Council Meeting

Notice of Meeting

 

Monday, 1 May 2017

24 April 2017

 

An Ordinary Meeting of Council will be held at 6.00pm in the Civic Theatre, MacMahon Street, Hurstville on Monday, 1 May 2017 for consideration of the business available on Council's website at http://www.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au/Council/Council-Meetings.

 

  

 

 

Gail Connolly

General Manager

 

BUSINESS

1.      Acknowledgement of Country

2.      Apologies

3.      Disclosures of Interest

4.      Administrator Minute

5.      Minutes of previous meetings

6.      Environment and Planning

7.      Finance and Governance

8.      Assets and Infrastructure

9.      Community and Culture

10.    Confidential items

 


 

 

 

 

ORDINARY MEETING

Summary of Items

Monday, 1 May 2017

 

Previous Minutes

MINUTES: COUNCIL MEETING - 3 APRIL 2017

 

Environment and Planning

CCL058-17       Consultation of proposed guidelines for Places of Public Worship

(Report by Manager Strategic Planning)................................................................... 2

CCL059-17       Community Consultation Results on the Future Uses of the Former Oatley Bowling Club

(Report by Executive Manager)................................................................................. 25

CCL060-17       Section 94 Plan Amendments

(Report by Manager Strategic Planning)................................................................. 92

CCL061-17       Determination of Development Applications Policy

(Report by Team Leader Major Projects)................................................................ 101

CCL062-17       Summary of Development Applications lodged and determined

(Report by Manager Development and Building)................................................ 110

CCL063-17       Planning Proposal - No 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville - Post Exhibition Report

(Report by Coordinator Strategic Planning).......................................................... 114

CCL064-17       Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy and Implementation

(Report by Senior Planner)...................................................................................... 165

Finance and Governance

CCL065-17       Tender for Public Amenties Upgrades at Lower Gannons Park and Oatley Park

(Report by Manager Project Delivery).................................................................... 192

CCL066-17       Advice on Court Proceedings - April 2017

(Report by General Counsel,)................................................................................. 194

CCL067-17       Investment Report as at 31 March 2017

(Report by Team Leader Financial Reporting)..................................................... 201

 

 


 

CCL068-17       Revisions of Council's Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Charter and the Committee's Audit Charter

(Report by Internal Auditor)...................................................................................... 217

CCL069-17       Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Minutes - 31 October 2016 and 6 December 2016

(Report by Internal Auditor)...................................................................................... 244

CCL070-17       Property Matter - Proposed Low Impact Telecommunications Facility at Redin Place Reserve, Connells Point

(Report by Property Portfolio Manager)................................................................. 254

CCL071-17       Draft Georges River Council CCTV Operations Policy

(Report by Director Transformation and Change)............................................... 267

CCL072-17       Risk Management Update and Draft Georges River Risk Management Policy

(Report by Director Transformation and Change)............................................... 274

Assets and Infrastructure

CCL073-17       Georges River Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 18 April 2017

(Report by Manager Infrastructure)........................................................................ 282

CCL074-17       Draft Georges River Council Graffiti and Posters Policy

(Report by Project Leader)........................................................................................ 288

CCL075-17       University of Wollongong Jubilee Oval - Update on Management Activities

(Report by Executive Manager Jubilee Stadium and Facilities)....................... 299

Community and Culture

CCL076-17       Community Development and Services Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 10 April 2017

(Report by Manager Community and Cultural Development)........................... 301

CCL077-17       Draft Georges River Council Complaints Policy

(Report by Project Leader)........................................................................................ 305

CCL078-17       Draft Georges River Council Sister City Policy

(Report by Community Development Officer, Cultural Services)...................... 320

CCL079-17       Draft Georges River Council Sponsorship and Donation Policy

(Report by Manager Community and Cultural Development)........................... 329

Confidential (Closed Session)

CON005-17       Tender for Public Amenties Upgrades at Lower Gannons Park and Oatley Park

(Report by Manager Project Delivery)  

 

 

 

AGENDA

1.      Acknowledgement of Traditional Custodians

Council acknowledges the traditional custodians of the land on which this meeting is being held as the Biddegal people of the Eora Nation.

2.      Apologies 

3.      Disclosure of Interest

4.      Administrator Minutes

5.      Minutes of previous meetings

          COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - 3 APRIL 2017


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                           Page 5

 

Environment and Planning

 

Item:                   CCL058-17        Consultation of proposed guidelines for Places of Public Worship 

Author:              Manager Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the contents of the report be noted.

(b)     That Council conduct community consultation (including webpage, letters, ads and workshops) with representatives of interested groups (including the South Hurstville/Penshurst Action Group) and representatives of the places of public worship within the Georges River LGA on the proposed guidelines for Places of Public Worship.

(c)     That a further report be submitted to the new Council on the outcomes of the community consultation held and outlining a way forward.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.      This report outlines research undertaken by Council Officers into development applications and other council controls relating to places of public worship.

2.      The report contains a set of planning controls and guidelines that have been developed by Council Officers for places of public worship within the Georges River LGA.

3.      The report recommends that the planning controls and guidelines be the subject of extensive consultations over the next 3 months with representatives of interested groups, including the South Hurstville/Penshurst Action Group and representatives of the places of public worship within the Georges River LGA.

4.      A further report will be submitted to new Council on the outcomes of the discussions held and outlining a way forward.

 

Background

5.      A meeting was held with representatives of the South Hurstville/Penshurst action group on 24 October 2016 regarding issues surrounding places of public worship.

6.      Council Officers advised the residents that Council will consider their submission and request for amendments to the planning controls and prepare a response based on research and consideration of the following:

a.   Identify the number of applications the Council(s) have received for places of public worship in the past 5 years;

b.   Consideration of issues raised in recent applications - by Council and the community and how were they dealt with;

c.   Research  the Complaints and compliance issues on activities associated with Places of Public Worship – such as noise, parking, etc.;

d.   Review of the current controls and identify the areas that could be amended to address issues (as above);

e.   Research - the approach applied by other Councils (does the Department of Planning & Environment have a policy position on Places of Public Worship);

f.    Understand the operational requirements of facilities/Places of Public Worship for a range of denominations; and

g.   Establish a way forward on Places of Public Worship -i.e. should an amendment to the LEPs/DCPs be undertaken.

 

Applications received by Council

 

7.      Attachment 1 contains a table identifying the applications received and determined by Council over the past five (5) years.

8.      In summary the research has indicated the following:

·    Eleven (11) applications (DAs and S96 Applications) have been lodged relating to places of public worship. Majority have been approved.

·    Two applications were refused by the Land and Environment Court – 849 King Georges Road South Hurstville & 14 Wright Street Hurstville.

·    Temporary Consents are normally issued in the first instance so as to allow Council to monitor the use and its compliance with the conditions of the consent.

·    Mediation/public meetings are conducted between council, residents and applicant prior to determination of the application.

 

Issues & Compliance

 

9.      Attachment 2 contains a table summarising the issues raised in recent applications and complaints received.

10.    Main issues with Applications have been: car parking; number of attendees (especially at prayer times, particularly during Ramadan); increase in noise and traffic levels; socialising in front of residents homes; safety & security; non-compliance with consents of consent already in place; hours of operation; impact on privacy and overlooking; odour (incense etc.); and the use being in a residential area.

11.    There have only been two compliance matters with the issues being lighting, parking and patron behaviour. These matters were resolved through the Council’s compliance process with the Council’s parking officers increasing patrols in the vicinity of the place of public worship and the Council’s rangers directing operators to comply with conditions of development consent.

 

Current Controls for Places of Public Worship in Georges River Council’s LEPs and DCPs

 

12.    The following table (Table 1) contains a summary of the existing controls:

 

Table 1 – Summary of Existing Controls

 

Instrument/DCP

Control

Hurstville LEP 2012

Permitted in R2 Low Density Residential Zone; R3 Medium Density Residential Zone; B1 Neighbourhood Centre; B2 Local centre; B3 Commercial Core; B4 Mixed use, IN2 Light Industrial.

Hurstville LEP 1994

Permitted in Zone No 3(b) (City Centre Business Zone)

Kogarah LEP 2012

Permitted in R2 Low Density Residential Zone; R3 Medium Density Residential Zone; B1 Neighbourhood Centre; B2 Local centre; B4 Mixed use, IN2 Light Industrial; SP2 Infrastructure; E4 Environmental Living.

Hurstville DCP No. 1

1 car space per 10 seats or 1 space per 10m2 (GFA whichever is the greater).

GFA is defined in the Hurstville LEP 2012.

Kogarah DCP 2013

1 car parking space per 5 seats or 5m2 of public seating, whichever is greater and bicycle parking (1 space per 5 parking spaces).

Some places of public worship operate with no seating arrangement (for eg mosques) and as such the use of the word “seat” relate to patronage level.

In the case of the application for the place of public worship within the former Kogarah LGA the applicant was required to provide the number of prayer mats which could be accommodated.

 

13.    There is no separate section in the Council’s DCPs on places of public worship – the only specific controls relate to carparking numbers.

14.    Other sections of the DCPs apply to all developments such as – heritage, streetscape, setbacks, site amalgamations, locality controls, advertising and signage.

15.    Controls do not exist for operational matters such as number of attendees (especially at prayer times, particularly during Ramadan); noise; socialising in front of residents homes; safety & security; hours of operation.

16.    Section 79C provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 require issues such as noise, traffic, parking, etc to be addressed as part of the determination of a development application.

17.    Additional controls in the Council’s development control plans will be beneficial to applicants and the community as it will provide a clear direction on the suitability of locations (and sites) for places of public worship; it will indicate the range of matters that Council requires to be addressed in a Statement of Environmental Effects; and what will be required in an plan of management for the use and operation of a place of public worship.

 

Research

18.    The Department of Planning & Environment have no policy position on places of public worship – apart from making them a mandatory land use in the following applicable standard LEP zones: R3 Medium Density Residential and IN2 Light Industrial Zone.

19.    A number of Councils have controls in their DCPs relating to places of public worship. These relate to a wide range of controls:

·    Site analysis.

·    Location & traffic management;

·    Minimum lot width and frontages;

·    Height;

·    Setbacks;

·    Access to sunlight;

·    Urban design & energy efficiency;

·    Acoustic privacy;

·    Hours of operation;

·    Requirement for management plans; open space and landscaped areas;

·    Ancillary uses such as offices, dwellings, libraries etc;

·    Site facilities and services, including waste management; and

·    Safety and security – such as fencing, security devices.

 

20.    The table below (Table 2) provides the key points from the research.

21.    Attachment 3 contains the full set of controls obtained through the research which may be applicable to the Georges River LGA.

 

Table 2 – Key Points from Research

 

Subject

 

What other Councils Require?

Permissibility

Limit to R3, R4, B4 and IN2 zones.

Not permitted in R2 zones.

 

Definitions

 

 

Include definitions for:

·    small-scale place of public worship

·    large-scale place of public worship

·    Assembly Area

·    Ancillary areas

 

Operation management plan

Require an operation management plan with DA lodgement. The plan addresses hours of operation, noise, attendance numbers, parking, traffic.

 

Traffic Impact

Require traffic controls such as:

·    Development site not to exceed the environmental capacity maximum of the street.

·    If the environmental capacity maximum is already exceeded, the development must maintain the existing level of absolute delay of that street.

·    Street Intersection level of service not below Level B. If the existing level of service is below Level B, the development must maintain the existing level of absolute delay of that street intersection.

·    The car park / manoeuvring areas and the set–down and pick–up areas must locate separately behind the front building line.

 

Allotment size

Require minimum allotment width and areas for places of public worship.

 

Height

Consider wall heights and spires, towers, minarets and similar structures, which exceed the wall height limit on the basis of their bulk and scale, the extent of their overshadowing, and their contribution to the streetscape.

 

Front Setbacks

Require 9m front setbacks.

Require side setbacks to be landscaped.

 

Fences

Limit heights of front fences to 1.8 metres.

Limit materials used in fencing.

 

Noise

Require the lodgement of an acoustic report.

 

Hours of operation

Indicates that Council may limit the hours of operation of places of public worship, public access to places of public worship, and special occasions or events.

 

Neighbour Liaison Committee

Require the operator of a place of public worship in residential zones to organise and chair a Neighbourhood Liaison Committee.

The purpose of the Committee is for the operator and neighbours to resolve any issues, such as traffic and noise, arising from the operation of the place of public worship.

 

Ancillary uses

 

Require the Development Application to detail any proposed ancillary uses, including the nature of the use, how many people will attend, duration and noise impacts.

 

Ancillary use means administration offices, community facilities, dwellings, kitchens, libraries, or other uses directly associated with a place of public worship.

 

Security

Require a security alarm system to be installed in a building.

Require lockage gates on carparking.

Require all windows and doors on the ground floor should ordinarily be made of toughened glass to reduce the opportunities for ‘smash and grab’ and ‘break and enter’ offences.

 

 

Where should Places of Public Worship be permitted?

22.    As indicated in paragraph 12 of this report places of public worship are currently permitted as follows in the Georges River LGA:

 

Table 3 – Permissibility of Places of Public Worship

 

LEP

Permitted in Zones

Hurstville LEP 2012

·    R2 Low Density Residential Zone;

·    R3 Medium Density Residential Zone;

·    B1 Neighbourhood Centre;

·    B2 Local centre;

·    B3 Commercial Core;

·    B4 Mixed use,

·    IN2 Light Industrial.

Hurstville LEP 1994

·    3(b) (City Centre Business Zone)

Kogarah LEP 2012

·    R2 Low Density Residential Zone

·    R3 Medium Density Residential Zone

·    B1 Neighbourhood Centre

·    B2 Local centre

·    B4 Mixed use

·    IN2 Light Industrial

·    SP2 Infrastructure

·    E4 Environmental Living.

 

23.    The Standard LEP Instrument only permits places of public worship as a mandatory land use in the following applicable standard LEP zones:

a.   R3 Medium Density Residential; and

b.   IN2 Light Industrial Zones.

24.    Consideration needs to be given if whether or not places of public worship are suitable in the R2 Low Density Residential Zones. This question will be included in the consultations with representatives of the South Hurstville/Penshurst Action Group and representatives of the places of public worship within the Georges River LGA.

 

Possible planning controls and guidelines for the operational requirements of Places of Public Worship

 

25.    Table 4 below contains a list of “high level” planning matters that could be used to formulate more detailed planning controls and guidelines and requirements for Places of Public Worship in the Georges River LGA.

 

Table 4 – Possible planning controls and guidelines

 

Type

 

Planning controls and guidelines /or to be considered

Site Analysis

·    Site Analysis Plans; (standard)

·    Management Plans for the use are required with DA in some LGAs

·    Neighbour Liaison Committee (for places of public worship in residential areas)

 

Character/context

·    Consideration of existing/desired character

Ø Streetscape

Ø Fencing

Ø Setbacks

Ø Height

Ø Street width

Ø Landscaping

 

Car Parking

·    Needs to deal with more than number of seats (traditional for churches)

·    Mosques don’t utilise seats – prayer mats are used on flat open space in parallel in central prayer hall

·    Ancillary uses need to be considered

·    Set Down and Pick Areas

·    Traffic Impact Assessment Reports to be submitted

·    Intersection performance to not decrease and be maintained

 

Accessibility

·    New buildings should at least be compliant with Australian Standards. Older buildings when being altered should also comply, unless Heritage is a consideration.

·    Encourage use to be closer to public transport nodes

 

Acoustic Management

·    Acoustic reports for indoor and outdoor activities

 

Emissions

·    Burning of particular incense/scented candles etc

 

Open Space/Landscaping

·    Especially in or adjoining residential areas to minimise impacts

·    Outdoor areas can form part of the functions of the Place of Public Worship; hence consideration needs to be given to their form/function and proximity to adjoining uses.

 

Safety/Security

·    Entrances visible from the street frontages

 

Efficiency

·    Natural Light

·    Materials

·    Solar efficiency for heating and cooling

Ancillary Uses

·    Admin Offices

·    Community Facilities/Meeting Rooms

·    Informal Halls (separate to prayer/formal spaces)

·    Community/commercial kitchen

·    Libraries

·    Dwellings (Minister/Care-taker)

·    Graveyards

·    Mortuaries

Definitions

·    Small Scale

·    Large Scale

Waste Management

·    Vehicular Access

·    Recycling encouraged

·    Waste Management Plans for larger Places of Public Worship

 

Operation management plan.

·    The plan addresses hours of operation, noise, attendance numbers, parking, traffic.

 

Way Forward

26.    The planning controls and guidelines in Table 4 have been written into draft DCP controls to guide the consultation process – to assist in and guide discussions with representatives interested groups and representatives of the places of public worship within the Georges River LGA.

27.    The draft planning controls and guidelines and the permissibility of places of public worship will be reviewed as a result of the community consultations undertaken.

28.    A further report will be submitted to the new Council after September 2017 on the outcomes of the discussions held and recommending a way forward.

 

Financial Implications

29.    There will be budget requirements in implementing the actions of this report if adopted by Council; including the community consultation process.

 

File Reference

17/485

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Places of Public Worship Applications received in the last 5 years

Attachment View2

Issues raised in recent applications and complaints received

Attachment View3

Review of Controls for Places of Public Worship used by other LGAs

 

Place of Public Worship Applications Received in the last 5 years

Address/Proposal

 

Issues

18 Culwulla Street, South Hurstville (DA295/2010)

 

Use of room in dwelling as a prayer room

 

Approved – Deferred Commencement 1/12/10

 

 

§ Residential 2(a) Low Density Residential under KLEP 1998 – permissible with consent

 

§ Use of a room within the existing dwelling as a prayer room for up to 40 persons

 

§ Non-compliant with on-site parking – Parking was assessed in accordance with DCP No 8, which requires one (1) parking space per 5 seats or 5m2 of seating area.  This equates to the proposal requiring the provision of eight (8) parking spaces, in addition to the two spaces required for the residential component of the dwelling. Six (6) spaces were provided

 

§ Eighteen (18) submissions (10 of which were form letters), and a petition with fifty (50) signatures, were received raising the following concerns on the number of attendees; inadequate parking; increase in noise and traffic; and, loitering in front of residents homes for long periods of time after morning and evening prayers.

 

§ To assist in monitoring the use consent was granted for a twelve (12) month trial period at which time the consent becomes null and void unless a further Development Application is lodged for the continued use of the premises as a prayer room.

 

18 Culwulla Street, South Hurstville (DA142/2012)

 

Continued use of room in dwelling as a prayer room (Place of Public Worship)

 

 

 

§ Residential 2(a) Low Density Residential under KLEP 1998 – permissible with consent

§ Application for the continued use of a room in an existing dwelling as a prayer room for up to 40 persons (place of public worship)

§ A petition opposing the development was signed by twenty six (26) properties (total of forty eight (48) signatures)

§ A petition supporting the application was signed by eighteen (18) properties (total of nineteen (19) signatures). There were four (4) signatures that appeared on both petitions. 

§ Thirteen (13) letters supporting the application, seven (7) of which were from residents in Culwulla Street

§ Three (3) letters from Culwulla Street, opposing the proposed use

§ Issues opposing to the proposed development included:

During the twelve (12) month trial period, the prayer room was used outside the approved hours (eg. early hours of the morning) – found to be unsubstantiated

The number of attendees has exceeded that permitted under the trial period, especially around the Ramadan period, and as the prayer room is widely advertised on the internet it would be difficult to police and enforce the numbers – condition included that any advertising for the use of the prayer room clearly states the maximum numbers permitted and identifies the hours of use. Also, a condition was included requiring that the owner keep a log/diary of daily counts of the number of attendees, which is to be made available to Council at its request

Due to no on-site parking available, parking available in the street during prayer times is limited and as a result visitors are also parking on the nature strip and across driveways, impacting on the residents in the street – noted no additional conditions included

Visitors to the prayer room are often loitering after the service and are quite noisy when leaving the premises - condition imposed that requires signs to be installed outside the prayer room, in both Arabic and English, requesting that all visitors leave the premises quickly and quietly.

§ Approved by Council as a Deferred Commencement consent on 10 December 2012

 

No 89 Woniora Road, Hurstville (DA 337/2010)

 

Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a place of public worship

 

(Sydney Mandarin Christian Church)

 

Approved: 21/12/2010 by Council

 

§ Residential 2(a) Low Density Residential under KLEP 1998 – permissible with consent

 

§ Proposal involved the demolition of the existing dwelling and outbuildings and construction of a building to function as a place of public worship. 

 

§ The church building consists of a main church hall incorporating a small preparation room and seating for 65 persons, stage-pulpit area, a foyer and vestibule entry area.  Behind the main hall, rooms for ancillary activities are proposed.  These consist of three (3) Sunday school rooms for youth meetings, bible study and prayer meetings.  One of the rooms has operable walls to create a larger internal space for small functions.  A kitchen and toilets (including disabled facilities) are located at the rear of the building adjacent to the parking area which is capable of accommodating off-street parking for thirteen (13) vehicles.

