET, HUNTERS HILL

APPLICANT : MRS E VASILI, MR G VASILI

OWNER : VASILI, MR G & MRS E

DATE LODGED : 23 JANUARY 2011

BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

REPORTING OFFICER : SHAHRAM ZADGAN

1. SUMMARY

Reasons for Report

The proposal is for a s82A review of the refusal of Development Application 11/1015 for raising the roof of the existing garage, replacing the double door garage with a single roller door, and raising the height of the front fence, and in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the application has to be referred to Council’s Ordinary Meeting for a decision.

Objections

The neighbour notification of 18 January 2012, resulted in no objections being received.

The application is recommended for approval because it:

1. is permissible under the zoning

2. complies with the relevant planning objectives contained in Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 and Development Control Plan No.15

3. is appropriate



D2


4. will not have adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining properties such is justified. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Original Proposal The original application sought consent for the following works: • Raise the roof of the existing garage which faces onto Viret Street. • Increase the height of the front fence. • Replace the two (2) metal garage doors with a new timber panel lift door. S82 Review changes In support of the request for review, the applicant has made the following changes:

• Existing garage roof no to be raised • Remove brick piers above eaves • New roof tiles to garage to match existing • Replace existing garage doors with two (2) new panel lift doors • External garage wall to be rendered and painted to match existing dwelling • Replace existing box gutter • Front fence to remain as existing 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY

The subject site is known as 10 Viret Street, Hunters Hill, located on the northern side of Viret Street with water frontage to the Lane Cove River. The site is irregular in shape with a site area of 1212sqm. Currently on the site there is an existing two storey rendered brick and tile roof dwelling. The site falls from the front to the rear. The existing brick and tile roof garage is located to the front of the dwelling on the northern side of Viret Street, it accommodates two car parking spaces and due to the slope of the site it has an existing storage area below.

The subject site is a listed noted item under the LEP No.1.The site is located within the conservation area and surrounding development consists of one to three storeys.

4. PROPERTY HISTORY

• On 19 May 2008, Development Application No.08/1047 was lodged with Council for alterations and additions. This application was approved by the DCU.

• On 23 February 2011, the original application was lodged with Council. • On 18 March 2011, Council sent a letter advising of non-compliances. No response

was received in relation to this letter. • On 27 May 2011, Council sent a letter to the applicant advising that no response has

been provided regarding this application and requested that advice be provided regarding their intentions. No correspondence has been received to date.

• On 20 July 2011, the original was refused under delegated authority for the following

reasons:

1. The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of Section 79 (C) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 in relation to clauses (1)(a)(iii), (b)(c) and (e).



D3


2. The proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of the area giving regard to the provisions of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 and Development Control Plan No.15 – Residential Development.

3. The proposal does not meet the provisions of Part 9 and particularly Part 9.10 of Development Control Plan No.15 with the proposed increase in the height of the existing front fencing having a detrimental impact on the existing streetscape and the character of Hunters Hill.

4. The proposed front fencing would result in the fencing being excessively high and fails to comply with Part 9.9 – Inappropriate Fences of Development Control Plan No.15.

5. The proposed addition to the roof of the existing garage would not be supported under part 8.5.2 – How to Design Garages and Car Ports under Development Control Plan No.15, as garages should be subservient to the main dwelling and not compete with the architecture of the house. The proposed roof addition to the existing garage would add unnecessary bulk and scale, and would result in adverse streetscape impacts.

6. The proposed change of the two existing garage doors to a single panel lift door would

be contrary to Part 8.5.2 - How to Design Garages and Car Ports under Development Control Plan No.15, as batteries of garage doors or wide garage doors visible from the street are destructive to the townscape of Hunters Hill, and further proliferation of such structures will not be viewed favourably by Council. Where a garage or carport is to be more than one car wide it must be faced away from the street or broken up into smaller units.

7. Approval of the application would set an undesirable precedent and would be contrary to

the public interest and undermines Council’s planning objectives.

• On 21 November 2011, the subject s82A Review Application was lodged with Council.

5. STATUTORY CONTROLS

5.1 Relevant Statutory Instruments

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979

Local Environmental Plan No.1 (as amended)

Zone: 2(a2) Conservation Area: Yes Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: Yes SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment 2005) Yes Development Control Plan: DCP No.15 Listed Heritage item: No Contributory Building: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: No 6. POLICY CONTROLS Development Control Plan No.15. 7. REFERRALS

7.1 External Approval Bodies

Not applicable.



D4


7.2 Health & Building

Not applicable. 7.3 Heritage

As stated within the body of the report, the property is located within the conservation area under

Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. The proposal was referred to Council’s Heritage

Advisor who raised no concern.

7.4 Public Works and Infrastructure

The subject application was referred to Council’s Assistant Design & Development Engineer who raised no concern. 7.5 Parks & Landscape

The subject application was referred to Council’s Parks & Landscape Coordinator who raised no concern. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C

The relevant matters for consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979 are assessed under the following headings.

9. STATE INSTRUMENTS / LEGISLATION

9.1 State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs)

Not applicable. 9.2 Regional Environmental Plans (REPs) – Deemed SEPPs

The subject site is located within the area covered by SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005. The subject site is visible from the waterway, however, the proposed works would not be visible as they are mainly facing towards Viret Street. 9.3 Other Legislation

Pursuant to section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act,

the applicant for the proposal, is seeking a review of the Council’s determination of Development

Application 11/1015, which was refused.

Procedure - 82A Review of determination (1) If the consent authority is a council, an applicant may request the

council to review a determination of the applicant’s application.

(2) A request for a review may be made at any time, subject to subsection (2A).

(2A) A determination cannot be reviewed:



D5


(a) after the time limited for the making of an appeal under section

97 expires, if no such appeal is made against the

determination, or

(b) after an appeal under section 97 against the determination is

disposed of by the Court, if such an appeal is made against the

determination.

(3) The prescribed fee must be paid in connection with a request for a review.

(3A) In requesting a review, the applicant may make amendments to the

development described in the original application, subject to subsection (4) (c).

(4) The council may review the determination if:

(a) it has notified the request for review in accordance with:

(i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii) a development control plan, if the council has made a development control plan under section 72 that requires the notification or advertising of requests for the review of its determinations, and

(b) it has considered any submissions made concerning the request for review

within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the

development control plan, as the case may be, and

(c) in the event that the applicant has made amendments to the development

described in the original application, the consent authority is satisfied that the

development, as amended, is substantially the same development as the

development described in the original application.

(4A) As a consequence of its review, the council may confirm or change the

determination.

(5) The decision whether or not to review the determination must not be made by the

person who made the determination unless that person was the council, but is to be

made by a person who is qualified under subsection (6) to make the review.

(6) If the council reviews the determination, the review must be made by:

(a) if the determination was made by a delegate of the council - the

council or another delegate of the council who is not

subordinate to the delegate who made the determination, or

(b) if the determination was made by the council—the council.



D6


SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

In support of the request for review, the applicant has made the following changes:

• Existing garage roof no to be raised • Remove brick piers above eaves • New roof tiles to garage to match existing • Replace existing garage doors with two (2) new panel lift doors • External garage wall to be rendered and painted to match existing dwelling • Replace existing box gutter • Front fence to remain as existing

10. HUNTERS HILL LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO. 1

10.1 Aims and Objectives of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 and Zone

The proposal is permissible with consent under Zone 2(a2) and complies with the relevant statutory

controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1.

10.2 Statutory Compliance Table

The following table illustrates whether or not the proposed development complies with the relevant

statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1.

Compliance with Current Statutory Controls

Proposed Control Compliance

HEIGHT Ceiling

5.43 metres

7.2 metres

Yes

Storeys 2 storey 2 storeys Yes Garden Area 61% 60% Yes 10.3 Site Area Requirements

The proposal complies with these requirements. 10.4 Residential flat buildings and low-rise multi-unit housing-density and garden area

controls

Not applicable.

10.5 Height of Buildings

The height of the proposal, being 5.43 metres and 2 storey in height is acceptable as it would comply with the maximum of 7.2 metres/no more than two storeys height limit as prescribed by Clause 15 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. 10.6 Garden Area The proposed garden area of 61% would be above the 60% minimum permissible garden area as prescribed by the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. 10.7 Integrated Housing Development

Not applicable.



D7


10.8 Foreshore Building Lines

The proposed works would not encroach within the 15 metres FSBL that applies to the site.

10.9 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The subject site is also located with the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and, as such, assessment is required in accordance with Clause 18A of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. Clause 18A states:

18A. The Council may not grant consent under the Act pursuant to an application to carry out development on land within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, being that area shown by hatching on the map marked ‘Hunter's Hill Local Environmental Plan No.14. - Heritage Conservation’, unless it has made an assessment of:

(a) the appearance and visual quality of the proposed development when

viewed from the waterway; and

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

The subject site is visible from the waterway, however, the proposed works would not be visible as they are mainly facing towards Viret Street. 10.10 Other Special Clauses / Development Standards

Not applicable.

11. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS

No relevant draft amendments pertaining to this application.

12. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS (DCPs)

12.1 Compliance Table Residential Development Control Plan No.15

CONTROL REQUIRED/ PERMISSIBLE

PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

HEIGHT Ceiling

7.2m

5.43m

Yes

Storeys 2 2 Yes Garden Area 60% 61% Yes BOUNDARY SETBACKS Dwelling house

Existing

Existing

No change

Planning Policy – All Development

The proposal complies with the relevant objectives, design parameters and preferred design

elements under Part 3 of Development Control Plan No.15.



D8


Heritage Conservation Areas

The proposal complies with the relevant objectives under Part 4 of Development Control Plan

No.15.

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Refer to section 10.9 of this report ‘Foreshore Scenic Protection Area’. Visually Prominent Sites

The site is a visually prominent site and consideration has been given to the proposals appearance when viewed from the waterway. The proposed works would not be visible from the water way, as they are mainly facing towards Viret Street. Height

Refer to section 10.5 of this report ‘Height of Buildings’.

Front, Side and Rear Setbacks

No change. Garden Area

Refer to section 10.6 of this report ‘Garden Area’. Solar Access

No change. Privacy

No change.

Views

The proposed s82A Review application would not alter the height of the existing front fence or the height of the garage roof. The proposal would still maintain existing public views from the street to the waterway.

Car Parking

No change. Garages and Carports

In support of the request for review, the applicant has made the following changes to the existing

garage:

• Existing garage roof no to be raised • Remove brick piers above eaves • New roof tiles to garage to match existing • Replace existing garage doors with two (2) new panel lift doors instead of the previous

proposal for one (1) wide door • External garage wall to be rendered and painted to match existing dwelling • Replace existing box gutter



D9


The above s82A Review changes are mainly repair and maintenance to the existing garage and

considered to be acceptable, and would generally maintain the same appearance of the existing

garage towards Viret Street.

Fences

The proposed s82A Review application would not alter the height of the existing front fence. The proposal would still maintain existing public views from the street to the waterway.

12.2 Other DCPs, Codes and Policies20

Not applicable. 13. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

The proposal is considered not to unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties or the Viret Street streetscape. As stated within the body of the report, the proposal would satisfy the objectives of the Development Control Plan No.15. There would be no detrimental impact upon the natural and built environment within the vicinity of the subject site as a result of the proposed works. Furthermore, there would be no detrimental social and economic impacts to the locality as a result of the proposed works. 14. SUBMISSIONS

The proposed development was notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan No.15 for a period of ten (10) working days on the 18 January 2011. Within the specified time period no submissions were received.

15. CONCLUSION – THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The proposed works are considered acceptable and would have no unreasonable impacts upon the adjoining properties. The proposal has been assessed in terms of the public interest and following compliance with the relevant development standards and objectives in Development Control Plan No.15 and Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1, the application is considered acceptable. The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under s79 C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1, and Development Control Plan No. 15. For the reasons outlined in this report it is considered that the proposed development would not unduly impact upon the adjoining residential properties and accordingly is recommended for approval. FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report. RECOMMENDATION

That the review of determination under s82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, to the refusal of Development Application No.11/1015 for alterations and additions to the existing garage, be approved, subject to the following conditions:



D10


Special Conditions:


2. The development consent No.11/1015 relates to the plans prepared by Moshonis Bros Designs, numbered 1430/10, sheet 1-2, 4-5 dated December 2010, date stamped by Council 21 November 2011, sheet 3 of 5, dated December 2010, date stamped by Council on 6 January 2012, Schedule of colours and finishes prepared by Moshonis Bros. Designs, date stamped by Council 6 January 2012.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Locality Map 2. Proposed Plans



D11


ITEM NO : 2

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO : DA20111057-1

PROPOSAL : TO CARRY OUT ADDITIONS TO THE REAR OF THE DWELLING - SECTION 96(1A) MODIFICATION TO DELETE LANDSCAPING CONDITION

PROPERTY 11 CRESCENT STREET, HUNTERS HILL

APPLICANT : DESIGN COLLABORATIVE PTY LTD

OWNER : MR M J & MRS J A ADAMO



REPORTING OFFICER : JULIE WOODLEY

1. SUMMARY

Reasons for Report The applicant has submitted an application to modify a development consent originally approved under delegated authority. A number of Councillors have expressed an interest in this matter thus necessitating that it be referred to Council for a decision. Preamble Based on the details submitted to Council on 15 November 2011, the modification sought is for the deletion of Condition No.3 from the development consent for additions to the rear of the existing dwelling issued on 8 September 2011. This condition reads as follows:

3. The area to the east of the swimming pool being replanted with suitable screen plants to a maturity height of 3 metres to improve the privacy for adjoining neighbours. The landscaping details being submitted to Council on a plan prior to release of the stamped approved plans.

Public exhibition The plans for modification were placed on public exhibition and no submissions were received in respect of such proposal. The application for modification to the original consent is recommended for refusal for reasons that: 1. It does not comply with the relevant planning objectives contained in Hunters Hill Local

Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan No.15; and

2. It will have adverse effects on the amenity of residents of adjoining properties



D12


2. ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL

To demolish part of the walls at the south-western corner of the dwelling house and to extend the southern and western walls to provide for an extended kitchen. A new opening will be provided between the kitchen and the existing dining area. It is also proposed to install new French doors to connect the kitchen with the rear garden area. Description of Modifications The applicant has requested the deletion of Condition No.3 to the consent of DA2011/1057 as quoted above. A written submission from the applicant is also attached. 3. DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY HISTORY

Development application (DA2006/1166) was issued by Council on 12 February 2007, subject to conditions, for the construction of an in-ground swimming pool which included the following:-

50. The hard paved areas nominated on the site plan (prepared by Right Angle Drafting) for removal providing betterment to the soft landscaping of the allotment are to be removed and replaced with soft landscaping prior to the issue of a Final Occupation Certificate.

52. The pool coping located adjacent to the eastern boundary is to be non-

trafficable to ensure the privacy and amenity of the eastern property owner is maintained. Details are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of a Construction Certificate.

Building works were conducted on the subject site without consent of Council, hence, an Order was issued by Council on 3 February 2010 to:-

1. Demolish and remove the timber deck, metal handrail, balustrade and doors built at the eastern elevation of the dwelling house.

2. Reinstate the area to the condition it was prior to the timber deck being

constructed.

The owner did not comply with this Order issued by Council but lodged a Building Certificate application which was issued on the basis that additional screening be provided in order to protect the privacy of the adjoining owner. As stated above, the development application No.2011/1057 was granted on 8 September 2011, subject to conditions. The stamped plans were released to this applicant on 3 February 2012, which provided screen planting addressing Condition No.3 of the consent. 4. REFERRALS 4.1 Heritage The application was not referred to Council’s Heritage Adviser as no change in the dwelling is proposed for modification. The application was not forwarded to the Conservation Advisory Panel as no change to the dwelling is proposed for modification.



D13


4.2 Public Works & Infrastructure The application was not referred to Council’s Design & Development Engineer as the proposal involves only landscape work. 4.3 Parks & Landscape The application was referred to Council’s Parks & Landscape Co-ordinator who advised by memo that with the recent landscape plan submitted to Council to give compliance to this condition was satisfactory. As a result of that, the plans were stamped and released with the original applicant having given compliance to Condition No.3. . 5. ASSESSMENT 5.1 Assessment under Section 96, Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 The provisions of S. 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, require Council to be satisfied that the development to which consent as modified relates is substantially the same development for which consent was originally granted. It states as follows:- A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:

(a) it is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact, and

(b) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is

substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

(c) it has notified the application in accordance with:

(i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or (ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that

has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

(d) it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed

modification within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

The submission by the applicant has stated that the condition requested to be deleted fails the second of the three “Newbury tests” in that the condition does not fairly and reasonably relate to the development for which permission was given i.e. alterations and additions to the dwelling house. Secondly, they are of the view that the condition lacks ‘specifity’. Under this concept, the applicants argue that the condition is ‘ultra vires’. The applicant has requested the deletion of the Condition No.3 relating to the landscape screen as being a ‘minor error in the consent’ for the purpose of the submission of a Section 96 application. The applicant states that ‘persons would rarely stand on that coping (on the eastern side of the pool) where they might interfere appreciably with the privacy of the neighbours’.



D14


It is considered that the development to which the consent, as proposed to be modified relates, is of minimal environmental impact and is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted. 5.2 Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 – Height of buildings and garden

area Not applicable as no change is proposed. 5.3 Development Control Plan No.15 – Residential Development It is considered that the development would not be visible from the street will be compatible with the character and scale of residential development in the immediate vicinity under objective 3.1.b. of the DCP No.15. There is no change to the height, bulk and scale of the existing and desired future character of the residential area as set out under objective 7.1.1.(b) of the DCP No.15. The will be no additional site coverage from that approved by Council with this original development application. The proposed amendment will maintain a generous garden area for the site and it will comply with the provisions of clause 7.3 of the DCP No.15. The additional landscaping required to be provided as a result of this condition sought to be deleted, will satisfy the 2/3 minimum soft area planting as required by the DCP No.15. In terms of privacy under clause 7.5 of the DCP No.15, the objectives are to provide for the reasonable privacy of dwellings and outdoor spaces. In this regard, it is considered that the Condition No.3 provided for the privacy in this manner. The applicant in his letter states in part that ‘few, if any, people would stand on the narrow coping on the eastern side of the pool’. 5.4 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The subject site is also located with the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and, as such, assessment is required in accordance with Clause 18A of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. Clause 18A states:

18A. The Council may not grant consent under the Act pursuant to an application to carry out development on land within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, being that area shown by hatching on the map marked ‘Hunter's Hill Local Environmental Plan No.14 - Heritage Conservation’, unless it has made an assessment of:


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

waterway from public roads and from public reserves or from land within Zone No. 6(a) or 6(b).

It is considered that the retention of the condition for additional boundary screen landscaping would improve the visual quality of the proposed development when viewed from or towards the waterway will not be materially harmed. Further, there will be no impact of the proposed development of the view towards the waterway, from public roads, from public reserves or from land zoned 6(a) or 6(b).



D15


6. OTHER SPECIAL CLAUSES / DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Not applicable. 7. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS No relevant draft amendments pertaining to this application. 8. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT The likely impacts of the development are such that there will be no undue detrimental effects on the amenity of the neighbourhood nor The Crescent Street streetscape. The condition relates to the provision of landscaping for the improvement of the garden area of the site and of privacy for adjoining neighbours. This concept of landscaping being used and, in fact, required for ‘betterment’ by the Land and Environment Court is a precedent to be necessarily followed which effectively counters the argument. The consent from which this condition emanated provided for an increase in the site area of the dwelling, thus reducing the area of landscaping available on the site. This further counters the applicant’s argument of the condition relating to upgraded landscaping not properly relating to the development. The maintaining of this condition with provide the surety that non-trafficabilty will be the result to have the owners give compliance to Condition No.52 of the original consent for the in-ground swimming pool. As stated within the body of the report, the proposal would comply with the objectives stipulated under LEP No.1 and DCP No.15. There would be undue impact upon the natural and built environment within the vicinity of the subject site as a result of the proposed deletion of this condition. Furthermore, there would be undue social and economic impacts to the locality as a result of the proposed modification to the development consent. Landscaping can be provided at this section of the site based on the most recent landscape plan as submitted to Council and released with the stamped approval. This matter of planting was assessed and approved by Council’s Parks & landscape Co-ordinator. It is considered that the retention of this landscaping condition is reasonable and desirable for reasons that it will give compliance to the development consents granted by Council, it will retain and enhance the landscaped garden area of the site as well as the local environment and will provide for privacy of the occupants of the subject site and the residents of the adjoining site to the east. 9. NOTIFICATION

The proposed development was notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan No.20 for a period of ten (10) working days commencing on the 22 November 2011. Within the specified time period no submissions were received. 10. CONCLUSION – THE PUBLIC INTEREST Particular aims and objectives as contained within LEP No.1 and DCP No.15 relate to the matters such as the provision of generous soft landscaped yards and private tree and vegetative planting to complement street trees. It is also to conserve the tree covered environment of the Municipality and for Council to protect and enhance the area’s landscape character.



D16


The threefold rationale for retention of the condition requested to be deleted are that it will ensure future compliance with the terms of the development consents issued by Council, it will retain and enhance as ‘betterment’ the soft landscaping of the site’s garden area for its benefit and that of this part of the Conservation Area and will provide effective means of protection of privacy for the occupiers of the subject premises and of the adjoining residents to the east of the subject site. The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under s.79 C and s.96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1, and Development Control Plan No. 15. The proposed modification to the existing development is considered unacceptable in the circumstances and will have unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the residents of the adjoining properties and of the area generally. The proposal has been assessed in terms of the public interest and the application as proposed to be modified is not recommended for approval to Council. For the reasons outlined in this report it is considered that the proposed modification to the development would unduly impact upon the amenity and scenic quality of the area and would undermine the integrity of Council’s planning policies relating to the preserving and enhancing of the landscape character of the area. Accordingly, the modification application is recommended for refusal as set out below. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates. RECOMMENDATION That the application DA2011/1057-1 to modify under section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the development consent dated 8 September 2011 involving the deletion of Condition No.3 in respect of No.11 Crescent Street, Hunters Hill, be refused for reasons that: 1. It will have adverse impacts on the landscape character of the conservation area;

2. It will reduce the amount of soft landscaping of the garden area of the site thus

removing a ‘betterment’; 3. It will be contrary to the objectives of clause 2 of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan

No.1. 4. It will be in conflict with the provisions of parts 3 and 4 of Development Control Plan

No.15 relating to landscaping, and 5. It will create an undesirable precedent for Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Locality Map 2. Proposed Plan 3. Planning report



D17


ITEM NO : 3

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO : DA20101099

PROPOSAL : TO DEMOLISH THE FRONT GARAGE AND SWIMMING POOL, CARRY OUT ALTERATIONS & ADDITIONS TO THE DWELLING HOUSE, TO CONSTRUCT A SWIMMING POOL & A NEW WORKSHOP/STUDIO FRONTING FRANCIS STREET - S.82A REVIEW OF REFUSAL OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.

PROPERTY 9 GLENVIEW CRESCENT, HUNTERS HILL

APPLICANT : MR ANTHONY JOHN VLATKO

OWNER : MR A J VLATKO & MS C A MERCHANT



REPORTING OFFICER : KERRY SMITH

1. SUMMARY

Reasons for Report The proposal resulted in five (5) letters of objection being received in response to the neighbour notification process for the review. Such review applications are required under the E.P.& A. Act to be considered by Council. Issues raised by objectors

• Francis Street garage out of character and not needed

• Future use of the garage

• Visual impact on No.15 Francis Street

• Height non-compliance

• Traffic / parking problems in Francis Street

• Loss of privacy

• Undesirable precedent for Francis Street

• Heritage impact

• Noise emission

• Inadequate site analysis

• Lack of finished surface details

• Lack of landscape plans



D18


• Lack of stormwater management plans

Objections Objection letters were received representing five (5) nearby premises. The application is recommended in part for a “deferred commencement” approval for reasons that it is reasonable having regard to: 1. it is permissible under the zoning 2. it complies with the relevant planning objectives contained in Hunters Hill Local

Environmental Plan No.1 and Development Control Plan No.15 and 3. it will not have adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining properties. That part of the application relating to the construction of the workshop / studio off Francis Street is recommended for refusal. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL It is proposed to demolish the existing garage to be replaced with two (2) open parking spaces at the front of the site off Glenview Crescent and to demolish the swimming pool at the rear of the dwelling. To construct alterations and additions to the existing two-storey dwelling such that it will be used as follows: On the lower ground floor, a utility room, bathroom, laundry, storeroom, undercroft and staircase. A new L-shaped timber deck, pool with associated fencing and stairs will be constructed off the rear of the dwelling. On the ground floor, a main entry, two (2) studies, bathroom, bedroom, lounge/dining room, kitchen, family room, staircase and new dining room at the rear. A new enclosed balcony 3.599 metres wide x 6.201 metres deep with stairs will be constructed off the rear of the dwelling. External shade louvers will be provided adjacent to each west facing window from the kitchen south. A framed glass wall with sliding doors will be provided on the western elevation faces of the new balcony area opening off the dining room extension. Elevation plans alternatively show the rear balustrade as being of masonry construction. The rear balcony area will be roofed to the position of the rear wall of the lower ground floor. On the first floor, three (3) bedrooms, bathroom, sitting room and staircase. An existing balcony facing south will be maintained off the sitting room and one bedroom. No changes are proposed for the first floor layout. On the Francis Street frontage, it is proposed to construct a single-storey structure, 5.6 metres wide x 6.794 metres deep, with a substantially accessible roof to be used as a workshop / studio. It will have a 2.4 metre wide timber panel doors opening inwards facing the street and external stairs along the western side giving access to the roof area. A wooden panel parapet/balustrade will surround the upper deck area. The applicant does not propose to provide a vehicular crossing in Francis Street to service this building. Accompanying this application for a s.82A review of the refusal of the development application was a report of a habitat assessment and field surveys for red-crowned toadlets. A town planning report accompanied the s.82A review application which in part addressed the reasons for the original refusal of the application was attached. A copy of this part of the report is attached.



D19


The applicant has erected a height pole on the land to indicate the extent of the additions to the rear of the dwelling. 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY

The subject site is legally described as Lot 24 in DP 9291 and is known as No.9 Glenview Crescent, Hunter’s Hill. The site is conventional in shape and has an area of 965sqm and has a frontage of 18.535 metres to Glenview Crescent and 18.29 metres to Francis Street. It has a slope of approx.12 metres down to the south (Francis Street) and a relatively level section along the street frontage. The subject site is located on the southern side of Glenview Crescent, between Wybalena Road and Glenview Road. Existing on the subject site is a two-storey brick/tile dwelling with a detached garage to the front and an in-ground pool to the rear. Surrounding development comprises single-storey and two-storey dwellings, having variations in style, form, period of construction and scale. At the Francis Street frontage, there is a flat section of land at the western end that formed the floor of the original garage, since demolished. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY

Development consent was granted by Council on 24 August 1999 for alterations and first floor additions to the existing dwelling. A pre-DA meeting was held with Council’s DCU on 11 May 2005 at which advice was given that a two-storey garage fronting Francis Street would not be in keeping and have to be carefully considered from a streetscape perspective. A new carport was proposed at Glenview Crescent. It was suggested that a lightweight style carport may be acceptable. Further, the natural rock features to Francis Street would have to be retained. The development application (DA2010/1099) for alterations and additions to the dwelling and the construction of a workshop / studio was refused under delegation on 8 June 2011 for nine (9) reasons, as follows:

1. The proposal fails to comply with clause 1- ‘Aim objective, etc’ of hunters Hill Local

Environmental Plan No.1. 2. The proposal fails to comply with clauses 3.1 and 3.2 under ’Planning Policy – All

Development’ of DCP No.15. 3. The landscaping plan is inadequate in terms of plant material, the protection method for

the retention of the existing trees and shrubs and no detail has been submitted for the protection of trees immediately adjoining the site.

4. The plans submitted with the development application are inaccurate and inconsistent. 5. The construction of a detached garage/workshop/studio building fronting Francis Street

would be detrimental to the local streetscape. 6. The proposed external window treatment is unsatisfactory and requires a rationalisation

of configurations and reduction in sizes.



D20


7. There will be a loss of privacy due to the location of windows and doors plus the large rear balcony facing out onto adjoining recreation and living areas of residential premises.

8. No evidence of research has been submitted to Council by the applicant as requested

identifying threatened species and aboriginal sites on the subject property. 9. The proposal is contrary to the public interest and would create an undesirable precedent

undermining Council’s planning objectives. The s.82A application was submitted on 3 November 2011 and was accompanied by amending plans. The main differences being deletion of the cinema room from the lower ground floor and the provision of a laundry at that level; the provision of a planter box at the south west corner of the ground floor balcony and deletion of a window from the west elevation of the ground floor. The roof over the rear ground floor balcony will be extended south to a position based on the extension of the rear wall of the lower level of the dwelling. A height pole was subsequently erected on the site showing the position and height of the south western corner of the covered balcony of the proposed extension. This was followed by a plan and written description from a surveyor for the applicant setting out the survey details of the height pole. 5. STATUTORY CONTROLS 5.1 Relevant Statutory Instruments Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Local Environmental Plan No.1 (as amended) Zone: Residential 2(a2) Conservation Area: Yes Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: Yes SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005: No Development Control Plan: No.15 Listed Heritage item: No Contributory Building: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: Yes 6. POLICY CONTROLS

Development Control Plan No.15. 7. REFERRALS 7.1 External Approval Bodies Not applicable. 7.2 Health & Building Not applicable. 7.3 Heritage As stated within the body of the report, the property is in a conservation area under Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. The proposal was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor who provided the following comments:



D21


Heritage Status: within Conservation Area No 1 (Peninsula). Nearest Sch. 6 item at 3 Jeanerette Ave (“Wybalena”) - rear access. Proposal: Demolish existing garage. New Studio/ workshop to Francis Street frontage. Extend Dining Room to ground floor Statement of Heritage Impact: Required. None provided. Comments: most of the impact will be to Francis Street which is of a very much mixed character. The works will be visible from the Parramatta River, though in a context of buildings of a similar nature. The proposed wall colour is presumably similar to the existing but it would be more beneficial to be a dark, earthy, recessive tone (as per DCP 15). Recommendation: there will be no adverse impacts on heritage items, and on the Conservation Area in the broader sense, although the proposed balcony etc. will have some cumulative impacts on what is an uncharacteristic area. I don’t see the need to refer it to CAP.

The application was not forwarded to the Conservation Advisory Panel as the dwelling house was not proposed to be demolished. 7.4 Public Works and Infrastructure

The application was referred to Council’s Design & Development Engineer who advised by memo that engineering conditions are required which are set out as special conditions. 7.5 Parks & Landscape

The application was referred to Council’s Parks & Landscape Co-ordinator who advised by memo that there the landscape plan is approved. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C

The relevant matters for consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are assessed under the following headings. 9. STATE INSTRUMENTS / LEGISLATION

9.1 State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) Not applicable. 9.2 Regional Environmental Plans (REPs) – Deemed SEPPs Not applicable. 9.3 Other Legislation Not applicable. 10. HUNTERS HILL LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO. 1 10.1 Aims and Objectives of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 and Zone



D22


The proposal is permissible with consent under Zone Residential 2(a2) and complies with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. 10.2 Statutory Compliance Table The following table illustrates whether or not the proposed development complies with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. Compliance with Current Statutory Controls


HEIGHT Ceiling

6.0 metres

7.2 metres

Yes

Storeys 2 storeys 2 storeys Yes Garden Area 58% 50% Yes 10.3 Site Area Requirements The proposal complies with these requirements. 10.4 Residential flat buildings and low-rise multi-unit housing-density and garden

area controls

Not applicable.

10.5 Height of Buildings The height of the proposal, being 6.0 metres and 2 storeys in height is acceptable as it would comply with the maximum of 7.2 metres/no more than two storeys height limit as prescribed by Clause 15 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. 10.6 Garden Area The proposed garden area of 58% would be above the 50% minimum permissible garden area as prescribed by the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. 10.7 Integrated Housing Development Not applicable. 10.8 Foreshore Building Lines Not applicable. 10.9 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The subject site is also located with the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and, as such, assessment is required in accordance with Clause 18A of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. Clause 18A states:

18A. The Council may not grant consent under the Act pursuant to an application to carry out development on land within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, being that area shown by hatching on the map marked ‘Hunter's Hill Local Environmental Plan No.14. - Heritage Conservation’, unless it has made an assessment of:


viewed from the waterway; and



D23


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

The subject site falls within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposed development would be generally visible from the waterway. The development, however, would not detrimentally affect the visual amenity of the foreshore. 10.10 Other Special Clauses / Development Standards Not applicable. 11. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS No relevant draft amendments pertaining to this application. 12. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS (DCPs) 12.1 Compliance Table Residential Development Control Plan No.15 CONTROL REQUIRED/

PERMISSIBLE PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

HEIGHT Ceiling

7.2 metres

6.0 metres

Yes

Storeys 2 2 Yes Garden Area 50% 58% Yes BOUNDARY SETBACKS Dwelling house North (Front) South (Rear) East (Side) West (Side) Workshop/studio South (front) East (side) West (side) Swimming Pool North (Front) South (Rear) East (side) West (side)

Predom. Building Line 6 metres 1.5 metres 1.5 metres Predom. Building Line 1.5 metres 1.5 metres Predom. Building Line 1 metre 1 metre 1 metre

8.1 metres 12.5 metres 3.0 metres 1.5 metres 1.0 metre 10.8 metres 1.5 metres 30.0 metres 14.2 metres 13.2 metres 1.9 metres

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Planning Policy – All Development The proposal complies with the relevant objectives, design parameters and preferred design elements under Part 3 of Development Control Plan No.15. Heritage Conservation Areas The proposal complies with the relevant objectives under Part 4 of Development Control Plan No.15.