 

§ Specifically, the services undertaken by the church are:

 

Day

Activity

Hours

 

No of Persons

Monday

Administration

9.00am – 5pm

2

Tuesday

Administration

Prayer Meeting

9.00am – 5pm

8.00pm – 10.00pm

2

25

Wednesday

Administration

Women’s Fellowship

9.00am – 5pm

10.00am – 12pm

2

15

Thursday

Administration

9.00am – 5pm

2

Friday

Administration

Bible Study, Youth Group

9.00am – 5pm

8.00pm – 10pm

2

30

Saturday

Men’s Fellowship

9.00am – 10.00am

15

Sunday

Sunday Service

Choir Practice

9.00am – 11.30am

1pm – 3pm

65

20

 

§ Council received fifteen (15) submissions and one (1) petition containing 94 signatures. 

 

§ Council’s assessment staff conducted a public meeting for concerned residents on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 where 24 participants were in attendance.  The Mayor and Ward Councillors also attended that meeting. 

 

§ The issues raised in that forum and submissions are as follows:

 

Traffic and Parking - proposal would adversely impact the surrounding local street network, particularly along Gallipoli Street and Woniora Road and that this would affect the amenity and safety of residents within the vicinity of the church - Traffic and Parking Impact Study submitted. Council’s Traffic Engineer also assessed the traffic and parking generation and found that the church would generate parking for 22 vehicles of which 13 spaces could be accommodated on site, and the remaining nine (9) spaces could be adequately accommodated on adjoining streets. 

 

Noise and Amenity – Condition relating to hours of operation, limits on attendee numbers and noise restrictions

 

Denomination of church and Feng Shui – Christian church is not consistent with the dominant beliefs of the demographic and presented poor Feng Shui – Places of public worship are a permitted use and denomination and impact on Feng shui are not matters for consideration under the provisions of Section 79C of the EP&A Act.

 

Devaluation of property values – no evidence submitted

 

Congregation of large groups of people will adversely impact the safety and security of nearby residents – Application was referred to the Police and relevant conditions were included

 

Hours of Operation – proposed to operate till 10pm on Tuesdays and Fridays for prayer meetings and youth group/bible study respectively –Recommended that the proposed sessions on these days begin earlier so that the church can cease operating at 9pm.  After a period of one (1) year, the applicant may apply to Council to have the hours of operation reviewed. Condition also included restricting the number of attendees to a maximum of 75.  Allowance was also to permit more than 75 attendees for special services, and local residents and Council, be advised of such events 7 days in advance.

 

No 89 Woniora Road, Hurstville

(s96(1A) to DA 337/2010)

 

Enlarge storage area beneath carport

 

 

§ s96(1A) submitted on 6 December 2011

 

§ Proposal was to enlarge the approved storage area under the car park to approximately 30 square metres with an access ramp leading to the area outside of the Vestibule. The structure is being constructed entirely underground and there is no impact on the bulk and scale of the building or on the existing character of the streetscape

 

§ s96(1A) was not neighbour notified

 

§ Approved under delegated authority 3/1/2012

 

 

No 17 Planthurst Road, Carlton (DA07/2013)

 

Alterations and additions to Carlton Methodist Church

 

Approved:  17/5/2003 by Ward Councillors

§ Residential 2(a) Low Density Residential under KLEP 1998 – permissible with consent

 

§ Alterations and additions to existing place of public worship to increase the overall GFA of the building but are not assembly areas. The additional areas are disconnected from the assembly spaces and provide additional areas for ancillary purposes such as a library and a youth space.

 

§ Parking demand is not considered to increase as a result of providing the additional areas as the use, its hours of operation and parishioner patronage remain consistent with the previous development consent. 

 

§ The existing church grounds provide 19 off-street car parking spaces in the front setback of the property.  A variation to the car parking requirements for the site was approved under (DA-2000/496) resulting in a deficiency of 25 spaces.  A variation was granted on the basis that the use would only operate at full capacity on Sundays from 9am-2pm and the amount of on-street parking available on Planthurst Road would satisfy the parking demand.  

 

§ Five (5) submissions and one (1) petition containing thirteen (13) signatures were received during the first round of notification raising the following concerns:

Privacy and overlooking – location of a rear deck

Hours of operation

Non-compliance with conditions of previous consents

 

§ Mediation was held with concerned residents whom have objected to the original development proposal.  The outcomes of these meetings and discussions led to the submission of an amended scheme which was notified on a second occasion and accepted. 

 

 

No 17 Planthurst Road, Carlton (s96 – DA07/2013)

 

Carlton Methodist Church

 

Approved

§ Modification pursuant to Section 96 (1A) to modify Development Consent No. 7/2013

 

§ Involved raising the floor level and overall height of the rear addition of the building by 300mm.

 

§ No submissions received during the exhibition of the s96

 

 

No 849 King Georges Road, South Hurstville

 

Refused by the Land and Environment Court.

 

§ R3 – Medium Density Residential under KLEP 2012 (mandated under the SILEP)

 

§ Demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a two (2) storey place of public worship (mosque) with associated classrooms over 3 levels of basement car parking containing 31 spaces.

 

§ Proposed on the ground floor is a men’s prayer area (173.6m2); main foyer area (58.22m2), accessible toilet and Imam’s office. Proposed on the 1st floor is a women’s prayer area, two (2) classrooms (35.52m2) (31.06), kitchen and women’s toilet facilities

 

§ Proposed hours of operation vary between summer and winter. Summer: 3:30am – 10.30pm; winter 5am – 9.30pm, 7 days a week. Classrooms from 9am to 9pm, 7 days a week.

§

No 14 Wright Street, Hurstville

 

Use of existing dwelling as a Buddhist monastery and construction of hall with basement car parking

 

Refused by the Land and Environment Court.

 

 

§ R2 – Low Density Residential zone

 

§ Buddhist Monastery - retention of the existing single storey dwelling on the site and the use of the dwelling as a Buddhist Monastery proving residential accommodation for three (3) nuns

 

§ Meditation Hall to rear of site comprising of two smaller (2) halls - Meditation Hall (160m2) and Memorial Hall (48m2), toilet facilities and storeroom with a proposed capacity of forty (40) people

 

§ Basement parking for ten (10) vehicles

 

§ One hundred and thirty seven (137) submissions and two (2) petitions (one (1) with twelve (12) signatures and one (1) with four hundred and one (401) signatures) were received in objection to the proposal.

 

§ Council also received a petition with eight hundred and eighty one (881) signatures in support of the proposal.

 

§ The issues raised in the submissions are summarised below.

 

Unauthorised use of the site

 

Traffic and congestion in Wright Street - the traffic and parking report submitted has failed to adequately address the impact of the development on the local road network.

 

Lack of parking and the impact on Wright Street - The Traffic Report concludes that there is adequate on-street parking to accommodate the proposed use, however this report was deemed to be inadequate.

 

Impact on safety from increased patrons and lack of parking. Also, safety around the school during school zones was a concern – no impact.

 

Noise generated from the use of the hall for gatherings and for chanting.  Also concerns relating to the accuracy of the acoustic assessment lodged with the DA – valid concerns

 

Misleading and inaccurate details in the traffic report - report considered to be inadequate and lacking in detail to make an assessment of the traffic impacts of the development.

 

Nature of the premises is more a commercial premises than a place of worship – not valid

 

Odour from the burning of incense and joss sticks – not valid as there are no openings in the hall that face the school. Council could also monitor 

 

The design of the development does not respect tradition ­– not a valid planning consideration.

 

The development may cause criminal activities - no evidence to suggest that this type of use would increase the likelihood of criminal activity.

 

The use is inappropriately located in a residential area – proposed use is permissible in the zone

 

Excessive excavation may have structural impacts on adjoining developments – geotechnical report submitted and appropriate conditions could be imposed to ensure the structural integrity of the adjoining development.

 

Increased fire risk from the burning of incense and candles - appropriate conditions could be imposed to ensure fire safety requirements with the BCA

 

Overlooking from the development to Hurstville Public School - no windows in the rear of the new hall that face the school, therefore overlooking is unlikely.

 

 

No 1 Woronora Parade, Oatley (DA2014/0059)

 

Conversion and internal fit-out of a garage on existing church grounds into a meeting room

 

Approved

§ SP2 – Infrastructure (Place of Public Worship) under Hurstville LEP 2012

 

§ Application for the conversion of a garage within the Oatley Baptist Church and Minooka Preschool site for use as a meeting room.

 

§ No submissions received during the exhibition/notification of the application.

No 800 Forest Road and 2 Hugh Street, Peakhurst (DA2014/1169)

 

Coptic Orthodox Church

 

Demolition of structures on site, retention and conservation of existing heritage chapel and construction of a new place of public worship and ancillary buildings

 

§ R3 – Medium Density Residential under Hurstville LEP 2012

 

§ 12/DA-364 (20 June 2013) – Council granted approval for the demolition of the existing hall, retention of the heritage listed Wesleyan Chapel, construction of a new church facility, basement and car park, conservation works to heritage chapel and landscape works

 

§ Proposal included the retention of the heritage listed “Wesleyan Chapel” sandstone church, demolition of hall and associated structures, construction of a part 4 storey/part 2 storey church with two (2) car parking levels.

 

§ No increase was proposed to the approved seating area (160 seats) or the hours of operation, which are:

 

Monday – Friday – 5:00am – 11:00pm

Saturday  - 8:00am – 10:00pm; and

Sunday – 7:00am – 1:00pm

 

§ The proposal includes the following:

Ground floor - Church auditorium (160 seats), alter, two (2) priest rooms, ancillary service rooms, bookshop, three (3) offices, bathrooms, library, kitchen, canteen and tea room

Level 1 – foyer, service room, bathrooms, multi-purpose hall, storage and 13 classrooms

 

§ One (1) submission was received during the exhibition/notification of the application. The application was notified 3 times.

 

§ The issues raised in the submissions are summarised below.

 

Drainage impacts from excavation – not considered to result in any impact on surrounding properties.

 

§ Approved by Council/Delegated Authority

 

Nos 445-447 Forest Road, Penshurst (DA2013/0315)

 

Alterations and additions to existing place of public worship (mosque) – first floor addition to existing building including dome structures on roof and construction of 21m high minaret.

 

§ SP2 – Infrastructure (Place of Public Worship) under Hurstville LEP 2012

 

§ Subject site has been used as a place of public worship (mosque) since 1987.

 

§

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL058-17          Consultation of proposed guidelines for Places of Public Worship

[Appendix 2]         Issues raised in recent applications and complaints received

 

 

Page 21

 

issues raised in recent applications and complaints received

 

Type of Places of Public Worship

Typical issues concerning neighbours

Date of last complaint

How complaint was resolved

43 Coleridge Street, Riverwood

The Uniting Church & Next Generation Christian Centre

§ Unauthorised use – Funerals being conducted where people are staying overnight for three nights

§ Noise emissions

§ Street Parking

§ Back yard BBQs

§ Loud congregations of persons at night

 

 

 

977 Forest Road, Lugarno

The Congregational Church of Samoa Parish of Sydney

§ Noise emissions

§ Unauthorised use (occupation prior to occupation certificate)

 

 

 

14 Wright Street, Hurstville

Prajna Monastery Australia

§ Gathering of people

§ Commercial style cooking with offensive odours

 

 

 

 

26 Gray Street, Kogarah

Al-Jaafaria Community Centre

Lighting, parking, patron behaviour

6.10.16

Rangers/Parking Officers directed to increase patrols of the area

18 Culwulla Street, South Hurstville

Prayer Room (POPW) for 40 people

Parking, operating outside of approved hours,

25.1.16

Ranger spoke with owner of premises re complaint issues. Follow up patrols were conducted to ensure that conditions of consent were being adhered to

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                                                                    Page 22

Attachment 3 – Controls from other Councils

Subject

 

Control

Definitions

 

Encourage large scale places of public worship on lands zoned for business, industrial or recreational purposes.

A small-scale place of public worship means a place of public worship with a seating capacity less than 100 people in the assembly area and which predominately services people who live in the same neighbourhood as the place of public worship.

 

A large-scale place of public worship means a place of public worship with a seating capacity of 100 people or more in the assembly area and which services people who live outside the neighbourhood where the place of public worship is located.

 

Assembly Area means the sum of that portion of the gross floor area of a building that is to be used for public assembly, for the purpose of worship or other purposes. It includes any secondary areas of assembly, such as choir or musician’s areas, altar areas, confessional areas, podiums, or rooms capable of being used for overspill accommodation of the congregation during a worship service.

 

Ancillary areas such as kitchens, toilets, offices, washrooms and accommodation, which are not normally used for worship, are not included in the calculation of the assembly area.

 

Operation management plan

An operation management plan is to be submitted to Council that shall at a minimum address the following:

·    The frequency of all proposed services, events and the like;

·    The proposed hours of operation for all proposed services and events and the like;

·    The likely number of persons to attend each type of service, event etc;

·    Whether street parades or road closures are proposed;

·    Any other uses that may take place within the place of public worship (i.e. community uses- youth group, community colleges etc), the frequency of these uses and the number of patrons proposed for these.

·    Any particular custom or practice (such as ringing bells) that may occur and the frequency and length of such rituals.

·    The nomination of a contact person that will be responsible in responding to any issues or complaints raised by the community or Council.

·    A minimum of 30 minutes must be allowed between the end of one service and the beginning of the next, to minimise noise and traffic impacts.

 

Note: The operation management plan will be used both for the assessment of the application as well as a means to manage the ongoing operation of the proposed premises through the conditions of development consent. The operation management plan (as may be amended) may be incorporated as a condition of consent.

 

Traffic Impact

Development for the purpose of places of public worship must not result in a street in the vicinity of the development site to exceed the environmental capacity maximum. If the environmental capacity maximum is already exceeded, the development must maintain the existing level of absolute delay of that street.

 

 

Development for the purpose of places of public worship must not result in a street intersection in the vicinity of the development site to have a level of service below Level B. If the existing level of service is below Level B, the development must maintain the existing level of absolute delay of that street intersection.

 

 

The car park / manoeuvring areas and the set–down and pick–up areas must locate separately behind the front building line.

 

Allotment size

The minimum allotment width, measured at the front building line, for a place of public worship located within Zone R3 Medium Density Residential and Zone R4 High Density Residential is 15 metres for a corner allotment, and 20 metres for all other allotments.

 

The minimum allotment size for a place of public worship within Zone R3 Medium Density Residential and Zone R4 High Density Residential is 800m2.

 

Height

Wall height limits of 9.5m.

 

Council may consider spires, towers, minarets and similar structures, which exceed the wall height limit on the basis of their bulk and scale, the extent of their overshadowing, and their contribution to the streetscape.

 

Front Setbacks

9m

 

Fences

The maximum fence height for a front fence is 1.8 metres.

 

 

Council does not allow the following types of front fences along an arterial road:

·    chain wire, metal sheeting, brushwood, and electric fences; and

·    noise attenuation walls.

 

 

The external appearance of a front fence along the front boundary of an allotment or facing an arterial road must ensure:

·    the section of the front fence that comprises solid construction must not exceed a fence height of 1 metre above natural ground level; and

·    the remaining height of the front fence must comprise open style construction such as spaced timber pickets or wrought iron that enhance and unify the building design.

 

Noise

The location and design of places of public worship must consider the projection of noise from various activities to avoid any adverse impacts on the residential amenity of adjoining land.

 

 

Council requires development applications to submit an Acoustic Report prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant to determine:

·    existing noise levels at the identified sensitive receiver locations;

·    likely noise levels to emanate from the place of public worship at the identified sensitive receiver locations;

·    whether the development must apply measures to ensure noise does not exceed 5dB(A) above the background noise level;

·    whether the location and setbacks of the development are sufficient to protect the acoustic privacy of adjacent dwellings;

·    whether the location of the outdoor areas should avoid living areas and bedrooms of adjacent dwellings; and

·    whether the development must install certain noise attenuation measures to protect the acoustic privacy of adjacent dwellings.

 

The Acoustic Report must measure the noise readings over a 15 minute period and must provide details of all modelling assumptions including source noise data, noise monitoring positions, receiver heights and locations, prevailing meteorological conditions during the monitoring, confirmation of the methodology adopted along with a copy of the model input and output data.

 

 

The Acoustic Report shall include:

·    Details on hours of operation – including regular services and special events and ceremonies;

·    Proposed levels of noise from all activities.

 

 

The maximum height for noise attenuation walls and fences along the boundary of an allotment is 2 metres.

 

Hours of operation

Council may limit the hours of operation of places of public worship, public access to places of public worship, and special occasions or events.

 

Neighbour Liaison Committee

Council must require the operator of a place of public worship in Zone R2 Low Density Residential, Zone R3 Medium Density Residential and Zone R4 High Density Residential to organise and chair a Neighbourhood Liaison Committee.

 

The purpose of the Committee is for the operator and neighbours to resolve any issues, such as traffic and noise, arising from the operation of the place of public worship.

 

The operation of the Committee must ensure:

·    The membership of the Neighbourhood Liaison Committee must include residents who live next to and opposite the place of public worship.

·    The Neighbourhood Liaison Committee must meet at least four times during the first 24 months of the place of public worship.

·    The operator of the place of public worship must forward the meeting minutes to Committee members.

·    The operator of the place of public worship may forward the meeting minutes to Council for information purposes.

·    The operator of the place of public worship may terminate the Committee once it meets at least four times during the first 24 months of the place of public worship operating, or may choose to extend the function of the Committee over a longer period of time.

 

 

Council may require the operator of a place of public worship in zones other than the residential zones to organise and chair a Neighbourhood Liaison Committee.

 

Ancillary uses

 

Ancillary use means administration offices, community facilities, dwellings, kitchens, libraries, or other uses directly associated with a place of public worship.

It will be necessary to submit with the Development Application details of any proposed ancillary uses, including the nature of the use, how many people will attend, duration and noise impacts.

 

The design, construction and operation of ancillary uses must take into

consideration the following matters:

·    whether any proposed building is compatible with the height, scale, siting and character of existing residential development within the adjoining residential zone;

·    whether any goods, plant, equipment and other material used in carrying out the proposed development will be stored or suitably screened from residential development;

·    whether the proposed development will maintain reasonable solar access to residential development between the hours of 8.00am and 4.00pm at the mid–winter solstice;

·    whether noise generation from fixed sources or motor vehicles associated with the proposed development will be effectively insulated or otherwise minimised;

·    whether the proposed development will otherwise cause nuisance to residents, by way of hours of operation, traffic movement, parking, headlight glare, security lighting, fumes, gases, smoke, dust or odours, or the like; and

·    whether any windows or balconies facing residential areas will be treated to avoid overlooking of private yard space or windows in residences.

 

Security

A security alarm system should be installed in a building.

 

 

All windows and doors on the ground floor should ordinarily be made of toughened glass to reduce the opportunities for ‘smash and grab’ and ‘break and enter’ offences, with the exception of special features such as stained glass windows. Where possible, such special features should be above ground floor level.

 

 

Unless impractical, access to an outdoor car park should be closed to the public outside of operating hours via a lockable gate.

 

 

 

 


 

Item:                   CCL059-17        Community Consultation Results on the Future Uses of the Former Oatley Bowling Club 

Author:              Executive Manager

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the results of the independent peer review, undertaken by Cred Consulting, of the community consultation process for the future uses of the former Oatley Bowling Club site are noted, particularly that the report “is considered to be a high-quality report based on a robust methodology and wide ranging activities”.

(b)     That Council acknowledge the ongoing community support for aged care facilities as an important issue for Council as outlined in the Elton Consulting report.

(c)     That the Elton Consulting report and the Cred Consulting report be provided to City Plan Services for consideration during the assessment and review of the Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club site.

(d)     That the Georges River community be updated on the community consultation results via the Council website and usual communications and media channels.

(e)     That the draft Georges River Council Community Engagement Policy be reviewed having regard to the feedback from the Elton Community Consultation report, prior to adoption by Council.

 

Executive Summary

1.      The results of a detailed community consultation process from Elton Consulting and independent peer review by Cred Consulting are provided in this report. This follows a Council Meeting on 7 November 2016, where it was resolved that Georges River Council would undertake extensive community consultation on the Planning Proposal and future uses of the former Oatley Bowling Club site.

Background

2.      At a Meeting of Council on 7 November 2016 it was resolved:

a.   That Council not proceed with the 2014 resolution of the former Hurstville City Council to rezone the site to residential to facilitate a 7-9 storey, mixed use residential and seniors housing development.

b.   That it be noted that if the Planning Proposal proceeds to Gateway determination, any plan making (re-zoning and reclassification) is unlikely to occur before December 2017, and would require the prior approval of the Council elected in September 2017.

c.   That the Planning Proposal to reclassify the site from ‘community’ land to ‘operational’ and to rezone the site to SP2 Infrastructure with the designated land use of seniors housing (nursing home) and community facilities be amended to apply only to that part of the site which would accommodate the seniors housing (aged care component) and ancillary support requirements, i.e. approximately 50% of the site.

d.   That extensive public consultation commence immediately and a report be submitted to Council in March 2017 detailing the outcomes of the public consultation (including any proposed amendments to the Planning Proposal arising from such consultation) prior to any Gateway submission to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment.

e.   That an independent peer review of the community consultation results ((d) above) be undertaken.

f.    That the Planning Proposal be assessed by an independent expert who will make recommendations to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel for endorsement or otherwise prior to any Gateway determination.

g.   That if the Planning Proposal proceeds, i.e. after independent assessment, approval by IHAP and Department of Planning and Environment, the reclassification Public Hearing be undertaken by a former Judge of the NSW Land and Environment Court or a person with equivalent standing and experience, and that a post Gateway exhibition report be prepared by an independent consultant for consideration by the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel and the newly elected Council panel prior to forwarding to the Department of Planning.

 

3.      At the Council Meeting on 6 March 2017, Council resolved:

a.   That the progress report on the community consultation process for the former Oatley Bowling Club site is received and noted.

b.   That respondents to the community survey are sent an update on the community consultation process contained in this report.

Consultation Process

4.      In accordance with point (d) above, Council undertook extensive community consultation on future uses of the former Oatley Bowling Club site.  The consultation process sought to understand the Georges River community’s support for the development of the former Oatley Bowling Club site, their attitude towards the need for seniors housing and preferences for community uses on the site. This consultation included:

c.   Three (3) community information sessions held on Wednesday 23 November 2016 and Saturday 26 November 2016

d.   A community survey available on the Council website and in hard copy at the community information sessions

e.   A telephone survey

5.      The consultation was additional to that which is legally required to be undertaken as part of the Planning Proposal gateway process.   Council is committed to ongoing community consultation on the Planning Proposal for this site. The community consultation was undertaken by an independent facilitator, Elton Consulting, between November 2016 and February 2017. Elton Consulting has extensive communications and community engagement experience.

 

6.      The independent facilitator designed the sessions to provide residents with an opportunity to find out more about the Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club site. The sessions were an opportunity for the community to talk to Council staff and experts in a range of areas. The independent facilitator captured feedback from members of the community.

7.      A community survey was available in hardcopy format at the information sessions and on Council’s website. The independent facilitator developed the survey to explore, amongst other things: 

a.   If the provision of aged care (seniors housing), as identified by the community and former Hurstville City Council since 2006, in the Hurstville Community Strategic Plan 2021 and the Hurstville Community Strategic Plan 2025, continued to be a priority for the Georges River community;

b.   Preferences for the types of seniors housing proposed at the former Oatley Bowling Club site;

c.   Options for community facilities proposed for the site; and

d.   Ideas for improving access to the adjacent Myles Dunphy Reserve.

8.      The independent facilitator also arranged a telephone survey to be conducted with randomly selected residents from the Georges River Local Government Area.  Participants were recruited and sent an information pack prior to a one-on-one interview.  The information pack contained copies of the information panels used in the community information sessions and a short introductory letter.

9.      Following the community consultation process, an independent peer review was undertaken by Cred Consulting. Cred Consulting has extensive experience in community engagement processes and social planning.

10.    In the interests of transparency, Council also publicly released the OBC Planning Proposal in order to obtain community feedback early in the rezoning process.  The submissions were analysed by Elton Consulting and a series of key themes were determined by the independent consultant.

Promotion and Participation Results

11.    The community information sessions were promoted on Council’s website and in the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader. An invitation to the sessions was delivered to 1,200 homes and businesses in streets located close to the former Oatley Bowling Club site. Information panels, on display at the sessions, explained the Planning Proposal and background to the former Oatley Bowling Club site. The survey was available in hardcopy format at the sessions and was also available for completion online, on Council’s website.

 

12.    Background information on the former Oatley Bowling Club site was available on the Council website and as hardcopy information panels at the Hurstville Service Centre. The Planning Proposal was also available in hardcopy format at local libraries and customer service centres.

 

13.    There was strong community participation in the consultation process with:

·        149 participants at the 3 community information sessions

·        146 community surveys completed at the community information sessions or online

·        501 residents participated in a phone survey, of which 30% were from Oatley

·        52 submissions were received in response to the Planning Proposal

 

14.    Participants of the telephone survey included 194 males and 307 females. 154 participants were from the suburb of Oatley, representing 30% of the overall telephone participants.

 

15.    Participants in the community survey indicated that their preferred methods of engagement include, in order of preference:

·        Community information sessions

·        Surveys

·        Open days

·        Newsletters

·        Presentations

 

Community Consultation Results

16.    Three reports are attached to this report:

·        Outcomes Report by Elton Consulting

·        Submissions Report by Elton Consulting

·        Peer Review by Cred Consulting

 

17.    These reports provide further detail on the results of the community consultation process, results and subsequent peer review.

18.    Elton Consulting found that “Generally, those people who participated in the phone survey, both within the suburb of Oatley and those in surrounding suburbs, were supportive of the proposal” (Outcomes Report, p.4). The telephone survey found that:

·        92% of surveyed respondents consider the provision of aged care facilities was an important issue for Council and 47% felt that they or a family member would be interested in aged care accommodation at the Oatley Bowling Club site.

·        Most respondents felt that self-contained dwellings would be most appropriate to the site.

·        58% of respondents felt that the proposed three-five storey aged care facility was appropriate for the site

·        71% felt that the proposed rezoning would result in an appropriate intensity of development for the site

 

19.    Those participants who expressed concerns about the proposal provided insights into their concerns which are summarised in the Outcomes Report as:

·        The scale of the development and setting a precedent for the area

·        Visual impact of the development

·        Preserving the character of Oatley’s built environment

·        Privatisation of public land

·        Desire for the site to be preserved for open space, passive recreation and environmental value

·        Road access to the site, including clearing to widen the road and turn off into the site

·        Risk of bushfire to residents, the Myles Dunphy Reserve and the proposed development site

·        Parking for the site

 

20.    Respondents of the telephone survey provided a range of preferred uses for the community facilities, including:

·        Community gardens (88%)

·        Walkways (86%)

·        Public toilets (75%)

·        Picnic shelters (75%)

 

21.    A review of the 52 submissions received in relation to the Planning Proposal were themed in the following key categories:

·        General comments: 13% of submissions expressed a view that the community survey was skewed towards supporting the planning proposal.

·        Site location: 6% suggested the site be located close to Oatley.

·        Scale and impact of development: 71% were opposed to commercial development of the site while 2 submissions supported the proposed reduction in heights of the planning proposal.

·        Environmental concerns: 37% objected to the rezoning and advocated that the site be reserved for native fauna and flora. Some submissions were concerned that the proposal would negatively impact the Myles Dunphy Reserve.

·        Traffic and parking: 19% of submissions were concerned about the impact on traffic and parking on the existing road networks. Several submissions called for a more detailed analysis of traffic and parking issues.

22.    The submissions provided a mix of suggestions for the community uses of the land, including:

·        Parkland (10%)

·        Bike/pedestrian paths, signs, public amenities and facilities (10%)

·        Native habitats are preserved (6%)

 

Independent Peer Review Results

23.    The independent peer review of the community consultation process for the future uses of the former Oatley Bowling Club site noted that the Outcomes Report “is considered to be a high-quality report based on a robust methodology and wide ranging activities”.

24.    As reported by Cred Consulting and confirmed by Georges River Council Officers, a typographical errors was made on page 9 of the Outcomes Report: 38% of respondents to the community survey believed there was enough aged care options in the LGA, not 48% as reported in the Outcomes Report.

 

Future Consultation and Engagement

25.    Participants in the community engagement process indicated that they would be interested in participating in future consultations and would welcome further information through newsletters, email updates, surveys, pop-ups and face-to-face events.

26.    Georges River Council is committed to ongoing, effective community engagement.  It is proposed to review the draft Community Engagement Policy and Strategy for Community engagement in light of the feedback from the Elton Community Consultation report.  The insights from the above community consultation process will inform the development and review of the Community Engagement Policy and Strategy.

Next Steps

27.    Following the Meeting of Council on 3 April 2017, it is proposed that the Elton Consulting report and the Cred Consulting report be provided to City Plan Services for consideration during the assessment and review of the Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club site.

 

Financial Implications

28.    Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

16/1212

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Outcomes Report Elton Consulting

Attachment View2

Outcomes Report - Appendix A

Attachment View3

Outcomes Report - Appendix B

Attachment View4

Outcomes Report - Appendix C

Attachment View5

Submissions Report Elton Consulting

Attachment View6

Independent Peer Review by Cred Consulting

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL059-17          Community Consultation Results on the Future Uses of the Former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 1]         Outcomes Report Elton Consulting

 

 

Page 32

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL059-17          Community Consultation Results on the Future Uses of the Former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 2]         Outcomes Report - Appendix A

 

 

Page 50

 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL059-17          Community Consultation Results on the Future Uses of the Former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 3]         Outcomes Report - Appendix B

 

 

Page 54

 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL059-17          Community Consultation Results on the Future Uses of the Former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 4]         Outcomes Report - Appendix C

 

 

Page 60

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL059-17          Community Consultation Results on the Future Uses of the Former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 5]         Submissions Report Elton Consulting

 

 

Page 75

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL059-17          Community Consultation Results on the Future Uses of the Former Oatley Bowling Club

[Appendix 6]         Independent Peer Review by Cred Consulting

 

 

Page 87

 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                                                                    Page 93

Item:                   CCL060-17        Section 94 Plan Amendments 

Author:              Manager Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the changes to the Georges River Section 94A Plan (change the reference from clause 142(2) to 136L in Section 4.9) and the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 (change the reference to Appendix C in Section 1.1 to Appendix B) be considered to be minor typographical corrections as per Clause 32(3)(a) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

(b)     That the minor typographical corrections outlined in (a) above be notified in The Leader as minor typographical corrections to the existing Plans.

(c)     That Council resolve to prepare a new Section 94 Contributions Plan to include Kempt Field, the Hurstville East Site and the Bing Lee Site into the City Centre land application map (Map 1 in Appendix B) in the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 and place the Draft Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan on public consultation in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act and its Regulation for a minimum period of 28 days.

(d)     That Council resolve to resolve to prepare a new Section 94 Contributions Plan to amend Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 to address the following:

i.    The development types listed to ensure consistent with the LEP definitions for developments.

ii.   The indexation formula in accordance with the legal advice and past internal audit review.

iii.  The costing of works as some projects have been or are currently under construction.

iv.  The possible expansion of the City Centre land application map (Map 1 in Appendix B) to cover additional areas identified by the draft Georges River Employments Lands Study and the Hurstville Urban Design Review.

(e)     That Council resolve to prepare a new Section 94 Contributions Plan for the Georges River LGA incorporating the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 and the separate Kogarah S94 Plans.

 

Executive Summary

1.      This report deals with minor changes to the Georges River Section 94A Plan and the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012.

2.      The minor change to the Georges River Section 94A Plan relates to a change of reference from clause 142(2) to 136L in Section 4.9 relating to Complying Development Certificates and the obligations of accredited certifiers.

3.      The minor change to the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 relates to a change of reference to Appendix C in Section 1.1 to Appendix B. Reference to Appendix C in Section 1.1 is an error as Appendix B contains the maps and not Appendix C.

4.      The changes above are considered to be minor typographical corrections as per Clause 32(3)(a) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and do not require the preparation of a new contributions plan.

5.      The inclusion of Kempt Field, the Hurstville East Site and the Bing Lee Site into the City Centre land application map (Map 1 in Appendix B) in the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 requires that an amended contributions plan be prepared and placed on public exhibition in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act and its Regulation for a minimum period of 28 days.

 

Background

6.      The table below provides an overview of the Contributions Plans currently applying to the Georges River LGA:

 

Section 94 Contributions Plan

Land to which the Plan Applies

Georges River Section 94A Plan

The Plan applies to the whole of the Georges River LGA.

Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012

Applies to all the land within the Hurstville, Mortdale and Peakhurst Wards.

The plan levies residential development contributions for community facilities, open space and public domain works. Non-residential development in the Hurstville City Centre is levied for public domain works. Within the commercial centres of the Hurstville City Centre, Penshurst, Mortdale, Beverly Hills and Riverwood contributions are levied where car parking is not provided on-site.

Ramsgate Commercial centre Development Contributions Plan 2006

A joint plan that applies to land within the former City of Kogarah and the City of Rockdale that comprises the Ramsgate Commercial Centre. The plan has a joint works schedule that identifies works on both the Georges River Council side and the Rockdale City Council side of the Ramsgate Centre.

Section 94 Contributions Plan No 1 – Road and Traffic Management

Applies to all areas in the Kogarah Bay and Blakehurst Wards, outside of the Kogarah Town Centre, Hurstville Town Centre and Ramsgate Town Centre.

Section 94 Contributions Plan

No 5 Open Space – 2007

Applies to all areas in the Blakehurst and Kogarah Bay Wards outside of the Kogarah Town Centre and Ramsgate Town Centre.

The plan applies to multi-unit development only and funds are utilised for the embellishment of existing open space.

Section 94 Contributions Plan No 8 – Kogarah Town Centre

Applies to land within the Kogarah Town Centre and levies contributions for streetscape works, roads and traffic, pedestrian upgrades in lieu of on-site car parking, community facilities and stormwater and drainage.

Section 94 Contributions Plan No 9 – Kogarah Libraries

Applies to all land across the Kogarah Bay and Blakehurst Wards and is for building upgrades and the acquisition of new books.

Kogarah Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014

Applies to the Kogarah Bay and Blakehurst Wards.

 

The section 94A Plan allows contributions to be levied in established urban areas where development is mainly ‘infill development’.

 

Amendments to Section 94 Contributions Plans

7.      The following tables indicate the minor changes required to the Georges River Section 94A Plan and the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 – the changes are in red and italics.

 

Georges River Section 94A Plan

Current wording

4.9 Complying Development Certificates and the obligations of accredited certifiers

Development applications for Complying Development are also subject to the provisions of this plan, and the payment of a Section 94A levy. The Complying Development Certificate is to include a condition that requires the payment of a Section 94A contribution.

As the construction certificate is issued concurrently, payment is to be made before the commencement of work authorised by the Certificate.

In particular, the certifier must ensure that the applicant provides a receipt(s) confirming that levies have been fully paid and copies of such receipts must be included with copies of the certified plans provided to the council in accordance with clause 142(2) of the EP&A Regulation. Failure to follow this procedure may render such a certificate invalid.

Proposed Wording

4.9 Complying Development Certificates and the obligations of accredited certifiers

Development applications for Complying Development are also subject to the provisions of this plan, and the payment of a Section 94A levy. The Complying Development Certificate is to include a condition that requires the payment of a Section 94A contribution.

As the construction certificate is issued concurrently, payment is to be made before the commencement of work authorised by the Certificate.

In particular, the certifier must ensure that the applicant provides a receipt(s) confirming that levies have been fully paid and copies of such receipts must be included with copies of the certified plans provided to the council in accordance with clause 136L of the EP&A Regulation. Failure to follow this procedure may render such a certificate invalid.

Reasons

Reference to Clause 142(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation is incorrect as that Clause relates to construction certificates. The reference should be “clause 136L”.

Clause 136L of the Regulations reads:

Contributions and levies payable under section 85A (9) must be paid before work commences

(1)  A complying development certificate issued subject to a condition required by section 85A (9) of the Act must be issued subject to a condition that the contribution or levy must be paid before any work authorised by the certificate commences.

(2)  Subclause (1) applies despite any provision to the contrary in the council’s contributions plan.

 

Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012

Current Wording & Maps

Section 1.1 states:

The types of development expected to occur in Hurstville, and which will impact on the demand

for public amenities and public services addressed under this Plan, is likely to include:

·    higher density residential development, primarily in the Hurstville City Centre (refer to Appendix C, Map 1);

·    scattered medium density residential development across the LGA; and

·    additional retail and commercial floor space at many of the local commercial centres including Penshurst, Mortdale, Beverly Hills and Riverwood (refer to Appendix C, Maps 2,3,4 and 5) and at the Hurstville City Centre

 

Existing Map 1 from Appendix B

Proposed Wording and Map

The types of development expected to occur in Hurstville, and which will impact on the demand

for public amenities and public services addressed under this Plan, is likely to include:

·    higher density residential development, primarily in the Hurstville City Centre (refer to Appendix B, Map 1);

·    scattered medium density residential development across the LGA; and

·    additional retail and commercial floor space at many of the local commercial centres including Penshurst, Mortdale, Beverly Hills and Riverwood (refer to Appendix B, Maps 2,3,4 and 5) and at the Hurstville City Centre

 

http://infoweb.georgesriver.nsw.gov.au/grinfocouncil/Open/2016/11/IHAP_24112016_AGN_AT_files/image015.png

Bing Lee Site at Nos 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road, Hurstville

 

Hurstville East, site bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street

and Roberts Lane, Hurstville

 

Kempt Field

Reasons

·    Reference to Appendix C in Section 1.1 is an error as Appendix B contains the maps and not Appendix C.

 

·    The City Centre land application map (Map 1 in Appendix B) needs to be updated to include the Bing Lee site, the Landmark Square site and Kempt Field.

 

·    The Bing Lee Site is known as Nos. 108, 112 and 124 Forest Road, Hurstville. Council at its Meeting held 13 December 2016 resolved to amend the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 to identify the site within the Hurstville City Centre and prepare an amendment to the Hurstville DCP No.2 – Hurstville City Centre to include site specific provisions including (but not limited to) setbacks, street activation, vehicle access points, building massing and form, public domain, landscaping and through site connections. The Council also resolved to support the rezoning of the site from B2/R3 to B4 Mixed Use, increase the FSR to 4:1 and increase heights to 34.5m and 46m.

The Planning Proposal was issued a gateway Determination on 24 February 2017.

 

·    Hurstville East is the site bounded by Forest Road, Durham Street and Roberts Lane, Hurstville. The Planning Proposal is seeking a FSR of 2.1:1 and 3.5:1 and a height of up to 65m.  The Planning Proposal was before the DRP on 6 April 2017 and will be sent to an IHAP this year once the heads of agreement to enter into a VPA have been prepared.

 

·    Kempt Field is located just outside the most eastern boundary of the Hurstville City Centre and provides both neighbourhood level open space and a landscaped buffer between the low density residential area along Lily Street and further to the east, and the larger scale development in the Eastern Gateway to the Hurstville City Centre (East Quarter development). Kempt Field currently has a strong visual relationship with land to the west (Hurstville City Centre).

Kempt Field is identified as a Neighbourhood level facility in the Hurstville Open Space, Recreation, Community and Library Facilities Strategy (2010) and its use by the neighbouring City Centre residents will increase in the future with the proposed improvements as part of the new Kempt Field Plan of Management (currently being prepared) and the through-site connections proposed as part of the East Quarter development.

·    It would be beneficial if Kempt Field is included within the boundary of the Hurstville City Centre in order to reflect its strong relation with the City Centre, both through its visual connection to the eastern side of the City Centre and its capacity to provide neighbourhood level open space to both existing and future residents.

·    No change to the RE1 Public Recreation zoning is proposed.

 

Legislation

8.      Clause 32(3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 states that Council:

may make the following kinds of amendments to a contributions plan without the need to prepare a new contributions plan:

(a) minor typographical corrections,

9.      The amendments to the Georges River Section 94A Plan (change the reference from clause 142(2) to 136L in Section 4.9) and the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 (change the reference to Appendix C in Section 1.1 to Appendix B) are minor typographical corrections; and therefore can be amended without the need to prepare new Contributions Plans.

10.    The inclusion of Kempt Field, the Hurstville East Site and the Bing Lee Site into the City Centre land application map (Map 1 in Appendix B) in the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 is not a minor topographical correction.

11.    Clause 32(1) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 states that Council may amend a contributions plan by a subsequent contributions plan.

12.    Therefore Council will need to follow the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act and its Regulation in amending the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 to include the 3 new sites into the City Centre land application map; and this includes community participation of a minimum of 28 days.

 

Financial Implications

13.    Within budget allocation.

 

Next Steps

14.    If this report is adopted then:

a.   The minor typographical corrections to the Georges River Section 94A Plan (change the reference from clause 142(2) to 136L in Section 4.9) and the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 (change the reference to Appendix C in Section 1.1 to Appendix B) will be notified in The Leader as minor typographical corrections (as per Clause 32(3)(a) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000) to the existing Plans; and

b.   The inclusion of Kempt Field, the Hurstville East Site and the Bing Lee Site into the City Centre land application map (Map 1 in Appendix B) in the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 will be placed on public consultation in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act and its Regulation for a minimum period of 28 days.

 

Further Amendments

15.    Further amendments are required to the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012.  These are currently under preparation and will require consultation with the Council’s Section 94 Working Party before referral to Council. The amendments include:

a.   Review development types listed to ensure consistent with the LEP definitions for developments.

b.   Review the indexation formula in accordance with the legal advice and past internal audit review.

c.   Review costing of works as some projects have been or are currently under construction.

d.   The possible expansion of the City Centre land application map (Map 1 in Appendix B) to cover additional areas identified by the draft Georges River Employments Lands Study which is on exhibition and the Hurstville Urban Design Review which will be presented to Council in July.

 

16.    A new Section 94 Contributions Plan for the Georges River Council incorporating the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 and the four (4) separate Kogarah S94 Plans is also listed in the Workplan for the Council’s Strategic Team.