D24


Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Refer to section 10.9 of this report ‘Foreshore Scenic Protection Area’. Visually Prominent Sites Not applicable. Height Complies. Front, Side and Rear Setbacks The plans for the dwelling house and the indoor pool give compliance to the setback provisions of the DCP No.15. The proposed workshop / studio proposed to be sited 1 metre from the Francis Street alignment does not comply with the predominant building line along this section of Francis Street. Garden Area Complies. Solar Access There will be no undue loss of mid-winter solar access resultant from the subject development. Privacy Subject to compliance with Schedule 1 Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3 including the refusal of the workshop / studio as set out in the recommendation, there will be no undue loss of privacy as a result of this development. These conditions are to provide for reasonable retention of privacy for the adjoining neighbours at No.15 Francis Street. Views There will be no loss of direct shared water views for adjoining and nearby residents as a result of this development. Car Parking The applicant will have an open off-street parking area at the Glenview Crescent section of the site (in place of the garage). It would be possible to have parking in a new garage structure fronting Francis Street although it is listed as a studio / workshop on the application form and in the statement of environmental effects, this structure is proposed to be refused. Garages and Carports It is recognised that this part of the development, which is the workshop / studio, is not a garage but an out-building. However, it could be simply converted to and used as a garage off Francis Street. A new structure with timber panel doors 2.4 metres wide fronting Francis Street could be simply converted into a garage (from a studio / workshop) with the provision of a driveway crossing over the kerb. If this building were to be used for that purpose, the owners would have off street parking off Francis Street in place of the existing garage fronting Glenview Crescent. The construction of a



D25


detached garage/workshop/studio building fronting Francis Street would be detrimental to the local streetscape. In these circumstances, that part of the development application is recommended for refusal. Fences No change proposed. 12.2 Other DCPs, Codes and Policies Not applicable. 13. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT The impacts of the development, particularly on the lower part of the site, relate to the Francis Street streetscape and parking/traffic conditions. It is considered that the size, scale and location of the proposed single storey workshop / studio fronting Francis Street are not reasonable in the local streetscape. The proposed wide building 1 metre from the Francis Street alignment will create a foreign element in this part of the streetscape. It will entail major excavation of sandstone, earth and shrubbery from this part of the site which will also create a major change in the local landscape. However, if it were to be approved by Council, in order to maintain reasonable levels of privacy for adjoining and nearby residents, it would be recommended that the accessible roof deck be deleted from the design. It would also be recommended that the structure be reduced in width to that of the current landform at that location. This would obviate major earthworks / sandstone removal which would create a major change in the Francis Street streetscape and create an undesirable precedent for Council. These matters form the basis for the refusal of that part of the application. They also provide guidance for the applicant for a further development application to be submitted to Council for the workshop / studio fronting Francis Street. No details have been given in the plans for the triangular planter box shown to be sited at the south western corner of the ground floor balcony. The plans of the southern elevation also do not show detail on the ground floor plan or the south elevation of the columns supporting the roof over part of the rear balcony. This matter has been addressed by Schedule 1, condition No.4 as set out in the recommendation. Privacy to the adjoining owner to the west should be provided by the deletion of the window to the ground floor extensions on the western elevation and by screening of the western side of the large rear deck area. These matters are addressed by Schedule 1, condition Nos.1, 2 and 3 as set out in the recommendation. The additions to the rear of the existing dwelling, including the provision of the indoor swimming pool, are considered reasonable in the circumstances in that they give compliance to the height, garden area and setback provisions of Council’s controls. 14. SUBMISSIONS The proposed development was notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan No.15 for a period of ten (10) days commencing on the 23 November 2011. Within the specified time period submissions were received from representatives of five (5) adjoining and nearby properties. Copies of the submissions are attached to the report.



D26


NOTIFICATION REQUIRED YES NUMBER NOTIFIED 9 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED Name & Address of Respondents

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

Dr. Ashutosh & Dr. Anju Aggarwal 7 Francis Street HUNTERS HILL

• The applicant for the development already has an adequate garage/studio/workshop at Glenview Crescent. The new garage/studio/workshop at the rear of the site is out of character with Francis Street homes

• The proposed development would increase traffic on Francis Street which is already a narrow, dead end street

• The proposed development would have a direct impact on our property with the new development compromising the privacy of our house

David & Lorraine Dewar 3 Francis Street

• Francis Street is a very narrow dead end street which already has in the order of about 28 residence vehicles to contend with.

Raymond & Robyn George 18 Wybalena Road HUNTERS HILL

• Parking in Francis Street is tight at the best of times being a one-way street. Having an extra garage / workshop built in this street will only make it more congested , I am led to believe that the owners of the above address have an existing garage in the front of their house, if residents have a function with many visitors Francis Street becomes a car park, at these times it is very difficult to get in and out of my driveway

• I believe Francis St does not need a garage/workshop, I refer to point 1 re parking, also I think there will be a problem of noise resonating from the workshop at all hours

• I have a problem with the height, I have walked past on many occasions and have noticed a height pole erected, based on this, I think the proposed development stands very high compared to other buildings in Francis Street

• This brings me to another matter of houses that are established in Glenview Crescent. Does this mean that if this proposal goes through all houses in Glenview who back on to Francis St can now extend their buildings into Francis Street?

M. Maniscalco 2 Francis Street HUNTERS HILL

• We personally strongly object to any further development on Francis St. and fail to see any justification for the resident to resubmit the application

• Francis St. is a very narrow dead end street which is already congested and certainly developed enough already

Provincial Planning for Colin Pirina 15 Francis Street HUNTERS HILL

• Overshadowing It is plainly obvious that a building of the scale, bulk,

height and length proposed in close proximity to the western boundary is a poor and insensitive design, which creates unsatisfactory shadowing impacts



D27


NOTIFICATION REQUIRED YES NUMBER NOTIFIED 9 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED Name & Address of Respondents

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

• Visual impact on No.15 The proposal by virtue of excessive length,

unarticulated elevations, bulk, height and siting, which is compounded by the aesthetically displeasing and bland façade treatment will dominate and tower over the outdoor living areas of No.15

• Privacy impacts As is clearly demonstrated by the attached

photomontage, the height and proximity of the proposed building results in a gross invasion of privacy to No.15. There has been no attempt to design the proposal to maintain the existing amenity. In this regard the western elevation is proliferated with large unscreened west facing windows and a large elevated entertaining deck.

• Streetscape impacts It is obvious the proposal will have a deleterious

impact on the streetscape and character of the area, however, a full and proper assessment cannot be made in the absence of notification plans which show the southern elevation. It is curious as to why arguably the most important elevation has not been attached

• Reasonableness and necessity Firstly, the workshop/studio as it is referred to by the

applicant is inappropriately located in terms of its relationship and physical disconnection from the main dwelling house, both from a distance and accessibility point of view. It appears that there is ample opportunity within the existing building envelope, particularly in the subfloor area to accommodate a workshop and generous surplus area

Secondly, there is no landscaping or other suitable measures proposed to attempt to minimise any impact, which notwithstanding, noting the height, scale siting etc, would be impossible mitigate.

Thirdly, the approval of the application will create an undesirable precedent for new development along Francis Street, garages with roof terraces particularly noting the opportunity for views. Further, approval is likely to result in demand for carparking structures within the Glenview Crescent setback area

• Permissibility In particular it is uncertain as to whether such work

shop is for commercial or industrial purposes, or is for a home industry or home occupation. Accordingly Council cannot be satisfied as to the permissibility of the proposal under the Hunters Hill LEP.

The main issues of concern outlining the objections are discussed below:



D28


• The applicant for the development already has an adequate garage/studio/workshop at Glenview Crescent. The new garage/studio/workshop at the rear of the site is out of character with Francis Street homes

Comment: The applicant proposes to demolish the existing garage fronting Glenview Crescent which is to be replaced with the new workshop / studio structure fronting Francis Street. The benefit of this part of the development to the Glenview Crescent streetscape will be offset to some degree by the likely detrimental change to the Francis Street streetscape which in any case is deemed too wide for the streetscape and will create privacy issue for neighbours. The changes recommended to remove these detrimental effects to the Francis Street streetscape and to improve privacy are set out in the recommendation.

• The proposed development would increase traffic on Francis Street which is already a narrow, dead end street

Comment: Assessment has been carried out by Council’s Group Manager Works & Services and it was declared that Francis Street was not too narrow for one or two additional cars to use such pavement on a daily basis. • The proposed development would have a direct impact on our property with the

new development compromising the privacy of our house Comment: The objector’s property in Francis Street is directly opposite the subject land. It is considered that no effective argument can be made for the loss of privacy to their front yard or front of the dwelling house. Nevertheless, the recommendation is for refusal of this part of the application for a number of reasons. • Francis Street is a very narrow dead end street which already has in the order of

about 28 residence vehicles to contend with Comment: The applicant does not propose to use the workshop/studio (which is in any case recommended for refusal) for the purpose of off-street car parking. Therefore, the question of traffic generation and on-street parking issues are not likely to result from this development. • Parking in Francis Street is tight at the best of times being a one-way street.

Having an extra garage / workshop built in this street will only make it more congested , I am led to believe that the owners of the above address have an existing garage in the front of their house, if residents have a function with many visitors Francis Street becomes a car park, at these times it is very difficult to get in and out of my driveway

Comment: The applicant does not propose to use the workshop/studio fronting Francis Street (which in any case is recommended for refusal) for the purpose of off-street car parking. Therefore, the question of traffic generation and on-street parking issues are not likely to result from this development.

• I believe Francis St does not need a garage/workshop, I refer to point 1 re parking, also I think there will be a problem of noise resonating from the workshop at all hours

Comment: It is the applicant’s choice to have a detached workshop / studio fronting Francis Street. However, it is considered that the size of this structure is excessive in the circumstances and would detrimentally alter the Francis Street streetscape. The recommendation is to delete the Francis Street structure. As stated above, it is considered that parking in Francis Street is not likely to be exacerbated.



D29


• I have a problem with the height, I have walked past on many occasions and have noticed a height pole erected, based on this, I think the proposed development stands very high compared to other buildings in Francis Street

Comment: The proposed additions to the dwelling house on a sloping site are such that they will comply with Council’s height requirements set under Local Environmental Plan No.1. Similar height controls were applied by Council and given compliance for the recent construction of the multi-level house at No.15 Francis Street. • This brings me to another matter of houses that are established in Glenview

Crescent. Does this mean that if this proposal goes through all houses in Glenview who back on to Francis St can now extend their buildings into Francis Street?

Comment: There are only two other properties in Glenview Crescent that have a second frontage to Francis Street. These owners have every right to make application for redevelopment in a form that gives compliance to Council’s planning controls that exist at the time. The matter of bulk, scale and form will be the criteria used by Council to assess such future development applications. In this case, where that part of the application is recommended for refusal, any future application will have to be assessed on its merits and in accordance with the controls in place. • We personally strongly object to any further development on Francis St. and fail

to see any justification for the resident to resubmit the application Comment: Owners have full right to submit applications for redevelopment in such a way for the construction of structures in Francis Street and their position relative to the street alignment / building line. As can be seen in the recommendation, that part of the application for the workshop / studio is recommended for refusal. Any such proposals will have to be considered on their merits and in accordance with the planning controls of Council at the time.

• Francis St. is a very narrow dead end street which is already congested and certainly developed enough already

Comment: The applicant does not propose to use the workshop/studio fronting Francis Street for the purpose of off-street car parking. Therefore, the question of traffic generation and on-street parking issues are not likely to result from this development.

• It is plainly obvious that a building of the scale, bulk, height and length proposed in close proximity to the western boundary is a poor and insensitive design, which creates unsatisfactory shadowing impacts

Comment: It is considered that the design of the additions to the dwelling is reasonable for approval. Further, the greater part of the additional mid-winter shadows cast by the new works will fall on the rear yard of the subject property and over Francis Street. The proposed development does not contravene the solar access provisions of DCP No.15. • The proposal by virtue of excessive length, unarticulated elevations, bulk, height

and siting, which is compounded by the aesthetically displeasing and bland façade treatment will dominate and tower over the outdoor living areas of No.15

Comment: It is considered that no effective argument can be made in terms of bulk, height and siting of the additions to the dwelling house. The length of the dwelling extension to the rear is not considered to be excessive given the depth of the subject site, and not to the point where a strong case can be made for refusal on the basis of aesthetics.



D30


No argument can be made to state that it will tower over and dominate the outdoor living areas of No.15 Francis Street, which has its own extensive outdoor living areas. These are matters for Council’s Heritage Adviser to comment on and he has not raised this issue with the application. The removal of the existing garage fronting Glenview Crescent will markedly improve the look of the premises and improve that streetscape. • As is clearly demonstrated by the attached photomontage, the height and

proximity of the proposed building results in a gross invasion of privacy to No.15. There has been no attempt to design the proposal to maintain the existing amenity. In this regard the western elevation is proliferated with large unscreened west facing windows and a large elevated entertaining deck

Comment: Subject to Schedule 1 condition Nos.1, 2 and 3 as set out in the recommendation, the development is not likely to create an undue loss of privacy for the adjoining residents. The current plans have deleted one set of windows from the western elevation opening off the ground floor dining room rear extension. • It is obvious the proposal will have a deleterious impact on the streetscape and

character of the area, however, a full and proper assessment cannot be made in the absence of notification plans which show the southern elevation. It is curious as to why arguably the most important elevation has not been attached

Comment: The south elevation which was not attached to the letter sent out for the notification of the application, it was available as part of the overall application details for the residents to inspect at the Council counter or on request to the Council officer referred to in the notification letter. It is understood that no one other than the objector made contact with Council staff re this issue. Further, there is no practical opportunity to include every plan and every part of the documentation in the development application notification letters sent out as a matter of course to adjoining and nearby residents. • Firstly, the workshop/studio as it is referred to by the applicant is inappropriately

located in terms of its relationship and physical disconnection from the main dwelling house, both from a distance and accessibility point of view. It appears that there is ample opportunity within the existing building envelope, particularly in the subfloor area to accommodate a workshop and generous surplus area

Comment: It is considered that the likely effect of the workshop / studio on the Francis Street streetscape would be detrimental and create a loss of privacy to the adjoining owners to the west in Francis Street which, as a result, that part of the development proposal is recommended for refusal. • Secondly, there is no landscaping or other suitable measures proposed to

attempt to minimise any impact, which notwithstanding, noting the height, scale siting etc, would be impossible mitigate

Comment: A basic landscaping plan was submitted with the development application. This has been assessed by Council’s Parks & landscape Co-ordinator who advised that the new planting around the site is appropriate for the setting. However, no details submitted on the landscape plan for the triangular planter box at the south western corner of the proposed rear deck.

• Thirdly, the approval of the application will create an undesirable precedent for new development along Francis Street, garages with roof terraces particularly noting the opportunity for views. Further, approval is likely to result in demand for carparking structures within the Glenview Crescent setback area



D31


Comment: It is recommended that the workshop / studio be refused for reasons including privacy and precedent. There is some opportunity for a similar type of structure to be constructed in the remaining undeveloped areas of Francis Street. Any new such development will be subject of a development application and treated on its merits. • In particular it is uncertain as to whether such work shop is for commercial or

industrial purposes, or is for a home industry or home occupation. Accordingly Council cannot be satisfied as to the permissibility of the proposal under the Hunters Hill LEP

Comment: No details have been submitted with the application to indicate that the proposed workshop / studio will be used for commercial or industrial purposes. However, as it is recommended that such building be refused, this will not be an issue. • Evident in the poor quality plans and substandard ‘tokenistic reports Comment: That is a matter for objectors to make judgement on. What is required in a case such as this is that there are adequate details submitted with the application to be able to properly assess it. In this case, it is considered that the plans and documents submitted are in need of upgrade in terms of scale to 1:100 and showing the columns for the cover over part of the rear deck to be shown on the southern elevation. This is covered by Schedule 1, condition No.4.

• The existing site by way of the arrangement of the built form already constitutes an over development and the new works further compounds this situation

Comment: It cannot be reasonably argued on assessing this application that it amounts to an overdevelopment of the site. There is an excess of garden area and the buildings comply with the height and setback provisions of Council’s Controls.

• The building will clearly be 3 storeys and over 7.2 metres in height

Comment: The plans submitted with the application, which include survey plans, show that the dwelling as to be added to will be 2 storeys and not exceed 7.2 metres by definition.

• Thirdly, the approval of the application will create an undesirable precedent for

new development along Francis Street, garages with roof terraces particularly noting the opportunity for views. Further, approval is likely to result in demand for carparking structures within the Glenview Crescent setback area

Comment: There is currently an existing garage fronting Glenview Crescent which is proposed to be demolished and the area used for open off-street car parking. If this development is approved and acted upon, a development application in the future will then have to be submitted to Council for the construction of a new detached garage fronting Glenview Crescent. 15. CONCLUSION – THE PUBLIC INTEREST One major impact of this development relates to the fact that new additions to the rear of the dwelling and the other major impact will be the effect of the proposed workshop / studio building fronting Francis Street to be constructed after major excavation of sandstone an, soil and shrubbery. This part of the application has been recommended for refusal. The other major impact of the development relates to the demolition of the existing garage fronting Glenview Crescent, additions to the rear of the dwelling incorporating a new in-ground pool. These parts of the review have been recommended for conditional approval.



D32


The development in this form, as requested to have the earlier refusal reviewed formally under s.82A of the Act by Council, is recommended for a deferred commencement approval be issued with the exception of the construction of the workshop / studio. The proposed amended development as the s.82A review of the original refusal for Council with the exception of the workshop / studio fronting Francis Street is considered to comply with the objectives of the current zoning of the area. They will reasonably complement the existing buildings in this area and would not be detrimental to the Glenview Crescent streetscape. There is not likely to be any significant loss of privacy, solar access, nor loss of views from adjoining premises resultant from the development subject to compliance with conditions, which includes the deletion of a western window, the expansion of the planter box and the provision of a privacy screen on the western elevation of the additions to maintain privacy between neighbours. Conditions have been set out in the recommendation for a ‘deferred commencement’ development approval. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report. RECOMMENDATION

That the review of determination under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, of the decision to refuse the Development Application No.2010/1099 for the demolition of the garage and swimming pool and the construction of a covered pool and additions to the rear of the house and a workshop / studio at the Francis Street frontage of the site at No. 9 Glenview Crescent , Hunters Hill, be approved in part as a “Deferred commencement” consent pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The development consent as contained in Schedule 2 shall not operate (or be issued) until such time as the matters contained in Schedule 1 are finalised to the satisfaction of Council. Schedule 1 1. The proposed window to the extension of the ground floor level, along the western

elevation be deleted to improve privacy between neighbouring premises.

2. A privacy screen 1.6 metres high being provided from the proposed additions to the end of the roofed section of the rear deck along its western elevation.

3. A planter box 1 metre wide x 1 metre high with appropriate landscaping be provided to the open, unroofed, section of the deck, along the western side.

4. Upgraded plans being submitted to Council at a scale of 1:100 and showing the columns for the roof over part of the rear deck on the southern elevation.

Schedule 2 That Development Application No.2010/1099 for the demolition of the garage and pool, extend the ground floor dining room of the dwelling and construct a new covered pool at No.9 Glenview Crescent, Hunters Hill, be approved, subject to the following conditions: Special Conditions: 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the Environment Planning & Assessment Act 1979 this

approval shall lapse and be void if the building work or use to which it refers is not physically commenced within five (5) years after the date of approval.



D33


2. The development consent No.2010/1099 relates to the plans prepared by N. Robinson numbered 001, 102, 103, 104B, 120 to 123, FF150, all Issue ‘B’ dated 6 October 2011, as received by Council on 3 November 2011, except where amended by conditions of this consent.

3. The site being landscaped in accordance with plan prepared by N. Robinson drawing

No.105 Issue ‘A’ dated 6 October 2011 as received by Council on 3 November 2011, except where amended by conditions of this consent.

4. Compliance with the Basix Certificate No.A79606 dated 2 September 2010.

5. The finished surfaces being provided in accordance with the ‘Colour samples’ prepared by N. Robinson as received by Council on 3 November 2011.

6. The provision of any pump for any rainwater tank, the swimming pool motor and any air-conditioning equipment to be installed on the outside of the building being acoustically treated to ensure that noise does not exceed 5dBA above ambient noise levels on the boundaries at any time.

7. Dilapidation reports being prepared and certified by a practising structural engineer on

the current state of the original section of the adjoining dwelling houses at No.7 Glenview Crescent and No.15 Francis Street, Hunters Hill. Such reports shall be completed and submitted to Council and the adjoining neighbours prior to the commencement of any excavation or construction work. Upon completion of the approved building works, second dilapidation reports are to be carried out on the buildings and a copy of such report submitted to Council and the adjoining neighbours prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate. The applicant is to pay for the cost of the above-mentioned reports.

8. Prior to issue of Construction Certificate a stormwater storage and disposal

i. plan with reference to DCP 25 being submitted to the PCA for approval showing pipes and kerb discharge points for roof water and tank overflows, as referred

ii. to generally in DA documents, but not submitted yet in Plan.

Standard Conditions: A4 to A9, B1, B7 ($1,365), C1 to C5, C12, C19, C31 to C35, C40, C42, C44, C45, L5 to L7, S1, SD1 to SD3, SD5, SD7, SD29, SP2 to SP8, SP10, SP12, SP14, SP16, SP18, W1. That part of the application No.DA2010/1099 relating to the construction of the workshop / studio fronting Francis Street under the section 82A review of the original refusal to the development application be confirmed as being refused for reasons that: 1. It would detrimentally affect the Francis Street streetscape. 2. It would create a loss of privacy for the adjoining neighbours to the west. 3. It would necessitate a major excavation of sandstone and soil thus altering the natural

landscape of this part of Hunters Hill and being contrary to the objectives contained in DCP No.15.

4. It would create an undesirable precedent for redevelopment in Francis Street.



D34


ATTACHMENTS 1. Locality Map 2. Proposed Plans 3. Planning report on refusal 4. Height pole details 5. Submissions



D35


ITEM NO : 4

SUBJECT : NSW PLANNING REVIEW


REPORTING OFFICER : PHILIPPA HAYES

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT • To inform Council on the current status of the NSW Government’s review of the

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and the NSW planning system; and;

• To recommend Council adopt the submission made by the Northern Sydney Regional

Organisation of Councils on the review of the planning system.

BACKGROUND In July 2011, the NSW Government announced that a comprehensive review of the EP&A Act and the planning system would be carried out by an appointed Review Panel chaired by Tim Moore, former Minister for the Environment and Ron Dyer, former Minister for Community Services, Aged Services and Disability Services and Public Works and Services. The timeframe of the review process is outlined below: Stage 1 July 2011 Review Announcement

Stage 2 Aug – Oct 2011 Listening and scoping

A two month listening and consultation phase.

Stage 3 - Dec 2011 Issues Paper

Submissions and comments received in the initial consultation phase have been used to produce the Issues Paper - The way ahead for planning in NSW? The Government is currently seeking submissions on the Issues Paper. The deadline for submissions is Friday 17 February 2012.

Stage 4 end of April 2012 Policy Options Release

A Green Paper will be released, which will set out the review panel’s recommendations and preferred structure for a new planning system. The Green Paper is due to be published by the end of April 2012.

Stage 5 Draft Legislation

A ‘white paper’ and draft legislation will be released for exhibition before a bill is submitted to the NSW Parliament.

The Review Panel has completed Stage 1, 2 and 3 of the review process. The results of community consultation undertaken during Stage 2 have been collated into the Issues Paper – “The Way Ahead for Planning in NSW?” The Issues Paper contains the following 6 chapters: • Chapter A: Introduction Provides background to the review and asks questions about what

the new planning system might look like.

• Chapter B: Key elements, structure and objectives of a new planning system Explores the key issues around the possible options for a new planning system framework.



D36


• Chapter C: Making plans Explores the key issues and principles relevant to the content and processes of making plans.

• Chapter D: Development proposals and assessment Explores the key issues at the centre of approving and regulating development.

• Chapter E: Appeals and reviews; enforcement and compliance Explores the key issues related to the appeal and review systems.

• Chapter F: Implementation of the new planning system Explores a range of issues and questions related to implementing a new planning system.

The Issues Paper was circulated to all Councillors on 12 December 2011. The Government has invited comment on the Issues Paper with all submissions due by 17 February 2012. In early November 2011, prior to the Issues Paper being released the Northern Sydney Regional

Organisation of Councils (NSROC) in consultation with the Northern Planners Group, prepared an

8 page submission about their concerns regarding the timetable and method being used to review

the planning system. Additionally, their submission addressed NSROC’s views on key objectives

for the planning system and strategic planning issues (See attachment 1).

NSROC submission is clear and the issues it raises are supported. Most importantly NSROC

identifies that any considered planning review must include a best practice analysis addressing

aspects of local and international planning systems that are operating successfully. To date, the

review has not included this information.

The Issues Paper when it was released in December 2011 did not address any of the points raised

in NSROC’s submission. In response, NSROC will be reiterating its submission and expressing

concern that the Issues Paper was exhibited over the holiday period.

It is recommended Council adopt NSROC initial submission as its response to the Issues Paper

and advise the Planning Review Panel of this decision. Council’s letter will also address the short

review period.

NSROC is currently putting together a Planners Working Group that will be tasked with responding

to the Green Paper due out in April 2012. Council staff will participate in this group.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council note the release of the Issues Paper by the NSW Government, The Way Forward for Planning in NSW?

2. That Council adopt the NSROC submission addressing the “NSW Planning Review”

and advise the Planning Review Panel of Council’s position. 3. That Council staff participate in the NSROC Planners working group which will be

formed to develop a detailed submission on the Green Paper, due for release in April 2012.

ATTACHMENTS

NSROC Planning Priorities: NSW Planning Review 2011 – Initial Submission.



D37


ITEM NO : 5

SUBJECT : DELEGATED AUTHORITY


REPORTING OFFICER : STEVE KOUREPIS

Development Application No. DA 2010/1126-1 Zone Res 2(a3) Construction Certificate No. CC 2011/7035 Notification Yes Applicant Yoram Shabat Value $11,000 Premises 18-20 Ferry Street

HUNTERS HILL Garden Area 51.0%

Classification (BCA) 10b Date lodged 18.11.2011

Assessing Officer Kerry Smith Determination Date 12.01.2012 Proposal To construct a double flat roofed carport over the existing car

spaces off Toocooya Lane - s.96 – sliding gate to be omitted from original DA approval.

Determination Approval Development Application No. DA 2010/1029-1 Zone Mixed Use

B4 Construction Certificate No. CC 080/11 Notification Yes Applicant Charbel Jalal Value $2,250,000 Premises 47 Gladesville Road,

Hunters Hill Garden Area N/A

Classification (BCA) 2, 5, 6 & 7a Date lodged 04.05.2011 & 02.11.2011 & 14.11.2011

Assessing Officer Kerry Smith Determination Date 11.01.2012 Proposal Construct a mixed development with basement car parking –

s.96 – Revised unit layouts, home office to replace the commercial unit, roller shutters, basement alterations and fire attenuation screens on some external openings.

Determination Approval Development Application No. DA 2011/1121 Zone Res 2(a2) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification Yes Applicant Margaret Archer Value $204,841 Premises 2 Nelson Parade

Hunters Hill Garden Area 52%

Classification (BCA) 1a & 10b Date lodged 25.10.2011 Assessing Officer Kerry Smith Determination Date 17.1.2012 Proposal To construct a new concrete deck and to carry out alterations

and additions to the existing dwelling house. Determination Approval



D38


Development Application No. DA2011/1119 Zone 2(a2) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification Yes Applicant Andrew Strokon Value $46,000 Premises 34-36 Woolwich Road,


Classification (BCA) 1a, 10a Date lodged 19.10.2011 Assessing Officer Shahram Zadgan Determination Date 16.01.2012 Proposal Extension of dwelling over existing garage. Determination Approval Development Application No. DA 2011/1115 Zone Bus 3(c) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification Yes Applicant Nadine O’Brien Value $10,000 Premises 37 Alexandra Street

Hunters Hill Garden Area N/A

Classification (BCA) 6 Date lodged 10.10. 2011 Assessing Officer Kerry Smith Determination Date 24.01 2012 Proposal Alter existing window to a doorway, new internal partition wall

in the newsagency and shop fitout. Determination Approval Development Application No. DA2011/1093 Zone 2(b) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification Yes Applicant Urban Link Pty Ltd Value $40,000 Premises 23 Le Vesinet Drive,

Hunters Hill Garden Area 51.7%

Classification (BCA) 1a Date lodged 01.08.11 Assessing Officer Shahram Zadgan Determination Date 24.01.12 Proposal Alterations and additions to existing dwelling. Determination Approval Development Application No. DA2011/1123 Zone 2(a3) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification Yes Applicant Suzanne McGirr Value $49,500 Premises 15 Ernest Street,


Classification (BCA) 1a Date lodged 01.11.2011 Assessing Officer Shahram Zadgan Determination Date 24.01.2012 Proposal Alterations and additions to existing dwelling. Determination Approval FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report. RECOMMENDATION That the report be received and noted.



D39


ITEM NO : 6

SUBJECT : LEGAL MATTERS


REPORTING OFFICER : STEVE KOUREPIS

APPEALS

Status reports in relation to recent or pending appeals are attached. FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report. RECOMMENDATION

That the report be received and noted.

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT & REGULATORY CONTROL


D40


ITEM NO : 7

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO : DA20111075 (as amended)

PROPOSAL : AMALGAMATION OF THREE LOTS, DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES EXCEPT FOR “CASEY'S BUILDING” THE ERECTION OF A THREE-STOREY MIXED DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING GROUND FLOOR RETAIL & TWO RESIDENTIAL LEVELS, ABOVE TWO BASEMENT LEVELS FOR CARPARKING & SERVICES

PROPERTY 56 GLADESVILLE ROAD, HUNTERS HILL

APPLICANT : D R DESIGN (NSW) PTY LIMITED

OWNER : MR R TOUMA

DATE LODGED : 1 JULY 2011 (AMENDED 5 DECEMBER 2011 AND 23 JANUARY 2012)


REPORTING OFFICER : BRETT NEWBOLD (INDEPENDENT TOWN PLANNNING CONSULTANT)

1 SUMMARY Reasons for Report The proposed development is subject to deemed refusal appeal proceedings in the Land and Environment Court. The Court Registrar has ordered that the parties attempt to resolve this appeal via Section 34 conferencing. Arising from that process, the original development proposal has been amended substantially. The amended proposal has addressed the majority of contentions that were raised by the Council in these proceedings.

However, the amended proposal does not comply with setback controls under DCP No 27 – Hunters Hill Village, and a number of details regarding the amended proposal require clarification or further amendment.

The purpose of this report is to seek a decision from the Council prior to the conclusion of Section 34 conferencing which the Court has been set down for 16 February 2012.

Issues

• Character of the Hunters Hill Village

• Heritage

• Setbacks, scale and bulk

• Density



D41


• Landscaped area

• Residential amenity

• Amenity of the public domain

• Traffic

Recommendation

1. That Council indicates its general support for delegation of authority to the Mayor and General Manager to settle the current proceedings in the land and Environment Court of NSW.

2. That Council indicates its general support for DA 2011-1075 (as amended 5 December 2011 and 23 January 2012) subject to conditions and the exercise of delegated authority by the Mayor and General Manager, for the following reasons:

i. The proposal satisfies aims and all objectives for zone B4 Mixed Use, which are specified by HHLEP (Hunter’s Hill Village) 2009.

ii. Merit assessment of the proposal according to s79c(1) of the EPA Act does not reveal significant adverse impacts, or indicate that the site is unsuitable for the proposed development.

iii. With regard to items of heritage and the surrounding heritage conservation area, subject to adjustment of the proposed facade finishes and appropriate landscape treatment within the road reserves, the proposed development would not compromise the value of any existing item or of the conservation area as a whole.

iv. Design quality of the proposal satisfies all of the principles which are specified by SEPP No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings together with relevant guidelines in the Residential Flat Design Code - subject to conditions that require adjustment of the proposed facade finishes and appropriate landscape treatment within the road reserves.

v. Amenity and character of the adjacent residential neighbourhood would not be compromised.

vi. Within the Hunters Hill Village, business and pedestrian activity would be enhanced.

vii. Traffic and transport impacts would be acceptable subject to conditions in relation to restriction of right turns in and out, and subject also any future conditions which might be imposed following referral to RMS.

viii. Referrals to Council departments and external authorities have not raised significant objections which may not be managed via appropriate conditions.

ix. Environmental protection and sundry matters generally may be managed by conditions.

x. In conclusion, and subject to conditions, the proposal would deliver a nett public benefit.



D42


2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

In its original form, the proposed development which is DA 2011 – 1075 was lodged with Council on 1 July 2011.

On 23 September 2011, that development application became the subject of deemed refusal appeal proceedings with the Land and Environment Court (10870 of 2011). As a result of Section 34 conferences which occurred as part of those proceedings, the original development proposal has been modified substantially.

This report deals with the amended development proposal (plans dated 5 December 2011 and 23 January 2012), which comprises the following features:

• Amalgamation of three existing allotments. • Demolition of existing structures except for the existing Casey’s Building (which is not a

heritage item under Hunters Hill LEP (Hunters Hill Village) 2009).

• Erection of a three storey mixed use development.

• Proposed uses include retail with a flexible layout and associated storage areas at ground floor, plus two levels of apartments comprising a total of 15 dwellings (3 x one bedroom, 11 x 2 bedroom, and one x three bedroom).

• Basement carparking over two levels accommodating a total of 42 vehicles (21 retail including two delivery bays, plus 21 residential), accessed via a two ramp off Ryde Road that would be located near the site’s north-western corner.

• Maximum building heights that are 11m or less:

A maximum height of 10.14m for the residential roof; A maximum height of 8.1m for the two storey street wall element facing Ryde and Gladesville Roads; A maximum height of 11m for stair access to the roof-top air conditioning enclosure.

• The proposed floor space ratio is less than 2:1:

Combined gross floor area for retail and residential is 2,329m2, or an FSR of 1.91:1.

• Proposed siting and setbacks vary for each facade and storey:

Ground level retail has variable setbacks to both street frontages: generally from zero to 450mm, but with a substantial portion facing Gladesville Road setback up to 2.2m; Level 01 has setbacks to both street frontages that vary from zero to 2m or 2.7m to the face of windows behind “indented balconies”; Level 02 is setback 3.5m from both street frontages;



D43


Facing the western boundary (which adjoins the heritage-listed building “St Kevins” at 50 Gladesville Road), a deep soil setback is predominantly between 3.85m and 4.15m, with setbacks of 2.5m for short-runs of overhanging balconies on levels 01 and 02.

• The proposed building form comprises a two storey “street wall” with a third penthouse

level that has a substantial setback to the facade below: “Street wall” elements have a rhythmic composition of masonry walls that are separated by recessed balconies, with dimensions that are similar to the existing Casey’s Building which would be retained as a feature facing Gladesville Road;

Above the street walls, the “penthouse” element has straight walls that provide a neutral backdrop; Facing the prominent street corner, the two street frontages on this site which is generally-triangular are connected by curved windows; Facing the western boundary, exterior walls are stepped to create a deep soil courtyard that is proposed to be landscaped.

• Proposed architectural treatment of facades varies: Street walls and the penthouse element are proposed to be clad with large-format clay tiles that would be arranged in a stack-bond configuration with metal corner details;

Glazing generally occupies not more than half of the street walls or penthouse facades; The prominent curved corner windows and shopfront windows incorporate architecturally-detailed frames; The western elevation comprises panels of brick or clay-tile at the corners, with paint-finished render for the central portion which is setback; Robust structural steel fascias and capping are applied to footpath awnings, and slab edges to balconies and roofs; Balcony balustrades incorporate clear glass panels with structural handrails; Facades of the Casey’s Building would be restored to match traditional finishes and materials (conditions are recommended).

• Proposed landscaping is not detailed, but the concept indicates:

Screen plantings of trees and shrubs along the western boundary; Retention of existing brush-box street trees (a number of conditions are recommended to avoid adverse impact); Retention of a mature tree that is located on the western boundary.

• Street works that are proposed to be undertaken “in consultation with the Council”

include:



D44


Realignment of footpath levels and provision of paving;

Construction of a corner traffic barrier and sign element; Installation of street trees and amenity plantings (Note that a number of conditions have been recommended in relation to this element of the proposed development)

The amended development proposal is supported by the following:

• Statement of Environmental Effects by D.R Design

• SEPP 65 Design Verification Statement by D.R. Design

• Heritage advice by David Logan of Godden McKay Logan

• Arborist report by Mark Hartley of the Arborist Network

The original development proposal was supported by the following documents which have not been amended, and therefore are relied upon by the amended development proposal: • Stormwater Management Plans by Demlakian Consulting

• Traffic Impact Assessment by GSA Planning

• Acoustic assessment by Koikas Acoustics

• Access review by Morris-Goding Accessibility Consulting

Note that the original development proposal has been amended significantly during the s34 Court conciliation process.

3 DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY

The subject site is known as 52 – 56 Gladesville Road Hunters Hill, and it comprises three

separately-titled allotments:

• Lot 1, DP 652201

• Lot 3, DP 326205

• Lot 4, DP 326205

No registered easements affect this site. The shape of the site is approximately triangular and it covers an area of approximately 1,216.6m2. The site has a prominent corner location with two street frontages: • Facing Ryde Road (north-east): an overall frontage of approximately 58.9m (excluding

the splay);

• Facing Gladesville Road (south): an overall frontage of approximately 43.5m (excluding the corner splay);



D45


• Facing the street corner (which is known as Mapledoram’s Corner): a splayed frontage of approximately 6.6m;

• Facing neighbouring properties to the west: the cranked boundary has an overall

length of approximately 46m.

The site slopes gently from its north-western corner toward the south and the east: • The site’s highest point has an RL of 39.69;

• The frontage to Ryde Road slopes from RL 39.66 at the north-west corner down to RL

38.51 at the eastern-most corner (a fall of 1.15m over a distance of almost 60m, or approximately 1:50);

• The frontage to Gladesville Road slopes from RL 38.4 at the west to RL 38.25 at the eastern-most point (which indicates an almost negligible fall);

• The western boundary slopes from RL 39.66 at the north-west corner down to RL 38.4 at the south-western corner (a fall of 1.26m, or approximately 1:36).

The site currently is occupied by: • At 52 and 54 Gladesville Road: a pair of two-storey commercial buildings circa 1920s

and known as “Caseys Buildings”, constructed of painted face brick with skillion roofs and awnings, and incorporating alterations and additions. This pair of buildings has zero boundary setbacks to the southern and western boundaries of Lot 3 in DP 326205

• At 56 Gladesville Road: a timber post-WWII cottage which is used as commercial

premises.

Primary access to the site is currently from Gladesville Road via driveways. The site is located within a Heritage Conservation Area, and a number of local heritage items either adjoin the subject site or are located in the immediate vicinity: • At 50 Gladesville Rd (immediately to the west): “St Kevins”; • Numbers 1 and 3 Ryde Road (immediately opposite the site): “Eden” and Bega”. • At 62 Gladesville Rd (further to the east of the site and adjoining the hotel carpark):

“Hillrest”. • Further to the east: the Hunters Hill Hotel.

Existing development that surrounds the subject site has a scale of one or two storeys: • To the north-west and south-west: detached dwellings in garden settings are

predominantly single storey buildings;

• To the south and north-east, existing commercial buildings have one or two storeys, and buildings to the south typically are setback from Gladesville Road.

Several large trees are located within, or adjacent to, the subject site:



D46


• Trees on the site include a Canary Island palm (Phoenix canariensis), a Cocos Island palm near the street corner, and two substantial Silky Oaks (Grevillea robusta).

• A London plane tree straddles the site’s western boundary.

4 PROPERTY HISTORY

The original development application was submitted on 1 July 2011. The original proposal involved a four storey building with an FSR of approximately 2.25:1 and a maximum building height of 13.6m.

Notification of that proposal commenced in July, followed by supplementary notification of minor amendments during September. Submissions were received from several objectors.

The proposal was reviewed by CAP on 17 August 2011 and on 21 September 2011.

Council commissioned assessments of the original proposal by independent experts, and those professional reviews agreed substantially with concerns that had been raised by CAP and objectors. Advice was provided by the following independent experts:

• Legal: John Cole / HWL Ebsworth Lawyers • Town planning and urban design: Brett Newbold / Brett Newbold Urban Planning Pty

Ltd • Traffic and transportation: Craig McLaren / McLaren Traffic Engineering • Heritage: Greg Patch

With regard to matters of town planning, urban and landscape, assessment by independent experts identified several areas of serious concern:

1 Unsatisfactory responses to seven out of ten design quality principles that are nominated by SEPP No 65: context, scale, built form, landscape, amenity, safety and security, and aesthetics.

2 Significant non-compliance with the maximum building height that is specified by Hunters Hill LEP (Hunters Hill Village) 2009.

3 Significant non-compliances with setbacks and heights that are specified by Hunters Hill DCP No 27 – Hunters Hill Village for the village core precinct.

4 Unsatisfactory responses to design requirements which are provided by Hunters Hill DCP No 21 – Commercial Development and by Hunters Hill DCP No 27 – Hunters Hill Village in relation to streetscape, built form, facades and landscaping.

5 Likelihood of adverse impacts upon existing brushbox street trees, and also upon the plane tree which is located upon the property boundary.

6 Construction proposed upon and above public footpaths, incorporating works that would primarily benefit the proposed development, but without the requisite landowner consent. Also, an unsatisfactory public benefit from works that were proposed along public footpaths.

7 Configuration of retail tenancies unlikely to contribute to commercial viability, or to achieve objectives that are specified by the local DCPs.



D47


On 23 September 2011, the applicant served notice that deemed refusal appeal proceedings had been commenced with the Land and Environment Court. On 19 October 2011, the Council filed a Statement of Facts and Contentions which specified eleven key reasons for refusal of the subject application.

On 21 October 2011, the Court Registrar set the matter down for a s34 conference with a view to resolving the matters in dispute. That conference was held on 23 November 2011, and followed the Court’s dismissal of appeal proceedings for a four storey mixed development at 58-60 Gladesville Road (Iris Property). During the November conference, appellants in the subject proceedings requested the opportunity to amend their proposal by, among other things, removing the proposed fourth storey. Preliminary amendments were reviewed informally by Council’s experts, and formal amendments were submitted on 5 December 2011. Notification of the amended proposal resulted in objections from three individuals. The substance of those objections is discussed later in this report Note that the subject of this report is the amended proposal dated 5 December 2011 and 23 January 2012 (note also that the latter amendment has not been notified). 5 APPLICABLE CONTROLS Environmental Planning and Assessment Act SEPP No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings SEPP (BASIX) 2004 Hunter’s Hill LEP (Hunter’s Hill Village) 2009 Zone: B4 Mixed Use Heritage Item on site: No Vicinity of a Heritage Item: Yes Heritage Conservation Area: Yes Development Control Plans: DCP 27 - Hunter’s Hill Village DCP 25 – Sustainable Water DCP 23 – Access and Mobility DCP 21 - Commercial Development DCP 18 – Planning for Waste Minimisation and Management DCP 15 – Residential

6 APPLICABLE POLICIES

None relevant Note that draft amendments to DCP No 27 have been advertised. However, those draft amendments have not been adopted, and consequently carry no determinative weight. 7 REFERRALS 7.1 External Approval Bodies i Ausgrid Ausgrid confimed technical requirements for the proposed development, including a substation which would need to be located on the subject site. These matters may be dealt with by conditions.



D48


ii NSW Police Force Safety and security issues were reviewed, and recommendations included the installation of lighting and CCTV surveillance equipment. These matters may be dealt with by conditions. iii NSW RMS (formerly Roads and Traffic Authority)

Due to timing and commencement of appeal proceedings, the proposed development has not been submitted for consideration by the Sydney Regional Development Advisory Committee. 7.2 Traffic and Transport Council’s traffic advisor has provided the following comments in relation to access, traffic and parking issues: Referral to RMS Ryde Road (MR 2033) is a classified REGIONAL road. The road classification types are presented in Annexure B (attached to the original advice). Under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 the subject qualifies as a development which is of a scale (retail use component) that exceeds 500m2 (Column 3 of the Table to Schedule 3) and accordingly the RTA must be given written notice of the application within 7 days after the application is made. Impact of traffic upon Mathew Street Impacts have been assessed with the weekday peak hourly (6am to 10am and 4pm to 7pm) restriction of “No Right Turn” conditions applying to both the entry and egress of traffic associated with the basement car park, because during operational weekday peak commuter periods right turn traffic to and from Ryde Road will be difficult and hazardous. The estimated peak hourly traffic generation based upon RTA guideline rates is in the order of 18 to 32 vehicle trips in the weekday AM & PM commuter peak hour periods respectively. During the AM peak some 10 inbound trips and 8 outbound trips, whilst during the PM peak some 18 inbound trip and 14 outbound trips are forecast to be generated. The number of right turning vehicles during the AM & PM peak hours is expected to be in the order of 50% of generated traffic, as follows:

AM peak: 9 vehicles per hour (5 in; 4 out). PM peak: 16 vehicles per hour (9 in; 7 out).

If it is assumed that all of these right turning vehicles use Mathew Street for the access route to and from the site, then it is considered that these moderately low traffic flows (equating to 1 vehicle every 7 minutes during the 8am to 9am and 1 vehicle every 4 minutes during the 5pm to 6pm periods) can be absorbed by Mathew Street with minimal impact in term of residential amenity, traffic flow efficiency and road safety considerations.

Car and cycle parking The quantum of car parking provided on-site complies with Council’s requirements. Whilst no rates are specified for bicycle parking it is recommended that provision be made to store / park bicycles on-site in accordance with DCP21. The suggested bicycle parking / storage rates suggested to be used for the proposed development are as follows:



D49


Bicycle lockers Cycle rails / racks

Residential 1 per 10 units plus 1 per 12 units Retail 1 per 450m2 plus 1 per 150m2

The above rates equate to a suggested need for 2 residential bicycle lockers and 1 residential bicycle rail/rack. A further 1 bicycle rail/rack could be used for the retail component. Vehicular Access Proposed access is via a driveway from Ryde Road for the following reasons:

i. The proposed entrance offers reasonable separation from the intersection of

Ryde and Gladesville Roads; ii. The proposed driveway avoids impacts upon “Casey’s Building” which is

proposed to be retained facing Gladesville Road; iii. Location facing Ryde Road avoids impacts on the pedestrian environment in

Gladesville Road which is important to character and business activity in the village centre;

iv. The proposed driveway avoids impacting street trees N2 and N3 which are

significant in relation to heritage value and character of this village.

It is recommended that vehicular access should prohibit right turn entry and exits during weekday peak hourly periods. This can be in the form of signposted “No Right Turn, Mondays to Fridays 6am to 10am; 4pm to 7pm” or via a permanent concrete median restriction within Ryde Road. The concurrence of the NSW Roads & Maritime Service (RMS) is required in accordance with SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007. Since the alternative of vehicular access from Gladesville Road would be undesirable for reasons outlined above, and provided that appropriate restrictions are imposed upon right turning traffic at the proposed Ryde Road driveway, the development is supportable. Draft conditions Deferred Commencement Conditions

1. Vehicular access controls shall be submitted together with supportive swept path

analysis for the maximum size vehicle expected to enter and leave the site that demonstrates how right turning traffic entering and leaving the site will be prohibited particularly during the weekday 6am to 10am and 4pm to 7pm commuter peak hours. These details to be submitted to the Local Traffic Committee (LTC) and RMS for comment and determination.

2. The internal driveway ramp gradient does not comply with AS2890.1-2004 particularly

in regard to the required visibility to pedestrians for drivers of emerging vehicles from the basement car park. Justification of the noncompliance is required with regard to “over the bonnet” view lines for drivers of emerging vehicles and lateral sight distance to pedestrian on the footpath in accordance with Figure 3.3 of AS2890.1-2004 or an alternate driveway profile that improves this sight line to be provided.



D50


3. Sight line analysis to be provided for drivers of emerging vehicles from the basement car park to pedestrians along the southern side of Ryde Road and to traffic along Ryde Road (Entering site distance, including effects of bus stop & shelter) to identify compliance or otherwise with Clause 3.2.4 of AS2890.1-2004. Details to be lodged with LTC for its consideration & determination.

Conditions 4. An operational waste management plan (once the building is occupied) is required to

address the method of collection to be employed, the vehicle type, on-site manoeuvring and lift mechanism (rear, front or side) for the collection vehicle. The swept path plot for these vehicles entering and leaving the site plus on-site manoeuvring shall be provided.

5. On-site traffic circulation and driveway access swept path diagrams shall be provided

and on-site management of potential conflict areas where two cars pass to be provided.

6. On-site bicycle parking / storage to be provided to the satisfaction of Council.

7.3 Heritage

The property is located within a conservation area that is scheduled by HHLEP (Hunter’s Hill Village) 2009. Heritage items are located on the adjoining property or on nearby properties: • At 50 Gladesville Rd (immediately to the west): “St Kevins”; • Numbers 1 and 3 Ryde Road (immediately opposite the site): “Eden” and Bega” are,

respectively, a single storey weatherboard gabled cottage with a centrally-located front verandah, and a “colonial” weatherboard cottage with a curved bull nosed verandah running the full length of the street elevation and a two storey addition to the rear. Both properties have small front gardens which reflect their original use as dwellings, but have been adapted to accommodate commercial uses.

• Rd (further to the east of the site and adjoining the hotel carpark): “Hillrest” is a single

storey Victorian-era stone cottage with a hipped galvanised steel roof and front verandah.

• Further to the east: the Hunters Hill Hotel is a twentieth century building that has local

landmark value. This building is being extended, via consents based upon existing use rights, with new structures located predominantly upon the existing carpark, bottleshop and beer-garden area. The approved development accommodates 4 motel units, 43 residential units, 8 shops (including a large basement retailer) plus basement parking.

The original development proposal was considered by the Conservation Advisory Panel (CAP) on 17 August 2011, which reported the following:

This item has been deferred to the September meeting of the CAP due to the unavailability of the proponents. The Panel, however, considered the proposal to provide some initial feed back.



D51


It is considered that the proposal is inappropriate and has the potential to have adverse impacts on Hunters Hill Village Conservation Area, Hunters Hill Conservation Area, heritage items in the vicinity, including: 50 Gladesville Rd (St Kevins); 1 (“”Eden”) & 3 (“Bega”) Ryde Rd; 62 Gladesville Rd (“Hillrest”); 41 Gladesville Rd (“Toronto”) and 64-66 Gladesville Rd (Hotel Hunters Hill); the character of Hunters Hill Village, and the streetscape of Gladesville and Ryde Roads. It is also considered that the contribution that the existing building (“Casey’s Building”- the retention of one wall in order to circumvent setback requirements would seem more than a little cynical) to 52 Gladesville Road has been inadequately assessed in terms of its historical, social, and aesthetic significance, its relationship with other buildings of a similar nature and era elsewhere in Hunters Hill Village, and that the prominence and historical background to Mapledoram’s Corner has been inadequately addressed.

Furthermore, the proposed building is considered to be excessive in height and bulk, proposes an inadequate setbacks to the item at 50 Gladesville Rd (“St Kevins”), and that the nil setbacks to the street frontages of Ryde and Gladesville Road, will have an adverse affect on the streetscape and character of both Ryde and Gladesville Roads. Its architectural expression does not reflect the desired fine grain of the precinct and the use of excessively expansive areas of glass, strident cantilevered “awnings” (used as private outdoor space for some units), and the resultant horizontal emphasis is at odds with the desired future character of the Precinct. The ostensible “nod” to the Interwar P&O style is a seeming misapprehension of the functionalist style of the Hotel Hunters Hill, and will have adverse impacts on the legibility and setting of that item through competition and similarities in scale. In summary, the Panel consider the approach to be anathema in terms of its interpretation of the guidance of the Development Control Plan and one that reflects an inadequate and ill informed understanding of the nature of the place into which it is proposed to be set. Committee Resolution: That the Manager, Development & Regulatory Control, be advised of the CAP’s initial response to the proposal, for consideration in the assessment of the development application.

On 21 September 2011, the original proposal was considered for a second time by CAP. The Panel was addressed by Nigel Dickson of Dickson Rothschild (architect), Pierre Touma (owner), and Kathleen McDowell of Urbis (heritage consultant). Mr Dickson advised that in light of the Panel’s feedback of the August meeting, the proponents seek to open a dialogue with Council in order to resolve the disparities in perception as to the approach to the redevelopment of Mapledoram’s Corner and the associated properties. The CAP reiterated its previous comments. Following the commencement of appeal proceedings, the original proposal and subsequent amendments have been reviewed by the Council’s heritage advisor, Greg Patch. The following comments have been provided in relation to current version of the amended development proposal (note that conclusions occur under the heading “General”): Casey’s Building:

• More detail required on detail and treatments of existing walls- e.g. re-pointing/ cleaning of western brick wall; tiles selections for rectification of under-awning façade of the former butcher’s shop; detail of shopfronts and entries, doors etc ; refurbishment of existing awning.



D52


Street Trees:

• It would appear from the arborist’s report (The Arborist Network- 25 Jan 2012) that there will be excessive pruning/ lopping of the canopy to the trees to the Gladesville Road frontage. Brush Box are one of the quintessential Edwardian early Interwar street trees and the examples here and the less mature specimens to the Ryde Road frontage are vital in terms of the maintenance of the streetscape. The report appears to imply that they will be subject to a “bonsai” –like treatment, and the diagrams indicating the pruning of the canopy indicate that the extent of canopy loss will result in lopsided and ill-shaped trees.

• The palms proposed to Mapledoram’s corner would be best as cabbage tree palms or

some other endemic/ native species. Exotic species tend to evoke used car yards and the like.

Landscaping:

• The interface between the proposal and “St Kevins” (50 Gladesville Road) to the west now appears to be landscaped to an extent whereby the existing London Plane tree and the transplanted Phoenix palm (to the Ryde Road frontage) together with the proposed supplementary planting will provide a reasonable level of landscaping between the proposal and the heritage item. This landscaping is, however, all that is provided on site, with the remainder relying on the street trees and some seemingly unresolved footpath landscaping.

Mapledoram’s Corner:

• The corner at the junction of Gladesville and Ryde Roads is contentious in terms of geometry and façade resolution. The proposed curved glass semicircular treatment may, in my view, be successful if properly detailed and executed. Such a treatment is, however, uncharacteristic of the area, and will be prominent in terms of views from the east on Gladesville Road and within the Village Core Precinct.

• A rectilinear resolution will also entail irregular geometry, and in my view may be somewhat clumsier, although I am not aware of this approach having been explored, to date.

• It would be best to keep this part of the façade “active” –i.e. landscaping against it would not be preferable, but a resolution of the interaction between the pedestrian crossings/ corner of the building should include some landscaping between the kerb and the footpath.

Façade:

• The use of “Terraçade” per se is not an issue in my mind, but the mode of its use is. I have had extreme reservations at its use to clad “columns” or “piers” (the below-awning elements) as the material seems to be successful only where used in relatively large planes- where the scale of the units and hence jointing is not so apparent. The proponents have expressed a concern at using materials that are difficult to clean of graffiti and soiling, which is a valid concern, in my view. In this light, I would find the use of a material such as conventional (smaller) tiles- possibly mosaics- or glazed bricks to be a possible alternative. Sandstone and conventional bricks bring with them longer-term issues in terms of sealing/ graffiti and cleaning.



D53


• The use of glazed balustrades is also an issue, and it would be worthwhile considering solid balustrades clad in “Terraçade” which will allow larger, more continuous (though articulated with expressed joints to panels) planes of the material. Given the size of the building and its façades, this would allow planes of sufficient magnitude to allow this material to read in a more appropriate manner.

• The selections board and materials/ colours key to the elevations do not make clear what is proposed - it appears “Tanami” and “Simpson”. Given the range, there may be scope to look at other colours.

• It may be contended that the strong terracotta colour proposed is a characteristic colour of the area (e.g. some of the face brickwork to the Hotel Hunters Hill) and the red brick-and-tile cottages further to the west, the retirement homes etc.). In my view, the colour as per the sample provided is overly intense and the colour control of the Terracade is “too good” and doesn’t provide the subtle colour variations of the more conventional unit materials such as brick and roof tiles.

General:

• In my view the proposal is substantially improved in its latest iteration than when first lodged with Council. Given that the above matters can be successfully addressed, I find it to be generally supportable in terms of its potential heritage and conservation impacts.

Recommendations by the Council’s heritage advisor are consistent with urban design analysis of the amended proposal, and would be achieved by conditions. The applicant’s desire to achieve a modern but respectful building is noted. Although those objectives might seem somewhat contradictory, a successful outcome is achieved primarily by the use of varied setbacks together with well-articulated building forms. Nevertheless, a satisfactory outcome in relation to heritage depends upon construction details and the selection of appropriate finishes. Consequently, a number of conditions have been recommended to address these matters of detail. 7.4 Health and Building Council’s Senior Health and Building Surveyor has reviewed the proposal and has recommended the amendment of several health and building conditions which were imposed upon the development as-approved. The amended conditions are listed at the conclusion to this Report. 7.5 Works and Services Council’s Group Manager Works and Services has reviewed the proposal and has recommended the amendment of several engineering conditions which were imposed upon the development as-approved. The amended conditions are listed at the conclusion to this Report. 7.6 Parks and Landscape Council’s Coordinator Parks and Landscape raised concerns regarding potential impact of the development upon street trees N1, N2 and N3 (referenced by the applicant’s arborist). Significance of these trees relates to streetscape and heritage (as noted previously). The Australian Standard’s tree protection zones for these trees are respectively 2.99m, 2.39m and 2.84m. The structural root zone of Tree N1 would be impacted, and canopies would require pruning to accommodate the proposed building. Proposed pavement works have the potential to affect street trees, particularly along Gladesville Road.



D54


A high quality must be achieved by landscaping that is proposed facing the street corner. Related to that quality, siting of the proposed building (including the location of basement works) should ensure sufficient soil to accommodate at least two new brushbox street trees. Conditions are recommended in relation to the following: • Root mapping for trees N1, N2 and N3 to be completed prior to commencement of

works;

• Adjustment of awnings proposed above footpaths to avoid excessive canopy pruning for existing trees;

• Installation of two mature brushbox street trees in the current footpath area which faces the street corner, together with understorey plantings;

• In order to accommodate street trees facing the street corner, volume of soil to be increased by setting back the basement and curved window wall by an additional 500mm (minimum setback of 1m at outermost point of the curved window);

• Installation of “tree friendly” paving, particularly along Gladesville Road where the pavement would need to be levelled (note that the reconstructed footpath in this location may need to be suspended on piers).

7.7 Community Services Council’s Manager Community Services raised no objections in relation to the amended proposal. 8 SECTION 79C ASSESSMENT 8.1 State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) SEPP No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings Principle 1: Context

In general, the amended proposal demonstrates appropriate consideration of its setting in terms of built form, land uses and activity that would be accommodated, amenity of neighbouring properties and the village as a whole, and strategic opportunities for housing and local business development.

Detailed reasons are outlined below and in response to other design principles.

Principle 2: Scale

Height of the amended proposal has been reduced to three storeys, which is consistent with the limits specified by local planning controls.

Retention of “Casey’s Building” (which is not heritage-listed) maintains the current scale relationship with the heritage-listed “St Kevins” at No 50 Gladesville Road.

Alignment of the proposed street wall elements generally next to the street boundary, with varied setbacks to shop-front windows, not only demonstrates consistency with the form of “Casey’s”, but also maintains a very significant element of traditional main street settings.



D55


For the proposed third storey, setbacks and colouring contribute to a recessive appearance which minimises visual impact as desired by the local planning controls.

Principle 3: Built form

The amended proposal incorporates a two storey street wall with articulation and dimensions that are influenced by the retained “Casey’s Building”. Street wall elements display a rhythmic pattern of masonry panels that are separated by recessed balconies.

Viewed from close-quarter locations, setbacks proposed for the top storey will minimise visual impacts of the proposed third storey, and by emphasising the proposed street wall, will achieve a high degree of compatibility with traditional main street shop-front buildings that survive in the Hunters Hill Village, and consequently are acceptable. Note that form of the proposed building incorporates colonnade elements along Ryde Road, and that those elements are generally consistent with the exhibited draft amendment to DCP No 27.

Setbacks and form of the western elevation will provide a suitably-discrete backdrop to neighbouring properties and Figtree Park to the west.

Facing “Mapledorams Corner”, the proposed curved windows provide an appropriate corner treatment and an effective connection for the two street frontages which meet at an acute angle. Although without local precedent, the proposed curved form is superior to rectilinear treatment which would create a visually-clumsy “half-hexagonal” building corner.

Principle 4: Density

Gross floor area of the amended proposal does not exceed the maximum FSR that is specified by the local controls.

The number of dwellings proposed does not exceed the site area / dwelling density that is nominated by DCP No 21. Consequently, density of the proposed development is satisfactory.

With regard to impacts upon infrastructure, the amended development proposal either deals with all likely impacts, or conditions have been recommended to address potential impacts.

Principle 5: Resource, energy and water efficiency

The amended proposal is supported by an amended BASIX certificate which confirms satisfactory use of energy and water.

With regard to energy use, 78% of dwellings in the amended proposal would receive three or more hours sunlight, and 71% of the proposed dwellings have a configuration that would promote effective natural cross ventilation.

Principle 6: Landscape

Landscaping in the amended proposal is confined to screen plantings in deep soil along the western boundary, and street trees that would be selected and installed according to Council’s requirements. Subject to detailed investigations and design that are recommended by conditions, these aspects of the development would be satisfactory (refer preceding comments provided by Parks and Landscape).



D56


The width of deep soil that is proposed along the western boundary is sufficient to accommodate effective screen plantings. Subject to root investigation which is recommended by conditions, the proposed development is likely to have no adverse impact upon the existing tree which is located on the property boundary.

The amended proposal does not satisfy the landscape area requirement nominated by DCP No. 21. However, subject to appropriate management of construction and design of landscape improvements facing the street corner (as recommended by conditions), the proposed building would not have any adverse impact on street trees which are significant elements of heritage and environmental character. It must be emphasised that successful protection of existing street trees and installation of new plantings as required by Parks and Landscape will be critical to achieving a satisfactory level of design quality, and that conditions recommended in relation to these matters provide fundamental justification for numeric non-compliance with the landscape control in DCP No. 21.

Subject to the recommended conditions, a compliant deep soil area would not mitigate any possible visual impact of the proposed building, or enhance the amenity of shop-top dwellings in this small scale development of only 15 dwelling that it is situated in a retail village.

Principle 7: Amenity

Amendment of apartment layouts has resulted in significantly-enhanced residential amenity.

Important considerations include the very high proportion of dwellings that would receive sunlight and natural cross ventilation.

Regarding west-facing dwellings with balconies that are setback 2.5m from the boundary, privacy of neighbours and the proposed dwellings would not be compromised: balconies have been placed adjacent to the heritage-listed “St Kevins” and overlook the rear section of that building which is currently used for commercial purposes. In terms of streetscape and potential heritage impacts, the proposed west-facing balconies are screened behind “Casey’s Building” and would have no adverse impact.

Amenity of the public domain would be enhanced by the proposed development. Width of footpaths would allow pavement dining without obstruction pedestrian access, and the proposal provides for works at the corner in consultation with Council.

Principle 8: Safety and security

Layout of the amended proposal eliminates safety and security concerns which had been raised in relation to the original proposal. Design of common corridors and lobbies provides effective sightlines that will ensure effective safety and security within the development. Safety and security within the public domain will be enhanced by apartment balconies which overlook the street.

Minor concerns regarding safety and security within basements would be addressed by conditions that have been recommended by NSW Police.

Principle 9: Social dimensions and housing affordability

The amended proposal provides a range of dwelling types in a location with access to shops, services and public transport. In the context of Hunters Hill’s housing market, the proposed dwellings will contribute to housing choice, and will provide an affordable alternative to dominant types of housing that are currently-available.



D57


Principle 10: Aesthetics

In a heritage conservation area, aesthetics are an important companion to built form. Assessment of likely heritage impacts has expressed reservations regarding two elements of the amended proposal: transparent balcony balustrades and clay tile cladding for facades.

In order to avoid adverse heritage impacts, conditions are recommended to substitute dry-pressed clay bricks for the clay tile cladding which is currently-proposed. Shades of bricks should be similar to the proposed clay tiles, with a dark manganese colour for the top storey and terracotta for all elements of the two storey street wall.

Heritage concerns were raised also in relation to glass balustrades as originally-proposed. Responding to those concerns, conditions are recommended to specify etched glass or sheet material for balustrade panels on Level 01, but balustrades on level 02 should remain clear glass to minimise scale and potential visual impacts.

The proposed curved curtain walls facing the street corner have been amended to incorporate steel frames rather than silicone jointing, and this detail has been confirmed by a drawing which forms part of the amended application. The proposed detail is consistent with mid-Twentieth Century architectural practice (for example, it is used on the Hunters Hill Hotel), and therefore represents acceptable resolution of an otherwise-unfamiliar design element.

Design quality in summary

Assessment by the Council’s urban design advisor (who is qualified for membership of a design review panel that is constituted under SEPP No 65) confirms that this proposal would achieve a high standard of design quality (subject to several conditions which are listed at the conclusion to this Report). Overall, the standard of design quality that would be achieved by the amended proposal is significantly higher than that of the original proposal.

SEPP (Building Sustainability Index – BASIX) 2004

This Policy supports sustainable residential development in relation to use of potable water and generation of greenhouse gases. In association with the EPA Regulations, this Policy requires that proposals for residential development are supported by certification which confirms that layout and design together with building services would achieve satisfactory conservation of energy and potable water resources.

The BASIX Certificate which supports the proposed modification confirms that the residential component would achieve satisfactory conservation of water and energy, and that dwellings would enjoy adequate thermal comfort.

8.2 Regional Environmental Plans (REPs) – Deemed SEPPs None applicable 8.3 Local Environmental Plans Hunter’s Hill Local Environmental Plan (Hunter’s Hill Village) 2009 Aims The amended proposal for mixed use development is consistent with the nine specified aims. The following points summarise that consistency:



D58


• Subject to further amendments which relate to matters of detail and which can be achieved via conditions, outcomes in relation to heritage would be positive.

• With regard to improvement and active use of the public domain, the proposed

development would generate significant additional activity on this prominent corner site, and consequently would enhance the current network of activity along Gladesville and Ryde Roads.

• Subject to Council’s endorsement of details, the concept for street works would ensure safe and convenient pedestrian access throughout this centre, supported by additional off-street parking for retail activities.

• Mid-winter solar access of surrounding properties would not be compromised. Zone B4 The proposal for mixed use development is consistent with all three objectives that are specified for this zone. In relation to the proposed mix of uses, the following are permissible in this zone with consent: • Apartment-style dwellings which would be defined as a “shop-top housing” • Retail units which would be defined as “business premises”, but subject to future

consent, might also be used for commercial or office premises. Development Standards The table below summarises compliance with the applicable standards:


Maximum building height roof access stairs and enclosure: approximately 11m

11m Yes

Floor space ratio 1.91:1 2:1 for sites > 900m2 Yes

Heritage Siting and form of the amended proposal would have no adverse impact upon the value of any heritage item located adjacent to the subject site. Subject to conditions in relation to detailing of facades and protection of existing street trees, the amended proposal would not affect values of the surrounding heritage conservation area. 8.4 Draft Amendments to Statutory Controls There are no draft amendments which affect this application. Under Section 79C of the EP and A Act, draft amendments to DCP No 27 carry no statutory weight.



D59


8.5 Development Control Plans i DCP 27 – Hunter’s Hill Village The following table summarises compliance with the applicable development controls.


Floor space ratio 1.91:1 2.5:1 sites > 2000m2 Yes

Maximum building height up to 11m (lift over-run)

11m Yes

Setbacks: north side of Gladesville Road with existing building to boundary

zero for ground + first 3.5m for second

Figure 3: zero for 2 lower levels + 3.5m for level 3 Text control: 3m for lower levels + 3.5m

Acceptable on merit (see discussion below)

Setbacks: side

2m to 4.1m @ ground 2.5m to balconies @ first + second 2m to 5.1m for walls @ first + second

BCA Yes

Setbacks: heritage items as above 2m + merit Yes

Width of shopfronts generally 3.3m to 4m glazing separated by columns or piers

6m to 7m maximum

Generally yes Corner window: no

Height of basement carparking

Below ground facing Gladesville Road

Not higher than Gladesville Road

Yes

Note that the majority of this DCP’s provisions demand considerations which are identical in effect to design quality principles under SEPP No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development, or heritage provisions under HHLEP (Hunter’s Hill Village) 2009. Consequently, proper consideration of this DCP in terms of FSR, height, setbacks, architectural form and character, and landscaping is provided by preceding discussions in relation to that SEPP, and heritage matters have been discussed in relation to the LEP. With regard to proposed street setbacks, merit assessment confirms that they are appropriate, and would not be contrary to purposes specified for the setback control: to accommodate pavement dining and landscaping. Those purposes would be achieved due to the generous width of footpaths surrounding the subject site together with existing and proposed street trees. Perhaps more importantly, character and historic values of the Hunters Hill village would not be promoted by a 3m setback. Along Gladesville Road, a 3m setback would be neither consistent nor compatible with the form of Casey’s Building which this proposal would retain, and which demands continuous alignment of the street wall - consistent with the pattern and form of traditional main street development which defines character and historic values of this village. Finally, circumstances of the subject site - primarily the triangular shape and distances between the two street frontages – would not accommodate deep soil setbacks along street frontages without compromising the economic development of this site which enjoys a specific FSR bonus under the Hunters Hill (Hunters Hill Village) LEP 2009. Due to unusual shape of the subject site, provision of deep soil setbacks would not permit viable basement layouts which are essential to service mixed development. Nevertheless, purpose of the setback control is achieved substantially by conditions which require an increased setback from the street corner together with street tree plantings to create a feature facing the prominent intersection.