 

File Reference

17.    TRIM Files 16/1052 & SF13/263

 

Item:                   CCL061-17        Determination of Development Applications Policy 

Author:              Team Leader Major Projects

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council endorse the attached amended Determination of Development Applications Policy.

(b)     That the amended Determination of Development Applications Policy be referred to the Implementation Advisory Committee for review and comment.  

 

Executive Summary

1.      The Determination of Development Applications Policy was adopted by Council on 19 May 2016 and is required to be reviewed prior to 19 May 2017

2.      A review of the policy has been undertaken to remove ambiguities in the Policy and also to ensure that the position terminology in the Policy reflects the Council’s adopted staffing structure.

 

Background

3.      The Determination of Development Applications Policy was adopted by Council on 19 May 2016.  A further minor amendment was made to the Policy at the Council meeting of 6 June 2016

4.      Part 14 of the Determination of Development Applications Policy states:

“This policy is scheduled to be reviewed every twelve (12) months.  The due date for the first review is 19 May 2017.  However, this policy may be reviewed prior to this date if required.”

5.      A review of the Policy has been undertaken within the period referenced.

 

Conclusion

6.      The amended Policy provides clear guidelines for the exercising of delegations in the determination of development applications by council officers while also providing the community with an understanding of Council’s decision making considerations.

 

Financial Implications

7.      No budget impact for this report.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Draft Policy - Determination of Development Applications - April 2017

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL061-17          Determination of Development Applications Policy

[Appendix 1]         Draft Policy - Determination of Development Applications - April 2017

 

 

Page 102

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                                                                    Page 109

Item:                   CCL062-17        Summary of Development Applications lodged and determined  

Author:              Manager Development and Building

Directorate:      Office of Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 Recommendation

(a)     That the information on development applications lodged and determined for January 2017 - March 2017 be received and noted.

 

Executive Summary

1.      A snap-shot of Georges River Council’s development applications over the past 3 months is contained within this report. 

 

2.      The information includes details on numbers received and determined, a breakdown of application types, mean and median time-frames, the estimated value of applications determined and the number of applications that have been with Council and under determination for more than 40 days. This information will be prepared monthly and enable review of trends in assessment timeframes.

This report also provides information being undertaken by the Environment and Planning Directorate to reduce the number of outstanding applications.

 

Report

3.       Georges River Council was proclaimed on 12 May 2016, combining the former Hurstville and Kogarah City Councils. The development application determination numbers and time-frames for the past three (3) months are set out below.

 

Month

Applications Received

Applications Determined

Outstanding Applications

Apps – with Council over 40 days <= 100 days

Apps – with Council over 100 days

Jan

48

42

341

142

153

Feb

71

64

348

103

146

Mar

109

88

369

84

174

 

4.      To note - Outstanding Applications relates to applications that:

·         have just been lodged with Council

·         are under neighbour notification

·         are under assessment 

·         are awaiting determination via the relevant planning pathway.  

 

 

5.      These figures are based on the gross turn-around times and include development applications, s96 modification applications, and s82A review of determinations (included in the DA figures). The gross determination figure has been used to ensure any anomalies in the data sets from the two previous Councils are assimilated.

 

6.      The Appendix, which has a detailed breakdown of each development type, the value of work for each type, the numbers received and determined and the mean determining times for each category.

 

7.      A summary of the key elements are:

 

·    During the period of Dec 2016 – March 2017 (inclusive) Georges River Council each month has received more applications than the same time-frame for the year before. This increase is occurring in each month. Generally, applications slow down in the beginning of the Calendar year however this has not occurred for Georges River Council.

 

Time-frame

Total applications lodged

01/12/15 – 31/03/16

255

01/12/16 – 31/03/17

333

 

·    This could be attributed to a number of factors including the general movement in the market and housing rates being consistent. It also shows that the development market is attracted to the Georges River area.

·    With the impending gazettal of the former Kogarah New City Plan by the end of April, there will be a further influx of applications being lodged with Council.

·    The major category of developments determined for the last quarter were “Residential New” and “Residential new second occupancy”.

·    The average determination time for development applications is slowly decreasing as the older applications are determined and staff get used to new processes. The introduction of the clearance program is also contributing to this decrease in times.

 

8.      Council staff are focussing on improved ways to reduce the number of outstanding applications. 

·    The “Clearance Program” focuses on reducing the back-log of applications, not necessarily fast-track

·    Since the introduction of this program; so far 68 applications have been determined through this process. This is meeting the initial target for determining 100 in 3 months and is reducing the overall backlog of applications within the system.

·    Council staff are also working towards harmonising the processes and procedures between the former Hurstville and Kogarah Councils. The current procedures are being investigated to see which can be stream-lined, amended, etc; with the aim of improving all processes and reducing overall times.

 

Financial Implications

9.      Within budget allocation.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

DA stats for Jan-Feb-Mar

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL062-17          Summary of Development Applications lodged and determined

[Appendix 1]         DA stats for Jan-Feb-Mar

 

 

Page 112

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                                                                    Page 113

Item:                   CCL063-17        Planning Proposal - No 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville - Post Exhibition Report 

Author:              Coordinator Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

Recommendation

1.      That Council note the outcomes of public exhibition of the Planning Proposal PP2014/0003           for 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville.

2.      That the Planning Proposal for 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 not be supported for the following reasons:

(a)     The additional height proposed is excessive having regard to the adjacent context.  In that regard, the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel considers that a height of no more than 46m, which equates to the height of the building to the south at 2 Barratt Street, is the upper limit.  The Floor Space Ratio would need to be adjusted to reflect this height and appropriate built form.

 

(b)     Allowing the current Planning Proposal would be likely to result in development that would have unacceptable amenity impacts on adjoining development, unacceptable streetscape and curtilage impacts on adjacent heritage items.

 

(c)     The Planning Proposal fails to adequately address impacts on traffic and vehicular access within Hurstville City Centre.

 

(d)     Any future Planning Proposal should be accompanied by a site specific DCP to reflect a detailed urban design study including a proposed building envelope for the site that demonstrates the key principles of SEPP 65 are achievable. 

3.      That the applicant and those persons who made a written submission on the Planning           Proposal for Nos 29- 31 MacMahon Street be notified of Council’s decision.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

1.      At the Council meeting of 3 April 2017, Council resolved:

 

(a)     That as requested by the applicant, this matter be deferred to the Council meeting to be held on 1 May 2017.

 

(b)     That it be noted that for reasons of probity and consistency with the principles of the IHAP Charter, Section 3.1(b), the Administrator/Council will determine this matter and the Administrator will not meet with the applicant or their representatives prior to the Council meeting at which the planning proposal will be considered.

 

2.      This report is now reproduced for the Council’s consideration and determination.

 

3.      The Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP), at its meeting on 23 March 2017 considered a report on the outcomes of the community consultation undertaken for the Planning Proposal for 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville, as identified in Figure 1 below. A copy of this report is included at Appendix 1.

 

Figure 1: Site subject of the Planning Proposal

 

4.      The report proposed the following amendments to Hurstville LEP 2012 for Nos 29 – 31 MacMahon Street:

 

§ Amend the Height of Building Map to increase the maximum building height from 40m to 50m;

 

§ Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to increase the maximum floor space ratio from 4.5:1 to 5.5:1; and

 

§ Require a minimum “non-residential” floor space ratio of 0.5:1 through an amendment to clause 4.4A (Exceptions to floor space ratios for buildings on land in certain zones).

 

5.      In considering the council officer’s report on the Planning Proposal, the IHAP were of the opinion that the requested height of 50m was excessive and was out of context with the adjoining development in the Precinct.

 

6.      The IHAP were also of the opinion that allowing a building envelope, as proposed by the Planning Proposal would result in a future development that would have unacceptable amenity impacts on adjoining development, unacceptable streetscape and curtilage impacts on adjacent heritage items.

 

7.      Subsequently, IHAP in its consideration of Item 3.3 resolved the following:

 

(1) That the Planning Proposal for 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 not be supported for the following reasons:

 

(i)         The additional height proposed is excessive having regard to the adjacent context.  In that regard, the Panel considers that a height of no more than 46m, which equates to the height of the building to the south at 2 Barratt Street, is the upper limit.  The Floor Space Ratio would need to be adjusted to reflect this height and appropriate built form.

 

(ii)        Allowing the current Planning Proposal would be likely to result in development that would have unacceptable amenity impacts on adjoining development, unacceptable streetscape and curtilage impacts on adjacent heritage items.

 

(iii)       The Planning Proposal fails to adequately address impacts on traffic and vehicular access within Hurstville City Centre.

 

(iv)       Any future Planning Proposal should be accompanied by a site specific DCP to reflect a detailed urban design study including a proposed building envelope for the site that demonstrates the key principles of SEPP 65 are achievable. 

 

Background

 

8.      At the Council meeting of 3 April 2017, the Administrator moved and declared carried:

 

(a) That as requested by the applicant, this matter be deferred to the Council meeting to be held on 1 May 2017.

 

(b) That it be noted that for reasons of probity and consistency with the principles of the IHAP Charter, Section 3.1(b), the Administrator/Council will determine this matter and the Administrator will not meet with the applicant or their representatives prior to the Council meeting at which the planning proposal will be considered.

 

9.      The Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP), at its meeting on 23 March 2017 considered a report on the outcomes of the community consultation undertaken for the Planning Proposal for 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville. As outlined above, a copy of the report to the IHAP and the associated annexures are included at Appendix 1.

10.    The report proposed the following amendments to Hurstville LEP 2012 for Nos 29 – 31 MacMahon Street:

 

§ Amend the Height of Building Map to increase the maximum building height from 40m to 50m;

 

§ Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to increase the maximum floor space ratio from 4.5:1 to 5.5:1; and

 

§ Require a minimum “non-residential” floor space ratio of 0.5:1 through an amendment to clause 4.4A (Exceptions to floor space ratios for buildings on land in certain zones).

 

11.    The report presented to IHAP provided an overview of the community consultation process which was undertaken in accordance with the Gateway Determination. During the exhibition period, eleven (11) community submissions (all in support) and ten (10) public authority submissions were received.

 

12.    In undertaking an assessment of the Planning Proposal, it was considered that a number of issues raised by Transport for NSW, RMS and the Heritage Office had not been adequately addressed by the applicant.

 

13.    These outstanding issues included the following:

 

§ Ensuring that travel demand management measures (such as appropriate parking restraints) are investigated and incorporated into a site specific DCP or future DA to encourage the use of public and active transport.

 

§ Satisfaction by Council that an appropriate funding mechanism is in place to ensure implementation of demand management strategy measures can be provided.

 

§ Consideration of an appropriate funding mechanism to allow for regional transport infrastructure improvements; required as a result of the cumulative impacts of future development in the Hurstville City Centre.

 

§ The Heritage Office has required that consideration be given to any adverse impact that a proposed development would have on the heritage significance of the ‘Fire Station’, ‘Friendly Societies Dispensary Building’ and other items of local heritage significance in the vicinity of the subject site. With respect to the NSW Heritage Office’s comment on the possible impacts of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the ‘Fire Station’, ‘Friendly Societies Dispensary Building’ and other items of local heritage significance in the vicinity of the subject site – this can be dealt with at DA stage with a heritage impact statement that would need to accompany a DA.

 

14.    As a result of the assessment undertaken by council staff, a report was submitted to IHAP with the following recommendation:

 

(a) That the Georges River IHAP note the outcomes of public exhibition of the Planning Proposal PP2014/0003 for 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville.

 

(b) That in respect of the Planning Proposal for Nos. 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville to amend Hurstville LEP 2012 the following two options be forwarded to the Department of Planning & Environment:

 

Option 1:

Resubmit the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning & Environment requesting an amended Gateway Determination to require the proponent to address the impacts on traffic and access within the Hurstville City Centre raised by TfNSW/RMS through a voluntary planning agreement.

 

Option 2:

Resubmit the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning & Environment requesting that the Department insert into the Hurstville LEP 2012 a site specific clause that requires the consent authority to be satisfied that the development will provide for road and traffic upgrades in the local road network and contribute to measures that encourage the use of public transport.

 

(c)  That in respect to the NSW Heritage Office’s comment on the possible impacts of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the ‘Fire Station’, ‘Friendly Societies Dispensary Building’ and other items of local heritage significance in the vicinity of the subject site, that the Department be advised that this matter will be dealt with at DA stage.

 

(d) That a Report to Council be prepared to advise of the IHAP recommendations

 

(e) That those persons who made a written submission on the Planning Proposal for Nos 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville be notified of the IHAP’s decision.

 

15.    This recommendation was made on the basis of the following:

 

§ Although the residential uplift under the Planning Proposal is 555m2, which on its own is not a significant uplift, when assessing the cumulative impact over the Hurstville Precinct with all the uplifts proposed there is an additional impact which needs to be addressed.

 

§ The Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 does not levy for these roads and traffic facilities. Therefore VPA’s provide a mechanism for Council to assist in funding the delivery of this critical infrastructure within the City Centre where the proposed development has an impact on this infrastructure.  The Council has consistently applied the VPA Policy to Planning Proposals in the Hurstville City Centre, in order to provide public benefits that bear a relationship to the development and that are for a proper legitimate planning purpose. The key focus has been the provision of and contributions towards road and traffic infrastructure in the City Centre.

 

§ The proposed development under the Planning Proposal will result in an increase in traffic in the Hurstville City Centre and should therefore be contributing to the provision of this infrastructure as outlined in the TMAP. This is also consistent with the public authority submissions received from RMS and TfNSW during the consultation period for the Planning Proposal.

 

16.    In considering the council officer’s report on the Planning Proposal, the IHAP were of the opinion that the requested height of 50m was excessive and out of context with the adjoining development in the Precinct.

 

17.    The IHAP were also of the opinion that allowing a building envelope, as proposed by the Planning Proposal would result in a future development that would have unacceptable amenity impacts on adjoining development, unacceptable streetscape and curtilage impacts on adjacent heritage items.

 

18.    Subsequently, IHAP resolved the following:

That the Planning Proposal for 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville to amend Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 not be supported for the following reasons:

(v)        The additional height proposed is excessive having regard to the adjacent context.  In that regard, the Panel considers that a height of no more than 46m, which equates to the height of the building to the south at 2 Barratt Street, is the upper limit.  The Floor Space Ratio would need to be adjusted to reflect this height and appropriate built form.

 

(vi)       Allowing the current Planning Proposal would be likely to result in development that would have unacceptable amenity impacts on adjoining development, unacceptable streetscape and curtilage impacts on adjacent heritage items.

 

(vii)      The Planning Proposal fails to adequately address impacts on traffic and vehicular access within Hurstville City Centre.

 

(viii)     Any future Planning Proposal should be accompanied by a site specific DCP to reflect a detailed urban design study including a proposed building envelope for the site that demonstrates the key principles of SEPP 65 are achievable. 

 

Comments from the IHAP

Height and FSR

 

19.    In considering the Planning Proposal, the IHAP identified a number of issues with respect to the Planning Proposal. The existing height and FSR for the site is 40m and 4.5:1 and the IHAP were of the opinion that the proposed height and FSR of 50m and 5.5:1 was excessive and out of context with the surrounding development.

20.    The IHAP considered that a future development on the site at a height and FSR as proposed would result in a development that would have unacceptable amenity impacts on the adjoining development and unacceptable impacts on the adjacent heritage items.

21.    As such, the IHAP were of the opinion that the maximum height should be reduced to 46m, and the FSR adjusted to fit within the height envelope. 

22.    It was also recommended that any future Planning Proposal be accompanied by a site specific DCP to reflect a detailed urban design study, which would include a proposed building envelope for the site that demonstrates the key principles of SEPP 65 are achievable.

Traffic and Vehicular Access

 

23.    The IHAP, as part of their recommendation also identified that the Planning Proposal fails to adequately address impacts on traffic and vehicular access within the Hurstville City Centre.

24.    With respect to the impacts on traffic and access within the Hurstville Precinct identified by TfNSW and RMS, discussions have been held with the applicant in relation to the negotiation of a Planning Agreement, in accordance with the Georges River Policy of Planning Agreements 2016. To date the developer has not made an offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement in accordance with the Policy.

25.    In this case the residential uplift under the Planning Proposal is 555m2, which on its own is not a significant uplift. However, when assessing the cumulative impact over the Hurstville Precinct with all the uplifts proposed there is an impact which needs to be addressed.

26.    The Hurstville City Centre TMAP 2013 identifies the key road and traffic infrastructure works required to service the future development of the City Centre. The Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 does not levy for these roads and traffic facilities. Therefore, VPAs provide a mechanism for Council to assist in funding the delivery of this critical infrastructure within the City Centre where the proposed development has an impact on this infrastructure.

27.    The Council has consistently applied the VPA Policy to Planning Proposal in the Hurstville City Centre, in order to provide public benefits that bear a relationship to the development and that are for a proper legitimate planning purpose. The key focus has been the provision of and contributions towards road and traffic infrastructure in the City Centre

28.    The proposed development under the Planning Proposal will result in an increase in traffic in the Hurstville City Centre and should therefore be contributing to the provision of this infrastructure as outlined in the TMAP.

 

29.    This is consistent with the public authority submissions received from RMS and TfNSW during the consultation period for the Planning Proposal. In this regard, RMS state that “Council should be satisfied that an appropriate funding mechanism is in place to ensure that regional transport infrastructure improvements required as a result of the cumulative impacts of future development in the Hurstville City Centre can be provided”.

30.    Therefore, a contribution under a VPA towards public benefits such as road and traffic facilities identified in the Hurstville City Centre TMAP is considered reasonable on the basis that the Planning Proposal will result in increased development in the City Centre.

 

31.    As stated in the IHAP report the consistent approach followed in considering development activity in the centre is that each development contributes to the improvement of the road and traffic facilities in order to cater for increased traffic capacity.

 

 

Proposed Uplift and Issues Raised by RMS and Transport for NSW

32.    As outlined above, the Planning Proposal results in an up-lift of development potential for the site (in this case the residential uplift is 555m2).

 

33.    The developer has not made an offer to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) in conjunction with the Planning Proposal. Discussions have been held with the Applicant, in accordance with the Georges River Policy on Planning Agreements 2016 (VPA Policy).

 

34.    The VPA Policy was adopted on 1 August 2016 and sets out Council’s objectives in relation to the use of planning agreements including:

 

-     to provide an enhanced and more flexible development contributions system;

-     to supplement or replace, as appropriate the application of s94 or s94A..;

-     to ensure that the framework for planning agreements is consistent, efficient, fair and accountable;

-     facilitate the provision of public facilities and services..”

 

35.    The Policy has been consistently applied to planning proposals and development applications alike since its adoption.

 

36.    Clause 5.3 of the Policy states that where either a planning proposal is proposed, or development consent is sought, which will result in an exceedance of development standards, resulting in an inherent increase in value of the land or development, the concept of land value capture may be used to assess the appropriate contribution. This concept may be applied in additional to other considerations in relation to the level of the contributions.

 

37.    Clause 5.13 of the Policy states through a formula, that Council capture fifty percent (50%) of the increase in the residual land value resulting from the planning uplift sought for a site via the Planning Proposal.

 

38.    In the case of this Planning Proposal, the estimated uplift in the residual land value has been calculated to be approximately $2.5 million, which 50% is $1.25 million. As such, in accordance with Council’s VPA Policy the Developer should be offering approximately $1.25 million in public benefits to Council via either public works, dedication of land or monetary contributions.

 

39.    The Policy provides that where the developer disputes the values in the Policy, the developer can provide the Council will sufficient details, costs and valuations to determine the realistic figure for the residual land value. This has not occurred in this case.

 

40.    The Council has consistently applied the VPA Policy to Planning Proposals in the Hurstville City Centre, in order to provide public benefits that bear a relationship to the development and that are for a proper legitimate planning purpose.

 

41.    The key focus has been the provision of and contributions towards road and traffic infrastructure in the City Centre.

 

42.    The Hurstville City Centre TMAP 2013 identifies the key road and traffic infrastructure works required to service the future development of the City Centre. The Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 does not levy for these roads and traffic facilities. Therefore VPA’s provide a mechanism for Council to assist in funding the delivery of this critical infrastructure within the City Centre where the proposed development has an impact on this infrastructure.

 

43.    The proposed development under the Planning Proposal will result in an increase in traffic in the Hurstville City Centre and should therefore be contributing to the provision of this infrastructure as outlined in the TMAP.

 

44.    This is consistent with the public authority submissions received from RMS and TfNSW during the consultation period for the Planning Proposal. In this regard, RMS state that “Council should be satisfied that an appropriate funding mechanism is in place to ensure that regional transport infrastructure improvements required as a result of the cumulative impacts of future development in the Hurstville City Centre can be provided”.

 

45.    A contribution under a VPA towards public benefits such as road and traffic facilities identified in the Hurstville City Centre TMAP is considered reasonable on the basis that the Planning Proposal will result in increased development in the City Centre.

 

46.    The consistent approach followed in considering development activity in the centre is that each development contributes to the improvement of the road and traffic facilities in order to cater for increased traffic capacity.

 

 

Conclusion

 

47.    The Planning Proposal has been exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the Act, the Regulation and Gateway Determination, and submissions received during the exhibition period have been considered.