D60


The recommended conditions would contribute to built form that addresses the street corner and a distinctive landscape feature, and would contribute to high quality urban design which is a central objective specified by draft amendments to DCP No 27. Note, however, that the draft amendments have not been adopted, and consequently have no determinative weight. ii DCP 25 – Sustainable Water This DCP aims to reduce the use of potable water, improve stormwater quality and reduce the quantity of site run-off. It applies to all land uses. In relation to residential components of the proposed development, use of potable water is covered by SEPP BASIX. With regard to management of stormwater and run-off, these matters are addressed by conditions which have been recommended by Council’s Public Works and Services Section. iii DCP 23 – Access and Mobility The original application was supported by an access report prepared by Morris-Goding Accessibility Consulting. Recommended conditions require updating of that report in relation to the amended proposal and before release of the CC. iv DCP 21 – Commercial Development The following table summarises compliance with the applicable development controls (note that this table does not include controls which directly repeat the effect of DCP 27, or which are inconsistent with the Residential Flat Design Code under SEPP No 65).


Ground floor commercial or retail uses

Approximately 70% of ground floor area

Minimum of 50% excluding carparking

Yes

Maximum residential density

81m2 per dwelling

1 per 75m2 site area

maximum 16 units Yes

Minimum landscaped area

132m2 deep soil = 5%

60m2 for pavement

setbacks total: 7.5% of site area 13m

2 per dwelling

20% of site or 20m

2 per dwelling

No Acceptable on merit

Parking: residential 21 spaces 1 per dwelling plus 1 visitor per 5 dwgs 18 required

Yes surplus of 3

Parking: retail 21 spaces 532m

2 nett GFA

1 per 25m2 nett area

21 required Yes

The majority of this DCP’s provisions demand considerations which are identical in effect to design quality principles under SEPP No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development. Consequently, proper consideration of this DCP in relation to streetscape, height, setbacks, residential density, landscaping and private open space is provided by preceding discussion in relation to that SEPP.



D61


Merit assessment indicates that the proposed landscaped area is satisfactory, and would not contribute to inferior amenity or built form character. The proposed landscaped area would not be contrary to stated purpose of the landscaped area in DCP No 21: to accommodate landscaping which would offset scale and bulk of building forms. Note that there are only two options for distribution of the required landscaped area: setbacks from streets and the western boundary, and centrally-located courtyards. As indicated previously, street setbacks are neither desirable nor necessary to achieve satisfactory built form character or a high level of amenity for the public domain in this location. Although draft amendments to DCP No 27 envisage a slightly different form of development facing Ryde Road, setbacks as proposed are appropriate. In addition, facing the western boundary a broader setback would not enhance proposed landscaped screening of the development: the proposed western setback varies in width up to 4m and is more-than-adequate to accommodate effective screen planting between the development and its immediate neighbours (which include a listed heritage item). It is also important to note that wider setbacks or a centrally-located courtyard would prevent viable basement construction which is essential for economic development of this site, as well as significantly reducing the quantum of above-ground floor area that could be achieved according to the FSR bonus which applies under Hunters Hill LEP (Hunters Hill Village) 2009. v DCP 18 – Planning for Waste Minimisation The amended proposal includes a diagram showing construction access and site management. Recommended conditions require the submission of a waste management plan which conforms with requirements of this DCP before release of the CC. vi DCP 15 – Residential This DCP addresses residential development in general, residential developments where heritage considerations apply, and residential developments in prominent locations which include foreshore scenic protection areas. Provisions of this DCP demand considerations which are identical in effect to design quality principles under SEPP No 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development and heritage provisions of the HHLEP (Hunter’s Hill Village) 2009. Consequently, preceding discussions in relation to that SEPP and heritage elements of the LEP demonstrate the proper consideration of this DCP. 8.6 Other Codes and Policies The proposal is not affected by other codes or policies. With regard to draft amendments to DCP No 27, comments appear in response to the currently-applicable controls. 8.7 Likely Impacts of the Development In summary Merit assessment of the amended development proposal does not reveal sufficient adverse impacts that would warrant a recommendation for refusal or significant redesign. Nevertheless, a number of conditions are recommended in order to eliminate specific impacts. The recommended conditions are critical to achieve satisfactory design quality, notwithstanding that impacts considered individually would not necessarily warrant a recommendation for refusal.



D62


Economic The amended proposal accommodates a range of viable retail tenancies that would enhance existing business activity in the Hunters Hill Village. Opportunities for retail activity would be accommodated by wide footpaths that surround this site, particularly along Gladesville Road. Subject to conditions which would restrict right turns in and out, the location and design of basements generally ensure that there would be no adverse impact on traffic circulating through that village. By contrast to the original proposal, the amended development proposal delivers an economic use of the subject site without exceeding the key numeric parameters for height and floorspace which have been set by the local planning instrument. Environmental Significant changes to the original proposal ensure that the amended proposal would be compatible with character of the Hunters Hill Village and its surroundings. Subject to conditions which require minor amendments to materials that are proposed for the street facades, there would be no adverse impact upon any heritage item or the surrounding heritage conservation area. Positive features of this amended proposal include retention of the “Casey’s Building” which is not heritage-listed, and articulation of street wall elements to reflect forms and street-facades that are characteristic of traditional main street development. Amendments to the original retail layout ensure that the public domain would be enhanced by proposed retail or business activities, together with proposed street works that would be undertaken by the applicant according to Council’s requirements. Social Substantial amendment of the original residential layout provides effective living environments with much-improved levels of amenity. These high quality living environments would expand the range of housing choice that is currently available within this Municipality, and would contribute to a public domain that is safe and secure. Potential for adverse impacts upon neighbouring or nearby residential properties have been eliminated, or would be managed appropriately by conditions in relation to traffic and landscaping. 9 SUBMISSIONS The initial proposal and the subsequent amendment to that proposal were notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan:

• Original proposal on 1 July 2011: a period of 28 days commencing 20 July, with amended plans renotified on 23 September 2011.

• Amended proposal on 5 December 2011: a period of 28 days commencing 7

December. The proposals were advertised in local papers, and copies of plans were available for downloading from the Council’s website. The original proposal generated a total of seven submissions. The amended proposal generated a total of three submissions. Lists of submissions and copies of each submission are attached to the report. With regard to the amended proposal which is the subject of this report, central issues which were raised by submissions and responses are listed below.



D63


A Character i Non-compliant setbacks Responses

• Merit assessment indicates that proposed street setbacks are appropriate. The proposed setbacks would not be contrary to purposes of the setback control in DCP No 27 which are to accommodate pavement dining and landscaping. Note that proposed shopfronts incorporate concertina doors which would allow restaurants or cafes to open onto the Gladesville Road footpath which is proposed to be upgraded.

• Generous width of footpaths surrounding the subject site together with existing and proposed street trees, would achieve the purposes of the setback control.

• In terms of streetscape, a 3m setback from Gladesville Road would be neither

consistent nor compatible with the form of Casey’s Building which this proposal would retain, and which demands continuous alignment of the street wall - consistent with the pattern and form of traditional main street development which defines the character and historic values of this village. The setback proposed for “street wall” elements of the proposed development, incorporating a colonnade facing Ryde Road, are generally consistent with draft amendments to DCP No 27.

• Circumstances of the subject site - primarily the triangular shape and distances

between the two street frontages – would not easily accommodate deep soil setbacks along street frontages without compromising the economic development of this site which enjoys a specific FSR bonus under the Hunters Hill (Hunters Hill Village) LEP 2009. Deep soil setbacks, if provided, would not permit viable basement layouts which are essential to service mixed development.

ii Non-compliant landscaped area Responses

• Merit assessment indicates that the proposed landscaped area is satisfactory (subject to a number of conditions), and would not compromise desired levels of amenity or built form character. The proposed landscaped area would not be contrary to stated purpose of the landscaped area in DCP No 21: to accommodate landscaping which would offset scale and bulk of building forms.

• There are three options for distribution of the required landscaped area: setbacks from the western boundary, centrally-located courtyards and street setbacks. As indicated above, street setbacks are neither desirable nor necessary in relation to built form character and amenity of the public domain in this location, and recognising that this mixed development provides for shops at ground level which benefit from zero setbacks. A broader setback from the western boundary would not enhance proposed landscaped screening of the development which would be achieved by deep soil that varies in width up to 4m – a dimension that is more-than-adequate to accommodate effective screen planting between the development and its immediate neighbours (which include a listed heritage item).

• Wider setbacks and a centrally-located courtyard would prevent viable basement construction which is essential for economic development of this site, and would significantly reduce the quantum of floor area that could be achieved – recognising that this site qualifies for an FSR bonus under Hunters Hill LEP (Hunters Hill Village) 2009.



D64


iii Excessive scale and bulk Responses

• Scale and bulk of the proposed development are not excessive, and are consistent with best-practice for three storey mixed developments.

• Dimensions and floor area of the proposed development have been amended to

comply with development standards under Hunters Hill LEP (Hunters Hill Village) 2009. • Proposed building forms incorporate a two storey street wall which is well-articulated,

and a third storey which is setback by 3.5m. • Colouring differentiates the street wall from the third storey, and contributes a recessive

appearance for the top storey.

iv Architecture incompatible with village character: excessive glazing Responses

• Proposed exterior architecture is not inherently incompatible with character or heritage values of the Hunters Hill Village.

• Significant amendments to the original proposal have deleted the “moderne” horizontal

forms with painted render and continuous glass balustrading. • The amended design reflects the scale, pattern and character of traditional main street

shop front buildings such as “Casey’s Building” which now is proposed to be retained entirely.

• Curved curtain wall windows remain a feature of the street intersection, but proposed

detailing incorporates steel mullions that were commonly-used during the mid-Twentieth Century, and which would prevent the appearance of a sheer glass plane.

• The proposed development would be screened partly by existing and new street tree

plantings which are the subject of specific conditions. B Amenity of the public domain i Insufficient opportunities for pavement or forecourt dining Responses

• Opportunities for pavement dining would not be restricted by the proposed development.

• Widths of footpaths surrounding the subject site vary from 3.5m along Ryde Road to almost 5m along Gladesville Road, and nearly 7m facing the street corner.

• Existing traffic affects current amenity along the Ryde Road frontage, and consequently pavement dining is more likely to occur at the corner and along Gladesville Road.



D65


• Pavement dining typically occupies a width of 1.5m, and subject to Council’s license, widths of existing footpaths are more-than-adequate to accommodate pavement dining without obstruction pedestrians. Also note that plans of the amended proposal show that shop facades facing Gladesville Road incorporate concertina doors which would allow cafe or restaurant activity to spill onto the footpath.

C Traffic and access i Vehicle access and egress from Ryde Road is not appropriate: right turns,

queuing, speed Responses • Council’s traffic advisor considers that right turn restrictions are necessary for reasons

of safety and efficient traffic circulation.

• Appropriate conditions have been proposed to prevent right turns into and out of the site.

ii Street parking Responses

• Council’s traffic advisor has confirmed that proposed on-site parking meets current requirements.

• On that basis, there is no reason to conclude that the proposed development would affect on-street parking.

D Overdevelopment i Non-compliant dwelling density Responses

• The proposed development satisfies the numeric control in DCP No 21.

• 15 dwellings are proposed which equates to 81m2 per dwelling on a site of 1216.5m2.

ii Unsatisfactory consideration of site constraints Responses

• The proposed development, as amended, demonstrates effective consideration of the site’s constraints which include heritage and built form character, vegetation and street trees, traffic and vehicle access, amenity of the public domain and neighbouring properties.

Notification of the original development generated submissions on a significantly wider range of topics:

i Overdevelopment ii Height iii Character iv Impact on Amenity of Hunters Hill Village v Setbacks



D66


vi Landscaped area vii Impact on existing heritage items on site and neighbouring heritage items viii Bulk and scale ix Traffic impacts x Density

Objections in relation to the original application were reviewed by an independent town planner and urban designer. Independent assessment of those objections supported the majority of points which were raised in response to the original proposal. 10 CONCLUSION – THE PUBLIC INTEREST In relation to the amended proposal, submissions and technical assessments have identified a number of relatively minor design issues and technical shortcomings. Those issues and shortcomings may be addressed by straightforward conditions which have been added to Council’s standard conditions (listed at the conclusion to this Report). With regard to the additional conditions, crucial elements relate to protection of existing street trees, establishment of a distinctive landscape feature facing the street corner, and selection of appropriate materials or finishes for facades. Nevertheless, in general the amended proposal is substantially superior to the original proposal. Assessment in relation to the applicable planning controls has not revealed any fundamental shortcomings that would warrant a recommendation for refusal or significant redesign. Important aspects of the amended proposal include compliance with maximum building height and floor space ratio which are primary numeric criteria for acceptable size and density. In terms of amenity, the amended proposal provides satisfactory living environments, as well as expanding the range of “housing choice” which currently is available in this municipality, and it provides an effective backdrop for expanded retail and pedestrian activity within the village. Perhaps of greatest importance, amendments to form and exterior architecture have produced a development proposal that is compatible with the character and heritage values that distinguish the Hunters Hill Village and its immediate surroundings. Overall, the amended proposal would deliver public benefits that include restoration of a traditional shop-front building, the accommodation of expanded retailing in this village and provision of public carparking for visitors, significant public domain improvements, and through the residential component, generation of additional local demand for existing retailers and service providers in this village. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report, other than costs which have been incurred in relation to provision of advice by independent experts and response to Land and Environment Court proceedings which were commenced by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION 1 That Council delegates authority to the Mayor and General Manager to settle the

current proceedings in the land and Environment Court of NSW. 2. That Council indicates its general support for DA 2011-1075 (as amended

5 December 2011 and 23 January 2012) for the amalgamation of three existing lots at 52-56 Gladesville Road Hunter’s Hill, demolition of certain existing structures (other than Casey’s Building), and the erection of a three storey mixed development with associated carparking, subject to conditions (draft conditions are inserted at A below) and the exercise of delegated authority by the Mayor and General Manager.



D67


A. CONDITIONS The development consent as contained in Schedule 2 shall not operate (or be issued) until such time as the matters contained in Schedule 1 are finalised to the satisfaction of Council. Schedule 1 1. An accredited RTA auditor is to review the proposed access and egress onto

Gladesville Road and certify that the proposal is safe for the types of vehicles and users.

2. Vehicular access controls shall be submitted together with supportive swept path

analysis for the maximum size vehicle expected to enter and leave the site that demonstrates how right turning traffic entering and leaving the site will be prohibited particularly during the weekday 6am to 10am and 4pm to 7pm commuter peak hours. These details to be submitted to the Local Traffic Committee (LTC) and RMS for comment and determination.

3. The internal driveway ramp gradient does not comply with AS2890.1-2004 particularly

in regard to the required visibility to pedestrians for drivers of emerging vehicles from the basement car park. Justification of the noncompliance is required with regard to “over the bonnet” view lines for drivers of emerging vehicles and lateral sight distance to pedestrian on the footpath in accordance with Figure 3.3 of AS2890.1-2004 or an alternate driveway profile that improves this sight line to be provided.

4. Sight line analysis to be provided for drivers of emerging vehicles from the basement

car park to pedestrians along the southern side of Ryde Road and to traffic along Ryde Road (Entering site distance, including effects of bus stop and shelter) to identify compliance or otherwise with Clause 3.2.4 of AS2890.1-2004. Details to be lodged with LTC for its consideration and determination.

5. An accredited access consultant is to provide an accessibility audit addressing the

Council’s Development Control Plan 23 and the Disability Discrimination Act and the Building Code of Australia.

6. An intensively managed ‘root location investigation’ by air or hand excavation is to be

undertaken by a qualified level 4 Arborist. An independent arborist accepted by the Council shall provide recommendations regarding construction and management techniques which must be implemented, and shall confirm that the approved setbacks can be achieved without adversely affecting street trees adjacent to the subject property, or the oak tree which stands on the western boundary.

7. The corner window and basement shall be setback from street boundaries by a

minimum of 1m (measured at the outermost point of the window’s curvature) in order to provide adequate deep soil for required landscaping within the public domain.

8. Street facades are to be constructed of pressed brick rather than “Terracade” cladding as currently-proposed, with a terracotta colour for the ground level and level 01, and a manganese oxide colour for level 02.

9. Clear glass balustrades on level 01 as currently-proposed are to be constructed with

panels of etched glass or an opaque material which has a metal finish similar to the proposed awning fascias.

10. Details of restoration works proposed for facades of the “Caseys Building” shall be

provided by an accredited heritage consultant.



D68


11. A landscape plan shall be prepared by a qualified landscape consultant, and shall detail proposed species and numbers of plants which are to be installed in the deep soil area that is proposed next to the western boundary.

12. Detailed plans of pavement works and landscaping within the street reserves shall be

prepared by a qualified landscape consultant in consultation with the Council‘s Group Manager Works and Services. Those plans shall be supported by root mapping which has been undertaken in relation to existing street trees that adjoin the subject property. Works shall include installation by the applicant of two mature brushbox trees together with understorey plantings.

Schedule 2 That development application DA 2011 – 1075 (as amended on 5 December 2011 and 23 January 2012) for the amalgamation of three existing lots at 52-56 Gladesville Road Hunter’s Hill, demolition of certain existing structures (other than Casey’s Building), and the erection of a three storey mixed development with associated carparking be approved subject to conditions. 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the Environment Planning & Assessment Act 1979 this

approval shall lapse and be void if the building work or use to which it refers is not substantially commenced within five (5) years after the date of approval.

2. This consent shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the following approved documentation as modified by any condition of consent:

(a) Plans prepared by DR Design dated 5.12.11 and 23.1.2012:

DA 101 F Basement 1 Plan DA 102 F Basement 2 Plan DA 201 F Ground Floor Plan DA 202 F Level 01 Floor Plan DA 203 F Level 02 Floor Plan DA 205 D Roof Plan DA 211 C Adaptable Unit Plan DA 301 E Section A-A DA 302 E Section B-B DA 303 E Section C-C DA 304 D Section D-D DA 305 D Section E-E DA 401 F South Elevation DA 402 E West Elevation DA 403 E North Elevation DA 502 B Corner Detail – Plan DA 503 B Corner Detail – Section DA 902 C Landscape Plan (subject to modification by other conditions attached to this consent) DA 903 C Landscape Plan (subject to modification by other conditions attached to this consent) DA 911 D Materials Board (subject to modification by other conditions attached to this consent) DA 931 E GFA Calculation – Ground Floor Level DA 932 E GFA Calculation – Level 01 DA 933 E GFA calculation – Level 02 Note that any amendments that are required by other conditions attached to this consent must be reflected by the Construction Certificate plans.



D69


(b) the BASIX Certificate No 373998M dated 12 May 2011

3. A Waste Management Plan in accordance with DCP 18 shall be provided and submitted for the approval of the Council. That Plan shall address:

(a) demolition of the existing building including on-site and off-site reuse and

recycling and disposal of all materials; (b) waste minimisation at construction stage and use of recycled materials etc; (c) use of the premises: garbage storage and collection; on site composting; (d) servicing of bins on site (bins are not to be stored or picked up from the

streets), confirming access for servicing of separate garbage rooms for the retail and residential components, and noting the method of collection to be employed, the vehicle type, on-site manoeuvring and lift mechanism (rear, front or side) for the collection vehicle (the swept path plot for these vehicles entering and leaving the site plus on-site manoeuvring shall be provided);

(e) ongoing management: lease conditions, caretaker/manager etc.

4. All kerbs, gutters, roads and footpath being protected throughout the building

operations as required by the Principal Certifying Authority. No obstruction being caused to pedestrian use of Council’s footpath area or vehicular use of Council’s roadway area during building operations.

5. The works shall be erected in conformity with the approved plans and any approved

specifications and in accordance with the conditions of approval. Any alterations, modification or variations to these plans or specifications requires the prior formal approval of Council.

6. For the purpose of ensuring the compliance with the terms of the approval, an

approved copy of the plan and this Consent and Construction Certificate shall be kept on site at all times.

7. For the purpose of safety and amenity of the area, no building materials, plant or the

like are to be stored on the road or footpath without the written approval being obtained from the Council beforehand. The pathway shall be kept in a clean, tidy and safe condition during building operations. Council reserves the right, without notice, to rectify any such breach and to charge the cost against the applicant/owner/builder, as the case may be.

8. Hours of Work:

For the purpose of residential amenity, noise generating work carried out in connection with building and construction operation, including deliveries of building materials and equipment, is restricted to the following hours: Mondays to Fridays inclusive: 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Saturdays: 7:00 am to 1:00 pm. Sundays and Public Holidays: Not Permitted. Non-offensive works where power operated plant is not used including setting out, surveying, plumbing, electrical installation, tiling, internal timber or fibrous plaster fixing, glazing, cleaning down brickwork, magnesite flooring, painting, building or site cleaning by hand shovel and site landscaping, or such work as approved by Council’s Manager Development and Environment is permitted between the hours of 1:00 pm – 4:00 pm Saturdays. Manual works such as painting, landscaping, site cleaning by hand etc. may be permitted outside these hours subject to there being no nuisance to the amenity of neighbours.



D70


Note: (a) that the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997 may preclude the

operation of some equipment on site during these permitted working hours; (b) the use of rock breaking machinery will only be permitted if they cause no

structural damage to surrounding properties.

9. All building materials, spoil, debris and other material arising from the carrying out of building work, shall be contained wholly within the allotment boundaries. Such accumulation is to be properly disposed of at regular intervals to the satisfaction of Council and Principal Certifying Authority.

10. All work shall be carried out in a good and workmanlike manner in accordance with the

approved plans and specifications, and in accordance with all relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia 1996.

11. To ensure compliance with this determination the building shall be set out by a

Registered Surveyor and the Survey Report shall be lodged with the Principal Certifying Authority prior to pouring of the footings and/or ground floor slab (whichever is first). In the event the setout is not in accordance with the approved plans, the Principal Certifying Authority should direct the applicant, owner, and builder to cease all works until such time as a Section 96 application under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to amend the approved development consent is submitted to Council and approved.

12. To ensure compliance with this determination a Registered Surveyor's Report

confirming reduced levels to Australian Height Datum Standard as shown on the approved plans shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council following formwork construction and prior to pouring concrete slabs at each level, and to roof sheeting.

Note: In the event the finished floor level as formed up is not substantially in accordance with the approved plans prior to the pouring of each of the floor slabs or laying of flooring material, the Principal Certifying Authority should direct the applicant, owner, and builder to cease all work until such time as a Section 96 application under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to amend the approved development consent is submitted to Council and approved.

13. All construction work is to be strictly in accordance with the approved Reduced Levels

(RLs).

(a) All material removed from or imported to the site shall be loaded, unloaded or conveyed in such a manner that it does not cause nuisance. The contents of all trucks shall be covered and site controls shall include shaker grids at the exits of the site. All materials falling to any part of the road reserve or any public place shall be immediately removed and all such surfaces shall be kept free of such materials.

14. All balconies (above 2 storeys) are to be waterproofed and graded and drained to an

internally concealed drainage system. 15. For the purpose of maintaining visual amenity, no permanent electricity supply poles or

aerial cables are to be erected or remain in place within the building setback or adjacent road reserve area. It is the responsibility of the applicant to consult with Sydney Electricity and any other authority prior to construction commencing to ensure that direct connection to the building is possible.



D71


16. The aisle widths, internal circulation, ramp widths and grades of the car park shall conform to the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) Guidelines and Australian Standard 2980.1-2004. Documentary evidence of compliance from a suitably qualified person shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application, and a copy of the evidence of compliance shall be submitted to Council.

Note: The internal driveway ramp gradient does not comply with AS2890.1-2004 particularly in regard to the required visibility to pedestrians for drivers of emerging vehicles from the basement car park. Justification of the noncompliance is required with regard to “over the bonnet” view lines for drivers of emerging vehicles and lateral sight distance to pedestrian on the footpath in accordance with Figure 3.3 of AS2890.1-2004 or an alternate driveway profile that improves this sight line to be provided.

17. It is the applicant's responsibility to consult with all services and utility authorities and

organizations regarding the availability or, relocation of communications facilities and/or utilities prior to acting on this consent.

18. Noise from the site during construction shall be controlled to reduce any disturbance or

nuisance to nearby properties. The (L10) noise level measured over a period of not less than 15 minutes when the construction site is operating must not exceed the background level (L90) by more than 10dB(A).

19. Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the applicant, company or its agent shall

submit a Work Plan to the Principal Certifying Authority prepared in accordance with the requirements of AS2601-1991 “The demolition of Structures”. The Work Plan shall be prepared by persons having suitable expertise and experience. The Work Plan shall outline the methodology in identifying hazardous materials, the method of demolition, the precautions to be employed to minimise any dust nuisance and the proposed method of disposal of any hazardous materials encountered on the site.

20. All demolitions are to be carried out in accordance with the guidelines contained in

Australian Standard Australian Standard 2601-1991: The Demolition of Structures. 21. Any new information, which comes to light during remediation, demolition or

construction works, which has the potential to alter previous conclusions about the site contamination, shall be notified to the Council and the Principal Certifying Authority immediately.

22. Adequate precautions shall be taken to ensure the protection of adjoining premises and

the external fabric of the Caseys Building / shape including Council and RTA property and infrastructure and persons therein from damage and injury during the process of demolition. A dilapidation report prepared by a qualified structural engineer is to be undertaken of both the adjoining properties prior to issue of a Construction Certificate and follow up survey prior to issue of an occupation certificate. The report is to be signed as accepted by adjoining owners. Copies are to be provided to Council prior to commencement of any works, upon completion prior to occupation and at any time when requested by Council based on reasonable concern for damage during construction.

23. The applicant or builder/developer is responsible for and liable for the cost of making good any damage that may be caused to any public property and to neighbouring properties/buildings where established by the dilapidation reports referred to in the conditions to be caused by the development or for the removal of any waste bin, building materials, sediment, silt, or any other article as a consequence of doing or not doing any thing to which the approval relates.



D72


24. Following demolition activities, the soil on the site is to be tested by a person with suitable expertise to ensure that levels of lead in the soil are below acceptable health criteria for residential areas. Appropriate certification of the levels is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to work proceeding to ensure the safety and health of occupants and visitors to the premises, and other premises in the immediate vicinity to ensure the protection of the environment

25. Hazardous or intractable wastes arising from any demolition process shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover and the EPA, and with the provisions of:

• New South Wales Occupational Health and Safety Act 1983;

• New South Wales Construction Safety Act 1912; Regulation 84A-J Construction Work Involving Asbestos or Asbestos Cement 1983;

• The Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 1996;

• The Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 1996;

• Waste Minimisation and Management Act and Regulations;

• Protection of the Environment Act 1998.

26. A person taking down or demolishing or causing to be taken down or demolishing any building or part thereof shall, upon identifying or suspecting that asbestos is present in the building, immediately notify the WorkCover Authority. The Authority is the controlling body for the safe removal, handling and disposal of asbestos.

27. Hazardous dust must not be allowed to escape from the site. Any existing accumulations of dust (eg ceiling voids and wall cavities) must be removed by the use of an industrial vacuum fitted with a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter. All dusty surfaces and dust created from work is to be suppressed by a fine water spray. Water must not be allowed to enter the ROAD and stormwater systems. Demolition is not to be performed during high winds, which may cause dust to spread beyond the site boundaries.

28. All contractors and employees directly involved in the removal of hazardous dusts and substances shall wear protective equipment conforming to Australian Standard AS1716 Respiratory Protective Devices and shall adopt work practices in accordance with the requirements of WorkSafe’s Control and Inorganic Lead At Work (NOHSC:102 (1994) and NOHSC:2015 (1994)).

29. All lead-contaminated materials are to be disposed of in accordance with the EPA’s requirements.

30. All site de-watering is to be carried out to a plan approved by Council, with all site water being processed by an approved method of filtration, including mechanical filtration, or with special approval of Council by flocculation and settlement if sufficient site area is available. The plan is to be submitted for approval prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

31. All liquid wastes other than unpolluted stormwater shall be conveyed to suitable pollution control devices that facilitate the removal of grease, oil, petroleum products and grime prior to discharge to the sewer system in accordance with then requirements of Sydney Water. Details are to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority with an application for a Construction Certificate.



D73


32. For the purpose of health and amenity the building any new buildings constructed are not to be used or occupied until the Principal Certifying Authority has issued an Occupation Certificate. A Private Certifier is required to submit the Compliance Certificates and Occupation Certificate to Council, along with all required documentation for recording purposes and pay the appropriate fee of $50.00.

33. A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained. Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator, for details see the Sydney Water website www.sydneywater.com.au\customer\urban\index or telephone 13 20 92.

34. Following application a “Notice of Requirements” will be forwarded detailing water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid. Please make early contact with the Coordinator, since building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

35. The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to release of linen plan/occupation of the development.

36. The works set forth in the plans and specifications and approved under this consent, shall be completed within three years from the date of activation of this consent.

37. Garbage storage shall be located so that their use will not interfere with the use of access driveways, loading bays or parking bays. Collection vehicles will enter and leave the premises in a forward direction.

38. The driveway to be traversed by the collection vehicle shall be of adequate strength, width and design to carry collection vehicles and loads.

39. The area between the garbage room and collection area shall be adequate in width, relatively level, smooth and designed to provide direct access. There shall be no step at the garbage room door and the garbage room and collection area shall be as close to one another as practicable.

40. The doorway opening of the garbage room shall be expanded to be of adequate size to allow easy access for 55 litre regulation garbage bins, 120 litre mobile bins or larger containers and to permit the reinstallation and maintenance of equipment that may be used in the room. If containers are to be used in the garbage room a minimum width of 1800mm shall be provided.

41. All garbage and waste storage and removal shall occur onsite and within the building. There are to be no garbage bins placed on the footpath/ROAD at any time. The garbage is to be removed by the applicant’s/owners contractors, not the Council. Garbage room floors shall be graded to a floor waste, which shall be connected to the sewer. No drainage from garbage rooms shall be connected directly or indirectly to the stormwater drainage system, Council’s ROAD gutter or Council’s drainage system.

42. No consent is granted or implied for the subdivision of the development.

43. The lots that comprise the development site shall be consolidated prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate.

44. Space for the storage of bicycles must be provided within the development for occupants and visitors to the site. Details are to be provided with the Construction Certificate.



D74


45. The materials, colours and finishes of the development must be strictly in accordance with the materials board/schedule as amended by any conditions of consent.

46. To provide satisfactory amenity for apartments that are exposed to traffic noise in Ryde and Gladesville Roads, acoustic-design measures shall achieve indoor noise levels that satisfy AS 2107 Recommended Noise Levels and Reverberation Times for Building Interiors, and details of necessary treatments shall be provided with the Construction Certificate application. An acoustic engineer is to provide certification of compliance prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate. This shall not be achieved by glassing in or either enclosing balconies other than for unit No 102.

47. A Stormwater Plan being submitted for approval prior to issue of Construction Certificate, with reference to Council’s Sustainable Water DCP, for all roofed and paved areas of the application. Detail also to include stormwater disposal method from existing roofed areas. Discharge points beyond the property for any stormwaters, which cannot be absorbed or re-used being indicated.

48. Full design details and associated calculations showing the method of disposal of all sub-surface, surface and roofwater, including on-site detention from the site in accordance with Council's On-Site Detention Policy and specification, shall be submitted and approved by Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

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

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

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

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

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

53. If portion of the access ramp to the basement car parking area cannot be drained by gravity then disposal of stormwater runoff via a pump out system shall be permitted, subject to compliance with the following requirements:



D75


(a) the basement car parking area shall be graded to fall to the sump and pump system;

(b) the contributing catchment area to the pump-out system shall be limited to the basement access ramps only, and subsoil drainage;

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

(d) the two pumps shall be designed to work on an alternative basis to ensure that both pumps received equal usage and neither remains continuously idle;

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

(f) the pump-out system is to be independent of any gravity drainage lines.

Full Engineering details including calculation shall be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

54. The depth and width of flow of the stormwater at the gutter of the proposed vehicular crossing shall be evaluated to ensure that no stormwater runoff will be able to enter the site via the proposed crossing. Full engineering details of the hydrologic evaluations prepared and signed by a practising civil engineer shall be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.(Reason: Prevent nuisance flooding).

55. Sediment and Erosion control measures are to be adopted during construction to prevent building materials and loose soil entering Council's stormwater system, natural watercourses and bushland.

Erosion Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) and Stormwater Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the NSW Department of Housing publication “Managing Urban Stormwater” - Soils and Construction and submitted to Council for approval prior to the issue of The Construction Certificate.

56. Application is to be made to Council's Public Works and Infrastructure Department for the following approvals and permits as appropriate:

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

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



D76


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

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

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

57. Entry and exit to the site during demolition, construction and upon completion (ie in perpetuity) shall be restricted to left in/left out ONLY in off-peak periods on Gladesville Road. The exit being sign posted accordingly.

58. The approved Exterior finishes and all landscaping shall remain as approved and maintained in perpetuity unless formally approved by Council.

59. Any required electricity substation is to be located within the site and not visible from outside of the subject property.

60. All BASIX requirements being implemented and certified by the BASIX consultant prior to issue of the Occupation certificate.

61. All internal walls of the storage area shall be rendered to a smooth surface, coved at the floor/wall intersection, graded and appropriately drained to the sewer with a tap in close proximity to facilitate cleaning.

Details demonstrating compliance are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of any interim / final Occupation Certificate.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the environment and to protect the amenity of the area.

62. Prior to occupation certificate (Interim or Final), submit to the Principal Certifying Authority written evidence from Sydney Water regarding evidence of a trade waste agreement.

Details demonstrating compliance are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of an Interim/Final Occupation Certificate.

Reason: Statutory requirement of Sydney Water.

63. (a) All building works must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

(b) BASIX affected development must comply with the schedule of BASIX commitments specified within the submitted BASIX Certificate (demonstrated compliance upon plans/specifications is required prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate);

(c) A sign must be erected in a prominent position on any site on which building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out:



D77


(i) showing the name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority for the work, and

(ii) showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work and a telephone number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and

(iii) stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

Any such sign is to be maintained while the building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being carried out, but must be removed when the work has been completed.

(d) Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the Council) has given the Council written notice of the following information:

(i) in the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be appointed:

(a) the name and licence number of the principal contractor, and

(b) the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act, the number of the owner-builder permit.

(ii) in the case of work to be done by an owner-builder:

(a) the name of the owner-builder, and

(b) if the owner-builder is required to hold an owner-builder permit under that Act, the number of the owner-builder permit.

If arrangements for doing the residential building work are changed while the work is in progress so that the information notified under becomes out of date, further work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the Council) has given the Council written notice of the updated information.

(e) Development that involves an excavation that extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on adjoining land, the person having the benefit of the development consent must, at the person's own expense:

(i) protect and support the adjoining premises from possible damage from the excavation, and

(ii) where necessary, underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any such damage;

(iii) must, at least seven days before excavating below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, give notice of intention to do so to the owner of the adjoining allotment of land and furnish particulars of the excavation to the owner of the building being erected or demolished;



D78


(iv) the owner of the adjoining allotment of land is not liable for any part of the cost of work carried out for the purposes of this clause, whether carried out on the allotment of land being excavated or on the adjoining allotment of land.

In this clause, allotment of land includes a public road and any other public place.

Reason: Legislative Requirement

64. At the completion of all works, a Fire Safety Certificate will need to be prepared which references all the Essential Fire Safety Measures applicable and the relative standards of Performance (as per Schedule of Fire Safety Measures). This certificate must be prominently displayed in the building and copies must be sent to Council and the NSW Fire Brigade.

Details demonstrating compliance are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Interim / Final Occupation Certificate.

Each year the Owners must send to the Council and the NSW Fire Brigade an annual Fire Safety Statement which confirms that all the Essential Fire Safety Measures continue to perform to the original design standard.

Reason: Statutory requirement under Part 9 Division 4& 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

65. A survey certificate prepared by a Registered Surveyor at the following stages of construction and provided to Council certifying the development is in accordance with the approved plans:

(a) commencement of perimeter walls columns and or other structural elements to ensure the wall or structure, to boundary setbacks are in accordance with the approved details;

(b) at ground level to ensure the finished floor levels are in accordance with the approved levels, prior to concrete slab being poured/flooring being laid;

(c) at completion of the roof structure confirming the finished roof/ridge height is in accordance with levels indicated on the approved plans;

(d) details demonstrating compliance are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.

Reason: To determine the height of buildings under construction comply with levels shown on approved plans.

66. (a) External Glazing - The reflectivity index of external glazing for windows, walls or roof finishes of the proposed development is to be no greater than 20% (expressed as a per centum of the reflected light falling upon any surface).

(b) External Roofing - The external finish to the roof shall have a medium to dark range in order to minimise solar reflections to neighbouring properties. Light colours such as off white, cream, silver or light grey colours are not permitted.

(c) Anti Graffiti Coating - The finishes of the walls adjoining Gladesville Road must be finished in heavy duty long life, ultra violet resistant coating with a high resistance to solvents and chemicals as an anti-graffiti coating easily cleaned by solvent wipe.



D79


Details demonstrating compliance are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Reason: To ensure that excessive glare or reflectivity nuisance from glazing does not occur as a result of the development.

67. A Geo-Technical Report and certificate shall be prepared by an appropriately qualified Geo-technical Engineer certifying that the existing rock formations and substrate on the site are capable of withstanding:

(a) the proposed loads to be imposed;

(b) the extent of the proposed excavation, including any recommendations for shoring works that may be required to ensure the stability of the excavation;

(c) protection of adjoining properties;

(d) the provision of appropriate subsoil drainage during and upon completion of construction works.


Reason: To ensure the structural integrity of the subject site and adjoining sites during the excavation process.

68. All loading and unloading operations shall be carried out wholly within the confines of the site and within the approved loading areas, at all times.

Reason: To ensure that deliveries can occur safely within the site and does not adversely affect traffic or pedestrian safety and amenity.

69. Appropriate traffic management devices (eg speed hump) including signage shall be provided and maintained within the site at the point(s) of vehicular egress to compel all vehicles to come to a complete stop before proceeding onto the public way.

70. Any traffic management devices/measures as required by Council for Matthew Street shall be provided at the developer's cost prior to occupation certificate.

71. Details demonstrating compliance are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of any interim/final Occupation Certificate.

Reason: To ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety.

72. Measures used for erosion and sediment control on building sites are to be adequately maintained at all times and must be installed in accordance with Hunter’s Hill Council Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. All measures shall remain in proper operation until all development activities have been completed and the site fully stabilised.

Details demonstrating compliance are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.

Reason: To protect the environment from the effects of sedimentation and erosion from development sites.



D80


73. (a) Security Bond

A bond (determined from cost of works) of $10,000.00 and an inspection fee in accordance with Councils Fees and Charges paid as security to ensure the rectification of any damage that may occur to the Council infrastructure contained within the road reserve adjoining the site as a result of construction or the transportation of materials and equipment to and from the development site.

(b) Construction, Excavation and Associated Works Bond (Road)

A Bond of $5,000.00 as security against any damage or failure to complete the construction of road pavement/shoulder reconstruction works as part of this consent.

(c) Construction, Excavation and Associated Works Bond (Drainage)

A Bond of $5,000.00 as security against any damage or failure to complete the construction of stormwater drainage works as part of this consent.

(d) Construction, Excavation and Associated Works Bond (Crossing/Kerb)

A Bond of $2,000.00 as security against any damage or failure to complete the construction of any vehicular crossings, kerb and gutter and any footpath works required as part of this consent.

(e) Construction, Excavation and Associated Works Bond (Pollution)

A Bond of $2,000.00 as security to ensure that there is no transmission of material, soil etc off the site and onto the public road and/or drainage systems.

(f) Construction, Excavation and Associated Works Bond (Failure to Remove Waste)

A Bond of $2,000.00 as security against damage to Council's road(s) fronting the site caused by the transport and disposal of materials and equipment to and from the site.

(Note: This bond may be refunded and replaced by the Maintenance Bond upon submission to Council of the final Compliance Certificate or Subdivision Certificate.)

An inspection fee in accordance with Council adopted fees and charges (at the time of payment) is payable for each kerb inspection as determined by Council (minimum one inspection).

All bonds and fees shall be deposited with Council prior to Construction Certificate or demolition work commencing, details demonstrating payment are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Reason: To ensure adequate protection of Councils infrastructure.

74. Should the proposal require shoring to support an adjoining property or Council land, owner’s consent for the encroachment onto the affected property owner shall be provided with the engineering drawings. Council approval is required if temporary rock anchors are to be used within Council land.



D81



Reason: To ensure that owners consent is obtained for ancillary works, and to ensure the protection of adjoining properties and Council land.

75. Council’s Development Engineer is to be given 48 hours notice when the works reach the following stages:

(a) installation of Silt and Sediment control devices;

(b) prior to backfilling of pipelines;

(c) prior to pouring of stormwater gully pits;

(d) prior to pouring of kerb and gutter;

(e) sub grade level / base course level;

(f) sealing road pavement.

Note: Any inspections carried out by Council do not imply Council approval or acceptance of the work, and do not relieve the developer/applicant from the requirement to provide an engineer’s certification. Council approval or acceptance of any stage of the work must be obtained in writing, and will only be issued after completion of the work to the satisfaction of Council and receipt of the required certification.

Reason: To ensure new Council infrastructure is constructed to Council’s requirements.

76. Inconsistency between documents

In event of any inconsistency between conditions of this consent and the drawings/documents referred to above, the conditions of this consent prevail.

Reason: To ensure that the development is in accordance with the determination.

77. Dilapidation survey and report (public infrastructure)

Prior to the commencement of any development or excavation works on site, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a dilapidation report on the visible and structural condition of all structures of the following public infrastructure, has been completed and submitted to Council:

Public infrastructure

• Full road pavement width, including kerb and gutter, of Ryde and Gladesville Roads over the site frontage, including the full intersection.

The report must be completed by a consulting structural/civil engineer. Particular attention must be paid to accurately recording (both written and photographic) existing damaged areas on the aforementioned infrastructure so that Council is fully informed when assessing any damage to public infrastructure caused as a result of the development.



D82


The developer may be held liable to any recent damage to public infrastructure in the vicinity of the site, where such damage is not accurately recorded by the requirements of this condition prior to the commencement of works.

Note: A written acknowledgment from Council must be obtained (attesting to this condition being appropriately satisfied) and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any excavation works.

Reason: To record the structural condition of public infrastructure before works commence.

78. Dilapidation survey and report (private property)

Prior to the commencement of any demolition or excavation works on site, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that a dilapidation report on the visible and structural condition of all structures upon the following lands, has been completed and submitted to Council:

• St. Kevin's, Gladesville Road;

• No 2 Ryde Road

• The public road and road reserve area within 100m of the site boundaries.

The dilapidation report must include a photographic survey of adjoining properties detailing their physical condition, both internally and externally, including such items as walls ceilings, roof and structural members. The report must be completed by a consulting structural/geotechnical engineer as determined necessary by that professional based on the excavations for the proposal and the recommendations of the submitted geotechnical report.

In the event that access for undertaking the dilapidation survey is denied by a property owner, the applicant must demonstrate in writing to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority that all reasonable steps have been taken to obtain access and advise the affected property owner of the reason for the survey and that these steps have failed.

Note: A copy of the dilapidation report is to be provided to Council prior to any excavation works been undertaken. The dilapidation report is for record keeping purposes only and may be used by an applicant or affected property owner to assist in any civil action required to resolve any dispute over damage to adjoining properties arising from works.

Reason: To record the structural condition of likely affected properties before works commence.

79. Construction and traffic management plan

The applicant must submit to Council a Construction Traffic Management Plan (TMP), which is to be approved prior to the commencement of any works on site.

The plan is to consist of a report with Traffic Control Plans attached.

The report is to contain commitments which must be followed by the demolition and excavation contractor, builder, owner and subcontractors. The TMP applies to all persons associated with demolition, excavation and construction of the development.



D83


The report is to contain construction vehicle routes for approach and departure to and from all directions.

The report is to contain a site plan showing entry and exit points. Swept paths are to be shown on the site plan showing access and egress for an 11 metre long heavy rigid vehicle.

The Traffic Control Plans are to be prepared by a qualified person (red card holder). One must be provided for each of the following stages of the works:

• demolition;

• excavation;

• concrete pour;

• construction of vehicular crossing and reinstatement of footpath;

• traffic control for vehicles reversing into or out of the site.

Traffic controllers must be in place at the site entry and exit points to control heavy vehicle movements in order to maintain the safety of pedestrians and other road users as required by the TMP.

When a satisfactory TMP is received, a letter of approval will be issued with conditions attached. Traffic management at the site must comply with the approved TMP as well as any conditions in the letter issued by Council. Council’s Rangers will be patrolling the site regularly and fines will be issued for any non-compliance with this condition.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate measures have been considered during all phases of the construction process in a manner that maintains the environmental amenity and ensures the ongoing safety and protection of people.

80. Work zone

A works zone may be required along the sites frontage in Ryde and Gladesville Roads are to be approved by Council. Work zones are provided specifically for the set down and pick up of materials and not for the parking of private vehicles associated with the site. Work zones will generally not be approved where there is sufficient space on-site for the setting down and picking up of goods being taken to or from a construction site.

The necessary work zone signage shall be installed (at the cost of the applicant) and the adopted fee paid prior to commencement of any works on site. At the expiration of the work zone approval, the applicant is required to remove the work zone signs and reinstate any previous signs at their expense.

In the event the work zone is required for a period beyond that initially approved by Council, the applicant shall make a payment to Council for the extended period in accordance with Council’s schedule of fees and charges for work zones prior to the extended period commencing.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate measures have been made for the operation of the site during the construction phase.



D84


81. Excavation for services

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that no proposed underground services (ie: water, sewerage, drainage, gas or other service) unless previously approved by conditions of consent, are located beneath the canopy of any tree protected under Council’s Tree Preservation Order, located on the subject allotment and adjoining allotments.

Note: A plan detailing the routes of these services and trees protected under the Tree Preservation Order shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority.

Reason: To ensure the protection of trees.

82. Outdoor lighting

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that all outdoor lighting will comply with AS/NZ1158.3: 1999 Pedestrian Area (Category P) Lighting and AS4282: 1997 Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting.

Details demonstrating compliance with these requirements are to be submitted prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Reason: To provide high quality external lighting for security without adverse affects on public amenity from excessive illumination levels.

83. External service pipes and the like prohibited

Proposed water pipes, waste pipes, stack work, duct work, mechanical ventilation plant and the like must be located within the building. Details confirming compliance with this condition must be shown on construction certificate plans and detailed with construction certificate specifications. Required external vents or vent pipes on the roof or above the eaves must be shown on construction certificate plans and detailed with construction certificate specifications. External vents or roof vent pipes must not be visible from any place unless detailed upon development consent plans. Where there is any proposal to fit external service pipes or the like this must be detailed in an amended development (S96) application and submitted to Council for determination.

Vent pipes required by Sydney Water must not be placed on the front elevation of the building or front roof elevation. The applicant, owner and builder must protect the appearance of the building from the public place and the appearance of the streetscape by elimination of all external services excluding vent pipes required by Sydney Water and those detailed upon development consent plans.

Reason: To protect the streetscape and the integrity of the approved development.

84. Access for people with disabilities (residential)

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that access for people with disabilities to and from and between the public domain, residential units and all common open space areas is provided. Consideration must be given to the means of dignified and equitable access.

Compliant access provisions for people with disabilities shall be clearly shown on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate. All details shall be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. All details shall be prepared in consideration of the Disability Discrimination Act, and the relevant provisions of AS1428.1, AS1428.2, AS1428.4 and AS 1735.12.



D85


Reason: To ensure the provision of equitable and dignified access for all people in accordance with disability discrimination legislation and relevant Australian Standards.

85. Adaptable units

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that at east three units are designed as adaptable housing and 12 units as visitable in accordance with the provisions of Australian Standard AS4299-1995: Adaptable Housing.

Note: Evidence from an appropriately qualified professional demonstrating compliance with this control is to be submitted to and approved by the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Reason: Disabled access and amenity.

86. Stormwater management plan

Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, the applicant must submit, for approval by the Principal Certifying Authority, scale construction plans and specifications in relation to the stormwater management and disposal system for the development. The plan(s) must include the following detail:

(a) exact location and reduced level of discharge point to the public drainage system;

(b) layout of the property drainage system components, including but not limited to (as required) gutters, downpipes, spreaders, pits, swales, kerbs, cut-off and intercepting drainage structures, subsoil drainage, flushing facilities and all ancillary stormwater plumbing - all designed for a 235mm/hour rainfall intensity for a duration of five (5) minutes (1:50 year storm recurrence);

(c) location(s), dimensions and specifications for the required rainwater storage and reuse tanks and systems and where proprietary products are to be used, manufacturer specifications or equivalent shall be provided;

(d) specifications for reticulated pumping facilities (including pump type and manufacturer specifications) and ancillary plumbing to fully utilise rainwater in accordance with Hunters Hill DCP 25 and/or BASIX commitments;

(e) details of the required on-site detention tanks required by Hunters Hill DCP 25 including dimensions, materials, locations, orifice and discharge control pit details as required;

(f) the required basement stormwater pump-out system is to cater for driveway runoff and subsoil drainage.

The above construction drawings and specifications are to be prepared by a qualified and experienced civil/hydraulic engineer in accordance with Hunter’s Hill Council Development Control Plan, Australian Standards 3500.2 and 3500.3 - Plumbing and Drainage Code and the Building Code of Australia.

Reason: To protect the environment.



D86


87. Stormwater retention/detention

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that:

(a) a mandatory rainwater retention and re-use system, comprising storage tanks and ancillary plumbing is provided. The minimum total storage volume of the rainwater tank system, and the prescribed re-use of the water on site must satisfy all relevant BASIX commitments and the requirements specified in Hunters Hill DCP 25; and

(b) an on-site stormwater detention system must be provided to control the rate of runoff leaving the site. The minimum volume of the required on-site detention system must be determined in accordance with Hunters Hill DCP 25 - having regard to the specified volume concession offered in lieu of installing rainwater retention tanks. The on-site detention system must be designed by a qualified civil/hydraulic engineer.


88. Location of plant (residential flat buildings)

Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate, the Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that all plant and equipment (including but not limited to air conditioning equipment) is so far as practicable located within the basement. The other condition proposed for the roof must be strictly confirmed to the area identified on roof plan DA 205 D and screened by the proposed screens which shall have a maximum height of 1m as not to be visible from a public place.

Reason: To minimise impact on surrounding properties, improved visual appearance and amenity for locality.

89. Drainage of paved areas

All new exposed impervious areas graded towards adjacent property and/or habitable areas are to be drained via the main drainage system. This may require the installation of suitable inlets pits, cut-off structures (e.g. kerb), and/or barriers that direct such runoff to the formal drainage system. Details of such measures shall be shown on the Construction Certificate drawings, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

Reason: To control surface run off and protect the environment.

90. Energy Australia requirements

Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, the applicant must contact Energy Australia regarding power supply for the subject development. A written response detailing the full requirements of Energy Australia (including any need for underground cabling, substations or similar within or in the vicinity the development) shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

Any structures or other requirements of Energy Australia shall be indicated on the plans issued with the Construction Certificate, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority and Energy Australia. The requirements of Energy Australia must be met in full prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate. Note no substation within the front setback will be permitted.



D87


Reason: To ensure compliance with the requirements of Energy Australia.

91. Utility provider requirements

Prior to issue of the Construction Certificate, the applicant must make contact with all relevant utility providers whose services will be impacted upon by the development. A written copy of the requirements of each provider, as determined necessary by the Certifying Authority, must be obtained. All utility services or appropriate conduits for the same must be provided by the developer in accordance with the specifications of the utility providers.

Reason: To ensure compliance with the requirements of relevant utility providers.

92. Dust control

During excavation, demolition and construction, adequate measures shall be taken to prevent dust from affecting the amenity of the neighbourhood. The following measures must be adopted:

(a) physical barriers shall be erected at right angles to the prevailing wind direction or shall be placed around or over dust sources to prevent wind or activity from generating dust;

(b) earthworks and scheduling activities shall be managed to coincide with the next stage of development to minimise the amount of time the site is left cut or exposed;

(c) all materials shall be stored or stockpiled at the best locations;

(d) the ground surface should be dampened slightly to prevent dust from becoming airborne but should not be wet to the extent that run-off occurs;

(e) all vehicles carrying spoil or rubble to or from the site shall at all times be covered to prevent the escape of dust;

(f) all equipment wheels shall be washed before exiting the site using manual or automated sprayers and drive-through washing bays;

(g) gates shall be closed between vehicle movements and shall be fitted with shade cloth;

(h) cleaning of footpaths and roadways shall be carried out daily.

Reason: To protect the environment and amenity of surrounding properties.

93. Post-construction dilapidation report

The applicant shall engage a suitably qualified person to prepare a post construction dilapidation report at the completion of the construction works. This report is to ascertain whether the construction works created any structural damage to adjoining buildings, infrastructure and roads. The report is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority. In ascertaining whether adverse structural damage has occurred to adjoining buildings, infrastructure and roads, the Principal Certifying Authority must:

(a) compare the post-construction dilapidation report with the pre-construction dilapidation report



D88


(b) have written confirmation from the relevant authority that there is no adverse structural damage to their infrastructure and roads.

A copy of this report is to be forwarded to Council at the completion of the construction works.

Reason: Management of records.

94. On site retention of waste dockets

All demolition, excavation and construction waste dockets are to be retained on site, or at suitable location, in order to confirm which facility received materials generated from the site for recycling or disposal.

(a) Each docket is to be an official receipt from a facility authorised to accept the material type, for disposal or processing.

(b) This information is to be made available at the request of an Authorised Officer of Council.


95. Easement for waste collection

The construction certificate plans are to be amended to clearly demonstrate vehicle manoeuvring for a garbage truck to enter and exit in a forward motion, including achieving minimum 2.6m internal unobstructed clearance. The plans are to be reviewed

and certified by a practicing traffic engineer. Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, an easement for waste collection is to be created under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919. This is to permit legal access for Council if required, Council’s contractors and their vehicles over the subject property for the purpose of collecting waste from the property. The terms of the easement are to be generally in accordance with Council’s draft terms for an easement for waste collection and shall be to the satisfaction of Council’s Development Engineer.

Reason: To permit legal access for Council, Council’s contractors and their vehicles over the subject site for waste collection.

96. Clotheslines and clothes dryers

Prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied that the units either have access to an external clothes line located in common open space or have a mechanical clothes dryer installed.

Reason: To provide access to clothes drying facilities.

97. Mechanical ventilation

Following completion, installation and testing of all the mechanical ventilation systems, the Principal Certifying Authority shall be satisfied of the following prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate:



D89


(a) The installation and performance of the mechanical systems complies with:

(i) The Building Code of Australia;

(ii) Australian Standard AS1668;

(iii) Australian Standard AS3666 where applicable.

(b) The mechanical ventilation system in isolation and in association with other mechanical ventilation equipment, when in operation will not be audible within a habitable room in any other residential premises before 7am and after 10pm Monday to Friday and before 8am and after 10pm Saturday, Sunday and public holidays. The operation of the unit outside these restricted hours shall emit a noise level of not greater than 5dbA above the background when measured at the nearest adjoining boundary.

Note: Written confirmation from an acoustic engineer that the development achieves the above requirements is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

Reason: To protect the amenity of surrounding properties.

98. Completion of landscape works

Prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that all landscape works, including the removal of all noxious and/or environmental weed species, have been undertaken in accordance with the approved plan(s) and conditions of consent.

Reason: To ensure that the landscape works are consistent with the development consent.

99. Certification of drainage works

Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that:

(c) the stormwater drainage works have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved Construction Certificate drainage plans;

(d) the minimum retention and on-site detention storage volume requirements of BASIX and Hunter’s Hill Council Development Control Plan (Town Centres) 2010 respectively, have been achieved;

(e) retained water is connected and available for use;

(f) basement and subsoil areas are able to drain via a pump/sump system installed in accordance with AS3500.3 and Hunter’s Hill Council Development Control Plan (Town Centres) 2010;

(g) all grates potentially accessible by children are secured;

(h) components of the new drainage system have been installed by a licensed plumbing contractor in accordance with the Plumbing and Drainage Code AS3500.3 2003 and the Building Code of Australia;



D90


(i) all enclosed floor areas, including habitable and garage floor levels, are safeguarded from outside stormwater runoff ingress by suitable differences in finished levels, gradings and provision of stormwater collection devices.

Note: Evidence from a qualified and experienced consulting civil/hydraulic engineer documenting compliance with the above is to be provided to Council prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.


100. WAE plans for stormwater management and disposal

Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, a registered surveyor must provide a works as executed survey of the completed stormwater drainage and management systems. The survey must be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate. The survey must indicate:

(j) as built (reduced) surface and invert levels for all drainage pits;

(k) gradients of drainage lines, materials and dimensions;

(l) as built (reduced) level(s) at the approved point of discharge to the public drainage system;

(m) as built location and internal dimensions of all detention and retention structures on the property (in plan view) and horizontal distances to nearest adjacent boundaries and structures on site;

(n) the achieved storage volumes of the installed retention and detention storages and derivative calculations;

(o) as built locations of all access pits and grates in the detention and retention system(s), including dimensions;

(p) the size of the orifice or control fitted to any on-site detention system;

(q) dimensions of the discharge control pit and access grates;

(r) the maximum depth of storage possible over the outlet control;

(s) top water levels of storage areas and indicative RLs through the overland flow path in the event of blockage of the on-site detention system.

The works as executed plan(s) must show the as built details above in comparison to those shown on the drainage plans approved with the Construction Certificate prior to commencement of works. All relevant levels and details indicated must be marked in red on a copy of the Principal Certifying Authority stamped construction certificate stormwater plans.


101. OSD positive covenant/restriction

Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the applicant must create a positive covenant and restriction on the use of land under Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919, burdening the owner with the requirement to maintain the on-site stormwater detention facilities on the lot.



D91


The terms of the instruments are to be generally in accordance with the Council's "draft terms of Section 88B instrument for protection of on-site detention facilities" and to the satisfaction of Council (refer to appendices A6 of Hunter’s Hill Council Development Control Plan (Town Centres) 2010 (KDCP). For existing titles, the positive covenant and the restriction on the use of land is to be created through an application to the Land Titles Office in the form of a request using forms 13PC and 13RPA. The relative location of the on-site detention facility, in relation to the building footprint, must be shown on a scale sketch, attached as an annexure to the request forms.

Registered title documents, showing the covenants and restrictions, must be submitted and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of an Occupation Certificate.


102. Reinstatement of redundant crossings and completion of infrastructure works

Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority must be satisfied that the following works in the road reserve have been completed:

(t) new concrete driveway crossing in accordance with levels and specifications issued by Council;

(u) removal of all redundant driveway crossings and kerb laybacks (or sections thereof) and reinstatement of these areas to footpath, turfed verge and upright kerb and gutter (reinstatement works to match surrounding adjacent infrastructure with respect to integration of levels and materials);

(v) full repair and resealing of any road surface damaged during construction;

(w) full replacement of damaged sections of grass verge with a non-friable turf of native variety to match existing.

All works must be completed in accordance with the General Specification for the Construction of Road and Drainage Works in Hunter’s Hill Council, dated November 2004. The Occupation Certificate must not be issued until all damaged public infrastructure caused as a result of construction works on the subject site (including damage caused by, but not limited to, delivery vehicles, waste collection, contractors, sub contractors, concrete vehicles) is fully repaired to the satisfaction of Council. Repair works shall be at no cost to Council.

Reason: To protect the ROADscape.

103. Construction of works in public road – approved plans

Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority must be satisfied that all approved road, footpath and/or drainage works have been completed in the road reserve in accordance with the Roads Act approval and accompanying drawings, conditions and specifications.

The works must be supervised by the applicant’s designing engineer and completed and approved to the satisfaction of Hunter’s Hill Council and the RTA.

The supervising consulting engineer is to provide certification upon completion that the works were constructed in accordance with the Council approved stamped drawings.



D92


The works must be subject to inspections by Council at the hold points noted on the Roads Act approval. All conditions attached to the approved drawings for these works must be met prior to the Occupation Certificate being issued.

Reason: To ensure that works undertaken in the road reserve are to the satisfaction of Council.

104. Infrastructure repair

Prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate, the Principal Certifying Authority must be satisfied that any damaged public infrastructure caused as a result of construction works (including damage caused by, but not limited to, delivery vehicles, waste collection, contractors, sub contractors, concrete vehicles) is fully repaired to the satisfaction of Council Development Engineer and at no cost to Council.

Reason: To protect public infrastructure.

105. Payment to Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate of a contribution under Section 94 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 for embellishment or provision of public services or amenities such as open space, drainage, roads, car parking, cycleway, community facilities and traffic management. That contribution to be made in accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan adopted on 23 June 2003, and as amended and a copy of the plan is available from Customer Services Centre.

The amount payable being: $37,800

(a) Embellishment of Open Space –$14,040 Account No.133421.052;

(b) Stormwater drainage -$19,080 Account No.133423.052;

(c) Community facilities -$4,320 Account No.133424.052;

(d) Local area traffic management -$108 Account No.133425.052;

(e) Bikeways -$900 Account No.133426.052;

(f) Contributions Plan -$72 Account No.133429.052;

(g) Acquisition of open space -$8,280 Account No.133430.052.

Pursuant to Section 97 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council requires, prior to release of the building plans, or commencement of any excavation and demolition works payment of a Security Deposit of $34,300.00. The deposit is required as a security against damage to Council property during works on the site, and to ensure compliance with Conditions of Consent and installation of environmental controls.

The works shall be erected in conformity with the approved plans and any approved specifications and in accordance with the conditions of approval. Alterations, modification or variations to these plans or specifications such as to facilitate engineering requirements may be subject to the prior formal approval of Council (fresh development consent or section 96 application).

Reason: to ensure that historic fabric is researched and recorded.



D93


106. Ceiling Heights:

The minimum ceiling heights nominated on the approved plans being provided throughout the building from finished floor level to underside of finished suspended ceilings (including allowing for services and air conditioning etc). The need for compliance does not purport to permit any increase in the floor levels or overall height of the building. The construction drawing is to ensure compliance prior to commencement of works.

ATTACHMENTS 1 Locality plan 2 Architectural plans (dated 5 December 2011 and 23 January 2012) 3 Submissions received

E

Works & Services

E - Works & Services

4318 - 13 February 2012

Index

1. Nomination of Kelly’s Bush for National Heritage Listing 1

................................ Jacqui Vollmer

REPORT OF WORKS & SERVICES Meeting 4318 - 13 February 2012 E1


ITEM NO : 1

SUBJECT : NOMINATION OF KELLY’S BUSH FOR NATIONAL HERITAGE LISTING

BUSINESS PROGRAM : WORKS & SERVICES

REPORTING OFFICER : JACQUI VOLLMER

BACKGROUND

Kelly’s Bush is currently listed on the NSW State Heritage Register. Local resident and Battler

for Kelly’s Bush Joan Croll is nominating Kelly’s Bush for National Heritage listing on behalf of

the six surviving Battlers for Kelly’s Bush, and in grateful memory of the six Battlers who have

died, especially the foundation President Betty James* who initiated the action and formed the

Battlers. She is seeking the support of Hunter’s Hill Council for the nomination to be submitted

by the end of February 2012.

FINANCIAL IMPACT


RECOMMENDATION

That the application for National Heritage Listing be received and supported by Council

ATTACHMENT

National Heritage List Nomination Form for Kelly’ s Bush

F

Corporate

Governance

F - Corporate Governance

4318 - 13 February 2012

Index

1. Summary of Council's Investment as at 31 December 2011 1

................................ Debra McFadyen

GROUP MANAGER CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

REPORT OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Meeting 4318 - 13 February 2012 F1


ITEM NO : 1

SUBJECT : SUMMARY OF COUNCIL'S INVESTMENT AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2011

BUSINESS PROGRAM : CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

REPORTING OFFICER : MAY VILAYTHONG

SUMMARY OF COUNCIL'S INVESTMENTS AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2011 (330/06)

Institution Reference Principal

Lodged Term Matures Rate

CBA Term Deposit $ 479,692.47 30.11.11 34 03.1.12 5.55

CBA Term Deposit $ 549,448.61 09.12.11 90 08.3.12 5.44

CBA Term Deposit $ 235,533.52 19.12.11 60 17.2.12 4.92

CBA Term Deposit $ 507,040.92 23.11.11 61 23.1.12 5.14

CBA Term Deposit $ 305,256.23 05.12.11 30 04.1.12 5.47

CBA Term Deposit $ 304,134.24 07.11.11 60 06.1.12 5.15

CBA Term Deposit $ 432,482.50 30.11.11 61 30.1.12 5.53

CBA Term Deposit $ 338,052.07 07.12.11 61 06.2.12 5.40

NAB Term Deposit $ 958,629.11 14.12.11 62 14.2.12 5.26

NAB Term Deposit $ 958,846.54 25.11.11 60 24.1.12 5.41

NAB Term Deposit $ 956,278.23 14.11.11 61 14.1.12 5.44

IMB Term Deposit $ 2,301,320.26 11.11.11 90 09.2.12 5.75

WESTPAC Term Deposit $ 778,753.28 07.12.11 91 07.3.12 5.50

CBA 24 HR Call $ 293,839.57 4.00

$9,399,307.55

CBA General $648,001.96 31.12.11 Bank Account Balance

Total $10,047,309.51

The above Investments include the following Restrictions

Town Hall $164,100.00 Office Equipment $134,200.00

Plant $255,285.00

ELE $466,048.00

S94 $1,252,039.00

Trust Deposits $2,328,593.00

Trust Community Services $20,000.00

$4,620,265.00

Certification – Responsible Accounting Officer

The investments listed above have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s policy on investments.

REPORT OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Meeting 4318 - 13 February 2012 F2


Portfolio 90 Day BB

$ % Rate % Rate

Total Investment as at:

31.01.11 $9,269,086 5.40 4.96

28.02.11 $9,127,686 5.30 4.91

31.03.11 $9,263,519 5.41 4.92

30.04.11 $8,907,618 5.30 4.90

31.05.11 $8,957,579 5.34 5.00

30.06.11 $8,735,106 5.48 5.01

31.07.11 $8,495,302 5.53 4.96

31.08.11 $9,024,117 5.47 4.87

30.09.11 $10,284,372 5.56 4.81

31.10.11 $9,911,976 5.29 4.73

30.11.11 $9,575,145 5.40 4.63

31.12.11 $9,399,308 5.43 4.51

Average Rate 5.41 4.85

FINANCIAL IMPACT


RECOMMENDATION


ATTACHMENTS

Nil

H

General Manager

H - General Manager

4318 - 13 February 2012

Index

1. Adoption of Delivery Program, Operational Plan & Resourcing Strategy 2012/13 – 2015/16

1

2. Sesquicentenary Celebrations Time Capsule 32 3. Constitutional Recognition of Local Government – Contribution of Funds 34

....................................... Barry Smith

GENERAL MANAGER

REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER Meeting 4318 - 13 February 2012 H1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 4318 held on 13 January 2012. This is page

ITEM NO : 1.

SUBJECT : 1. ADOPTION OF DELIVERY PROGRAM, OPERATIONAL PLAN & RESOURCING STRATEGY 2012/13 – 2015/16

2. ADOPTION OF ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANS 3. PROPOSED SPECIAL RATE VARIATION

BUSINESS PROGRAM : COUNCIL MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT

REPORTING OFFICER : BARRY R. SMITH

FILE : 665/09

BACKGROUND Council is in the process of implementing a new planning and reporting regime based on providing the community with information that is transparent and as simple to understand as possible. Identifying and understanding community needs was been a key component in shaping our

Community Strategic Plan – Hunters Hill 2030. The purpose of developing the Plan in

partnership with the community was to identify the community’s priorities and aspirations for the

future and to plan strategies for achieving there identified goals.

To do this we engaged and assessed community needs and expectations through a number of public forums and community surveys during 2010, and Council appreciates the efforts made by those who attended workshops and responded to surveys. We also identified key state and regional issues and priorities. A major outcome of Hunters Hill 2030 is that it has identified five main themes around which the

community would like to Council to deliver services that best meet community needs and

expectations.

1. Our Heritage and Built Environment

2. Our Community & Lifestyle

3. Our Environment

4. Our Facilities & Services

5. Our Council A summary of the CSP was circulated to every household in 2010 and a full version of the plan is available at www.huntershill.nsw.gov.au At the Ordinary Meeting No. 4317 held on 17 December 2011 via Min. No. 452/11 Council

resolved in part that:

1 The draft Long Term Financial Plan and all Rate Structure Options be adopted for the purpose of public exhibition and discussion with the community.

2 Council indicate to the community that the Rate Structure options are Options 1, 2 and 3.



Council must now adopt the Delivery Program, Operating Plan & Resourcing Strategy in the

new format to commence from 1 July 2012/13.

A core feature of the Delivery Program is that it is a 4-year program with details of how each

strategy in the plan will be funded and delivered. The plan also links with State and Regional

plans to reflect joint priorities.

1.0 RESOURCING STRATEGY (Funding the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP))

1.1 LONG TERM FINANCIAL PLAN

A Long Term Financial Plan (10 years) is required to be developed as a part of our Resourcing Strategy.

The Long Term Financial Plan is a decision-making tool that indicates to what services or proposals funds should be allocated and areas that impact on the Council’s ability to fund its services and capital works, whilst living within its means and ensuring financial sustainability.