 

48.    The IHAP considers for the reasons outlined in the body of the report to not support the Planning Proposal.

 

49.    Should Council resolve to support the recommendation of the IHAP, it is recommended that applicant be advised in writing of Council’s decision.

 

 

Financial Implications

50.    Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

Trim File: PP2014/0003

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

IHAP Report 23 March 2017- 29-31 MacMahon St Hurstville

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL063-17          Planning Proposal - No 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville - Post Exhibition Report

[Appendix 1]         IHAP Report 23 March 2017- 29-31 MacMahon St Hurstville

 

 

Page 122

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL063-17          Planning Proposal - No 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville - Post Exhibition Report

[Appendix 1]         IHAP Report 23 March 2017- 29-31 MacMahon St Hurstville

 

 

Page 148

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL063-17          Planning Proposal - No 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville - Post Exhibition Report

[Appendix 1]         IHAP Report 23 March 2017- 29-31 MacMahon St Hurstville

 

 

Page 159

 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                                                                    Page 164

Item:                   CCL064-17        Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy and Implementation  

Author:              Senior Planner, Rebecca Lau and Coordinator Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:     Environment and Planning

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the draft Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy be publicly exhibited for a minimum period of 28 days.

(b)     That Option 3 and the urban design principles contained within the draft Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy be adopted by Council as an interim set of planning controls from the date of the gazettal of Amendment No.2 to Kogarah Local Environmental Plan.

(c)     That Council advise applicants and landowners that any application within the Kogarah North Precinct will be assessed against Option 3 and the urban design principles contained within the draft Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy.

(d)     That Council prepare an amendment to Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 by including as a specific chapter Option 3 and the urban design principles contained within the draft Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy.

(e)     That the amended Kogarah Development Control Plan be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and its Regulation 2000 at the same time as the draft Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy.

(f)      That a further report be presented to Council following the public exhibition of the draft Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy and amended Kogarah Development Control Plan.

 

 

Executive Summary

1.         The Kogarah North Precinct is the subject of a proposed New City Plan amendment to the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP), which will introduce new planning controls that allow for a greater intensity of residential uses across the Precinct.

 

2.         The draft Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy has been prepared to enable the transformation of the Kogarah North Precinct to occur in a way that maintains a high quality of amenity for existing residents (through the transition) and future residents. The draft Strategy has been informed by an in-depth urban design and planning analysis and a series of place based considerations, which include:

·          Vehicular transport and access;

·          Active and public transport;

·          Landscape Character ;

·          Heritage Items;

·          Land Ownership; and

·          Strata Property.

 

3.         The draft Strategy provides recommendations to allow Council to determine a preferred urban design and planning response for the future redevelopment of the Kogarah North Precinct. The draft Strategy identifies appropriate planning and urban design principles and strategies to encourage the creation of a higher density residential Precinct that supports an appropriate scale and density of development, traffic and pedestrian management, landscaping and other public domain improvements. The provisions within the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) (NSW Department of Planning and Environment 2016) underpin the principles set out within this draft Strategy.

 

4.         Three design options were investigated for the precinct during the preparation of the draft Strategy. Option 3 is the preferred option, which allows a built form that complies with the ADG and defines a four storey street wall character to the Precinct. This option places emphasis on transitioning between the scale of the heritage items and the new built form with reduced heights and increased setbacks adjacent to the heritage items. This option also takes into account the height of buildings so as to minimise their overshadowing impact to existing and future open space areas. This option provides a maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of approximately 2.52:1.

 

5.         The draft Strategy includes a set of urban design principles that have been developed around Design Option 3. In addition to compliance with the provisions contained within the ADG, future development proposals within the Kogarah North Precinct are encouraged to comply with the following draft urban design principles:

·    Context and neighbourhood character

·    Built form and scale

·    Urban Structure

·    Density

·    Sustainability

·    Landscape

·    Amenity

·    Safety

·    Housing diversity and social interaction

·    Aesthetics

 

6.         Since the exhibition of the New City Plan LEP amendment, there has been significant development interest with an unprecedented number of enquiries and requests for pre-DAs and discussions for proposals within the Kogarah North Precinct. For the benefit of the community in terms of transparency, probity and clarity, it is recommended that Council adopts the draft Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy with Option 3 and the urban design principles as interim planning controls from the date of the gazettal of the New City Plan amendment to the Kogarah LEP 2012. 

 

7.         It is also recommended that the urban design principles contained within the draft Strategy be placed on public exhibition as an amendment to the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013.

 

8.         The preparation of an amendment to the Section 94 Contributions Plan to include the Kogarah North Precinct is currently being prepared to accompany this draft Urban Design Strategy.

Figure 1. Artist’s impression of the Kogarah North Precinct

 

Background

9.         Council, at an Extraordinary Meeting on 4 April 2016 considered a report on the draft New City Plan. At that meeting Council endorsed, for submission to the Minister, the proposed changes to zoning, height and floor space ratio (FSR) for the area known as the Kogarah North Precinct.

 

10.      In order to provide additional housing opportunities close to the Kogarah Town Centre, the area known as Kogarah North has been rezoned from R2 – Low Density Residential to R4 – High Density Residential with the following development standards – FSR of 4:1 and building height of 33m

 

11.      It is considered that the Precinct will see significant change in the form and scale of development over the life of the Plan to 2031 and it is important that detailed design controls are in place to ensure a high level of amenity for future residents.

 

12.      There has been significant interest in potential redevelopment in this Precinct and due to the significant uplift of proposed development in the New City Plan it is anticipated that potential redevelopment will proceed in a relatively short time frame. Critical to the success of the redevelopment of the area is the establishment of appropriate planning and urban design outcomes to ensure that development is sustainable, well designed and provides a high level of amenity for future residents.

 

13.      The former Kogarah Council Planning & Environmental Working Party considered a report on 18 April 2016 to seek endorsement to appoint a consultant to undertake an Urban Design Study and Section 94 Contributions Plan for the Kogarah North Precinct. A copy of the report is included at Appendix 1.

 

14.      The former Kogarah Council, at its meeting on 26 April 2016, resolved the following:

 

(Adopted Minute No. 57/2016)

a)   That the Project Brief titled Kogarah North – Urban Design Study and Section 94 Contributions Plan Brief and dated April 2016 for the preparation of an Urban Design Study for the Kogarah North Precinct be endorsed for the purpose of seeking Expressions of Interest (EOI) from suitably qualified consultants.

 

b)   That Expressions of Interest (EOI) be sought from suitably qualified consultants to undertake the tasks outlined in the Project Brief.

 

c)   That a further report be presented to a future Planning & Environmental Services Working Party on any Expressions of Interest (EOI) received to undertake the project, including fee proposals provided by the consultants.

 

15.      As a result, City Plan Services Pty Ltd were appointed in August 2016 by Georges River Council to undertake the work outlined in the Project Brief, including the preparation of an Urban Design Strategy and development principles for the Precinct; and the identification of a list of works that could be levied for under the provisions of Section 94.

 

The Kogarah North Precinct

16.      The Kogarah Town Centre has undergone a significant transformation over the last decade, to become a vibrant, liveable and working community. The Kogarah Town Centre is a highly concentrated business district, with two major hospitals (St George Public and St George Private Hospitals) and the second largest TAFE in NSW.

 

17.      The Kogarah Town Centre’s identification as a Strategic Centre in the NSW State Government’s A Plan for Growing Sydney and the draft South District Plan reinforces the importance of the Kogarah Town Centre within the context of the South Subregion, and its continued growth as both an employment hub and as a Centre which provides a mix of housing.

 

18.      Due to the extent of development over the last 10-15 years, the existing Kogarah Town Centre boundaries are now becoming constrained, due to the lack of land zoned to accommodate future growth of the Centre. A Priority for the South Subregion under A Plan for Growing Sydney is to identify suitable locations for housing intensification, particularly around established centres and along key public transport corridors.

 

19.      The Kogarah North Precinct is situated at the northern tip of the Georges River Local Government Area boundary and covers an area of 75,688m2. It is bounded by the Illawarra and Eastern Suburbs rail line, Harrow Road, the Princes Highway, Bank Lane and Gladstone Street.

 

Figure 2: Boundary of the Study Area – Kogarah North Precinct

 

20.      The existing residential development in the Precinct comprises of single storey semi-detached dwellings, freestanding dwelling houses, townhouses and residential flat buildings of varying periods. The Precinct (particularly in the centre) is characterised by small allotments. The southern end of Gladstone Street towards the Princes Highway contains a number of residential flat buildings of medium density.

 

21.      Princes Highway and Harrow Road comprise of a mixture of single dwellings, groups of shops with shop top housing, residential flat buildings with a 10 storey building currently under construction (No. 21 – 35 Princes Highway), recently completed mixed use developments, St Paul’s Anglican Church and a Caltex petrol station.

 

22.      Hogben Park, which adjoins the railway line is to the north of the Precinct. A large public open space area and carpark, owned by the Department of Education & Communities is situated to the west of the Precinct. It is bounded by Victor, Palmerston, Victoria and Gladstone Streets.

 

23.      The Precinct adjoins a number of educational establishments including Kogarah High School, St George Girls High School and Kogarah Public School. These sites are currently zoned and proposed to be zoned SP2 Educational Establishment.  Kogarah Town Centre and Kogarah Train Station are within close proximity and adjoin the Precinct to the south.

 

Background to the Preparation of the Urban Design Strategy

24.      As part of the project a Discussion Paper was prepared by consultants, City Plan Services and Atlas Urban Design, to inform the Kogarah North Precinct Project. Investigations revealed that there are already several developers active in the Precinct, many of whom have well-advanced redevelopment concepts. These concepts have generally been prepared in isolation and in the absence of any unifying vision or design principles for the Precinct.

 

25.      The Precinct's existing lot configuration suggests that many sites will struggle to achieve the proposed height (33m) and FSR (4:1) proposed by the New City Plan amendments as well as the design considerations mandated by the ADG.

 

26.      The analysis undertaken by the consultants suggests developers would only be able to maximise yields (e.g. achieve an FSR of 4:1) by consolidating lots to achieve a width of between 40-60 metres.

 

27.      The initial design study investigated three (3) massing options in response to the proposed height and FSR controls, the existing heritage items and compliance with SEPP 65 and the ADG.

 

Design Option 1

28.      Design Option 1 maximises the FSR (4:1) within the proposed 33m height limit. To achieve the 4:1 FSR the built form of the buildings would provide no articulation and would result in a continuous 10 storey street wall character. This option gives no consideration with respect to the scale transition between the existing heritage items. The built form under this option does not comply with the ADG standards for building separation, solar access and cross ventilation. Appropriate solar access is unlikely to be achieved due to the height and proximity of the built form and the overshadowing it would create to the adjacent neighbouring buildings.  

 

Figure 3. Design Option 1 – Aerial view looking east across the study area.

 

Figure 4. Design Option 1 – View looking north-west across the study area.

 

 

Figure 5. Design Option 1 – Aerial view looking south across the study area.

 

Design Option 2

29.      Design Option 2 places an emphasis on maximising the FSR while creating a built form that generally complies with the ADG (within the maximum height of 33m). This option proposes a four storey street wall character with a tower above. The towers are placed at the corners to minimise the impact of overshadowing to the neighbouring buildings. This scheme is based on sites having a minimum frontage of 60m to achieve building separation between the built forms and provide an efficient apartment floor plate. The built form has some consideration for the scale transition between the existing heritage items. This option provides generally a maximum FSR of 2.75:1.

 

Figure 6. Design Option 2 – Aerial view looking east across the study area.

 

Figure 7. Design Option 2 - View looking north-west across the study area.

 

Figure 8.  Design Option 2 – Aerial view looking south across the study area.

 

Design Option 3

30.      Similar to Design Option 2, this option places an emphasis on creating a built form that complies with the ADG and defines a four storey street wall character. This option places further emphasis on transitioning between the scale of the heritage items and the new built form with reduced heights and increased setbacks adjacent to the heritage items. This option also takes into account the height of buildings so as to minimise their overshadowing impact to existing and future open space areas. This option provides a maximum FSR of approximately 2.52:1.

Figure 9. Design Option 3 – Aerial view looking south across the study area.

 

 

Figure 10. Design Option 3 – Aerial view looking east across the study area.

 

 

 

Figure 11. Design Option 3 – View looking north-west across the study area.

 

Draft Urban Design Strategy – Urban Design Principles

31.      Following an analysis of the three design options and discussions within Council’s Strategic and Development Assessment teams, Design Option 3 is considered the preferred option to maintain the human scale and build on the precinct’s existing character to deliver the future vision for the precinct. The vision was developed with Council officers and consultants.

Kogarah North offers high density living within an excellent public domain. A variety of apartments help to build a community made up of many kinds of households. Importantly, this enables people to pass through life's different stages while remaining within the neighbourhood. The convenience of having work, services, entertainment and the station nearby mean people rarely need a car to meet their daily needs, or to access the rest of Sydney. The area's leafy streets, beautiful public and hidden parks, community facilities and visible heritage features make for an attractive, people-friendly environment. There are many pleasant places to stop awhile and chat to neighbours, providing the setting for a rich and varied community life.

 

32.      The vision for the Kogarah North Precinct is supported by four keystone urban design and development principles to:

1. Retain, embellish and connect existing green and community assets;

2. Create secondary routes that prioritise connections for walkers and cyclists;

3. Maintain the human-scale at street level; and

4. Declutter the public realm.

 

33.      These keystone principles have emerged through detailed urban design analysis of the Precinct. They set the framework for establishing Precinct-wide design and development parameters and guidelines, and considering specific considerations for individual blocks or smaller areas within the Precinct.

 

34.      The development of the Urban Design Principles has been based on achieving the outcomes presented in Design Option 3 above. The principles identify appropriate planning and urban design measures to encourage the renewal of land to a higher residential Precinct and address the scale and density of development, traffic and pedestrian management, landscaping and other public domain improvements. A copy of the draft Urban Design Strategy is included at Appendix 2.

 

35.      In addition to compliance with the provisions contained within the ADG, future development proposals within the Kogarah North Precinct are encouraged to comply with following urban design principles which are summarised below:

a)   Context and neighbourhood character

b)   Built form and scale

c)   Urban Structure

d)   Density

e)   Sustainability

f)    Landscape

g)   Amenity

h)  Safety

i)    Housing diversity and social interaction

j)    Aesthetics

 

a)   Context and neighbourhood character

36.      Objectives for this urban design principle include:

1.      To recognise that the Precinct character will undergo a radical transformation as development intensifies in coming years

2.      To acknowledge and strengthen the key character elements that will remain including the primary urban structure, heritage items and institutional land uses

3.      To retain all heritage buildings across the Precinct and encourage their preservation.

 

37.      Strategies to support this principle include: step-down the building scale adjacent to heritage items; provide adequate curtilage and setbacks to heritage items; and maintain solar access to existing apartment buildings and public open space. 

 

b)   Built form and Scale

38.      Objectives for this urban design principle include:

4.      To ensure a comfortable human scale, avoiding the appearance of deep and unbroken canyons and tempering the scale of the street-edge buildings

5.      To create buildings that define the streets and parks, with a consistent pattern of massing while fostering architectural diversity within this framework, thereby encouraging different streets to have a distinct and recognisable character

6.      To encourage heritage conservation

7.      To ensure that development does not result in the creation of isolated sites

8.      To encourage site consolidation for efficiency and improved public domain interface.

 

39.      Strategies to support this principle include: identifying three typologies for typical street buildings, corner buildings and buildings on the Princes Highway.  The strategies include section diagrams with typical setbacks and with a 4 storey street wall with taller elements set back behind this.

Typical Street Section

40.      Typically, the buildings are to have a front building setback of 5m. The first 2m of the setback is to be on grade with the footpath and is to provide a landscape edge to the public domain. Apartment entries are to be accessed off the street to improve street activation. Changes in level can be accommodated within this zone.

 

41.      Residential apartments should be 0.9-1.2m raised above street level to assist with privacy while maintaining passive surveillance to the street. A four-storey street wall podium is to be set within the Precinct with floors above this setback 3m from the street wall. This applies to all streets except Princes Highway, Railway Parade North and major and secondary corners. Refer to Figure 12 below.

Figure 12. Typical Street Section Diagram.

 

Corner Section

42.      Corners identified as being major and secondary are to have a front building setback of 2m and should provide neighbourhood shops at ground level to improve the activation to the street. A 2m setback from the boundary above the four-storey street wall is proposed to major corners and some secondary corners. This provides a level of differentiation within the urban form and enables the corners to become ‘book ends’ to the block structure. See Figure 13 below.

Figure 13. Corner Section Diagram.

 

Princes Highway Section

43.      A 2m front setback is required along the Princes Highway to increase the possibility of landscaping to the public domain. Ground floor levels along this frontage are to provide neighbourhood shops. A four-storey street wall podium is to be set within the Precinct with floors above this setback 3m from the street wall except at major corners a 2m setback from the boundary above the four-storey street wall is proposed. There should be consideration to designing the first four floor’s balconies (excluded from Gross Floor Area) as winter gardens* to improve acoustic amenity to the apartments. A winter garden is defined as an enclosed balcony typically glazed with a tiled floor and rainwater outlet. See Figure 14 below.

 

 

Figure 14.Princes Highway Section Diagram.

 

c)   Urban Structure

44.      Objectives for this urban design principle include:

·        To recognise that as the function of the Precinct changes, its structure should be adapted and modified to respond to the new set of uses. As density increases, the urban block structure should become finer and permeability and intersection density should increase.

·        To support the predominance of walking as the way of moving through the neighbourhood.

·        To provide a set of new open spaces in the neighbourhood to serve a variety of recreational and social functions.

·        To create a clear hierarchy to the streets and laneways, while providing a consistent character throughout the Precinct.

·        To provide pedestrian linkages and access routes though the Precinct to offer residents and visitors greater choice of movement, as well as a safer and more enjoyable walking or cycling experience.

 

45.      The strategies to support this principle include a clear hierarchy of streets and laneways including new links and laneways to increase permeability of movement within the precinct and including improving pedestrian accessibility to open spaces. Figure 15 below illustrates the proposed street characters of the precinct.

 

·    Highway/Fringe Street. Addresses one side of the street, higher traffic and trees in 4 metre setback.

·    Neighbourhood Street. Main neighbourhood street with street trees and flexible zone (which includes parking, seating, cycling, planting and spill out).

·    Special Street. Flush interface, pedestrian priority in hierarchy, shared zone.

·    Laneways. Parklets, informal play, community activities, and slow streets.

·    Linear Park. Pedestrian priority, pedestrian zone only where no traffic is needed, links with all public domain open space.

Figure 15. Street Character Urban Design diagram

 

 

d)   Density

46.      Objectives for this urban design principle include:

·        To ensure that development maximises density while balancing external impacts, including: impacts on the amenity and development potential of adjacent development sites; amenity in the public domain; and the need for improvements in infrastructure

·        To moderate density on constrained sites and permit greater density on sites that have greater capacity and minimal external impacts.

 

47.      Strategies to support this urban design principle include:  developing a primary block structure which identifies major corners and secondary corners and opportunities for reduced setbacks at corners for greater yield.

 

e)   Sustainability

48.      Objectives for this urban design principle include:

·        To encourage design for sustainable environmental, social and economic outcomes by encouraging designs that minimise usage of power and water and allow for flexibility in design so that places and facilities may have multiple uses over time; applying the principle of “long-life loose-fit”

·        No increase in stormwater beyond the existing output.

 

49.      Strategies to support this urban design principle include: increasing tree canopy cover in the precinct; encouraging green roofs and green walls; incorporate a system of Water Sensitive Urban Design, living architecture objectives and urban food initiatives. Figure 16 illustrates the proposed tree canopy for the Precinct. 

 

Figure 16. Tree Canopy Diagram

 

f)    Landscape

50.      Objectives for this urban design principle include:

·        To adopt an integrated approach towards landscape in the public and private domain to develop a positive image and contextual fit of well-designed developments

·        To recognise that streets serve a far wider set of social and practical needs than previously, because people will be living at higher densities in apartments without yards or large living rooms.

 

51.      Strategies to support this urban design principle include: providing additional street tree planting in all streets; create and utilise a detailed material palette of ground surface treatments, public domain furniture and signage strategy for the whole public domain of the Precinct; and seek opportunities for rear lanes to be configured as shared zones and for adjacent development sites to include community gardens and community facilities.

 

g)   Amenity

52.      Objectives for this urban design principle include:

·        Encourage social and community interaction in a distinctive and attractive neighbourhood with excellent amenities in public domain.

·        Preserve significant elements that enhance the existing amenity such as large trees and heritage buildings.

·        Create a pleasant leafy environment with a comfortable microclimate shade and sunlight throughout the year.

·        Create a convenient and pleasant walking environment through the neighbourhood.

 

53.      Strategies to support this urban design principle include:  investigate shared used of school playing fields and make them available to the community outside of school hours; create and protect solar access plane to Victor Street to minimise overshadowing to Kogarah High School’s primary open space; provide a lower built form to Railway Parade to minimise overshadowing to St George Girls High School’s primary open space; Create three distinct public open spaces throughout the Precinct that are varied in scale, use and character and are linked by a pedestrian landscaped spine. Figure 17 below provides a public open space urban design diagram.

 

 

 

 

Figure 17. Public Open Space Urban Design

 

h)   Safety

54.      Objectives for this urban design principle include:

·        To create a comfortable and safe environment for current and future residents, especially for the young people attending the three schools in the Precinct.

·        To encourage good design that optimises safety and security within the development and the public domain.

 

55.      Strategies to support this urban design principle include:  adopt the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CEPTED); capture opportunities to maximise passive surveillance of public and communal areas and promote safety; neighbourhood shops are to be provided on the ground floor of all Princes Highway frontages and are to be provided strategically within the Precinct; and provide clear crossing points and raised crossing points which prioritise pedestrian movements and are suitable for traffic calming. See Figure 18 below for active frontages.

 

Figure 18. Active frontages

 

 

i)    Housing Diversity and Social Interaction

56.      Objectives for this urban design principle include:

·        To optimise Kogarah North’s close proximity to major transport and major health and education institutions by increasing key worker housing and opportunities for livable / adaptive dwellings.

·        To create an extensive range of living options for a wide range of household types and income levels.

·        To encourage design of streets that are accessible to all and are envisioned as ‘shared spaces’ with both vehicular, pedestrian and cyclist uses that are all safe, well connected and activated promoting social activities.

 

57.      Strategies to support this urban design principle include: provide a diverse mix of housing types and sizes suitable for all ages; provide for a variety of settings for formal and informal social interactions; create adaptable streets and public domain spaces which accommodate a range of uses and activities; and provide a public domain of spaces that encourage a range opportunities such as; active and passive recreation, informal and formal seating, children’s formal and informal play, exercise stations and sport activities, temporary markets and overlays, formal gathering space, community gardens, picnic facilities and performances.

 

j)    Aesthetics

58.      Objectives for this urban design principle include:

·        Achieve variety with order; architectural diversity is encouraged within a regular and consistent built-form framework.

·        Material selection also has an important role in aesthetic quality; it has an important role to play in creating a cohesive and distinct visual environment.

·        Overarching built form should reflect consistently applied strategies, while permitting diversity in detail and ‘personal touches’ in the presentation of homes and community facilities.

 

59.      Strategies to support this urban design principle include: a limited palette of predominant material either rendered masonry or face brick; to all streets, except along the Princes Highway, Railway Parade North and major and secondary corners, provide five metre front building setbacks that incorporates landscaping to the street to create useable front courtyards and allow for individualised landscaping of the space between the street and the building; and encourage street activation through individual pedestrian access to ground floor apartments from the street with personalised elements such as planter boxes and ‘front porch’ furniture.

 

Implementation

Interim Design Principles

60.      There has been a significant development interest with an unprecedented number of enquiries and requests for pre-DAs and discussions for proposals within the Kogarah North Precinct. Due to the timing of the impending gazettal of the LEP amendment and for the benefit of the community in terms of transparency, probity and clarity, it is recommended that Council adopt the urban design principles in the draft Strategy as interim planning controls from the date of the gazettal of the New City Plan amendment. 

 

61.      Adopting a series of interim design and development principles and a Voluntary Planning Agreement strategy to identify satisfactory arrangements for infrastructure and other public domain improvements would allow Council to determine early DAs with transparency.

 

62.      Landowners and applicants within the Precinct will be advised that any application for development will need to comply with Design Option 3 and the urban design principles of the draft Strategy. This information would also be relayed to the Design Review Panel in order to ensure that the urban design principles are applied consistently.

 

63.      It is anticipated that submissions will be received from interested stakeholder and members of the community during the public exhibition of the draft strategy. These submissions will be considered and tabled at a future Council meeting and the draft Strategy and urban design principles may be amended following the post exhibition review.

 

Draft DCP amendment

64.       The draft Strategy will be placed on exhibition, along with a site specific chapter to the Kogarah Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013. The site specific chapter will contain Option 3 and the urban design principles contained within the draft Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy.

 

65.       The DCP amendment and draft Strategy would be exhibited concurrently.

 

Planning proposals

66.      The draft Strategy acknowledges the principles and strategies may limit the ability to generate the full yield potential (mainly gross floor area) anticipated on some sites within the Precinct. One way of addressing this would be for applicants to be invited to lodge a Planning Proposal to amend the 33m height limit.  Any Planning Proposal seeking to increase the maximum height limit in order to increase yield will need to satisfactorily demonstrate:

i.   Compliance with the Obstacle Limitation Surfaces;

ii.  Consistency with the urban design principles in this draft strategy, particularly in relation to the Block and Corner Hierarchy (Figure 35 of the draft strategy);

ii.  Comprehensive analysis of the surrounding context to determine an appropriate height that will not diminish the development potential of surrounding sites.

 

Funding Mechanisms

67.      In order to fund the proposed public domain plan and other public works required to support the draft Strategy, an amendment to the existing Kogarah Section 94 Contributions Plan No.8 – Kogarah Town Centre will be required. This work is currently awaiting further information from the consultants related to traffic analysis and stormwater and will be reported to Council when finalised.

 

68.      There are opportunities for site specific contributions to be made as part of future redevelopment proposals. In particular where through site links have been identified, these works could be delivered as part of a Voluntary Planning Agreement associated with the Development Application process.

 

Conclusion

69.      Kogarah North Precinct is the subject of a proposed New City Plan amendment to the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP), which will introduce new planning controls that allow for a greater intensity of residential uses across the Precinct. The draft Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy has been prepared to guide the redevelopment of the area by establishing appropriate planning and urban design outcomes to ensure that development is sustainable, well designed and provides a high level of amenity for future residents.

 

70.      Due to the impending gazettal of the New City Plan amendment to Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the significant amount of interest received from stakeholders and the community in the re-development of the Kogarah North Precinct, it is recommended that Council resolve to exhibit the draft Strategy and adopt Option 3 and the urban design principles to be used as interim planning principles.

 

Financial Implications

71.      Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

TRIM File 16/1801

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Appendix 1. Previous report on Kogarah North to Kogarah Planning and Environment Working Party 18 April 2016

Attachment View2

Appendix 2. Draft Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy April 2017 - published in separate document

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL064-17          Kogarah North Urban Design Strategy and Implementation

[Appendix 1]         Appendix 1. Previous report on Kogarah North to Kogarah Planning and Environment Working Party 18 April 2016

 

 

Page 186

 


 


 


 


 

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                                                                    Page 191

Finance and Governance

 

Item:                   CCL065-17        Tender for Public Amenties Upgrades at Lower Gannons Park and Oatley Park 

Author:              Manager Project Delivery

Directorate:      Assets and Infrastructure

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the report be received and noted.

(a)     That the separate report on this agenda relating to Tender for Public Amenities Upgrades at Lower Gannons Park and Oatley Park be considered in closed session, in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Chapter 4 of the Local Government Act 1993, Section 10A (2) (c) as it is considered the information, if disclosed, confers a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

Executive Summary

1.   This report is presented to Council to select a preferred Contractor for the Public Amenities Upgrades at Lower Gannons Park and Oatley Park.

 

Background

2.   As part of the 2016-2017 Infrastructure Plus Program, Council at its meeting on 3 December 2014 resolved to allocate funding to the reconstruction of a new amenities building (including dog club storage area) at Lower Gannons Park and a refurbishment of the Oatley Park amenities near The Castle.

 

3.   Tender documentation was prepared and tenders were called in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 for the Public Amenities Upgrades at Various Locations.

 

4.   The tender closed at 2.00pm, Wednesday 28 March 2017 and eight (8) submissions were received from the following companies:

·    Copper Commercial Constructions Pty Ltd

·    DJ & R Sargeant Pty Ltd t/as Whiteson & Company

·    Homann Constructions Pty Ltd

·    Jag Building & Bricklaying Pty Ltd

·    Kellyville Building Pty Ltd

·    Michael Camporeale Builders

·    Sudiro Constructions Pty Ltd

·    Sullivans Construction

 

5.   A tender assessment panel was formed comprising:

·     Manager Project Delivery

·     Coordinator Building Projects

·     Property Officer

 

6.   Submissions were assessed as outlined in the confidential report.

 

Financial Implications

7.      Within budget allocation – these projects are funded from the 2016-2017 Infrastructure Plus Buildings Program.

 

File Reference

T17/004

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                                                                    Page 193

Item:                   CCL066-17        Advice on Court Proceedings - April 2017 

Author:              General Counsel

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the information be received and noted.

 

Executive Summary

1.      Advice on Council’s Court Proceedings for the period 25 March 2017 to 24 April 2017 is contained within this report.

Background

2.      The current Court Proceedings for the reporting period are broken down as follows:

Land and Environment Court Appeals

·    11 x Class 1 (Merit/DA)

·    2 x Class 2 Appeal (Appeal against Order now S56A Appeal & Tree Dispute)

·    4 x Class 4 Proceedings

Local Court

·    14 x Prosecutions

District Court

·    1 x Defamation Proceedings

Supreme Court

·    1 x Administrative Law matter

 

Total Costs

·        Total costs to date for the 2016/17 financial year are $458,684.88 [$299,643.88 (Hurstville) and $159,041.00 (Kogarah)]. 

·       Total legal costs recovered to date for the 2016/17 financial year are $65,782.36 [$47,600.36 (Hurstville) and $18,182.00 (Kogarah)]. Therefore net legal costs for Court proceedings for the 2016/17 financial year are $392,902.52.

 

Historical Costs

·        Total costs for 2015/16 financial year were $897,624.00 [$815,167.00 (Hurstville) and $82,457.00 (Kogarah)];

·        Total costs for 2014/15 financial year were $1,468,351.00 [$1,401,608.00 (Hurstville) and $66,743.00 (Kogarah)].

 

New Matters

3.      Two new matters were received during the reporting period: two Class 1 Appeals (Karavelas and Congregational Christian Church Samoa Parish of Sydney).

 

Finalised Matters

4.       One matter (Cash Warwick) was resolved by way of s34 Agreement saving Council approximately $16,000 in Court costs.

Current Table

5.      The Court Proceedings current for the reporting period for Council are set out below. The external costs include both external legal and consultants’ fees.

 

 

 

No.

Property Address / Applicant / Proceedings Number

Description of Matter

Status / Critical Dates

External Costs to Date Up to 2015/16 FY

External Costs to Date From 2016/17 FY

Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Class 1 Appeals

1

58 and 60 Blackshaw Avenue

MORTDALE

 

Applicant:

Marion McDowell and Associates

 

Proceedings No.

241879 of 2016

Class 1 Appeal against Council Order for demolition of existing unauthorised structure.

Matter set down for hearing on 5 June 2017. Negotiations continuing regarding stormwater management.

$0

$9,950.80

2

66 Mulga Road OATLEY

 

Applicant:

Foxground Property Investments Pty Ltd

 

Proceedings No.

290679 of 2016

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA2015/0035 for demolition of existing structures and construction of new two storey childcare centre for 51 children with basement car parking.

Council experts considered amended plans following conciliation and resolved that the amendments addressed all the Contentions, subject to appropriate conditions.  Matter resolved by S34 Agreement filed with the Court on 22 March   2017.

$0

$36,546.61

3

399-403 Princes Highway

CARLTON

 

Applicant :

Michael Murr

 

Proceedings No.

336689 of 2016

Class 1 Appeal against refusal of DA 75/2016 for 5 storey residential flat building containing 22 units and strata subdivision.

S34 conference listed for 15 February 

2017 terminated. Proceedings now fixed for contested hearing on 24 and 25 May 2017.  Consultant planner and urban design expert briefed.

$0

$15,741.23

4

8-10 Princes Highway

KOGARAH

 

Applicant:

Outdoor Systems P/L

 

Proceedings No. 344564 of 2016

 

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of Section 96 application DA30/1997 to delete conditions relating to a digital advertising sign. 

Matter part heard and listed for a further hearing day on 24 April 2017.  RMS joined to proceedings.  Council filed submitting appearance as it has no objection to application.

$0

$7,642.44

5

832-836 King Georges Road & 51 Connells Point Road, SOUTH HURSTVILLE

 

Applicant:  Cash Warwick Pty Limited

 

Proceedings No. 380571 of 2016

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA 99/2016 for demolition of existing dwellings and construction of 1 x 7 and 1 x 5 storey residential flat buildings.

S34 Agreement entered into.

$0

$3,730.00

6

25 Old Forest Road, LUGARNO

 

Applicant: George Antoniou

 

Proceedings No. 2826 of 2017

 

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA 2016/0314 for child care centre for 45 children.

Matter listed for S34 Conciliation on 4 May 2017.  External traffic and acoustic consultants briefed.

$0

$3,500.00

7

12 – 22 Woniora Road, Hurstville

 

Applicant: Combined Projects (Hurstville) Pty Limited

 

Proceedings No. 64848 of 2017

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA 154/2016 for construction of an additional two storeys to Building D of mixed use development

Matter listed for S34 Conference on 21 June 2017.  External planner briefed.

$0

$0

8

365 – 377 Rocky Point Road, Sans Souci

 

Applicant: Primus DMS Pty Limited

 

Proceedings No. 71976 of 2017

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA 283/16 for alterations and additions to mixed use development

Matter listed for S34 Conference 6 July 2017.

$0

$0

9

35 – 39 Ocean Street, Kogarah

 

Applicant: Mario Briglia, Enio Briglia & Maria Cerra

 

Proceedings No. 77304 of 2017

Class 1 Appeal against refusal of DA 26/16 for the demolition of existing dwellings and construction of multi-dwelling housing over basement car parking and strata subdivision

Matter listed for further directions hearing on 28 April 2017.

$0

$0

10

19 – 23 Bembridge Street, Carlton

 

Applicant:

William Karavelas

 

Proceedings No: 98274 of 2017

Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of DA 9/2016/78/2 for modification of DA 9/2016/78/1 to amend condition 4, relation to Section 94 contributions and delete conditions 13, 14 and 15 relating to design amendments

Matter listed for first directions on 28 April 2017

$0

$0

11

977 Forest Road, Lugarno

 

Applicant: Congregational Christian Church Samoa Parish of Sydney

 

Proceedings No: 103967 of 2017

Class 1 Appeal against refusal of DA2015/0443 for a child care centre

Matter listed for first directions on 9 May 2017

$0

$0

 

Subtotal

 

 

$0.00

$77,111.08

Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Class 4 Proceedings

 

1

84D Roberts Avenue

MORTDALE

 

Parties:

 

Romanous Developments Pty Ltd

 

Proceedings No.

40883 of 2013

Court orders entered on 24 July 2015 for Class 4 proceedings requiring remediation works under supervision of independent site auditor.

DAs for wall and bridge assessed.  Outstanding drainage information sought by Council.  To be provided by 27 April 2017. Site subject to continual monitoring in view of Court orders.

$283,921.51

$2,405.50

2

37 Boronia Street

KYLE BAY

 

Parties:

Mrs Megan McOnie

 

Proceedings No.

40940 of 2015

 

Class 4 commenced in relation to failing to comply with Council Notices/Orders relating to a non-compliant swimming pool fence, overgrown vegetation and unhealthy swimming pool water.

Court Orders in support of Council’s Notices/Orders made. Application for substituted service on Respondent commenced.  Pool secured by Council December 2016.

$20,658.60

$1,560.50

3

5 MacLaurin Street, PENSHURST

 

Parties: Emanuel Mifsud & Crystina Mifsud

 

Proceedings No. 377447 of 2016

Class 4 commenced in relation to clearing of articles and matter.

Respondents have failed to comply with Court orders.  Contempt proceedings commenced against Mr Mifsud and next listed on 21 April 2017.

$0.00

$19,018.25

4

105 Forest Road & 1A Hill Street, Hurstville

 

Parties: Australian Consulting Builders

Court orders entered on 5 August 2016 relating to cleaning up of property at 105 Forest Road.  Related adjoining property also in disrepair. 

Proceedings commenced. Consent orders agreed following clean-up of property.  Respondent to pay Council’s costs. Subject to continual monitoring.

$11,806.33

$7,417.55

 

Subtotal

 

 

$316,386.44

$30,401.80

Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Class 2 Appeals

 

1

1 Arnold Street

PEAKHURST

 

Parties:

Mofeed Louis Tanious

 

Proceedings No.

2017/32320

 

Class 2 commencing in relation to failing to comply with Council Notices/Orders concerning keeping of poultry at the premises.  Orders upheld by Court with extension of time to comply to 25 April 2017.

Further S56A lodged by applicant and listed for hearing on 17 May 2017.

$0

$18,239.00

2

7B Tottenham Place, BLAKEHURST

 

Applicant: Dr Eric Solo

 

Proceedings No. 359122 of 2016

Class 2 Appeal – Tree Dispute Application.

Council has advised applicant it has no objection to removal of trees.  Awaiting outcome from Court.  Onsite hearing 20 April 2017 at 9.30am.

$0

$0

 

Subtotal

 

 

$0

$18,239.00

Local Court Proceedings

 

1

13-17 Peake Parade

PEAKHURST

 

Parties:

Oxford (NSW) Pty Ltd

Appeal against PIN for breaches of development consent. Defendant pleaded not guilty.

Matter part heard on 20 May and 26 October 2016. Magistrate requires further submissions. Stood over to 10 May 2017.

$221.50

$5,959.50

2-6

13-17 Peake Parade

PEAKHURST

 

Parties:

Oxford (NSW) Pty Ltd

 

 

Appeals against five PINs for breaches of development consent and one water pollution offence under POEO Act.

Defendant pleaded guilty to 4 offences, 1 withdrawn.  Magistrate has ordered written submission evidence on sentencing.  Listed on 10 May 2017.

$190.00

$4,619.10

7-12

25 Koorabel, 25A Koorabel, 25B Koorabel Street

LUGARNO

 

Parties:

Daoud & Daoud Developments Pty Ltd

Appeals against six PINs issued for carrying out development not in accordance with development consent.

Matter adjourned for sentencing to 16 August 2017.

$0

$4,797.90

13

6 Freeman Avenue, Oatley

 

Parties: Hout Chu

Appeals against 3 PINs issued for carrying out development without consent, causing damage to 3 significant trees.

Defendant pleaded guilty.  Matter heard on 14 February 2017.  Council obtained fines against Mr Chu of $6,000 and $500 Prosecutor’s costs.

$0

$0

14

25 Iraga Avenue, Peakhurst

 

Parties: Montgomery Homes Pty Limited

PIN for unauthorised works

Defendant pleaded guilty with an excuse.  Montgomery Homes Pty Limited fined $8,000 and $800 Prosecutor’s costs.

$0

$0

 

Subtotal

 

 

$411.50

$15,376.50

Supreme Court Proceedings

 

1

The Baptist Church Union of NSW and The Baptist Churches of NSW Property Trust

 

No. 83357 of 2017

Church has taken proceedings to  prevent gazettal of the acquisition notice relating to 4 – 6 Dora Street, Hurstville

Council was successful in resisting the Church’s injunction.  Property acquired by Council on 31 March 2017.

$0

$24,074.00

 

Subtotal

 

 

$0

$24,074.00

 

6.      The cost savings to date by virtue of S34 delegations are as follows:

 

Month

Savings

July

$34,000.00

August

$24,000.00

September

$0

October

$16,000.00

November

$32,000.00

December

$0.00

January

$48,000.00

February

$0.00

March

$32,000.00

April

$16,000.00

Total

$202,000.00

 

 

Financial Implications

7.      Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

09/1077

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                                                                    Page 200

Item:                   CCL067-17        Investment Report as at 31 March 2017 

Author:              Team Leader Financial Reporting

Directorate:      Office of the Chief Operating Officer

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the Investment Report as at 31 March 2017 be received and noted.

 

Executive Summary

1.   This report details Council’s performance of its investment portfolio for March 2017 and compares it against key benchmarks. The report includes the estimated market valuation of Council’s investment portfolio, loan liabilities, and an update on Council’s legal action against various parties.

2.   Council’s annualised rate of return is 3.18%, which is 1.41% above benchmark. Income from interest on investments and proceeds from sale of investments totals at $4.17 million is $313,974 above 2016/17 budget.

 

Background

3.      Council’s Responsible Accounting Officer, is required to report monthly on Council’s Investment Portfolio and certify that the Investments are held in accordance with Council’s Investment Policy and Section 625 of the Local Government Act.

Investment Performance Commentary

4.      Council’s performance against the benchmark for returns of its investment portfolio for March 2017, are as follows:

                  

 

1 Month

3 Month

12 Month

Portfolio Performance

0.29%

1.00%

3.18%

Performance Index

0.15%

0.44%

1.77%

Excess

0.14%

0.56%

1.41%

                         

Notes                                                       

1       Portfolio performance is the rate of return of the portfolio over the specified period

2       The Performance Index is the rate of return of the market (comparable securities) over the specified period                               

3       Excess performance is the rate of return of the portfolio in excess of the Performance Index

 

 

 

 

5.      Council’s investment portfolio as at the end of March was as follows:

Security Type

Market Value $000's

% Total
Value

Cash at Bank

3,259

1.88%

11am Cash

6,124

3.54%

31 Day Notice Account

10,012

5.79%

ASX Listed Fixed Rate Security

2,019

1.17%

Covered Floating Bond

1,008

0.58%

Floating Rate Deposit

3,005

1.74%

Floating Rate Note

60,224

34.80%

Floating Rate TCD

3,029

1.75%

Term Deposit

76,650

44.29%

Managed Funds Trust

7,743

4.47%

Total Cash and Investments

173,073

100.00%

 

 

 

Investment Properties

15,100

 

Portfolio Total

188,174

 

 

6.   At the end of March 2017 Total Cash and Investments at $173,073 million decreased by $4.386 million as a result of normal monthly operational spend. 