Along with the completion of a number of mandatory assessment and reporting documents including the Community Strategic Plan, and the Asset Management Plan, Council has identified that its physical assets are not being maintained to a level that is able to support the provision of services to levels that the community expects and can afford.

Unless Council is able to expand its revenue base, whether by increasing its income from general rates, or from other fees and charges, it may not be able to continue to meet its statutory commitments in respect of its infrastructure, asset maintenance and ordinary services.

The cumulative impact of the continuation of rate pegging, ever increasing State controlled and imposed obligatory costs for electricity, water, street lighting and the provision of emergency services has severely impacted on us and if Council wishes to hold existing service levels, provide a reasonable capital works and asset replacement program and fund an environmental protection program then its overall revenue base must be increased to a level that is able to sustain such an approach.

On a cash basis Council has been able to achieve a small surplus each year however, when depreciation of assets is factored in, this becomes a deficit and this deficit will continue to grow unless funds are provided to reasonably maintain, repair or replace assets such as roads, seawalls and community buildings.

This need has arisen from continued rising costs, and cost shifting from other levels of government, including a 50% increase in costs for street lighting, an increase in energy costs, payment of additional superannuation contributions and an increase of the Fire & Rescue Levy. Some of these costs have increased by significantly more than inflation over the past three years and Council cannot continue to absorb these costs. Employment costs are estimated to increase by 4.2% during 2012/2013 due in part to a

statutory award agreement increase of 3.25%. Allowance has also been made for other major

expenditure increases include, street lighting 54% and electricity 36% which are being

implemented over a three-year period that commenced in 2010/11 and the impacts of the

carbon tax which commences on 1 July 2012.

The main contributor to Council revenue in the LTFP is land rates.

The current rate structure is based on the following outcomes identified by Council and the community through a number of sources and included in the LTFP. These desired outcomes include:

1. Maintaining equity on cost sharing and revenue raising

2. The need to maintain a level of expenditure on infrastructure and capital works

3. The need to continue implementation of sustainability initiatives contained in the Environmental Management Plan

4. The need to protect Council’s operational revenue base from being eroded by statutory and legislative changes and devolution of powers to Local councils without the provision of additional funding or adequate recognition of financial impact.

The proposed 2012/13 rate structure and beyond is based on maintaining these desired outcomes.

Since 1977, certain council revenues have been regulated in NSW under an arrangement known as ‘rate pegging’. Rate pegging sets the maximum percentage increase to general revenue for councils. General revenue mainly comprises rates revenue, but also includes certain annual user charges.



If a council has not obtained approval for a special rate variation, the rate peg determines the maximum allowable increase in Local Government general income for the council. The rate peg percentage for 2012/13 is 3.6% (including an amount of 0.4% for carbon tax impacts).

The rate peg is a percentage amount that is set each year by IPART.

The Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) makes provision for councils to increase revenues above the rate peg amount through the use of ‘Special Variations’.

A special rate variation allows councils to increase general income above the rate peg. Special variations are permitted under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW).

A council may apply for a special rate variation for reasons such as:

• Funding new or enhanced community services to meet growing demand in the community

• Funding the development and/or maintenance of essential community infrastructure

• Funding projects of regional significance, and

• Covering special or unique cost pressures that the council faces. This was the process followed by Council for previous applications, which were approved by the Minister for Local Government. All applications are now dealt with by IPART. Independent Pricing & Regulatory Tribunal (IPART)

In 2010, IPART was given functions by the Minister for Local Government in regulating council rate increases. Their roles and functions include:

• Determining the rate peg (the maximum allowable increase in Local Government general income)

• Establishing a Local Government Cost Index to be used in setting the rate peg

• Reviewing applications from councils for special rate variations and determining special rate variations

• Reviewing applications from councils for minimum rates above the statutory limit and determining minimum rate increases.

FINANCIAL STRATEGIES & OBJECTIVES

The following series of financial strategies and objectives have been the key to council’s solid financial position and continuing success in managing its financial affairs. While there are severe financial challenges facing us both now and over the next few years adhering to these will continue to assist Council in maintaining a sound financial position. • Financial Objectives At the Ordinary Meeting on 16th December 1996, Council adopted a report recommending a series of financial policies and objectives to be referred to in the preparation of the 1997/98 Budget Estimates and Financial Plan. These objectives are reviewed annually and are still considered to be relevant and provide a solid financial foundation for Council.



Objective No. 1 – Financial Planning

To ensure the achievement of adopted financial objectives and policies through the planning and

forecasting of revenue and expenditure

Objective No. 2 – Investment of Surplus Funds (Investment of Portfolio)

To provide for the secure and optimum return on the investment of surplus funds.

Objective No. 3 – Capital Improvements

To ensure improvements are programmed and undertaken within the parameters of available

funding.

Objective No. 4 – Current Ratio/Liquidity

To ensure Council’s level of funds is sufficient to finance recurrent operations, meet liquidity

requirements and secure Council’s financial position against possible future setbacks.

Objective No. 5 – Loan Funding

To provide necessary financing for capital improvements within the parameters of Council’s debt

servicing capacity and annual allocations by the Department of Local Government

Objective No. 6 – Creation and Maintenance of Financial Reserves

To ensure Council’s level of reserves is sufficient so that:

Specific projects and events to be undertaken in the future, such as the replacement of existing

assets, can be financed by the planned transfer of funds in the periods leading up to the

undertaking of the project; and

Specific expenditures, which fluctuate over time, such as the payment of employee leave

entitlements and gratuities can be funded if necessary from reserves to prevent a material effect

on the budget and financial result for a particular year.

ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS A significant consideration of the strategic planning process is the need to forecast the possible impact of key economic indicators on Council’s operations. Therefore, the 2012/2013 Budget Estimates and Financial Plan are based upon a number of broad economic assumptions.

1. Information provided by Deloitte Access Economics Forecasts September 2011 Outlook

2. A new three-year award negotiated in 2010

3. Rate peg limit set by IPART and historical movements.

These are summarised below:



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Indicator 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22

% % % % % % % % % % %

Inflation - CPI

September 2011 Outlook 3.0 3.8 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.8 2.8

Wages & Salary Growth

September 2011 Outlook 3.9 4.2 4.4 3.8 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.3 4.2 4.2

Award Increases July 2.15 3.25 3.25 3.25

Interest Rates

September 2011 Outlook

- Investments 4.7 4.7 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0

Rates

Rate Peg Limit 2.8 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Proposed SRV>Current

0 5.6 5.0

The main contributor to Council revenue in the LTFP is land rates.

The current rate structure is based on the following outcomes identified by Council and the community through a number of sources and included in the LTFP. These desired outcomes include:

1. Maintaining equity on cost sharing and revenue raising 2. The need to maintain a level of expenditure on infrastructure and capital works

3. The need to continue implementation of sustainability initiatives contained in the Environmental Management Plan

4. The need to protect Council’s operational revenue base from being eroded by statutory and legislative changes and devolution of powers to Local councils without the provision of additional funding or adequate recognition of financial impact.

Since 1977, certain council revenues have been regulated in NSW under an arrangement known as ‘rate pegging’. Rate pegging sets the maximum percentage increase to general revenue for councils. General revenue mainly comprises rates revenue, but also includes certain annual user charges.

If a council has not obtained approval for a special rate variation, the rate peg determines the maximum allowable increase in Local Government general income for the council. The rate peg percentage for 2012/13 is 3.6% (including an amount of 0.4% for carbon tax impacts).

The rate peg is a percentage amount that is set each year by IPART.

The Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) makes provision for councils to increase revenues above the rate peg amount through the use of ‘Special Variations’.

A special rate variation allows councils to increase general income above the rate peg. Special variations are permitted under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW).



A council may apply for a special rate variation for reasons such as:

• Funding new or enhanced community services to meet growing demand in the community

• Funding the development and/or maintenance of essential community infrastructure

• Funding projects of regional significance, and

• Covering special or unique cost pressures that the council faces. This was the process followed by Council for previous applications, which were approved by the Minister for Local Government. All applications are now dealt with by IPART.

1.2 CURRENT RATE STRUCTURE

The current rate structure is: GENERAL RATES Residential A wholly ad valorem rate that applies to all residential properties (Except

where the minimum rate applies) Business A base rate plus an ad valorem rate AND

SPECIAL RATES

1. Local Loan No. 1 Special Rate (Rate Increase of 4.5% in 2001/02)

Introduced in 2001/02 this rate provides funds to meet costs associated with land acquisition, seawall repairs, heritage and environmental projects. This special rate is applicable to all rateable properties.

This rate expires on 30 June 2012.

2. Local Loan No. 2 Special Rate (Rate Increase of 3.48% in 2002/03)

Introduced in 2002/03 the income raised by the levy of Special Rate Local Loan No. 2 assists with costs associated with the compulsory acquisition of land. This special rate is applicable to all rateable properties.


3. Environmental Special Rate Levy (Rate Increase of 2.44% in 2002/03)

Introduced in 2002/03 the income raised by the levy funds stormwater and environmental project identified in the Environmental Management Plan. This special rate is applicable to all rateable properties.


4. Community Facilities Asset Infrastructure Special Rate Levy (Rate Increase of 4.16% in

2007/08)

Introduced in 2007/08 the income raised by the levy funds capital works identified in the Asset Management Plans for Buildings and Parks and Recreation. This special rate is applicable to all rateable properties. This rate expires on 30 June 2017.



Council has adopted and is developing a number of alternate strategies and revenue

opportunities. A commitment to these strategies, backed by sound financial discipline and

adherence to adopted financial objectives will enable Council to remain a sustainable and

vibrant local government entity that is able to meet the needs of its community.

Any approach, or strategy, for future rate structures and the need for ‘special rates or levies’, must be considered within the overall context of Councils financial responsibilities and needs.

In order to fund the Delivery Program for the Community Strategic Plan a Long Term Financial Plan has been prepared that also includes a proposed ten-year rate strategy. In considering this strategy there are a number of options that could be taken and that need to be discussed with the community. These include the following:

Option 1 – Do Nothing

Option 2 – Continue the Special Rates

Option 3 – Continue Special Rates plus a Special Variation to the General Rate

Option 4 - A Special Variation to the General Rate

The 2012/13 rating structure is based on the following outcomes identified by the Council and the community through a number of sources. These outcomes include: 1. Maintaining equity on cost sharing and revenue raising 2. The need to maintain the level of expenditure on infrastructure and capital works 3. The need to continue implementation of sustainability initiatives contained in the

Environmental Management Plan 4. The need to protect Council’s operational revenue base from being eroded by

statutory and legislative changes and devolution of powers to councils without the provision of additional funding or adequate recognition of financial impact. The future rate structure and options are further discussed in the Financial Impact section of this report.

WASTE SERVICE CHARGES The competitive nature of the tender process for the collection and waste disposal services has meant Council has been able to provide a range of service options for household garbage, recycling and green waste and waste disposal that are at the leading edge of municipal waste collection and waste avoidance strategies. In January 2011prior to the sale of Waste Services NSW to a private operator waste tipping fees at Eastern Creek and Ryde Transfer Station ion were increased by 30-40.0%. While these increase have been absorbed for the 2010/11 years they cannot be absorbed in future years. A price increase of $11.70 per tonne from 1 January 2012 will apply to all waste delivered to the UR3R at Eastern Creek. An alternate disposal site at Woodlawn is being considered. Landfills with emissions that exceed 25,000 tonnes of C02-e per annum will be required to pay the carbon price. If the majority of Council waste is disposed of at the Eastern Creek UR3R or Woodlawn then this will reduce our liability. The Australian Landfill Owners Corporation estimates that the carbon price per tonne of waste will be $35.70. This price will potentially apply to all waste diverted to landfill. Unlike rates, the State Government does not peg these fees, nor does an independent body such as IPART regulate them.



As a result of these changes, charges for 2012/13 have been increased by 11.6% subject to clarification of the disposal location and an estimate of the tonnage diverted to landfill. Domestic Waste Management Charges (Section 496) The legislative requirement of full cost recovery means that the costs of domestic waste collection must be passed on to the ratepayer at full value, as general rate revenue may not be used to subsidise waste management costs.

Service Type 2010/2011 2011/12 2012/13

Residential Waste Charges (s496)**

Domestic Waste 80L 226.97 243.34 271.58

Domestic Waste 120L 304.23 347.01 387.26

Domestic Waste 240L 404.56 468.69 523.06

Availability Charge 22.76 23.40 26.11

Combo - 120L & 240L Dom Waste 708.80 815.70 910.32

Extra Recycling Service (Blue) (120L or 240L) 97.25 99.66 111.22

Extra Recycling Service (Yellow) 120L or 240L) 97.25 99.66 111.22

** Covers all services – red, yellow, blue and green lid bins

Business Waste Management Charges (Section 501(1)) The Business Waste Management Charge has been set at the same rate as the Residential Charge, less the components for Clean-up Campaigns and Green Waste plus a component for collection of street waste bins and street cleaning in commercial areas.

Unlike normal residential waste services, street waste bins are serviced in many cases on a daily basis and the charge reflects the

cost of providing this service.

Under the legislative requirements of competition policy, full cost recovery means that the costs

of business waste collection must be passed on to the ratepayer at full value, as general rate

revenue may not be used to subsidise business waste management costs.

Service Type 2010/2011 2011/12 2012/13

Business Waste Charges (S501 (1))

Waste Charge 120L (incl SBS) 520.74 559.89 624.84

Waste Charge 240L (incl SBS) 621.17 659.89 736.44

Additional 120L Bus Waste Charge 253.52 325.37 363.11

Additional 240L Bus Waste Charge 353.87 425.37 474.71

Business Waste Charge (Street Bin Service only) 267.32 234.52 261.72

Extra Recycling Service (Blue) (120L or 240L) NA 99.66 111.22



Extra Recycling Service (Yellow) 120L or 240L) NA 99.66 111.22

Multi-Unit Waste Management Charge (Section 496) A significant number of multi-unit dwellings are now serviced in Hunters Hill and the pricing regime has been structured to include services to these units including an allowance for the sharing of bins.

Service Type 2010/20112011/122012/13

MULTI-UNIT WASTE CHARGES (S495)

Shared Service (2 units) 120L 177.48 184.35 205.73

Shared Service (2 units) 240L 217.35 234.35 261.53

Shared Service (3 units) 240L 168.66 156.23 174.35 Green Waste Service As a result of responses to the garden vegetation survey conducted in 2005, Council introduced a green waste bin for garden vegetation collections when its new Waste and Recycling Contract began in July 2006. The new contract has enabled households to present their garden vegetation for collection at the kerbside in a 240 litre green waste mobile bin; and/or bagged, tied or bundled lots. There were no additional costs involved with the implementation of this service at that time. There is a suggestion that consideration be given to increasing the green waste service to a

fortnightly collection however it is clear that many properties will not utilise a fortnightly service

and it is intended to undertake surveys in the first quarter of next year to determine the demand

for the service. As a minimum it is anticipated that a fortnightly service can be provided to those

properties that request the service, however until the demand is established a price cannot be

determined.

It is estimated that an additional green waste service will cost $90.00 per service per annum for each property and that a fortnightly service will be available from 1st July 2012. An additional service can be requested at present but is still collected on a monthly basis.

Service Type 2010/20112011/12 2012/13

GREEN WASTE CHARGES (S496)

Extra Green Waste Service (240L) 0 99.66 111.22

However, should an additional fortnightly service be required the cost is as follows:

Service Type 2010/20112011/12 2012/13


Extra Green Waste Service (240L) 0 0 90.00



Extension of Contract The competitive nature of the tender process for the collection and waste disposal services has meant that from 2006/07 Council has been able to provide a range of service options for household garbage, recycling and green waste and waste disposal that are at the leading edge of municipal waste collection and waste avoidance strategies at a reasonable price. NSROC Councils are investigating the provision of regional waste services and a key element

in this process will be the synchronization of waste contract expiry dates.

It is likely that the contract of the current provider URM will be extended and there will be additional costs incurred. An estimate for these costs has been included in the proposed 2012/13 charges.

NEW VALUATIONS

The Valuer General provided new property valuations for rating purposes during the year and these will come into effect in the 2012/2013 financial year.

The Valuer General will notify all property owners of these new valuations, in January 2012.

Property owners experienced a variety of changes to values across the Municipality. Residential properties east of Burns Bay Road recorded small falls in property values while land values to the west, experienced small increases. The average increase was about 6.0%.

Commercial values throughout the Municipality generally increased.

Importantly for ratepayers the effect of rate pegging is that a change in land value does not correlate directly to changes in rates. Irrespective of the total value of land the Councils total revenue raised from rates cannot be increased by more than the approved amount unless by way of an application for a Special Rate Variation.

The impacts on ratepayers of various rate options are shown in the attachments to this report. The following sections discuss Councils funding needs and strategies.

2.0 ASSET MANAGEMENT

Section 403(2) of the Local Government Act (1993) requires Council to include in its Management Plan statements relating to Capital Works projects, asset replacement programs, and sales of assets and activities of a commercial nature undertaken by Council. These statements are incorporated and integrated into the Long Term Financial Plan and Capital Works Program. Local government contributes to the well-being of the community in many ways but most significantly through the provision of services.

The future budgets of Council are constrained by the finite nature of the revenue base and the ongoing commitments to existing programs. In these circumstances, Council has set clear goals of: 1. Practising fiscal restraint 2. Pursuing micro economic reform

3. Concentrating on service outcomes delivered to the community



4. Value for money

Within this context, the resources allocated to each Department need to be carefully managed

in order to achieve the service outcome sought by Council on behalf of the community.

Since the late 1940’s Council’s population has doubled and by the early part of the 21st century, it is expected to increase by another 20%. At that time the Council’s infrastructure will have to support an above average aging community and yet still play its part in the globalisation of our economy.

Assets held long-term attract liabilities in terms of the costs for ongoing operation and maintenance, both of which are prodigious and climbing steadily as the stock ages. On the basis of industry norms and the foregoing estimates of replacement value, the annual maintenance and operating cost for public sector assets in this Council is in the range of $3-6 million. On this basis this liability, which compares to an annual capital works budget of less than $1-2 million, could soon outstrip the Council’s capacity to provide infrastructure to ensure new services. Therefore the Council’s portfolio of assets is both an investment in the future of the community and a potential source of massive liabilities if not well managed. It is imperative for local government at all levels to pay critical attention to aligning infrastructure resources with community needs to provide sustainable levels of service. To respond to this imperative Council has invested in and developed comprehensive and sophisticated Asset Management Plans for the following classes of assets and established a 10-year Capital Works Program to address asset maintenance for inclusion in the Long Term Financial Plan. The proposed 2012/2013 – 2021/22 Capital Work Program is contained in the draft Long Term Financial Plan appended to this report. In summary the program is contained in the following table.

Outcome Area Proposed 10-Year

Program 2012/13 – 2021-22

Annual Additional

Requirement

1. Roads 3,062,680 306,268

2. Road Related Assets 455,500 45,550

3. Building Assets 810,000 81,000

4. Parks & Recreation 2,952,500 295,250

5. Stormwater 795,500 79,550

6. Environmental 621,500 62,150

TOTAL $8,697,800 $869,768

2.1 CAPITAL WORKS PROJECT FUNDING

Council has an adopted Total Asset Management and the Asset Management Plan is

represented through the Capital Works Program.



Budget allocations for asset maintenance and replacement identified in the Capital Works

Program have been done so utilising a 10-year program that has been prepared by Council staff

fort the purpose of identifying Councils longer-term financial commitments toward important

community assets.

The proposed Capital Works Program is being funded by a combination of loans, special rate levies, section 94A funds, or alternative revenue sources. 2.1.1 BORROWING TO FUND CAPITAL WORKS

Council’s loan borrowings are restricted by loan borrowing limits applied by the Department of Local Government as part of the Federal Global Loan Borrowing Limitations. Council makes submissions and seeks approval for borrowing on an annual basis.

Council’s Base Loan Program was $2.5m with repayments funded from a Special Local Loan

Rate (Compulsory Acquisition of Foreshore Land and Seawalls).

In 2007/2008 Council borrowed an additional $500,000 to implement a 10-year footpath improvement program.

Council’s base loan program may be expanded where funds are required for additional programs. It is proposed that any additional loan funding will be used primarily for projects that are able to fund the debt servicing costs through income production, or through reduced expenditure requirements. OUTSTANDING LOANS Compulsory Land Acquisition and Seawalls

Land & seawalls

Interest Rate 5.3% Dates Principal Principal Change Interest Payment

16-Jun-03 $2800000.00

Principal Principal

Opening Closing

2011/12

16-Dec-11 682859.92 164078.55 18145.37 182223.92 518781.37

18-Jun-12 518781.37 168287.88 13936.03 182223.91 350493.49

Year 11/12 332366.43 32081.40 364447.83

2012/13

17-Dec-12 350493.49 172961.28 9262.63 182223.91 177532.21

17-Jun-13 177532.21 177532.21 4691.70 182223.91 0.00

Year 12/13 350493.49 13954.33 364447.82



Footpaths Improvement Program

Footpaths

Interest Rate 7.34%

Principal $500000 Principal Change Interest Payment

Principal Principal

2011/12 Opening Closing

5-Oct-11 364,149.51 22,338.89 13,400.90 35,739.79 341810.62

5-Apr-12 341,810.62 23,160.97 12,578.82 35,739.79 318649.65

Year 11/12 45,499.86 25,979.72 71,479.58

2012/13

5-Oct-12 318,649.65 24,013.31 11,726.48 35,739.79 294636.34

5-Apr-13 294,636.34 24,956.26 10,783.53 35,739.79 269680.08

Year 12/13 48,969.57 22,510.01 71,479.58

2013/14

8-Oct-13 269,680.08 25,652.72 10,087.07 35,739.79 244027.36

7-Apr-14 244,027.36 26,857.60 8,882.19 35,739.79 217169.76

52,510.32 18,969.26 71,479.58

2014/15

7-Oct-14 217,169.76 27,747.83 7,991.97 35,739.80 189421.93

7-Apr-15 189,421.93 28,807.05 6,932.74 35,739.79 160614.88

56,554.88 14,924.71 71,479.59

2015/16

6-Oct-15 160,614.88 29,861.38 5,878.42 35,739.80 130753.50

5-Apr-16 130,753.50 30,954.29 4,785.51 35,739.80 99799.21

60,815.67 10,663.93 71,479.60

2016/17

5-Oct-16 99,799.21 32,067.13 3,672.67 35,739.80 67732.08

5-Apr-17 67,732.08 33,260.84 2,478.96 35,739.80 34471.24

65,327.97 6,151.63 71,479.60

2017/18

5-Oct-17 34,471.24 34,471.23 1,268.56 35,739.79 0.01

Summary

Opening Principal Interest Total Repay Closing

Land & seawalls

2011/12 682859.92 332366.43 32081.40 364447.83 350493.49

2012/13 350493.49 350493.49 13954.33 364447.82 0.00

Footpaths

2011/12 364,149.51 45,499.86 25,979.72 71,479.58 318649.65

2012/13 318,649.65 48,969.57 22,510.01 71,479.58 269680.08



2.2 ALTERNATE REVENUE SOURCES 2.2.1 Non-Resident Paid Parking Revenue

In adopting the 2005/2006 Management Plan, Forward Financial Plan and Budget Council resolved that paid parking be introduced in Clarke’s Point Reserve in conjunction with the construction of a new car park and amenities block. These facilities were completed in 2009 and it is proposed that a Non-Resident Paid Parking scheme is commenced in Clarke’s Point Reserve, Clarke Road and Franki Avenue in conjunction with the implementation of the Woolwich Parking Scheme.

Council adopted the Woolwich Parking Scheme at OM 4303 held on 11thApril 2011 and it is anticipated that paid parking in Clarke’s Point Reserve will commence in 2012, subject to obtaining an agreement with the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust on the management of adjoining parking on Trust land. Council also resolved to introduce of paid parking in Buffalo Creek Reserve to fund a new amenities building would be considered, following further investigation on the potential to extend the existing car park and traffic safety issues at the Pittwater Road entry point. At the OM held on 24 May 2010 Council resolved to enter into an agreement with Ryde City Council that will see a new roundabout constructed in Pittwater Road at the Reserve entrance by the end of 2010. It is proposed that Non-Resident Paid Parking is commenced at Buffalo Creek Reserve following completion of construction of the roundabout. Council has also previously resolved to: 1. Undertake community consultation in conjunction with an investigation into the

possible commencement of Non-Resident Paid Parking at Valentia Street Wharf and Huntley’s Point Wharf. Due to the complexity that arose from the Woolwich Scheme, the involvement of Crown Lands and the need to amend Plans of Management, this matter was deferred until 2012.

2. Refer the possible implementation of paid parking at Gladesville Shopping Village Carpark and Signal Hill Carpark, based on the first three (3) hours being free, to the Gladesville Main Street Committee for discussion and consultation. The Committee has not been formed and it is anticipated that this process will not commence until 2012.

2.2.2 Mobile Phone Tower Revenue Council has been successful in negotiating with a number of mobile phone providers the installation of facilities on Council owned land for which an annual rental is paid. These facilities are currently located at Boronia Park (2) within the floodlighting towers and the Council Chambers (1) chimney. The Capital Works Program is to be the beneficiary of any future revenue gained from parking or mobile phone tower rental, as Council is unlikely to receive any funding support from the State or Federal Government other than on a dollar for dollar basis, if any, or where Council borrows monies to fund it capital works. The purpose of this philosophy is to ensure that revenue from these alternate sources is not simply placed into general revenue to meet operating costs, but to be set aside for capital works projects that would otherwise not happen, or take an unacceptable timeframe to achieve.



2.2.3 Asset Sales & Development Activities

Council is investigating the feasibility of a number of development opportunities and/or asset sales.

2.2.3.1 Asset Sales

Partial Road Closure and Proposed Subdivision – Serpentine Rd, Hunters Hill

Council is considering a proposal to close part of an unmade road, aggregate the part closed with adjoining Council land and dispose of the resultant lot created by subdivision. Preliminary notification to residents has been undertaken and survey work commenced. It is likely that this project will come to fruition in 2012.

The proceeds will be expended on Capital Works such as Roads, Parks and Reserves and Community Facilities and Buildings.

Alternatively, Council may decide to retire some or all of the debt raised to fund the Footpath Improvement Program.

Council has obtained care, control and management of ‘The Priory’. A proportion of these proceeds could also be expended on identified repair and restoration works required on the property and its curtilage.

2.2.3.2 Development Opportunities

A revised LEP and DCP to guide the future development of Gladesville, has been completed and gazetted. This work was undertaken in conjunction with Ryde City Council.

Council owns a number of properties within the precinct that may present development or re-development opportunities to Council.

(a) Sale or Joint Venture Development of Commercial Property – No. 4, 6 and 10 Cowell Street, Gladesville

Council owns commercially zoned vacant land at No. 4 and No. 6 Cowell Street and occupied land at No. 10 and is currently investigating sale and/or development options that may arise from joint venture arrangements with adjoining property owners.

Proceeds from sales, or revenue earned, would be returned to the Capital Works Reserve and

used to fund future Capital Works programs.

(b) Signal Hill car park construction and redevelopment – No.3A Cowell Street, Gladesville

This site is classified as operational land. Council has identified the need to increase the number of car parking spaces for shoppers and has identified that an underground parking station could be constructed at the Signal Hill Car Park (Cowell Street). Although commercial property owners often fund these types of projects, there are an insufficient number of commercial properties in Gladesville to create a Special Parking Rate for the purpose of funding the whole project.

Construction could also be funded by way of ‘user pays’ fees from the introduction of paid parking for the car park.



Council is considering the construction of two levels of underground parking on the basis of creating a commercial car park. A DA has been approved for this project with an allowance being included for the car parking requirements of any future development on the ground level car park land.

The ground level car park land has been zoned 3(b) Business General in the new LEP and the site could then be developed or sold via an expression of interest process, which may or may not include the underground car park. Proceeds from sales, or revenue earned, would be returned to the Capital Works Reserve and used to fund future Capital Works programs.

(c) 6 Pittwater Road (Early Childhood Centre)

This site is located in the Ryde City Council area and adjoins the Gladesville Library.

There is a possibility that Ryde City Council may seek an opportunity to re-develop their substantial land holdings in this area in conjunction with the Gladesville Masterplan and it would be logical that this site is included in any future proposals.

Proceeds from sales, or revenue earned, would be returned to the Capital Works Reserve and used to fund future Capital Works programs.

(d) 40, 42, 44, 46& 48 Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill

These sites have been re-zoned within the Hunters Hill Village Masterplan for the purpose of using a potential redevelopment opportunity to construct new and significantly improved community facilities and car parking.

The LEP has been gazetted and plan for a potential development strategy has been developed and will be placed on public exhibition in 2012.

Proceeds from sales, or revenue earned, would be returned to the Capital Works Reserve and used to fund future Capital Works programs. The yield from these activities is unknown at this time, as cost/benefit analysis will not be undertaken until 2012. 3.0 WORKFORCE PLAN The Workforce Plan sets out the issues, evidence and strategies required to deliver a

sustainable Hunter’s Hill Council workforce capable of continuing to deliver high quality services

to our community to 2015 and deliver on our vision. It builds upon the directions set out in the

2020 Strategic Plan and 2012 - 2016 Delivery Program and its associated budget and is aligned

with the overarching NSW Planning and Reporting framework.

The Workforce Plan is focused on retaining staff, developing leaders, skilling managers, and positioning Council as an employer of choice. Our Workforce Plan is underpinned by the Workforce Planning framework. This is pictured and

described in more detail below:



Despite the challenges facing Council now and in the future identified in the Workforce Plan,

there are a number of positive factors that should be highlighted.

• Evidence suggests that Council has a good reputation, an enviable work culture and offers competitive employment conditions and benefits;

• Managers have identified that a number of ‘future leaders’ exist across Council;

• Many existing staff may have the potential to fill critical positions in the future, (provided specific qualifications are acquired and further training is undertaken);

• The global economic crises may lessen the impact of candidates in short supply (in the short term).

To address workforce issues identified in the Workforce Plan and to ensure any workforce gaps

are minimised, the following general strategies should be adopted:

1. Continue to attract and recruit staff from a wider applicant pool so as to allow

Council to become a career pathway for a range of potential new recruits – i.e.

consider age diversity (both young and mature), people from diverse backgrounds

(multi-cultural, indigenous Australians, women with children, people with a disability)

2. Focus on retaining appropriately skilled staff, including retaining our older workforce as well as younger generations;

3. Continue to strengthen our reputation as an employer of choice, thereby assisting

with attraction and retention; and

4. Offer continuous learning and development opportunities for all staff and accelerate

the development of the next generation of leaders, thereby ensuring any skill gaps

are reduced.

An aim in budget preparation has been to ensure that our current workforce is retained and Council is not forced to shed staff to meet its bottom line target. A number of staff expenditure reductions were adopted for 2010/11 and the following will be continued through to 2015/16:

No additional staff appointments (unless offset by additional funding or productivity improvements) No paid overtime. Any overtime to be taken as time-in-lieu.

Workforce

Forecast

Future

Analyse

Gaps

Develop

Strategies and Action Plans

Implement

Strategies

Monitor

&

Workforce

Planning

1

2

3

4

5

6



A copy of the Workforce Plan has been distributed under separate cover. COMMUNITY AWARENESS CAMPAIGN In adopting the LTFP and Rate Options for public exhibition and discussion Council also committed to a community awareness and communication plan and program. These are outlined below together with the results and outcomes.

The objectives of this Community Awareness Campaign are very clear:

• To determine residents’ support or non-support for an extension of existing levies and a special rate increase

• To report Council’s findings back to the community

• To report findings to Councillors

• To report Council’s findings to IPART, and

• To apply, or not apply, for an extension of existing levies and a special rate increase based on community support or non-support.

COMMUNICATION TOOLS

The tools can be interchangeable, and the timeline may need to be adjusted as the campaign moves forward, however this does give Council a strong footprint in which to consult with residents. Council wants to hear what residents think. To gain as much feedback as possible Council will be:

• Conducting 400 random telephone surveys across the local government area

• Asking residents to complete an online survey via the Council website www.huntershill.nsw.gov.au

• Encouraging residents to watch an online explanatory video on Council’s website

• Liaising with Council’s committees

• Advertising in local media outlets

• Providing information and feedback boxes at the Town Hall Administration Centre and Gladesville Library, and

• Conducting community forums in early February.

RESULTS OF CONSULTATION

A supplementary report on the results of the various consultations and feedback listed below will be

tabled at the meeting.

• On-line Survey

• Telephone Survey

• Community Forums

o February 08.02.12

o February 12.02.12

• Correspondence

• Editorial



• Letters to the Editor

Where to from here?

However, without the views and support of our residents Council will be unable to make a strong case to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) for the implementation of the proposed rate structure that has been developed to support the Long Term Financial Plan.

If a majority of residents support an application to IPART for an extension and increase in rates, based on the scenarios listed above Council will make a written application to IPART in late February 2012.

If, however, a majority of residents do not support an extension and increase in rates, Council will NOT make a written application to IPART. This alternative will mean that there will be a reduction in services and service levels, and this is an option that Council does not believe is desirable.

IPART will notify all councils who make an application by June 2012 as to their decision.

CONCLUSION

A number of rate structure options have been proposed (see Financial Impact section) and these have been on public exhibition for the purpose of discussion with the community. The purpose of the discussion was to determine the level of support and feedback for a special rate variation and the revenue and expenditure initiatives that have resulted from the community, during the community strategic planning process. If the special rates and levies are not continued then current programs may be terminated and there will be no funding for new initiatives. FINANCIAL IMPACT

The Long Term Financial Plan has been prepared on the basis of:

1. Increasing rates by the Rate Peg allowance of 3.6%

2. Continuing the expiring special rates to provide funding for Capital Works on Roads and Road Related Infrastructure.

3. Including all new initiatives, projects and strategies identified through the community strategic planning process.

4. No additional staff unless grant funded positions. (Part-time Youth Worker and Part-time Road Safety Officer)

The resultant outcome is a deficit budget of $289,900 for 2012/13.

Rate options will be presented at the meeting that will provide additional funding and Councillors will also need to Prioritise and determine the inclusion, or exclusion of new initiatives.

The FINDEX has proved a useful tool in the past to illustrate whether we are spending more than we are earning. As a result of the constant statutory increases and cost shifting Council has moved into a cycle that is not sustainable as shown below.



FINDEX Rev/Cap Exp/Cap Rev/Cap Exp/Cap Rev/Cap Exp/Cap Rev/Cap Exp/Cap

2006-07 2006-07 2007-08 2007-08 2008-09 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10

Hunters Hill 692.71 651.96 754.69 703.51 777.39 778.53 750.74 773.83

This is symptomatic of the industry as FINDEX demonstrates that the vast majority of Councils are in the same position.

FINDEX also shows that Hunters Hill continues to be one of the lowest taxing Councils within its group and within the region, compared to individual Councils and average results.

Continuation of the present revenue structure of special rates to fund Capital Works are essential to the long-term financial sustainability of Council, as is an increase in the general rate to meet the additional costs of street lighting, increasing energy costs, payment of additional superannuation contributions, increases in the Fire & Rescue Levy and the impacts of the commencement of the carbon tax.

Additional revenue will also be required to fund initiatives and projects identified by the community during the community strategic planning process. A number of alternative funding options have also been considered and these will also need to be prioritised.

Council resolved at the Ordinary Meeting held on 12 December 2011 to advise IPART of our

intention to submit an application for a Special Rate Variation.

In considering the report Council also resolved to adopt THREE rate options for the purpose of

community consultation based on the following scenariosOPTION 1 Rate peg increase and

discontinuance of special rates that expire in 2012/13 and 2013/14

OPTION 2 Rate peg increase and continuance of special rates that expire in 2012/13 and

2013/14

OPTION 3 Rate peg increase, continuance of special rates that expire in 2012/13 and

2013/14 and an operational catch-up increase to the general rate of 2.0%

OPTION 1 Rate peg increase and discontinuance of special rates that expire in 2012/13

and 2013/14

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

1 Rate Peg 3.60% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%

2 Discontinuation of Local Loan 1 -4.31%

3 Discontinuation of Local Loan 2 -3.10%

4 Discontinuation of Environmental

Special Rate -2.17%

Sub Totals -0.71% -2.27% 3.00% 3.00%

5 Operational Catch Up 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total Proposed

Decrease/Increase -0.71% -2.27% 3.00% 3.00%

Increase Above Existing Rate -0.71% -2.27% 3.00% 3.00%

What will happen if these special rates are discontinued?



1. Council will have no money to increase its capital works program for roads, and will have no money to continue its capital works program for drains, footpaths, parks and reserves unless maintenance and service standards are reduced.

2. Council will not be able to meet its statutory responsibility to maintain community assets.

3. Council will not be financially sustainable into the future.

OPTION 2 Rate peg increase and continuance of special rates that expire in 2012/13 and

2013/14

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

1 Rate Peg 3.60% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%

2

Continuation of Local Loan 1 to

become Special Rate - Roads (Further

10 years)

4.31%

3

Continuation of Local Loan 2 to

become Special Rate – Infrastructure

(Further 10 years)

3.10%

4 Continuation of Environmental Special

Rate (Further 10 years) 2.17%

Sub Totals 7.91% 8.27% 3.00% 3.00%

5 Operational Catch Up 0% 0% 0% 0%

Total Proposed Decrease/Increase -0.71% -2.27% 3.00% 3.00%

Increase Above Existing Rate 7.91% 8.27% 3.00% 3.00%

What will happen if these special rates are continued?

1. Council will have money to support an increased capital works program for roads, and continue its capital works program for footpaths, parks and reserves without severely reducing maintenance and service standards.

2. Council will be able to meet more of its statutory responsibility to maintain community assets.

3. Council will be more financially sustainable into the future.

OPTION 3 Rate peg increase, continuance of special rates that expire in 2012/13 and

2013/14 and an operational catch-up increase to the general rate of 2.0%

2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

1 Rate Peg 3.60% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%

2

Continuation of Local Loan 1 to become

Special Rate - Roads (Further 10

years)

4.31%

3

Continuation of Local Loan 2 to become

Special Rate – Infrastructure (Further 10

years)

3.10%

4 Continuation of Environmental Special

Rate (Further 10 years) 2.17%



Sub Totals 7.91% 8.27% 3.00% 3.00%

5 Operational Catch Up 2.00% 2.00% 0% 0%

Total Proposed Decrease/Increase 9.91% 10.27% 3.00% 3.00%

Increase Above Existing Rate 5.60% 5.00% 3.00% 3.00%

What will happen if these special rates are discontinued?

1. Council will have money to support an increased capital works program for roads, and increase its capital works program for footpaths, parks and reserves without severely reducing maintenance and service standards.

2. Council will be able to meet more of its statutory responsibility to maintain community assets.

3. Council will be more financially sustainable into the future.

In summary, what does this mean?

In basic terms the special variation will seek to extend the special rates that are due to expire in

2012 and 2013, to continue to provide much needed funds for improving infrastructure,

continuing our existing environmental programs and funding initiatives identified by the

community as priorities during the preparation of the community strategic plan in 2010 and this

year.

These funds will be spent on a 10-year program of annual expenditure. For example the draft

10-year budget includes programs for: (Refer to Capital Works Program Below)

Road Reconstruction $300,000

Stormwater Improvements $80,000

Reserves & Bushland Improvements $78,500

Footpaths & Kerbs $30,000

Community Buildings & Facilities $280,000

Fees & Charges

The budget has been predicated on existing user fees and charges plus an allowance for an

increase by the rate pegging allowance. The exhibited fees and charges however, may be

amended by recommendations contained in the Recreation Needs Study (RNS), particularly in

relation to fees for the use of parks and reserves and community facilities. The RNS report is

due within a few weeks and will be the subject of further consultation with user groups.

It is anticipated that the report and recommended amendments to fees and charges would be

tabled for Council consideration in April and then placed on public exhibition for not less than 30

days for comment and further consideration by Council in May. Any new fees adopted by

Council would be applicable from 1 July 2012.



RECOMMENDATION

1. The Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2012/13 – 2015/16 as amended is adopted and placed on public exhibition

2. The Long-term Financial Plan is adopted subject to consideration of any revised

Fees & Charges resulting from the Recreation Needs Study

3. The Asset Management Plans are adopted

4. The Workforce Plan is adopted.

5. The following indicative rates & charges are adopted subject to advice from IPART, valuation appeals and supplementary rate levies:

Option 2 - Rate peg of 3.6% plus Continue the Special Rates

RATE DESCRIPTION RATE IN $

Residential 0.001378958 458.00 Min

Business 0.001470984 54.91 Base

Strata Unit Residential 0.001378958 458.00 Min

Strata Unit Business 0.001470984 54.91 Base

Business Maritime Lease 0.001470984 54.91 Base

Mixed Business Strata Unit 0.001470984 54.91 Base

Mixed Residential 0.001378958 458.00 Min

Mixed Residential Strata Unit 0.001378958 458.00 Min

Special Rate Local Loan 1 Residential 0.00003899 27.75 Base

Special Rate Local Loan 1 Business 0.00003899 27.75 Base



Special Rate Environment Residential 0.00002064 14.46 Base

Special Rate Environment Business 0.00002064 14.46 Base

Comm Facilities Asset Infrastructure Spec Rate Res 0.00003901 23.34 Base

Comm Facilities Asset Infrastructure Spec Rate Bus 0.00003901 23.34 Base

Option 3 – Rate peg of 3.6%, Continue Special Rates plus a Special Variation to the General Rate of 2.0%

RATE DESCRIPTION RATE IN $

Residential 0.001405537 467.00 Min

Business 0.001498426 56.57 Base

Strata Unit Residential 0.001405537 467.00 Min

Strata Unit Business 0.001498426 56.57 Base

Business Maritime Lease 0.001498426 56.57 Base

Mixed Business Strata Unit 0.001498426 56.57 Base

Mixed Residential 0.001405537 467.00 Min

Mixed Residential Strata Unit 0.001405537 467.00 Min







Special Rate Environment Residential 0.00002104 14.74 Base

Special Rate Environment Business 0.00002104 14.74 Base

Comm Facilities Asset Infrastructure Spec Rate Res 0.00003977 23.79 Base

Comm Facilities Asset Infrastructure Spec Rate Bus 0.00003977 23.79 Base

Domestic Waste Management Charges (Section 496)

Service Type 2012/13

Domestic Waste 80L 271.58



Availability Charge 26.11

Combo - 120L & 240L Dom Waste 910.32

Extra Recycling Service (Blue) (120L or 240L) 111.22

Extra Recycling Service (Yellow) 120L or 240L) 111.22

Business Waste Management Charges (Section 501(1))


Waste Charge 120L (incl SBS) 624.84

Waste Charge 240L (incl SBS) 736.44

Additional 120L Bus Waste Charge 363.11

Additional 240L Bus Waste Charge 474.71

Business Waste Charge (Street Bin Service only) 261.72

Extra Recycling Service (Blue) (120L or 240L) 111.22

Extra Recycling Service (Yellow) 120L or 240L) 111.22

Multi-Unit Waste Management Charge (Section 495)

A significant number of multi-unit dwellings are now serviced in Hunters Hill and the pricing regime has been structured to include services to these units including an allowance for the sharing of bins.


MULTI-UNIT WASTE CHARGES (S495)

Shared Service (2 units) 120L 205.73





Green Waste Service (Section 496)



Extra Green Waste Service (240L) 111.22

An additional service can be requested at present but is still collected on a monthly basis. Should an additional fortnightly service be required the cost is as follows:



Extra Green Waste Service (240L) 90.00

ATTACHMENTS

1. The Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2012/13 – 2015/16 as amended (under separate cover)

2. The Resourcing Strategy:

• The Long-term Financial Plan (under separate cover)

• Workforce Plan (under separate cover)

• Asset Management Plan (previously distributed under separate cover)



FINDEX Rev /Cap Exp/Cap Rev /Cap Exp/Cap Rev /Cap Exp/Cap Rev /Cap Exp/Cap Rev /Cap Exp/Cap

Population 2005-06 2005-06 2006-07 2006-07 2007-08 2007-08 2008-09 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10

GROUP

Ashfield 42,541 538.88 564.27 565.20 593.89 637.56 613.34 652.75 678.02 708.30 692.63

Botany Bay 39,664 969.71 1,014.40 1,023.76 1,019.97 1,066.46 1,067.81 1,083.00 1,130.58 1,126.18 1,160.32

Burwood 33,678 687.59 785.29 923.47 836.14 808.79 886.24 958.34 930.60 1,043.35 1,043.41

Hunters Hill 14,467 667.79 651.85 692.71 651.96 754.69 703.51 777.39 778.53 750.74 773.83

Kogarah 58,137 543.82 567.94 605.86 593.56 632.14 656.50 623.19 704.62 658.93 703.17

Lane Cove 32,501 776.09 745.62 844.05 808.49 923.24 892.56 957.01 953.73 1,129.38 963.23

Leichhardt 54,525 1,122.89 1,028.61 1,169.22 1,067.42 1,179.96 1,080.46 1,222.09 1,149.35 1,227.47 1,222.47

Manly 40,939 1,130.38 1,126.29 1,166.37 1,177.13 1,231.95 1,257.45 1,365.49 1,326.75 1,319.74 1,339.38

Mosman 28,767 923.21 974.86 950.73 999.23 1,340.44 1,067.28 1,061.43 1,161.48 1,238.22 1,266.17

North Sydney 63,914 1,162.21 1,028.01 1,115.68 1,072.78 1,137.71 1,100.81 1,131.33 1,196.05 1,287.57 1,117.14

Pittwater 58,818 869.51 865.03 916.87 893.86 987.67 966.78 1,004.45 1,003.07 1,039.16 1,002.51

Strathfield 36,489 659.18 671.93 672.45 674.41 657.37 1,092.51 669.37 740.97 674.15 791.09

Waverley 68,316 1,303.13 1,174.87 1,422.02 1,210.92 1,778.57 1,213.83 1,146.07 1,313.32 1,294.59 1,339.98

Willoughby 69,269 966.79 964.77 1,065.17 1,142.04 2,083.19 1,235.70 1,199.42 1,142.50 1,216.68 1,152.12

Woollahra 55,228 980.23 1,003.00 1,215.55 1,069.75 1,173.35 1,192.35 1,136.78 1,224.06 1,250.02 1,210.60

697,253 13,301.41 13,166.74 14,349.11 13,811.55 16,393.09 15,027.13 14,988.11 15,433.63 15,964.48 15,778.05

Average 886.76 877.78 956.61 920.77 1,092.87 1,001.81 999.21 1,028.91 1,064.30 1,051.87

NSROC

Hornsby 162,216 573.94 590.23 593.46 603.23 584.93 612.22 609.22 649.00 632.24 681.14

Hunters Hill 14,467 667.79 651.85 692.71 651.96 754.69 703.51 777.39 778.53 750.74 773.83

Ku-ring-gai 111,400 678.53 610.46 695.42 639.53 723.86 684.79 758.95 710.08 893.41 712.09

Lane Cove 32,501 776.09 745.62 844.05 808.49 923.24 892.56 957.01 953.73 1,129.38 963.23

North Sydney 63,914 1,162.21 1,028.01 1,115.68 1,072.78 1,137.71 1,100.81 1,131.33 1,196.05 1,287.57 1,117.14

Ryde 104,955 674.41 657.94 738.28 670.88 940.58 732.50 759.50 812.56 731.89 772.05

Willoughby 69,269 966.79 964.77 1,065.17 1,142.04 2,083.19 1,235.70 1,136.78 1,142.50 1,250.02 1,152.12

558,722 5,499.76 5,248.88 5,744.77 5,588.91 7,148.20 5,962.09 6,130.18 6,242.45 6,675.25 6,171.60



Average 785.68 749.84 820.68 798.42 1,021.17 851.73 875.74 891.78 953.61 881.66

FINDEX Rev /Cap Exp/Cap Rev /Cap Exp/Cap Rev /Cap Exp/Cap Rev /Cap Exp/Cap Rev /Cap Exp/Cap

Population 2005-06 2005-06 2006-07 2006-07 2007-08 2007-08 2008-09 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10

SHOROC

Manly 40,939 1,130.38 1,126.29 1,166.37 1,177.13 1,231.95 1,257.45 1,365.49 1,326.75 1,319.74 1,339.38

Mosman 28,767 923.21 974.86 950.73 999.23 1,340.44 1,067.28 1,061.43 1,161.48 1,238.22 1,266.17

Pittwater 58,818 869.51 865.03 916.87 893.86 987.67 966.78 1,004.45 1,003.07 1,039.16 1,002.51

Warringah 144,092 734.47 698.49 778.73 713.11 800.11 773.50 839.17 823.09 902.24 847.15

272,616 3,657.57 3,664.67 3,812.70 3,783.33 4,360.17 4,065.01 4,270.54 4,314.39 4,499.36 4,455.21

Average 914.39 916.17 953.18 945.83 1090.04 1016.25 1067.64 1078.60 1124.84 1113.80

Hunters Hill 14,467 667.79 651.85 692.71 651.96 754.69 703.51 777.39 778.53 750.74 773.83



DRAFT 2012/2013 BUDGET OPTION 2

SUMMARY BY PROGRAM 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22

OPERATIONS

REVENUE OUR HERITAGE AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT 503000 323900 356867 362802 374201 381540 394297 400464 413047 421557 436500 OUR COMMUNITY AND LIFESTYLE 588900 1035800 1059672 1072304 1151699 1106797 1128736 1141863 1163316 1248995 1206877

OUR ENVIRONMENT 1984300 2178900 2129895 2181013 2233357 2293658 2353293 2407419 2465197 2534222 2605180

MOVING AROUND 898100 974800 1091055 1115012 1139448 1167557 1205415 1230783 1257785 1290142 1333421

OUR COUNCIL 8199300 8397100 8629749 8878091 9148044 9396855 9336961 9586115 9848427 10129510 10417367

TOTAL REVENUE 12173600 12910500 13267238 13609222 14046748 14346407 14418702 14766643 15147771 15624426 15999345

EXPENDITURE OUR HERITAGE AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT 1006500 882600 929026 942616 976361 1000718 1077633 1063954 1100062 1132925 1181052 OUR COMMUNITY AND LIFESTYLE 3117000 3284000 3370426 3430331 3680644 3647988 3752074 3839117 3975183 4220833 4209306

OUR ENVIRONMENT 2449300 2771000 2766585 2853370 2902733 3010146 3073937 3140196 3237375 3346179 3438520

MOVING AROUND 3385400 3513300 3575554 3790606 3853913 3911597 3972185 4227153 4299064 4374492 4453223

OUR COUNCIL 3619000 3879100 3892188 4023485 4191460 4444001 4505965 4671047 4871796 5152371 5219083

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 13577200 14330000 14533779 15040407 15605111 16014450 16381796 16941467 17483480 18226801 18501184

NET OPERATIONS -1403600 -1419500 -1266541 -1431186 -1558363 -1668044 -1963094 -2174825 -2335710 -2602375 -2501838

CAPITAL

CAPITAL REVENUE OUR HERITAGE AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT 40000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OUR COMMUNITY AND LIFESTYLE 0 515000 625000 410000 80000 0 0 0 0 0 0

MOVING AROUND 0 70000 0 0 100000 0 0 0 0 0 0

OUR COUNCIL 3529500 3841000 3501255 3886552 3976808 4202749 3999109 4133726 4211314 4624834 4346034

TOTAL CAPITAL REVENUE 3569500 4426000 4126255 4296552 4156808 4202749 3999109 4133726 4211314 4624834 4346034

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OUR COMMUNITY AND LIFESTYLE 339000 560500 993500 787000 485500 584000 116000 53000 31000 16000 21000

OUR ENVIRONMENT 80000 106000 82500 63000 65000 43000 63000 63000 63000 65000 53000



MOVING AROUND 536300 897200 886600 1068300 1176440 1149450 1090790 982050 952600 1206100 1121950

OUR COUNCIL 1210600 1558500 1186022 1250361 1220943 1262981 1234368 1217279 1234270 1256608 1285585 TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 2165900 3122200 3148622 3168661 2947883 3039431 2504158 2315329 2280870 2543708 2481535

NET CAPITAL 1403600 1303800 977633 1127891 1208925 1163318 1494951 1818397 1930444 2081125 1864499

NET SURPLUS/DEFICIT(-) 0 -115700 -288908 -303295 -349438 -504726 -468143 -356427 -405265 -521250 -637339

DRAFT 2012/2013 BUDGET OPTION 3

SUMMARY BY PROGRAM 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22

OPERATIONS

REVENUE OUR HERITAGE AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT 503000 323900 356867 362802 374201 381540 394297 400464 413047 421557 436500 OUR COMMUNITY AND LIFESTYLE 588900 1035800 1059672 1072304 1151699 1106797 1128736 1141863 1163316 1248995 1206877

OUR ENVIRONMENT 1984300 2178900 2129895 2181013 2233357 2293658 2353293 2407419 2465197 2534222 2605180

MOVING AROUND 898100 974800 1091055 1115012 1139448 1167557 1205415 1230783 1257785 1290142 1333421

OUR COUNCIL 8199300 8535200 8914235 9171112 9449855 9707721 9657153 9915912 10188118 10479391 10777745

TOTAL REVENUE 12173600 13048600 13551724 13902242 14348560 14657272 14738893 15096440 15487462 15974308 16359724

EXPENDITURE OUR HERITAGE AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT 1006500 882600 929026 942616 976361 1000718 1077633 1063954 1100062 1132925 1181052 OUR COMMUNITY AND LIFESTYLE 3117000 3284000 3370426 3430331 3680644 3647988 3752074 3839117 3975183 4220833 4209306

OUR ENVIRONMENT 2449300 2771000 2766585 2853370 2902733 3010146 3073937 3140196 3237375 3346179 3438520

MOVING AROUND 3385400 3513300 3575554 3790606 3853913 3911597 3972185 4227153 4299064 4374492 4453223

OUR COUNCIL 3619000 3879100 3892188 4023485 4191460 4444001 4505965 4671047 4871796 5152371 5219083

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 13577200 14330000 14533779 15040407 15605111 16014450 16381796 16941467 17483480 18226801 18501184

NET OPERATIONS -1403600 -1281400 -982055 -1138165 -1256552 -1357178 -1642902 -1845027 -1996018 -2252493 -2141460

CAPITAL

CAPITAL REVENUE OUR HERITAGE AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT 40000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OUR COMMUNITY AND LIFESTYLE 0 515000 625000 410000 80000 0 0 0 0 0 0



MOVING AROUND 0 70000 0 0 100000 0 0 0 0 0 0

OUR COUNCIL 3529500 3841000 3501255 3886552 3976808 4202749 3999109 4133726 4211314 4624834 4346034

TOTAL CAPITAL REVENUE 3569500 4426000 4126255 4296552 4156808 4202749 3999109 4133726 4211314 4624834 4346034

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OUR COMMUNITY AND LIFESTYLE 339000 560500 993500 787000 485500 584000 116000 53000 31000 16000 21000

OUR ENVIRONMENT 80000 106000 82500 63000 65000 43000 63000 63000 63000 65000 53000

MOVING AROUND 536300 897200 886600 1068300 1176440 1149450 1090790 982050 952600 1206100 1121950

OUR COUNCIL 1210600 1558500 1186022 1250361 1220943 1262981 1234368 1217279 1234270 1256608 1285585 TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 2165900 3122200 3148622 3168661 2947883 3039431 2504158 2315329 2280870 2543708 2481535

NET CAPITAL 1403600 1303800 977633 1127891 1208925 1163318 1494951 1818397 1930444 2081125 1864499

NET SURPLUS/DEFICIT(-) 0 22400 -4422 -10274 -47627 -193860 -147951 -26630 -65574 -171368 -276961



ITEM NO : 2

SUBJECT : SESQUICENTENARY CELEBRATIONS TIME CAPSULE

BUSINESS PROGRAM : MANAGEMENT & COUNCIL SUPPORT

REPORTING OFFICER : BARRY SMITH

Council will celebrate the conclusion, at its Ordinary Meeting on 12 March 2012, of the year long Sesquicentenary celebrations which began on 14 March 2011. Following a wonderful year of events and celebrations which included the whole of the Municipality, it is considered appropriate to preserve the record of these activities in a time capsule to be buried in the grounds of the Town Hall. A “treasure chest” of current history, culture, trends and special memories will provide a glimpse into an exciting time of change for future Councillors, staff, volunteers and members of the community. Photos and archival documents, (many of which have been recorded on file), or photos of landmarks that might not be there when the time capsule is opened, together with visions for the future of Hunter’s Hill Council in 2062 will be included. The contents will provide a tangible and evocative link between a past filled with achievement and a future full of potential and it is a wonderful way to reach into the future to give a sense of who we were and what life was like for us.

The details should be stored on a Hard Drive as CD’s and DVD’s only have a life span of 5

years, whereas, it is anticipated that a hard drive will be accessible in 50 years. The following

are suggested inclusions:

A Mayoral Address to the Municipality

List of all Mayors & Councillors and photos as available

Photos of Mayors 1861 – 2012 – as available

Sesquicentenary Celebration Calendar and Memorabilia

Sesquicentenary Music “Where the Waters Meet” written especially for the Celebrations by

Sydney-based composer Matthew Orlovich for the Joubert Singers with lyrics written by

Elizabeth McGeorge

The Annual Report

Current Coins

Photo of how the Town Hall looks

Letterhead & Business cards

Newspaper articles

Hunters Hill Badge

A metal Grade 316 Stainless steel enclosure, with a protection category IP66, suitable for use in highly aggressive, corrosive or sterile environments as found in the Marine, Hospital, Food, Chemical and Mining fields is recommended for Hunter’s Hill Council. This type of cabinet will withstand all types of natural hazards and costs $600.00. Enquiries have been made for a suitable plaque to be placed over the capsule with the following inscription.



It is proposed that the Time Capsule be placed at the front of the Town Hall.

FINANCIAL IMPACT The estimated cost of the time capsule, storage area and plaque is $2,500 and this can be funded from the budget provided for Town Hall maintenance. RECOMMENDATION 1. That Council approve the location for the sinking of a Time Capsule to be opened on

Monday 13 March 2062.

2. That the Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held on 12 March, 2012 commence at the earlier time of 7.00pm and that the change be advised in the local press.

HUNTER’S HILL COUNCIL

Established 1861

TIME CAPSULE

Presented to the Municipality of Hunters Hill

on the celebration of the Sesquicentenary of the Council 14 March 2011—12 March 2012

To be opened by the Council on the Bicentenary

Monday 13 March 2062

Councillor Susan R. Hoopmann MAYOR

Barry R. Smith GENERAL MANAGER



ITEM NO : 3

SUBJECT : CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT – CONTIBUTION OF FUNDS

BUSINESS PROGRAM : COUNCIL MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT

REPORTING OFFICER : BARRY R. SMITH

The Presidents of the LGSA have written to all NSW Mayors and General Managers to update them on the progress for achieving Constitutional Recognition of Local Government and to provide an indication as to what the LGSA believes each council’s financial contribution to a national advertising campaign will be.

In 2010 in response to some strong ground work by the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) and the LGSA, the Federal Government committed to holding a referendum in conjunction with the next Federal election to include recognition of Local Government in the Australian Constitution.

In 2011 the Prime Minister set up an Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government. The Expert Panel released its findings on 22 December 2011.

A copy of the Expert Panel’s findings and all submissions can be found at http://www.localgovrecognition.gov.au/content/final-report

ALGA is leading the campaign on behalf of Local Government across the country, and to date more than 90% of councils in Australia have moved motions in support of Constitutional Recognition of Local Government. In addition to all councils continuing to actively lobby for this important issue at a local level, ALGA will be asking all State and Territory Associations and their member councils to contribute financially to a large scale national advertising campaign to gain public support for a ‘yes vote’ when the time for a referendum comes.

ALGA’s planning for this national campaign is in the early stages, as they were waiting to review the response from the Expert Panel, however the LGSA advises that they know that substantial funds will be required to execute the campaign. Whilst ALGA and the State and Territory Associations are yet to determine the scope and content of a national advertising campaign, LGSA advises that funds will be required from each council in NSW.

Each NSW Mayor and General Manager was sent a letter on Monday, 9 January 2012 alerting them early in the current budget cycle of the likely funds required, allowing councils to factor this contribution into budgets for the 2012/2013 and subsequent financial years.

Should the referendum or the national advertising campaign not go ahead for any reason, instalments paid to the LGSA will be refunded.

In order for the referendum to be successful it requires a ‘double majority’, which is a majority of ‘yes votes’ from a majority of voters, and a majority of states. As NSW is the most populated state, success in NSW is critical to the success of a national campaign.

The LGSA will provide an update on the next steps required. In the meantime, ALGA has developed background information for council to use, and this is available lease on their website on http://www.councilreferendum.com.au.



This matter is also the subject of a report to the NSROC Board meeting on 9 February 2012 and the outcome of that meeting will be advised to Council when this matter is considered.

FINANCIAL IMPACT Council’s contribution will be $8,454.23, payable in three instalments of $2818.08 over three years.

The contribution, or levy, has been calculated using the same standard formula when calculating similar levies, such as for legal assistance.

Allowance for the contribution has not been included in the budget at this time.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council indicate to the LGSA that it is prepared to support and pay the contribution if the referendum and campaign proceed.

J

Committees

J - Committees

4318 - 13 February 2012

Index

1. Report of Councillor Workshops & Briefings held 12 December 2011. 1 2. Minutes of the Mainstreet Committee - Hunters Hill Village held 30 November

2011 2

3. Minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel (CAP) Meeting held 7 December 2011

5

4. Minutes of the Sustainability and Biodiversity Committee held 1 February 2012 11 5. Minutes of the Sustainability and Biodiversity Committee Held 2 November 2011 14 6. Minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel (CAP) Meeting held 16 November

2011 19

................................ Barry Smith

General Manager

REPORT OF COMMITTEES Meeting 4318 - 13 February 2012 J1


ITEM NO : 1

SUBJECT : REPORT OF COUNCILLOR WORKSHOPS & BRIEFINGS HELD 12 DECEMBER 2011.

BUSINESS PROGRAM : MANAGEMENT & COUNCIL REPORT


On Monday 12 December 2011, Councillors attended a briefing in the Small Hall, which commenced at 5.30pm PRESENT Clr Susan Hoopmann Mayor Clr Richard Quinn Deputy Mayor Clr Peter Astridge Clr Murray Butt Clr Simon Frame Clr Ross Sheerin Barry Smith General Manager Steve Kourepis Group Manager Development & Regulatory Control David Innes Group Manager Works & Services Debra McFadyen Group Manager Corporate Governance John Cole BRIEFING Information and background was provided to Councillors on: 1. Long Term Financial Plan 2. Proposed Draft Budget 3. Proposed Special Rate Variation 4. Legal Matters

A Confidential Legal Briefing was provided to Councillors on Development Applications subject to appeals in the Land and Environment Court.

FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report.

RECOMMENDATION That the report be received and noted.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil



ITEM NO : 2 SUBJECT : MINUTES OF THE MAINSTREET COMMITTEE -

HUNTERS HILL VILLAGE HELD 30 NOVEMBER 2011 BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REPORTING OFFICER : STEVE KOUREPIS The Meeting commenced at 4.40pm in the Council chambers.

PRESENT

Clr Peter Astridge Hunters Hill Council Sam Arnaout 64-68 Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill Justin Burt 1b/45 Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill Lisa Lacantro Silicato 77 Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill Adrain Black Community Events Co-Ordinator Steve Kourepis Group Manager, Development & Regulatory Control APOLOGIES

Mario Pellegrino 12 Joubert Street, Hunters Hill Elizabeth Krassoi 4 Mary Street, Hunters Hill

1. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – 9 November 2011

Moved by Sam Arnaout. Seconded by Justin Burt 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Nil. 3. MATTERS ARISING FROM PREVIOUS MINUTES Public Domain/Physical Improvements Entry Statement

The Committee requested that prior to amended plans being referred back to Council for implementation that they would like to see the final plans, in particular, the Committee wanted to view finishes and materials such as paving etc. SK raised the concern of the removal the two existing trees and the plan needed to be amended, so that that the two larger existing trees be retained as part of the landscape feature. Discussions took place with regard to a proposal of permanent umbrellas within the landscape area and specification to be provided to Council by Lisa Lacantro Silicato by Grinders, Grinders Coffee People. It was agreed by all that the amended concept plans of the entry statement to be referred back to the Committee prior to Council viewing the final plans.



Christmas Lighting of Christmas Trees Discussion took place with regard to cost associated with lighting 3 particular trees. Adrian Black provided a fee proposal of a minimum of $800.00 per tree which incorporated labour and installation for 3 trees or an alternative was to light up and decorate 1 tree for $2000.00 and to ensure the lights remain for future years. It was advised that the lighting of the tree should start immediately and be up for a 1 month period. SK suggested that shop keepers if they were keen to do this should pay for the installation for the Christmas lighting of the tree. Lisa Lacantro Silicato indicated that she was happy to provide power for the tree and Sam Arnout from Hunters Hill Hotel pledged a $200.00 donation to the lighting of the tree. SK advised that all members should go round to all the business community within the Hunters Hill Village for donations to pay for the overall installation.

5. GENERAL BUSINESS

Village Fair Celebrations – Sesquicentenary Friday 9 March 2012 between 4.00pm and 10.00pm Peter Astridge indicated that the fair should be similar to the Cremone, (in North Sydney) Friday night “Food Stalls” and that the following be recommended: locals should have the first preferences (then other operators); to be food and wine; limited it to two (2) types of food stalls and to also include entertainment.

Firstly to clarify that the event would be at the end celebration to the Sesquicentenary of Hunters Hill to be held Friday 9 March 2012 between 4.00pm and 10.00pm. Charge of food stalls - minimum fee $250.00 and there could be a short fall of $20,000.00. It was recommended that a “Village Fair Celebration” being the end of Sesquicentenary Celebrations be held at Gladesville Road on 9 March 2012 between 4.00pm and 10.00pm, at a minimum fee for stalls of $250.00 where locals have first preference, limited to 2 types of food stalls and Council allocates $20,000 for the implementation of this celebration.

6. NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the Main Street Committee of the Hunters Hill Village is to be held on Wednesday 1 February 2012 at the Gladesville Community Centre at 44 Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill commencing at 4.30pm.

FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact as a result of consideration of this report.



RECOMMENDATIONS A. That the minutes be received and noted. B. That a “Village Fair Celebration” being the end of Sesquicentenary Celebrations be

held at Gladesville Road on 9 March 2012 between 4.00pm and 10.00pm, at a minimum fee for stalls of $250.00 where locals have first preference, limited to 2 types of food stalls and Council allocates $20,000 for the budget for the implementation of this celebration.

. ATTACHEMENTS Nil



ITEM NO : 3

SUBJECT : MINUTES OF THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY PANEL (CAP) MEETING HELD 7 DECEMBER 2011


REPORTING OFFICER : GREG PATCH

The Meeting commenced at approx. 5.30 at the Council Chambers.

PRESENT Clr Sue Hoopmann Mayor, Hunter’s Hill Council Clr Meredith Sheil Hunter’s Hill Council Brian McDonald RAIA Member Beverley Garlick Community Representative Steve Kourepis Group Manager, Development & Regulatory Control Greg Patch Heritage Adviser APOLOGIES

Robyn Christie National Trust Representative Tony Coote Hunters Hill Trust Representative

1. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of 16 November 2011 were read. Item 3.4-1 Passy Ave, Hunters Hill-s96 (3) in relation to the Passy Ave fence to be amended to read:

While the CAP is aware that the Passy Ave boundary fence is not part of the proposed s96(3) modifications to the consent, the historical evidence that has come to light in relation to the existence of a timber picket fence in the 19th century should inform a review of the design of the fence to the street frontage, and the Panel would be very supportive of such a modification.

The Resolution be amended to read:

The CAP has no objections to the proposed modifications to the consent as proposed under the s96 (3) proposal.

Item 3.6- 34-36 Woolwich Rd, Hunters Hill:

delete reference to “colourful character”. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Nil



3. INTERVIEWS WITH APPLICANTS 3.1 15 Mount Street, Hunters Hill

There was no representative of the applicant in attendance, so the Panel considered the proposal in their absence. It is proposed to “reconstruct” the fire damaged stone cottage which is listed as a heritage item under Sch. 6 of Hunters Hill LEP No 1, and to make alterations and additions to it- as an attached pavilion, with a further attached “integrated house”. The CAP had considered a previous proposal for the property in May 2011. In examining the current proposal, the Panel noted that:

• The articulation and massing is an improvement on the previously considered scheme, with the link structure more recessive and the garages less dominant.

• The hipped roof volumes to the proposed additions could be reduced by lowering the pitch from approx. 1/3 pitch to ¼ pitch (nom. 27.5°).

• The fenestration divisions and operations should be shown on the drawings.

• Further detailing of elements such as the eaves/ fascias, verandah to the stone cottage, and external materials, colours and finishes is required.

• The fences to Cullens Lane and Mount Street appear appropriate. Committee Resolution: That the Manager, Development & Regulatory Control, be advised that the CAP is of the view that the proposal is greatly improved, but that further design and detail refinement is required before it will attract the CAP’s full support.

3.2 15 Hunter Street, Hunters Hill

The Panel was addressed by the planner, Andrew Martin of AM Planning. It was noted that the Panel had considered a previous proposal for the demolition of the existing, and erection of a new house to the subject property in early 2011, but that the application had failed due to view loss issues. A new architect has been appointed and preliminary comments were sought of the CAP in relation to the revised scheme.