 

Council’s Investment Properties Portfolio

 

Council’s commercial investment properties updated as at the end of March 2017 were as follows:

                            

 

7.   The investment property valuations listed above have been undertaken in accordance with the revaluation process to ‘fair value’ by an independent valuer, in compliance with the Australian Accounting Standards.

 

 

8.  Council continues to utilise the Federal Government’s current guarantee   ($250,000) investing in Term Deposits with a range of Authorised Deposit Taking Institutions (ADI’s) on short to medium term investments (generally 30 days to 180 days maturity) where more competitive rates are available.

9.      Council’s income from investments is above budget, due mainly to Council receiving more funds from Section 94 contributions, with investment income for General Revenue remaining steady.

 

Legal Issues

10.    Council was participating in the IMF class action regarding Lehman Brothers Australia Liquidation. The IMF class action matter is now finalised.

 

Loan Liability

 

11.    Council’s loan liability as at 31 March was $2.750 million which represents the balance of $5 million ten (10) year loan drawn down on 16 November 2012 for Jubilee Park upgrade in Mortdale. Next repayment of $125,000 is due 28th June 2017. The outstanding balance on this facility is at a variable interest of 194 basis points over 3 month BBSW. At the current 3 month BBSW rate, the interest rate payable is 3.74% pa.

12.    Council receives a 4.00% pa subsidy under the NSW Government’s Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme funding agreement for this Jubilee Park upgrade facility. It is intended to continue this financially-advantageous arrangement through to full term in 2022.

 

Policy Limits

 

13.    The following graph shows the limits, as a percentage of total cash investments, of the amount by periods, as allowed under Council’s policy, and comparing them to the amounts actually invested, as a percentage of the total cash investments.

14.    It shows that the funds invested are within the limits set in the Investment Policy

                   

 

 

 

 

Investment Income

 

15.    Income from interest on investments and proceeds from sales of investments totals $4.17 million is $313,974 above current budget projections

 

Certificate by Chief Financial Officer (Responsible Accounting Officer): Rob Owens

 

16.    Investments have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, Minister’s Guidelines, Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

 

Analysis of Investments

 

Investment Duration

Investment Term

Market Value

% Total Value

Policy Limits %

0 to < 1 Year

               74,609

43.11%

100

1 to < 3 Years

               45,386

26.22%

70

3 to < 5 Years

               53,078

30.67%

50

> 5 Years

                      -  

-

25

Portfolio Total

             173,073

100%

 

 

 

18.    Council’s portfolio is very liquid, with 43% of assets maturing within 12 months. FRNs, funds and fixed bonds also provide additional liquidity in an emergency.

 

19.    The following graphs show analysis of the total cash investment by:

          Institution

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Investments

         

19.    Council’s investment portfolio is mainly directed to term deposits, which account for approximately 44% of total investments. Yields have steadily contracted, while tracking bond market volatility in the short term.

 

20.    Bank Floating Rate Notes (FRN) offer liquidity and a higher rate of income accrual, which is highly recommended by our Investment Advisors (CPG Research & Advisory) going forward.

 

21.    The following are the types of investments held by Council:

 

a)      At Call refers to funds held at a financial institution, and can be recalled by Council either           same day or on an overnight basis.

 

b)      A Floating Rate Note (FRN) is a debt security issued by a company with a variable interest rate. This can either be issued as Certificates of Deposit (CD) or as Medium Term Notes (MTN). The interest rate can be either fixed or floating, where the adjustments to the interest rate are usually made quarterly and are tied to a certain money market index such as the Bank Bill Swap Rate.

 

c)      A Fixed Rate Bond is a debt security issued by a company with a fixed interest rate over the term of the bond.

 

d)      A managed fund is a professionally managed investment portfolio that individual investors can buy into, purchasing 'units' rather than shares. Each managed fund has a specific investment objective. This is usually based around the different asset classes (cash, fixed interest, property and shares). The money you invest is used to buy assets in line with this investment objective. When you invest in a managed fund, you are allocated a number of 'units'. The value of your units is calculated on a daily basis and changes as the market value of the assets in the fund rises and falls.

         

* These managed funds have been grandfathered since the NSW State Government changed the list of Approved Investments as a result of the Cole enquiry (which was reflected in the Ministerial Order dated 31/7/2008).

 

Credit Rating

22.    Credit ratings are generally a statement as to an institution’s credit quality. Ratings ranging from A1+ to NR (Short Term) & AAA to BBB- (long term) are considered investment grade.

 

23.    A general guide as to the meaning of each credit rating that Council deals with is as follows:

 

Short-term

 

A1+: the best quality companies, reliable and stable. An obligor has extremely strong capacity to meet its financial commitments.

 

A1:    Adequate capacity to meet financial commitments, many positive investment attributes but also elements susceptible to adverse effects of changes in economic conditions.

 

A2:    Adequate capacity to meet financial commitments, but also speculative s or lack of protection against changes of economic conditions.

 

B1:    Moderate characteristic capacity to meet financial commitments, also in good economic conditions.

 

Unrated:   This category includes unrated Authorised Deposit-Taking Institutions (ADI’s) such as some Credit Unions and Building Societies to the extent not Commonwealth-guaranteed. No rating has been requested, or there is insufficient information on which to base a rating.         

 

Long-term

 

AAA:          the best quality companies, reliable and stable. An obligor has extremely strong capacity to meet its financial commitments.

         

AA:   quality companies, a bit higher risk than AAA. An obligor has very strong capacity to meet its financial commitments. It differs from the highest-rated obligors only to a small degree.

 

A:      economic situation can affect finance. An obligor has strong capacity to meet its financial commitments but is somewhat more susceptible to the adverse effects of changes in circumstances and economic conditions than obligors in higher-rated categories.

 

BBB:          medium class companies, which are satisfactory at the moment. An obligor has adequate capacity to meet its financial commitments. However, adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to lead to a weakened capacity of the obligor to meet its financial commitments.

 

Unrated:  This category includes unrated Authorised Deposit-Taking Institutions (ADI’s) such as some Credit Unions and Building Societies to the extent not Commonwealth-guaranteed. No rating has been requested, or there is insufficient information on which to base a rating.

 

22.    The credit quality of Council’s portfolio is relatively high with approximately 75% of assets rated ‘A’ or higher. The ‘AAA’ assets represent the deposit investments covered by the Federal Government’s Financial Claims Scheme (FCS).

 

23.    The remaining 25% rated ‘BBB’ or ‘unrated’ reflects the attractive deposit and Floating Rate Notes (FRN) investments with the regional and unrated ADIs.

 

 

Council’s Investment Powers

24.    Council’s investment powers are regulated by Section 625 of the Local Government Act, which states:

 

•        A council may invest money that is not, for the time being, required by the council for any other purpose.

•        Money may be invested only in a form of investment notified by order of the Minister published in the Gazette.

•        An order of the Minister notifying a form of investment for the purposes of this section must not be made without the approval of the Treasurer.

•        The acquisition, in accordance with section 358, of a controlling interest in a corporation or an entity within the meaning of that section is not an investment for the purposes of this section.

 

25.    Council’s investment policy and strategy requires that all investments are to be made in accordance with;

 

•        Local Government Act 1993 - Section 625

•        Local Government Act 1993 - Order (of the Minister) dated 12 January 2011

•        The Trustee Amendment (Discretionary Investments) Act 1997 – Sections 14A(2), 14C(1) & (2)

•        Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1993

•        Investment Guidelines issued by the Department of Local Government

 

 

File Reference

D17/53582

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Investment Portfolio as at 31 March 2017

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL067-17          Investment Report as at 31 March 2017

[Appendix 1]         Investment Portfolio as at 31 March 2017

 

 

Page 209

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                                                                    Page 216

Item:                   CCL068-17        Revisions of Council's Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Charter and the Committee's Audit Charter 

Author:              Internal Auditor

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council adopt the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Charter provided as an attachment to this report.

(b)     That Council note the Internal Audit Charter, which was adopted by the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee at its meeting of 13 February 2017 and is also attached to this report.

 

Executive Summary

1.      Council’s Audit Committee Charter has been in use since 4 July 2016. New legislation takes effect with the adoption of the Local Government Amendment (Governance and Planning) Act 2016 No 38, which has changed the Committee’s name and mandated and defined the role of an Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC). Council’s ARIC has endorsed the attached draft Committee Charter, now submitted for consideration and adoption by the Council.

Council’s Audit Risk and Improvement Committee’s Internal Audit Charter, is distinct from the Council’s Audit Risk and Improvement Committee Charter. The Internal Audit Charter has been adopted by the Committee, for its own use and it is now submitted to the Council to note for information.

 

Background

2.      The NSW Government has adopted legislation to require every NSW Council to have an Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC). The Local Government Amendment (Governance and Planning) Act 2016 No 38 establishes amendments to S428a of the local Government Act, which when proclaimed, will compel the creation of an ARIC in every Council, significantly improving the practice of internal audit across local government. 

3.        Section 428(a) provides as follows:

(1)  A council must appoint an Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee.

(2)  The Committee must keep under review the following aspects of the council’s operations:

(a)  compliance,

(b)  risk management,

(c)  fraud control,

(d)  financial management,

(e)  governance,

(f)  implementation of the strategic plan, delivery program and strategies,

(g)  service reviews,

(h)  collection of performance measurement data by the council,

(i)  any other matters prescribed by the regulations.

(3)  The Committee is also to provide information to the council for the purpose of improving the council’s performance of its functions.

 

3.   Each Council is required to have an Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Charter, to facilitate compliance with the new provisions of the Local Government Act. Each Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee will also have its own Internal Audit Charter, for the same reason.

 

4.   Council’s Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee will work to the Charters which are compatible to provide independent assurance that programmes and activities are in place to manage Council’s risk profile.

 

Financial Implications

5.      No budget impact for this report.

 

File Reference

D17/22950

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Audit Risk and Improvement Committee Charter

Attachment View2

Internal Audit Charter - May 2017

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL068-17          Revisions of Council's Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Charter and the Committee's Audit Charter

[Appendix 1]         Audit Risk and Improvement Committee Charter

 

 

Page 218

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL068-17          Revisions of Council's Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Charter and the Committee's Audit Charter

[Appendix 2]         Internal Audit Charter - May 2017

 

 

Page 235

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                                                                    Page 243

Item:                   CCL069-17        Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Minutes - 31 October 2016 and 6 December 2016 

Author:              Internal Auditor

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council note the minutes of the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee provided as an attachment to this report.

 

Executive Summary

1.      Council’s Audit Committee Charter provides in Cl 5.1 for the periodic reporting of Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Minutes to the Council.  

2.      The Committee met on 31 October 2016 and on 6 December 2016 for scheduled meetings.

3.      The minutes of those meetings are now provided for the information of Council.

 

Financial Implications

4.      Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

17/866

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

ARIC Minutes 31 Oct 2016

Attachment View2

ARIC Extraordinary Meeting Minutes 6 Dec 2016

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL069-17          Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Minutes - 31 October 2016 and 6 December 2016

[Appendix 1]         ARIC Minutes 31 Oct 2016

 

 

Page 244

 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL069-17          Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee Minutes - 31 October 2016 and 6 December 2016

[Appendix 2]         ARIC Extraordinary Meeting Minutes 6 Dec 2016

 

 

Page 249

 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                                                                    Page 253

Item:                   CCL070-17        Property Matter - Proposed Low Impact Telecommunications Facility at Redin Place Reserve, Connells Point 

Author:              Property Portfolio Manager

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council note that Vodafone Hutchison Australia Pty Ltd (VHA) intends to serve notice on Council for the installation of a low impact telecommunications facility as defined in the Telecommunications Act, 1997 to be located within Redin Place Reserve, Connells Point.

(b)     That the General Manager be authorised to enter into an appropriate Access Deed or Deed of Compensation should notice be served on Council for the proposed facility.

 

Executive Summary

1.      Vodafone Hutchison Australia Pty Ltd (VHA) proposes to serve notice on Council for a proposed telecommunications ‘Low Impact Facility’ as defined in the Telecommunications Act, 1997 (Cth) (Act) to be located within Council’s Redin Place Reserve, Connells Point (Reserve). 

2.      As the proposed facility is defined as ‘low impact’ in accordance with the Telecommunications (Low Impact Facilities) Determination 1997 (Cth) (Determination), Council is unable to oppose the installation. 

3.      It is therefore recommended that suitable commercial terms are agreed by way of a Deed of Access or Compensation and entered into following VHA serving notice on Council in accordance with the Act.

 

Background

4.      Council is the owner of the Reserve and its classification is ‘Community Land – Natural Area Bushland’. 

5.      This matter was previously considered by the former Kogarah City Council on 17 August 2015 when Council agreed to enter into a property lease with VHA for a proposed low impact telecommunications facility within Redin Place Reserve, Connells Point.  A copy of the previous report is contained at Attachment 1. 

6.      The proposed facility occupied a base area of 8.8m2 within the Reserve with the antenna to be co-located upon an adjacent Ausgrid light pole located within the road reserve.  A location plan is provided at Attachment 2.

7.      The previous report advised that the proposal would have minimal impact on the primary use of the Reserve.  While this is the case, a property lease cannot be granted as it is not permitted, nor consistent with the community land provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993.

 

8.      Additionally, the proposal as previously submitted could not be defined as “low impact” in accordance with the Commonwealth Determination, as the ground unit exceeded the maximum area for low impact facilities of 7.5m2.

 

 

Current Situation

9.      Since the former Kogarah Council considered this matter, VHA has amended the design of the proposed facility.  The amended design now complies with the requirements of a low impact facility in that the equipment shelter will be:

·    Used solely to house equipment used to assist in providing a service by means of a facility mentioned in Part 1 (of the Act)

·    Not more than 3 metres high 

·    With a base area of not more than 7.5m2

·    Either colour matched to its background or to a colour agreed between the carrier and the Council.

 

10.    As stated in the previous report, low impact telecommunications facilities do not require the consent of Council as the local planning authority.  It is therefore incumbent on Council to obtain the best commercial outcome for the community, as the Act will override local and State planning laws.

 

11.    VHA previously offered Kogarah City Council $10,000 per annum for the occupation (lease) of the site.  However, Council officers have now negotiated $16,875 per annum plus GST with 3% annual increases.  With commercial terms agreed to in principle, Council will be in a position to accept VHA serving notice on Council in accordance with the Commonwealth Determination.

 

12.    In accordance with the Act, VHA has the responsibility to undertake the necessary community consultation process required for the low impact facility at this location.  It is the responsibility of VHA to deal with both objections and submissions in support of this proposal.  A copy of the CPS Global community consultation report is provided at Attachment 3. 

 

Financial Implications

13.    Within budget allocation.

 

File Reference

17/251

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Previous Council Report 17 Aug 2015

Attachment View2

Location Plan

Attachment View3

Consultation Report

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL070-17          Property Matter - Proposed Low Impact Telecommunications Facility at Redin Place Reserve, Connells Point

[Appendix 1]         Previous Council Report 17 Aug 2015

 

 

Page 255

 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL070-17          Property Matter - Proposed Low Impact Telecommunications Facility at Redin Place Reserve, Connells Point

[Appendix 2]         Location Plan

 

 

Page 257

 


 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL070-17          Property Matter - Proposed Low Impact Telecommunications Facility at Redin Place Reserve, Connells Point

[Appendix 3]         Consultation Report

 

 

Page 261

 


 


 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL070-17          Property Matter - Proposed Low Impact Telecommunications Facility at Redin Place Reserve, Connells Point

[Appendix 3]         Consultation Report

 

 

Page 264

 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                                                                    Page 266

Item:                   CCL071-17        Draft Georges River Council CCTV Operations Policy 

Author:              Director Transformation and Change

Directorate:      Transformation and Change

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council endorse the attached Draft Georges River Council Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Operations Policy for the purpose of public exhibition for a period of not less than 14 days.

(b)     That the submissions received during the public exhibition period be reported back to Council together with any recommended changes to the Draft Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Operations Policy for adoption.

(c)     That during the public exhibition period, the Draft Georges River Council Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Operations Policy be referred to the Implementation Advisory Committee for review and comment.

 

Executive Summary

1.      The proposed CCTV Operations Policy will ensure compliance with legislative requirements, fulfil obligations under the Risk Management Action Plan and improve transparency of Council’s CCTV Operations.

 

Background

2.      The former Councils had a range of CCTV systems that were used for the purposes of asset protection, public space safety and targeting illegal dumping.

3.      Following a review of the arrangements of the former Hurstville and Kogarah Council a policy and compliance gap was identified.

4.      Prior to amalgamation, both Councils had won grants to implement additional public safety cameras; however these have not yet been purchased due to the policy gap. A tender will be required and will be initiated once the CCTV Operations Policy and Procedures are adopted.

5.      A Transformation and Change working group was established to document the CCTV cameras in place, to engage expert advice and to prepare new policy and procedure documents.

6.      Following the establishment of the working group an independent security consultant was engaged to advise the group on the technical specifications required for the CCTV tender as well as the signage and documentation required for compliance. NSW Police were also engaged to advise the group on public safety priority areas.   

COMPLIANCE

7.      The proposed CCTV Operations Policy (Attachment A) will ensure compliance with legislative requirements.

RISK MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN

8.      The proposed CCTV framework and Executive endorsement of the CCTV Operations Policy fulfils one of the projects detailed in the 2016/2017 Risk Management Action Plan (RMAP) submitted to Council’s insurer Jardine Lloyd and Thompson (JLT). Fulfilment of the projects detailed in the RMAP qualifies Council for a rebate under the State Wide Mutual scheme.

Implementation

9.      The implementation of the CCTV Operations Policy and related Procedures will be undertaken by the working group which currently includes representatives from Transformation and Change, Community and Culture, Assets and Infrastructure and Environment and Planning.

10.    A detailed Implementation Plan is currently being developed which will include a number of strategies in relation to Policy implementation, legislative compliance and the rollout of the two grant funds.

 

Financial Implications

11.    No budget impact for this report.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Draft CCTV Operations Policy

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL071-17          Draft Georges River Council CCTV Operations Policy

[Appendix 1]         Draft CCTV Operations Policy

 

 

Page 268

 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                                                                    Page 273

Item:                   CCL072-17        Risk Management Update and Draft Georges River Risk Management Policy 

Author:              Director Transformation and Change

Directorate:      Transformation and Change

Matter Type:     Finance and Governance

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council endorse the attached Draft Georges River Council Risk Management Policy for the purpose of public exhibition for a period of not less than 28 days.

(b)     That the submissions received during the public exhibition period be reported back to Council together with any recommended changes to the Draft Risk Management Policy for adoption.

(c)     That during the public exhibition period the Draft Georges River Council Risk Management Policy be referred to the Implementation Advisory Committee for review and comment.

 

Executive Summary

1.      This report provides the Executive endorsed Georges River Council Risk Management Policy for Council approval.

                                       

Background

2.   The attached Georges River Council Risk Management Policy is an essential component of the Enterprise Risk Management Framework for Georges River Council and is aligned with ISO31000:2009 International Standard for Risk Management.

3.   The Policy has been developed in consultation with the Executive Team during workshops hosted by Transformation and Change. The Policy describes the current position of Council in relation to Enterprise Risk Management and includes appetite statements developed with Executive input for each of the 9 strategic risk categories.

4.   On the 10 April 2017 the Audit, Risk and Improvement Committee (ARIC) reviewed the Executive endorsed Policy and the draft Georges River Council Enterprise Risk Assessments. The ARIC Chair and Committee members outlined that the work was of a very high standard, equal to or the best they had seen.

5.   Transformation and Change and Council’s Governance and Risk Management Team are in the process of finalising Georges River Council’s Risk Management Strategy. This Strategy will provide a framework around risk management at Council and will include the Enterprise Risk Assessments. The topics covered in the Strategy will include;

a.   Strategic Context

b.   Strategic Framework

c.   Embedding the Framework in our Culture

d.   The Risk Management Process

 

6.   Upon completion the Risk Management Strategy will go to the next ARIC for review and comment, along with the Executive and Council for approval.

 

 

Financial Implications

7.      No budget impact for this report.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Draft Risk Management Policy

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL072-17          Risk Management Update and Draft Georges River Risk Management Policy

[Appendix 1]         Draft Risk Management Policy

 

 

Page 275

 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                                                                    Page 281

Assets and Infrastructure

 

Item:                   CCL073-17        Georges River Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 18 April 2017 

Author:              Manager Infrastructure

Directorate:      Assets and Infrastructure

Matter Type:     Assets and Infrastructure

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the recommendations contained within the Minutes of the Georges River Traffic Advisory Committee meeting held on 18 April 2017 be adopted.