In examining the current proposal, the Panel was of the view that:

• The southern wall is excessively lengthy and unarticulated. More modulation is required. This may be achieved by indenting the lift and stair towards the front of the house, and providing an inset in the Bedroom1-ensuite-entry area. It was also advised that the planting to the boundary to the adjoining Goat Paddock should be plotted and indicated on the drawings. The proposed fence to the Goat Paddock boundary should also be detailed and indicated on the elevations

• It appears there is a discrepancy in the plans -v- elevation to the south-eastern corner of the proposal.

• Full details of the proposed external materials, finishes and colours should be provided.



It was noted that the proposal is somewhat similar in layout to the previous proposal but that adjustments have been made to the south-western corner in response to the view issues. Committee Resolution: That the Manager, Development & Regulatory Control, be advised of the CAP’s comments in relation to the proposal and that the Panel looks forward to further reviewing the amended scheme.

3.3 69 Ryde Road, Hunters Hill

The meeting was addressed by Aaron Leeman-Smith of Order Architects It is proposed to demolish an existing outbuilding to the rear of the above premises (which is the site of a stone cottage, listed under Sch. 6 of HHLEP) and erect a new two-storey “POD” building with a linking transverse skillion to the existing rear skillion roof to the cottage. The Panel examined the drawings and supporting material for the application and concluded that the proposal is an entirely appropriate resolution of the desire to provide additional accommodation to such a property without undue impacts on the fabric and setting of the heritage item. Committee Resolution: That the Manager, Development & Regulatory Control, be advised that the CAP is of the view that the proposal is supportable in both its heritage and conservation implications.

3.4 52 Sunnyside St, Gladesville

The meeting was addressed by the owners, Alison & John Piro, and designer, Robyn Joines.

The Panel had considered a proposal for rear additions to the existing house, which is a Schedule 7 listed house within Hunters Hill Conservation area No 2 at its meeting of September 2011. The proposal has since been re-designed to separate the proposed extension from the volume of the existing house in an “attached pavilion” mode.

In examining the proposal, the Panel were of the view that the scheme is now more supportable, but that relatively minor modifications to the detailing of the roof is required. These include:

• Deletion of the side eaves overhangs to the proposed “shed” dormers – the barges should be fixed hard into the cheek cladding- but maintain the front eaves as drawn.

• A reduction in width of the west ends of the north and south facing dormers to allow more of the roof to be legible. The extent of reduction is approximately 450 mm to the west ends of the dormers.

The amendments are to be reviewed by Council’s heritage advisor.

Committee Resolution: That the Manager, Development & Regulatory Control, be advised that the CAP considers the proposal to be supportable, given that the advised modifications are effected and reviewed by Council’s heritage advisor.



3.5 44 The Point Road, Woolwich

The Panel was addressed by the owner, Mrs Holliday, and designer, Nicole Porter of House Plans by Design It is proposed to make alterations and additions to the existing house “Kanimbla”, which is a Sch. 6 listed item within Hunters Hill Conservation Area No 1 by way of an “attached pavilion” addition to the south-eastern quarter of the house (facing The Point Road), a dormer window to the upper level store room, and closing an existing inset skylight. The Panel made some preliminary observations in terms of the nature of the linking structure to the “attached pavilion”, and the bulk of this element, but concluded that a better informed assessment of the proposal would be had through a site inspection. It was advised that the Panel wished to inspect the premises prior to the meeting of 15 February 2012 at 4.30 pm. Committee Resolution: That the Manager, Development & Regulatory Control, be advised that the CAP wishes to inspect the property as detailed above.

3.6 40 Auburn Street, Hunters Hill There was no representative of the applicant present, so the Panel considered the proposal in their absence.

It is proposed to demolish the existing Sch. 7 listed “contributory building” to the subject premises, and erect a new two-storey dwelling.

Given that the existing house is listed as a “contributory building” and is to be demolished, the CAP is of the view that a more informed assessment of the proposal would be had through an inspection of the existing house. A tentative time of 5.00 pm on Wednesday 15th February 2012- prior to the next CAP meeting was decided upon. Committee Resolution: That the Manager, Development & Regulatory Control, be advised that the CAP seeks to inspect the premises prior to its next meeting- as detailed above.

4.0 GENERAL BUSINESS 4.1 10 Viret St, Hunters Hill

It is proposed to make alterations and additions to an existing garage and front boundary wall at the Viret Street frontage of the subject property, which is adjacent a Sch. 6 listed item (12 Viret St), and within Hunters Hill Conservation Area No 1. In considering the proposal, the CAP was of the view that the proposed alterations and additions would give rise to a structure that is excessively bulky and that the proposed double width garage door (currently two single doors separated by and intermediate pier) is contrary to the guidelines of Hunters Hill DCP 15 with regard to minimising the impacts of such structures on the streetscape and character of the conservation area.



Furthermore, the proposed partial raising of the existing street boundary wall will further exacerbate screening of views of the garden and house, and possibly views from the street to the Lane Cove River. Notwithstanding the above comments, it was noted that the drawings contain insufficient detailing to properly assess the proposal and that the representation of the existing roof does not make sense geometrically.

4.2 4 Aspinall Place, Woolwich

It was noted that the proposed s96 modification to the design with regard to reversion to a “flat” roof with corbelled cornice would entail the deletion of the eaves, and that this is a retrograde step in terms of the perception of bulk of the house. In the CAP’s view eaves would assist in reducing the impact of the building on the character of the conservation area and heritage items in the vicinity. The proposed fenestration changes are considered minor and supportable.

4.3 34-36 Woolwich Road, Hunters Hill

The meeting was addressed by Mr Malcm Rose, and requested to consider a proposed amendment to the design of the roof to the proposed loft area of the existing garage. It is proposed to pitch the roof as a conventional hip at ½ pitch (45°) off a springing point at 1.5 metres above the floor- dispensing with the previously proposed mansard arrangement.

The Panel advised that it was of the view that some further reduction in height could be achieved in terms of the head height to the garage, and that the proposed dormers should be simplified- as a conventional barge and tile verge, rather than the proposed moulded pediment arrangement. Similarly, the “oculus” should be simplified.

4.4 70 Alexandra St, Hunters Hill The Panel reviewed proposed amendments to the street façade composition of the

proposal, in light of its previous comments. It was concluded that the existing street-facing gable, colonnaded porch and projecting bay (with standing seam, “flat” roof) should be retained as is.

4.5 33 Augustine St, Hunters Hill The Panel reviewed proposed s96 modifications to the “integrated housing”

development to the above property. It is proposed to make relatively minor adjustments to the roofline and volume of the upper levels of the dwellings.

The Panel raised no objection to the proposed modifications.

5.0 SITE INSPECTIONS

Nil

6.0 NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the CAP will be held on Wednesday, 15 February 2012- commencing at 4.30 pm at 44 The Point Road, Woolwich.



FINANCIAL IMPACT


RECOMMENDATION That the minutes be received and noted.



ITEM NO : 4

SUBJECT : MINUTES OF THE SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY COMMITTEE HELD 1 FEBRUARY 2012

BUSINESS PROGRAM : WORKS AND SERVICES

REPORTING OFFICER : ANGELA DUNNETT

The Meeting opened at 6.10pm

PRESENT

Bev Debrincat Lyn Mallesch Yvonne Dornan Brigid Dowsett Steven Isaacs Marianne Cannon Sally Gaunt Ross Williams Barry Smith General Manager Richard Quinn Councillor Angela Dunnett Sustainability Officer Jacqui Vollmer Bushland Management Officer APOLOGIES Bob Hayes 1. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved Bev Debrincat, seconded Lyn Mallesch that the Minutes of the previous meeting held 2 November 2011 be confirmed.

2. PROPOSED SPECIAL RATE VARIATION (CONTINUATION OF ENVIRONMENT

SPECIAL LEVY)

The General Manager Barry Smith gave an update on the Community Strategic Plan (CSP) including providing copies of the Delivery and Operational Plans for the Environment Section. Barry Smith explained how the Key Performance Indicators would be used to measure the performance on the delivery of identified programs. Council is currently beginning community consultation rate increase options.

Four hundred households will be asked to take part in a telephone surveys, an

online survey can be found on the Council website and there is also a rates calculator. Barry Smith explained that recent land valuations would mean that some rates would rise, however equally some rates would fall.

As Hunter’s Hill Council is a Group 3 Council the entire process must be finished as submitted to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) by 30 June 2012.



The CSP is a ten to twenty year plan for funding and resources that would help with long-term sustainability of Council’s outside the current four-year political cycles. The CSP is to be reviewed twelve months after a newly elected council and if changes needed to be made would have to seek community consultation before making a submission to IPART.

The Committee also discussed funding for the Priory and Henley Bowling Club,

which Council has recently be handed back as a Reserve Trust Status. These properties would also have to be included in Asset Management Plans. The Council would also seek to undertake a Plan of Management (PoM) for Henley. Some recent funding had been made available to the Priory and some section 94 funds would be used to begin work, Barry Smith said.

The Riverglade PoM was to begin shortly. Bridget Dowsett stressed there needed

to be community consultation during its development with stakeholders. Jacqui Vollmer the Bushland Coordinator was asked to investigate or ask Phil

Sutton to comment on the status on off leash dog walking at Boronia Park as a Council resolution had been passed before.

An investigation of twenty or so cars parking on the grass of Riverglade Reserve

near Weruda Place was also asked to be included in the PoM. It was unclear however if this was private land or part of the reserve at this stage.

Committee Resolution: All bar one community Sustainability and Biodiversity Community members resolved that Council should adopt Option 3 for the improvement of services and infrastructure. The one objector was in favour of Option 2. Option 3 seeks the continuation of special infrastructure levies including the environmental levy and a 2% operations levy to help improve operations such as including the cost of street lighting.

3. STREET TREE PRESERVATION AND PLANTING Committee member Steven Isaacs asked if there was a street tree plan or policy

existed at Hunter’s Hill Council. A previous audit of 50 tree species was undertaken

for Hunter’s Hill Council by Maree Ellis Diploma of Arboriculture 2002. Maree also

wrote a report on species that could be used for street trees. The Committee asked

if there was a tree replacement plan. Ross Williams discussed his desire to ensure

that all new tree plantings were properly watered and cared for in the initial

establishment of trees. Steven Isaacs also added the importance of maintaining the

street trees as a means of acting as a wildlife corridor. Councillor Richard Quinn

asked in trees of cultural significance such as Jacarandas be added to a plan.

Richard Quinn also asked if photos of the changing streetscape of Hunters Hill be

shared with the Committee.

The Committee also expressed its dissatisfaction as to the methods of trimming trees, and the lack of consultation, by utility contractors such as Ausgrid.



Committee Resolution: The SaBAC Committee resolved that an updated Street Tree Policy be investigated by Council and the first step would be to do a desktop survey of what Street Tree Policies other councils had. Phillip Sutton the Parks and Landscape Coordinator would be asked to the next SaBAC meeting. 4. BUSINESS ARISING Angela Dunnett the Sustainability Officer called for more volunteers for CleanUp Australia Day. Angela has been working with community groups and the Gladesville Chamber of Commerce to promote and provide educational activities around CleanUp Australia Day. Angela Dunnett and Yvonne Dornan also discussed the problem with placement of Clothing bins around Gladesville business district. Some of the clothing bins, many

which appear to be commercial and not linked to a charity, were inappropriately placed and resulting in illegal dumping. Council would take steps to see if it could remove or relocate commercial clothing bins that were encouraging dumping. One of the problematic clothing bins was behind the Commonwealth Bank and the other was on the Cowell Street substation site.

5. NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the Sustainability and Biodiversity Committee will be held on Wednesday 4 April at 6pm.

The meeting closed at 8.35 pm FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report.

RECOMMENDATION That the minutes be received and noted.



ITEM NO : 5

SUBJECT : MINUTES OF THE SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY COMMITTEE HELD 2 NOVEMBER 2011

BUSINESS PROGRAM : WORKS AND SERVICES

REPORTING OFFICER : ANGELA DUNNETT AND JACQUI VOLLMER

The Meeting opened at 6.10 PM.

PRESENT

Richard Quinn Councillor

Bev Debrincat

Lyn Mallesch

Yvonne Dornan

Steven Isaacs

Marianne Cannon

Robert Hayes

Sally Gaunt

Ross Williams

Angela Dunnett Sustainability Officer

Jacqui Vollmer Bushland Management Officer

APOLOGIES

Barry Smith General Manager

David Innes Group Works and Services Manager


RESOLVED on the motion of Angela Dunnett, seconded Robert Hayes that the draft

minutes of the previous meeting held 7 SEPTEMBER 2011.

2. SUSTAINABLE EVENT POLICY AND BACK TO HUNTERS HILL

The Committee was informed about the new Sustainable Event Management Policy

for Hunters Hill. The policy not only aims to reduce generation and impacts of waste

and events, but also considers ways to reduce water and energy and impacts on

biodiversity.

Angela Dunnett the Sustainability Officer said she was calling for environmental

volunteers to be involved in monitoring bins at the up coming Back to Hunters Hill

Picnic day on Sunday 20 November at Clarke’s Point and the Horse Paddock.



Angela said she was working with Adrian Black the Events Co-coordinator to

produce educational banners to go with the recycling stations of the day. The bin

configuration would be a 240L organics bin (orange lid) a 240L container recycling

(yellow lid) and a 120L residual (red lid) bin. The banners showing how to recycle

would be placed directly at eye height. Volunteers would be placed strategically at

high profile areas. There would be lots of picnickers on the day it was envisioned

and only around 20 stalls would be present. Stalls would be provided with cardboard

and paper recycling, small residual bins and extra container recycling for wine stalls.

Messages would be read out on the two main stages throughout the event to

encourage good practice recycling. All staff, volunteers and stallholders at the event

need to be trained to ensure the best outcomes.

Angela said not only are we trying to divert waste from landfill at the picnic but also it

was essential there was a message about littering, particularly as the event is held

adjacent to Sydney Habour.

Committee members suggested approaching Duke of Edinburgh students to be

involved in bin monitoring and using a big worm to promote the composting bin.

3. CLEANUP AUSTRALIA DAY SUNDAY 4 MARCH 2012

Cleanup Australia Day numbers in the Hunters Hill LGA have been waning in recent

years. Angela Dunnett the Sustainability Officer is looking for ways to reinvigorate

Clean Up Australia Day in 2012 and find more volunteers. The Biodiversity and

Sustainability Committee suggested the following to get more people to volunteer for

Cleanup Australia Day.

• Running some advertisements in local newspapers

• Calling for volunteers at other events such as Back to Hunters Hill Picnic

Day.

• Promoting in local shopping centres

• Promoting on local radio

• Sharing and working with adjacent Council areas cleanups in hotspots like

Buffalo Creek

• Banners

Angela was looking at having a BBQ to reward volunteers. A central point to meet

and a concentration on getting families involved were some of the other

suggestions. The Committee agreed that concentrating on creeks and foreshores

such as Gladesville Reserve was a good idea.

Angela has been approached by a local kayak group to do something for Cleanup

Australia day and will pursue this interest. Lyn Mallesch said cleaning up from

Kayaks would be best done at high tide.



The discussion of Clean up Australia Day also lead to a discussion about the

increase in litter found around the place. The Committee asked if there could be

another education campaign to help reduce litter, particularly around schools and

reserves. Angela said she would approach the Northern Region Regional

Organisation of Councils (NSROC) educators to see if they would run a joint

campaign on littering. A joint campaign is much more effective. The Committee also

asked if there were opportunities to work with adjacent councils in hotspots for litter

being swept down the catchment. Angela said she would approach Council Officers

do see if targeting a campaign for these areas to be worked through.

The Committee also discussed the new public waste bins and dog litter. Jacqui

Vollmer and Angela Dunnett would investigate placing bins near the dog bag

dispensers in an attempt to try and encourage good practice waste disposal of dog

faeces.

Angela informed the Committee that all public place bins, which were open at the

top, would be replaced by new wheeling bins with stands. Many of these bins had

been replaced or in the process of replacement.

4. E-WASTE AND GREEN WASTE UPDATE

Angela Dunnett the Sustainability Officer informed the Committee that that there

were current investigations into increasing the green waste collection to fortnightly

collections. It is expected services would begin in January 2012 or July 2012.

Council has received the draft waste audit. Preliminary findings of the audit indicate

a low contamination rate in the paper-recycling bin at 1.7% compared to state

average of 5.4% contamination. However the container recycling had higher than

the state average contamination rates at 8.8% contamination. The state average is

5.4% contamination for the yellow bin. The red (or residual) bin still has higher than

state average food waste at around 42% of the bin capacity.

E-waste such as leads and peripherals were found to be contaminating all waste

streams. This would suggest that Council should continue to hold regular e-waste

drop off days throughout the year. There was currently no budget to fund any e-

waste drop offs. The success of the events could be used to justify continuing to

hold at least one drop off event a year. Councillor Quinn pointed out that diverting e-

waste from landfill could save the tipping fees and would go to offsetting the cost of

holding these drop-offs. The Committee also suggested future e-waste days be held

at the same time each year and preferably around the same time as the Council

cleanups.

Angela informed the Committee of New Product Stewardship Legislation passed in

July 2011, which will require large electronic manufacturers to pay for the costs of

recycling computers and televisions. This scheme is expected to begin operating

within 6 months. Councils are still likely to be involved in collection and funding

model for recouping costs is still to be implemented. Angela Dunnett the

Sustainability Officer said she had written a draft paper to Council to ask for funding

for another e-waste drop off in the next six months based on the need and popularity



of the two events held in 2010-2011. Angela will finalise this paper with David Innes

the Works and Services Manager and present this to Council.

5. FOOD WASTE CHALLENGE

The three workshops for the Food Waste Challenge have now been run jointly with

Lane Cove Council and the Nature Conservation Council. Over seventy people

signed up for the Challenge at the Moocooboola Festival and events held by Lane

Cove Council. Actual numbers in attendance for the first two workshops was low.

Kelli Ginbley from Jamie Oliver’s kitchen talked about cooking with leftovers and the

last workshop participants made preserved lemons, pickles and marmalade. A New

South Wales Government Grant promoting Love Food Hate Waste funded these

workshops.

Angela Dunnett the Sustainability Officer found the program to be excellent and

given that 42% of our red bins were food waste wants to continue to work with the

community on promoting the messages of reducing food waste. Early in 2012

Angela was hoping to run smaller shorter workshops to promote Food Waste

Champions in the community. Angela said she was discussing the opportunity of

working with primary schools P& C’s and preschools to run these workshops

(particularly at working bee days for their kitchen gardens that Council has

contributed grants for).

6. RIVER TO RIVER CORRIDORS PROJECT

The River-to-River Corridors Project is a 3 year NSW Environmental Trust Grant

between Ryde and Hunters Hill Councils, currently in its second year. The project

aims to reconnect two key wildlife corridors linking the Lane Cove and Parramatta

Rivers, one in Ryde and the other in the Hunters Hill LGA. Biodiversity corridors are

a priority of the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority and regional

committees such as the Parramatta River Catchment Group.

A webpage is now up for the project on the Ryde Council website with a link from

the Hunters Hill website. To date, a number of bird survey and ecological reports

have been prepared by a fauna consultant, which are available on the website and

recommendations have been made with regard to high priority sites for revegetation.

In the coming year there will be a focus on the central zone in the wildlife corridor in

Hunters Hill because this section was found to be the most engaged in a social

values questionnaire conducted earlier in the year. There will be community planting

days whereby local residents will be invited via letterbox drop etc to participate in

planting as well as receive a talk on planting habitat in their backyards and free

native plants to get started. The planting sites will be the Victoria Road overpass

and Tarban Creek Reserve. Further suggestions to engage the community in this

project will be appreciated.

It was suggested that the Growers For Greenspace Project could be involved in

growing plants needed for the revegetation sites.

This project is also aiming to engage the schools. There was an opportunity to

promote the project and Bev Debrincat’s Habitat Network in a recent Lane Cove



River Catchment Day organised by Riverview College whereby all high schools in

the catchment were invited to participate in a series of talks and activities from

various agencies.

We have been advised to hold more workshops and planting days in the school

holidays, which is the best time for attracting families. It was suggested that primary

school students are more receptive than high school students. In addition Michele

Greenfield Bushcare Co-ordinator successfully held two workshops for children

between 3 to 7 years in the last school holidays i.e. backyard bugs and under the

sea workshops.

7. NEXT MEETING

The next meeting regularly scheduled meeting of the Sustainability and Biodiversity

Committee will be held on Wednesday 1 February at 6pm in the Council Chambers

22 Alexandra Street Hunters Hill.

The meeting closed at 7.45.

FINANCIAL IMPACT


RECOMMENDATION


ATTACHMENTS

Nil



ITEM NO : 6

SUBJECT : MINUTES OF THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY PANEL (CAP) MEETING HELD 16 NOVEMBER 2011


REPORTING OFFICER : GREG PATCH

The Meeting commenced at approx. 5.30 at the Council Chambers.

PRESENT

Clr Sue Hoopmann Mayor, Hunters Hill Council Robyn Christie National Trust Representative Tony Coote Hunters Hill Trust Representative Brian McDonald RAIA Member Beverley Garlick Community Representative Steve Kourepis Group Manager, Development & Regulatory Control Greg Patch Heritage Adviser APOLOGIES Clr Meredith Sheil Hunters Hill Council


The minutes of the meeting of 21 September 2011 were read and accepted. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Robyn Christie- 70 Alexandra St (nearby resident).

3. INTERVIEWS WITH APPLICANTS 3.1 79 Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill

The Panel was addressed by the owner Graeme Bleus, and architects, Joshua Mulder and Anthea Harrison of Joshua Mulders Architects. It is proposed to make alterations and additions to the existing shop at the above premises through the addition of two additional residential levels as an interpretation of Hunters Hill Village DCP No 27. The shop is one of a group of 3 associated with the curved façade/ parapet on the southern side of Gladesville Road, opposite the heritage-listed Hotel Hunters Hill. There was discussion as to the Conservation Advisory Panel’s [CAP] role in reviewing the proposal. It was advised that the CAP reviews all proposed development in the Hunters Hill Village LEP area by resolution of Council, and in terms of heritage, conservation and urban design. It does not comment on planning matters.



In considering the proposal, the Panel was of the view that the additional bulk of the proposed additions is problematic in that it has something of a “first mover” disadvantage in terms of potential prominence. It was advised that the finish to the proposed upper level additions should be a darker, earthy, more recessive colour than proposed. The proposed louvre finish as a “natural” anodised finished would be better done in a more recessive finish also- a darker, more recessive colour. It was also advised that the fenestration to the upper level of the street façade would be better divided into a three sash composition with intermediate brick piers/ panels of, say 350 mm width, and that the sill height should be revisited with a view to lowering it to allow a more vertical proportion to the windows. Greater shadowing of the uppermost wall is also desirable, and it was recommended that the proposed awning be increased in depth. Committee Resolution: That the Manager, Development & Regulatory Control, be advised that the CAP is of the view that the proposal appears to fit within the guidelines of DCP27, but that the design modifications outlined above should be made to reduce the impact of the proposal.

3.2 23 Mary Street, Hunters Hill

The Panel was addressed by the owner, Derek Taylor, Howard Young of lry architects, and Andrew Martin, planner. It is proposed to build an attached “Integrated Housing” development behind the existing Inter-war Californian Bungalow- influenced cottage fronting Mary Street. The proposed additional dwelling is to be two-storey; though in a “rooms-in-the-roof” mode. In discussing the proposal, the Panel questioned the matter of the varying materials selections between the existing and new development, the proportions and the comparative size of the additions. It was noted that the property is flanked by two-storey residential flat (21 Mary St) and “Integrated Housing” (25 Mary St) developments, the proposed two-storey section is well set back from the street frontage and that the existing mature trees to adjacent the street on the property are to be maintained. Committee Resolution: That the Manager, Development & Regulatory Control, be advised of the CAP’s general acquiescence to the proposal, given the context in which it is to be placed.

3.3 37 A The Point Road , Woolwich

The Panel was addressed by Andrew Martin, planner, Aleksandar Jelecic, architect of Aleksandar Design Group. The owner Lin Fau Yau was also present. It is intended to demolish the existing garage to the property and build a new two-storey house over an excavated basement garage to the above property, which is within Hunters Hill Conservation Area No 1, and in the vicinity of a number of heritage items.



In considering the proposal, the Panel members agreed that the planning of the layout is a well-resolved response to the site and topography. There were, however, distinct reservations as to the architectural expression of the elevations and materials selections. These included the adverse visual impacts of the heavy “frames”/ infill- panels expressed in the walls, selections of materials and colours, and the apparent lack of eaves on the side walls- and some street-facing walls. It was also observed that the “links” between the pavilions are treated in a manner that will negate their ability to allow the legibility of the three distinct pavilions. Given the success of the planning, it would be advantageous to re-visit the treatment of the elevations to make them less stolid. Committee Resolution: That the Manager, Development & Regulatory Control, be advised that the CAP is of the view that, while the approach to the layout of the proposal is sound, more consideration and amendment to the treatment of the facades is required before the proposal will attract the Panel’s full support.

3.4 1 Passy Ave, Hunters Hill- s96 (3)

The meeting was addressed by the architect, Jennifer Hill of Architectural Projects.

It is proposed to modify Development Consent 2006/1079 based on further and more detailed research and consideration of the elements of the proposal under that consent. Much of this was discussed at the CAP meeting of August 2011, and the CAP generally agreed with the detail proposed:

These are largely a product of considerably more research and available historical documentation (tabled) and entail the redesign of elements such as the southern wing (roof form, chimney deletion), the linking structures to this and the northern wing (lighter/ additional glazing) the position and treatment/ expression of the former bell tower structure, and amendments to the subterranean garage (reconfiguration of layout, additional car spaces.)

The historical evidence that the Passy Ave frontage was originally bounded by a relatively tall timber picket fence was discussed, and the Panel members noted that this is not reflected in the documentation under consideration. It was reiterated that a timber picket fence is preferable to that proposed and there is no impediment to validly providing one, given the historical photographic confirmation of the extent and nature of the fence.

The matter of ensuring that the works are executed in an appropriate manner was also discussed and it was concluded that Council should investigate a condition of consent that stipulates construction oversight by a qualified/ experienced heritage & conservation architect as a standard condition for such works. Committee Resolution: That the Manager, Development & Regulatory Control, be advised that the CAP considers the fence to the Passy Ave frontage as documented is inappropriate and will have adverse impacts on the character of the conservation area.

3.5 24 Woolwich Road, Hunters Hill

The Panel was addressed by the owners, Mr & Mrs David & Kathryn Goodman, heritage architect, Karl Romandi of Karl Romandi & Helen De Luis Architects Pty Ltd, and the project architect, Daryl Mete.



It is proposed to make alterations and additions to the existing house- largely by way of an upper level addition and alterations to the rear. The Panel was requested to reconsider the proposal in light of its previous comments, and submissions by Mr Romandi. The Panel reiterated its previous comments, and look further to discussing an amending design. Committee Resolution: That the Manager, Development & Regulatory Control, be advised that the CAP considers the proposal requires further design refinement.

3.6 70 Alexandra Street, Hunters Hill Robyn Christie was not in attendance for this meeting. The Panel was addressed by the architect, James De Soyres, and Owners, Mr & Mrs Dowsett. It is proposed to make alterations and additions to an existing house at the above address, which is in Hunters Hill Conservation Area No 1, and is in the vicinity of at least three Sch. 6 heritage items (68 and 72 Alexandra St, 7 Campbell St). The works include an upper floor and single storey rear wings/ link, garage to the east, and a pool to the rear yard. In considering the proposal, the Panel were of the view that the proposed additional storey accommodation is achievable, but that the design should be further refined to avoid the somewhat “fussy” appearance of the current scheme. It should be simplified through the deletion of the decorative window shutters, retention of the geometry of the existing bay window and the portico. The massing could also be simplified. It was advised that the proponents should discuss the proposal with Council’s heritage adviser to investigate ways and means by which the simplification could be best achieved. Committee Resolution: That the Manager, Development & Regulatory Control, be advised that the CAP recommends design refinement of the proposal to allow it to better respond to the streetscape of Alexandra St, and the character of the conservation area.

3.7 34-36 Woolwich Road, Hunters Hill

RC returned to the meeting.

The Panel was addressed by the owner, Dr Andrew Strokon, heritage consultant, Graham Brooks, and colourful character, Mr Malcolm Rose.

It is proposed to add an upper level bedroom as essentially a room-in-the-roof to the existing garage/ single storey dwelling (as nominated on the drawings). The room is to be contained largely within a mansard roof that springs from 500mm above the floor and has a knee height of 2400, which appears to be the ceiling height. Light and ventilation is provided by bow-headed dormers to the north, west and east, and an oculus window is proposed to the street-facing lower (steeper) roof pitch of the mansard.



It was advised that the design of the roof, while in some respects reflective of that of the house itself, is a form that the CAP do not support due to its culturally charged associations with French architecture of the 2nd Empire and previously the Baroque works of Francois (1598–1666) and later of Jules Hardouin Mansart (1646–1708). Committee Resolution: That the Manager, Development & Regulatory Control, be advised that the CAP considers the roof form to be one to be avoided in Hunters Hill.

4.0 GENERAL BUSINESS 4.1 9 The Point Road, Woolwich

The Panel reviewed the proposal to demolish the existing dilapidated picket fence to the above property, and the intended replacement masonry pier and panel fence. The CAP considers the proposed replacement inappropriate in terms of style, height and materials, and that a fence similar to the existing should be reconstructed.

4.2 18 Vernon St, Hunters Hill

The Panel reviewed the development application [DA] proposal in light of its comments at the preliminary consultation of September 2011.

In examining the DA drawings, the Panel considered that the matters raised: the lowering of the roof to the link; the composition of the elevation of the street face of the link; and the materials/ glazing used and concluded that the link is now appropriate and supportable.

The appearance from the Lane Cove River was also considered and found to be appropriate.

4.3 15 Mount Street, Hunters Hill

The CAP was invited to consider the proposed amending design for the proposed reconstruction of the burnt-out shell of the Sch. 6 listed stone cottage and attached “Integrated Housing” development. No amending drawings following recent discussions with Council staff were forthcoming, so consideration is held in abeyance until they are.

5.0 SITE INSPECTIONS

5.1 70 Alexandra Street, Hunters Hill

SH, TC, BM, SK and GP attended a site inspection commencing at 4.30 pm at the above address to familiarise themselves with the place prior to considering the proposal at the interview later in the evening. A guided tour of the house was given by Mr & Mrs Dowsett and the architect, James De Soyres. The matter was later discussed in an interview- Item 3.6.

5.2 48 Manning Street, Hunters Hill

SH, TC, BM, & SK attended a site inspection of the above premises to inspect the existing house and its context. No representative of the applicant was present and the property was not accessible.

In considering the proposed replacement house, it was concluded that it is an inappropriate “standard” design that takes little account of the particular circumstances of the property and relationship to the character of the area.



6.0 NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the CAP will be held on Wednesday, 7 December 2011- commencing at 5.30 pm in the Council Chambers.

FINANCIAL IMPACT


RECOMMENDATION


K

Correspondence

K - Correspondence

4318 - 13 February 2012

Index

1. Leichhardt Council: Traffic Congestion 1

................................ Barry Smith

GENERAL MANAGER

REPORT OF CORRESPONDENCE Meeting 4318 - 13 February 2012 K1


ITEM NO : 1

SUBJECT : CORRESPONDENCE

BUSINESS PROGRAM : INFORMATION OF COUNCIL


MAYOR OF LEICHHARDT, COUNCILLOR ROCHELLE PORTEOUS, wrote in letter received 3

January 2012 advising Council of a recent resolution made regarding Traffic Congestion –

Victoria Road and Cruise Ship Terminal at White Bay from Leichhardt Council.

Leichhardt Council resolved to write to the Minister for Roads and Ports and request that any

further work on the cruise ship terminal and Corporate Function Centre at White Bay be stopped

until further investigations about the traffic impact on Victoria Road, the City West Link and

Anzac Bridge are properly assessed and resolved.

There is potential for significant increases in traffic as a result of the decision to relocate the

cruise ship terminal adjacent to Victoria Road, the City West Link and Anzac Bridge.

FINANCIAL IMPACT


RECOMMENDATION


ATTACHMENTS

Nil

M

General Business

M - General Business

4318 - 13 February 2012

Index

1. Meetings - Various Committees of Council 1

................................ Barry Smith

General Manager

REPORT OF GENERAL BUSINESS Meeting 4318 - 13 February 2012 M1


ITEM NO : 1

SUBJECT : MEETINGS - VARIOUS COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL

BUSINESS PROGRAM : MANAGEMENT & COUNCIL SUPPORT

REPORTING OFFICER : ANNIE HATHAWAY

PURPOSE DATE TIME LOCATION

Conservation Advisory Panel 15.02.12 5.30pm Council Chamber

Sesquicentenary Committee Meeting 15.02.12 5.30pm Small Hall

Art & Craft Advisory Committee 15.02.12 6.30pm Small Hall

Public Transport & Traffic Advisory Committee 21.02.12 6.00pm Council Chamber

Gladesville Joint Library Advisory Committee 22.02.12 5.30pm Gladesville Library

Hunters Hill – Le Vesinet Friendship Committee 07.03.12 6.30pm Chamber

School Principals Committee 14.03.12 1.00pm Small Hall

Bushland Management Advisory Committee 19.03.12 4.00pm Chamber

Children’s Services Committee 27.03.12 12.30pm Council Chamber

Access Advisory Committee 29.03.12 12.30pm Council Chamber

Hunters Hill Seniors Advisory Committee 02.04.12 11.00am 35 Gladesville Road

Sustainability & Biodiversity Advisory Committee 04.04.12 6.00pm Council Chamber

Mainstreet Committee – Hunters Hill Village 11.04.12 4.30pm 44 Gladesville Road

Gladesville Road Community Centre Management Committee

07.06.12 2.00pm 44 Gladesville Road

Financial & Strategic Planning Working Party TBA 5.30pm Small Hall

Moocooboola Festival Committee TBA 6.00pm Council Chamber

Hunters Hill / Ryde Local Traffic Advisory

Committee

TBA 9.30am Council Chamber

Local Place Names Committee TBA 9.30am Council Chamber

Parramatta River Committee TBA 9.30am Council Chamber

FINANCIAL IMPACT


RECOMMENDATION


Ordinary Meeting No. 4318 · 2020. 12. 23. · Clr Peter Astridge Clr Simon Frame Clr Murray Butt...

Documents

Transcript of Ordinary Meeting No. 4318 · 2020. 12. 23. · Clr Peter Astridge Clr Simon Frame Clr Murray Butt...