 

Executive Summary

1.      The Minutes of the Georges River Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting held on 18 April 2017 are submitted to Council for consideration and adoption.

 

Background

2.      The Traffic Advisory Committee meeting on 18 April 2017 was held at Kogarah Civic Centre.

 

Financial Implications

3.      Budget allocation

a.   RMS Traffic Facilities Grant       $384,080

b.   LATM Projects                               $40,000

 

4.      Balance to date

a.   RMS Traffic Facilities Grant       $217,254

b.   LATM Projects                               $8,226

 

5.      Estimated cost of works recommended by Traffic Committee is $6,400.

6.      Dissection: RMS Traffic Facilities Grant $2,400, Community & Culture Events budget $4,000.

 

File Reference

16/148

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Traffic Advisory Minutes - 18 April 2017

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL073-17          Georges River Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 18 April 2017

[Appendix 1]         Traffic Advisory Minutes - 18 April 2017

 

 

Page 282

 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                                                                    Page 287

Item:                   CCL074-17        Draft Georges River Council Graffiti and Posters Policy 

Author:              Project Leader

Directorate:      Transformation and Change

Matter Type:     Assets and Infrastructure

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council endorse the attached Draft Georges River Council Graffiti and Posters Policy for the purpose of public exhibition for a period of not less than 14 days.

(b)     That the submissions received during the public exhibition period be reported back to Council together with any recommended changes to the Draft Graffiti and Posters Policy for adoption.

(c)     That during the public exhibition period the Draft Georges River Council Graffiti and Posters Policy, be referred to the Implementation Advisory Committee for review and comment.

 

Executive Summary

1.      The proposed Policy provides guidance for the management of graffiti and posters within the Georges River Local Government Area (LGA). It will allow Council to remove graffiti from both council, and private property without the consent of the property owner. It will give Council discretion to remove bill posters from non-Council assets such as power poles. For both graffiti and bill posters, removal will be within 5 days of notification, within 24 hours if it is racist, defamatory, or derogatory. The policy also makes a distinction and dispensation for political posters in order to support the democratic process. They will be allowed a grace period of 40 days leading up to elections and 7 days after.

 

Background

2.      On 5 April 2017, the Executive considered and endorsed the draft Graffiti and Posters Policy. The minutes from that meeting are shown below:

 

a.   That Executive endorse the draft Graffiti and Posters Policy with minor amendments.

b.   That the draft Graffiti and Posters Policy be sent to Council for adoption.

c.   That definition of graffiti as separate from street art/murals be included in Policy.

d.   That Communications design business card to promote service to leave with business owners on completion of graffiti removal.

e.   That “signs obstructing traffic or becoming a pedestrian hazard be removed” is included in the Policy.

f.    That “A Frames and corflutes displayed on a public footpath be manned at all times” be included in Policy

 

3.      The draft policy was amended to incorporate the required changes.

 

Legislation

4.      The principal NSW legislation that governs graffiti and posters is the Graffiti Control Act 2008 No 100. Part 2 of the Act details punitive measures for graffiti related offences, being:

·    Damaging or defacing property by means of graffiti implement (up to 20 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months)

·    Possession of graffiti implement (up to 10 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months),

·    posting bills and marking offences (up to 4 penalty units).

As at April 2017 a penalty unit is valued at $110.

 

5.      Part 3 of the Act details how spray paint cans are controlled at Point of Sale. It is unlawful to sell to anyone under 18 years of age (up to 10 penalty units) and have unsecured stock in public spaces (up to 10 penalty units).

 

6.      Part 3A allows the NSW court to order graffiti offenders to undertake community clean-up work.

 

7.      Part 4 of the Act is specific to Local Government. The functional Sections of Part 4 of the Act are as follows:

 

S11:  A local council may, by agreement with the owner or occupier of any private land, carry out graffiti removal work on the land i.e. Council can enter private property to remove graffiti only by agreement with the property owner.

 

S12:  A local council may, without the agreement of the owner or occupier of any land, carry out graffiti removal work to property on that land if the graffiti concerned is visible from a public place. This removal work would be at Council's expense i.e. no prior notification is actually required.

 

S13: A local council must keep a register of graffiti removal work carried out [on private property].

 

8.      It should be noted that the graffiti provisions in the Local Government Act 1993 have been consolidated into the Graffiti Control Act 2008 No 100. Under the Local Government Act 1993, the following offences will still continue to apply:

 

S631 - Defacing/damaging/polluting public bathing place – maximum penalty is 10 penalty units.

 

S667 - Wilful defacing/damage/destruction of notices or signs erected by a council – maximum penalty is 20 penalty units.

 

9.      Part 2, Section 6 covers bill posters:

 

A person must not intentionally affix a placard or paper on any premises so that the placard or paper is within view from a public place, unless the person has first obtained the consent of the [occupier/owner], maximum penalty: 4 penalty units”.

 

Graffiti

10.    The aim of the Policy is to give Council the discretion to remove graffiti from both private and public property quickly and efficiently. The draft policy abides by the key legislation governing graffiti and posters in NSW - the Graffiti Control Act 2008 No 100. The key section is Section 12 of the Act, which allows Council to remove graffiti from private property, even without consent of the owner.

11.    There are advantages to providing this ‘free’ removal service at the prerogative of Council:

·      Removing graffiti quickly from an area deters vandals

·      The deterrence effect reduces graffiti on all property, including Council’s

·      The signalling effect of efficient removal can create overall more cleaner and safer spaces

·      It creates a positive image of Council as a proactive custodian of the area.

 

12.    The policy makes a distinction between graffiti and street art. While there is some grey area between the two, in general, graffiti is considered to be illegally penned, scratched, and sprayed “tags” that are directed to small groups and not the general public. In many cases, the general public cannot deduce what the tag actually says. Street art on the other hand, is an aesthetic visual creation that in some cases is actually authorised - murals on building walls being a common example. Street art adds to the visual appeal of an area, whereas graffiti detracts from it.

 

Posters

13.    For the purposes of this policy, posters is defined as visual items that have been placed on walls, fences, poles, and the like, advertising a message. This is inclusive of hard signs and A-frame boards. Under Part 2, Section 6 of NSW Graffiti Control Act 2008 No 100 a person must not affix a placard or paper on any premises. The Act has an expansive and broad definition of premises, including “the whole or any part of a structure, building, vehicle, vessel or place, whether built on or not”.

 

14.    The policy will allow Council to remove these at its discretion, where permission of the property or asset owner has not been obtained for the installation of the bill posters. The key areas this will target are power poles and large wall spaces. While every endeavour will be made to have the property/asset owner remove any bill posters, the policy will give the Director of Assets & Infrastructure the ability to remove unwanted bill posters quickly when needed.

 

15.    There is scope in the Policy to allow temporary posters such as those for garage sales. They will be considered to have consent provided they are safe and removed within three days after the event.

16.    Political posters are treated differently to other posters. Political posters are temporary and are part of the democratic process. Advertising allows candidates and parties to put forward their identity and what they stand for.  The draft Policy recognises this need and manages political posters to provide a balance between a drop in visual aesthetics and the democratic process.

 

 

17.    For Local Government Elections, under Section 365E of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005:

 

A person must not, during the regulated period, display or permit or cause to be displayed a poster:

 

(a)  on or within any premises occupied or used by, or under the control or management of:

(i)  the Crown or a NSW Government agency, or

(ii)  any council or county council, or

 

(b)  on or within any other premises, unless the person:

(i)   was the owner or a joint owner of the premises, or

(ii)  performed the act concerned with the permission in writing of the owner or a joint owner of the premises”.

 

18.    The regulated period is defined as 40 days before the date of the poll. Council may remove political posters that do not follow Section 365E.

 

19.    For Federal Elections Under Section 151B of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 No 41, a “person must not, at any time on the day of polling for an election, display or cause to be displayed any poster of any size … within 6 metres of an entrance to a polling place. This is the responsibility of the Australian Electoral Commission to enforce. 

 

20.    The draft Policy allows for political posters to be installed from 40 days prior to election day. They are then to be removed within seven days of the election being held. This would not apply to placards placed on private property with the permission of that property owner and is aimed at items that are installed on power poles and Council owned infrastructure (such as ‘A-frames’ on footpaths) – provided they are secure, and do not present any hazard to the general public.  With the last Federal election campaign in 2016 lasting 73 days, this restriction will need to be communicated to political parties clearly at the onset. As an overall policy position, no political posters in any election would be allowed to be installed any property owned by Council, in line with Section 365E of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005

 

Financial Implications

21.    No budget impact for this report.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Draft Graffiti and Poster Policy

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL074-17          Draft Georges River Council Graffiti and Posters Policy

[Appendix 1]         Draft Graffiti and Poster Policy

 

 

Page 291

 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                                                                    Page 297

Item:                   CCL075-17        University of Wollongong Jubilee Oval - Update on Management Activities 

Author:              Executive Manager Jubilee Stadium and Facilities

Directorate:      Office of the Chief Operating Officer

Matter Type:     Assets and Infrastructure

 

Recommendation

(a)     The Council note the update report on the management of University of Wollongong Jubilee Oval.

 

Executive Summary

1.         A report on the transition of the management of University of Wollongong Jubilee Oval and the hire arrangement for St George Illawarra Dragons (the Dragons) is provided for the information of Council.

 

Background

2.         At the Council Meeting on 6 March 2017 the following minute was recorded:

 

(a)     That Council receives the report and endorses the outcome of the review and adopts Option C to bring the management of Jubilee Oval in house;

(b)     That the transition of existing contractual arrangements are to be novated as indicated;

(c)     That the appointment of the Executive Manager, Jubilee Oval and Facilities; and

(d)     That delegated authority to the General Manager to negotiate and approve commercial terms in respect to the hire of University of Wollongong (UOW) Jubilee Oval to the St George Illawarra Dragons.

 

3.         A status update of the Council management of (UOW) Jubilee Oval is reported for Council’s information.

 

Contractual Arrangements with Suppliers

4.         The novation of the Ticketek agreement has been executed by a Deed of Novation signed by the General Manager.

 

5.         A Catering Services Agreement with Venues Live has been negotiated and executed by the General Manager.

 

The Dragons Hire Agreement

6.         In late 2016 Council commenced negotiations with the Dragons to enter into a long term hire agreement for the Dragons to train and play home games at UOW Jubilee Oval for the 2017 season and beyond.

7.   Whilst discussions continue with the Dragons in an attempt to secure a long term presence at UOW Jubilee Oval, until such time as the Dragons commit to same, a Venue Hire Agreement for the 2017 season has been prepared. 

 

8.   Council understands that following the Club’s internal review of all their existing venue hire arrangements the Dragons will be in a position to finalise a longer term agreement for UOW Jubilee Oval.

 

9.   To this end, a Draft Venue Hire Agreement was forwarded to the Dragons on 5 April 2017 that includes all agreed commercial terms for the 2017 season.

 

Other Business

10.        Commercial and utilisation opportunities are being identified and pursued in all areas of possible use of the venue, from commercial leasing to elite sports training sessions, regional football finals and new professional sporting franchise possibilities.

 

Asset Management

11.        The backlog of maintenance issues that have been identified are being addressed and a programme of regular recurrent maintenance has been introduced.

 

12.        A budget allocation for maintenance at the venue has now been provided to ensure issues can be addressed as required.

 

Financial Implications

13.        The conclusion of commercial terms negotiated with the Dragons and establishing supplier agreements for ticketing and catering will enable more accurate budget forecasting for 2017/18 to be undertaken.

 

 

 

   


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                                                                    Page 299

Community and Culture

 

Item:                   CCL076-17        Community Development and Services Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 10 April 2017 

Author:              Manager Community and Cultural Development

Directorate:      Community and Culture

Matter Type:     Community and Culture

 

Recommendation

(a)     That the recommendations contained within the Minutes of the Community Development and Services Advisory Committee meeting held on Monday 10 April 2017 be adopted.

 

Executive Summary

1.      Minutes of the Community Development and Services Advisory Committee meeting held at 5pm on Monday 10 April 2017 are attached for Council’s consideration and adoption.

 

Background

2.      In accordance with the adopted Terms of Reference, the Community Development and Services Advisory Committee will meet bi-monthly and items considered by the Committee will be presented to Council for their adoption and posted to Council’s website.

 

Financial Implications

3.      Within budget allocation.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Community Development Minutes - 10 April 2017

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL076-17          Community Development and Services Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 10 April 2017

[Appendix 1]         Community Development Minutes - 10 April 2017

 

 

Page 300

 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                                                                    Page 303

Item:                   CCL077-17        Draft Georges River Council Complaints Policy 

Author:              Project Leader

Directorate:      Transformation and Change

Matter Type:     Community and Culture

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council endorse the attached Draft Complaints Policy to be placed on public exhibition, together with any supporting material, for a period of not less than 28 days.

(b)     That the submissions received during the public exhibition period be reported back to Council together with any recommended changes to the Draft Complaints Policy for adoption.

(c)     That during the public exhibition period, a copy of the draft Georges River Council Complaints Policy be referred to The Independent Commission Against Corruption for review and comment.

 

Executive Summary

1.      A Draft Complaints Policy has been developed through a Complaints Working Group established as part of the Transformation and Change Customer Service Project Stream.  The intention of this draft Policy is to establish a framework within which Council can receive and manage complaints in a consistent, fair and professional manner.

2.      The Draft Policy has been presented to a range of stakeholders and staff for their consideration. Their comments and advice has been incorporated into the Draft Policy as attached to this report.

 

3.      The Draft Policy aims to provide customers with an understanding of what matters are considered ‘complaints’ and how this differs from ‘service requests’ or other types of requests handled by Council. The Draft Policy also outlines the three tier framework for complaint resolution, how Council will manage Unreasonable Customer Conduct and the roles and responsibilities of Council Staff in the implementation of this Draft Policy.

 

Background

4.      A Complaints Working Group consisting of staff across various business units of Council was established to develop a Draft Complaints Policy for Georges River Council.  The role of the Working Group was to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the existing complaint frameworks governing the former Councils, review complaint policies and procedures of other NSW Councils, review the NSW Ombudsman’s Model Policy on Complaint Management and develop a ‘wish list’ for the Georges River Council Complaint Policy and Framework.

5.      The ‘wish list’ for the new complaints framework included having a clear definition of ‘complaints’ as compared to ‘service requests’,  one system in which complaints could be lodged, managed, tracked and reported on, clear roles and responsibilities of staff in complaint management and provisions for dealing with customers who display unreasonable conduct.

 

6.      The Draft Complaints Policy was endorsed by the Executive Team (ET) on 15 March 2017 for stakeholder and internal staff engagement.

 

7.      Managers and staff from every business unit across Council were invited to attend staff briefing and feedback sessions in the period 20 March to 3 April 2017 on the Draft Complaints Policy and Framework. The process included targeted sessions with Managers, critical ‘customer’ focused business units and three general staff sessions.  A total of 91 staff from most business units across Council attended eighteen (18) briefing and feedback sessions.  The results of that feedback has been reported to the
ET and where appropriate, incorporated into the Draft Policy as attached to this report.

 

8.      The Draft Policy was also presented to the Consultative Committee. The results of the internal engagement and Draft Policy will be presented back to the Consultative Committee in May 2017.

 

9.      Feedback will also be invited from the Georges River Council Audit & Risk and Improvement Committee during the public exhibition of this Draft Policy.

 

10.    The Draft Policy was also referred to the NSW Ombudsman and NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) for review and comment.  Whilst neither agency is legally able to ‘endorse’ or ‘approve’ the Draft Policy, no objections were raised. The administrative changes recommended by ICAC to strengthen the technical aspects of the Policy have been incorporated in the Draft Policy as attached to this report.

 

11.    The Draft Policy has been formatted into Council’s recently adopted policy format.

 

The Draft Complaints Policy

12.    A complaint is defined in the Draft Policy as:

 

“A form of feedback which is an expression of dissatisfaction made about Council, its policies, procedures, fees & charges, staff, Councillors, agents and quality of service affecting an individual customer or group of customers.

 

This is different to a ‘Service request’ or other type of requests outlined in Appendix B”.

 

13.    The Draft Policy promotes a customer focused complaint management system in which complaints are seen as opportunities to learn, adapt, improve and enhance service delivery to its customers.

 

14.    The Draft Complaints Policy offers customers choice and flexibility in how they wish to lodge their complaint.  Council will accept complaints lodged by all communication channels including telephone, in person, writing and electronically.

 

15.    The Draft Policy adopts the NSW Ombudsman’s three tier approach to complaint handling which is responsive to the varying degrees of complexity associated with complaints.  The tiers consist of:

 

·    Early resolution – All staff will be empowered to resolve complaints at the first point of contact.

·    Further investigation – When complaints cannot be resolved early or the customer is not satisfied with the ‘Early resolution’ of the complaint, the matter will be referred to ‘Customer Advocates’ for coordination and resolution.

·    Review – If a customer is not satisfied with the outcome of a complaint dealt with under ‘Further Investigation’ (and reasonable grounds exist), they may request a final internal review of the issue. 

 

External review options exist for customers who are not satisfied with the internal solutions offered.

 

16.    Customer Advocates are specially trained customer service staff who are the customer’s ‘primary council contact’ for the life of the complaint whilst it is with Council.  The role of Customer Advocates is to coordinate the complaint, refer the complaint to the relevant internal business units for investigation, keep the customer informed of the status of the complaint and coordinate a final decision.

 

17.    The proposed service standards outlined in the Draft Policy are:

 

Complaint Type

Acknowledgement of Receipt

Resolution of Complaint

Early Resolution

Immediately via provision of Customer Request Tracking Number

Immediately or maximum of 5 business days

Further Investigation

2 business days in writing (via letter or email)

10 business days

Internal Review

2 business days

 

10 business days

 

External Review

Subject to reviewing body

Subject to reviewing body

 

18.    There are provisions in the Draft Policy which deal with Unreasonable Customer Conduct. These provisions state that where customers display unreasonable conduct, the General Manager may authorise an ‘Unreasonable Customer Conduct Declaration.  An unreasonable customer conduct declaration places conditions on a customer’s access to Council where their conduct has adversely affected the health and safety of an employee of council, the efficiency of service delivery and/or the equity and fairness in the allocation of Council resources.

 

Conclusion

19.   The purpose of this report is to outline the steps which have led up to and informed the                                                                                                                                                                                                     preparation of the Draft Complaints Policy. The next step in the process is to place the

       Draft Policy on public exhibition and invite public submissions.

 

Financial Implications

20.    No budget impact for this report.

 

File Reference

17/323 (SF17/98)

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Draft Complaints Policy

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL077-17          Draft Georges River Council Complaints Policy

[Appendix 1]         Draft Complaints Policy

 

 

Page 307

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                                                                    Page 318

Item:                   CCL078-17        Draft Georges River Council Sister City Policy 

Author:              Community Development Officer, Cultural Services

Directorate:      Community and Culture

Matter Type:     Community and Culture

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council endorse the attached Draft Georges River Council Sister City Policy for the purpose of public exhibition for a period of not less than 28 days.

(b)     That the submissions received during the public exhibition period be reported back to Council together with any recommended changes to the Draft Georges River Council Sister City Policy for adoption.

(c)     That the Sister City and Friendship City relationships of the former Kogarah City Council and former Hurstville City Council are held in abeyance until after the Local Government elections in September 2017.

(d)     That during the public exhibition period, a copy of the Draft Georges River Council Sister City Policy be referred to the Implementation Advisory Committee for review and comment.

 

Executive Summary

1.      A draft Sister City Policy has been developed through a Working Party established as part of the Transformation and Change Program with representatives from different Council departments.

2.      The intention of the Sister City Policy is to provide a clear policy position to guide Council to develop and manage international and Australian Sister City relationships.

3.      The draft Policy aims to provide the community with an understanding of how Sister City relationships are developed and managed to ensure they are meaningful, beneficial and accountable to the Georges River community.

4.      Following the formation of Georges River Council as a new council, the Sister City and Friendship City relationships of the former Kogarah City Council and Hurstville City Council are held in abeyance until after the Local Government elections in September 2017.

Background

5.      The Working Party commenced the development of the draft Policy by conducting a review of the two former Councils’ active and inactive Sister City and Friendship City relationships; this equated to a total of thirteen formal and information relationships.

6.      The active relationships are as follows:

·    Hurstville City Council – Tamworth (Australia), Changzhou (China) and Shiroishi (Japan)

·    Kogarah City Council – Cowra (Australia), Ma’anshan (China) and Shunde (China)

7.      The Working Party reviewed the literature and existing practices of other councils and identified key themes of successful Sister City relationships.

8.      The draft Policy, developed through the above process, supports the establishment of relationships which have clear purpose and demonstrable benefit to the community of both cities.

9.      The draft Policy outlines a defined set of principles on which a Sister City will be proposed, approved, established, managed and evaluated.

10.    Council’s Sister City Relationships must meet all of the following principles:

·    They are between cities which share historic, cultural, social, economic or geographic similarities or synergies

·    They clearly demonstrate a meaningful reciprocal relationship or activity built on mutual respect, understanding and a commitment to shared objectives

·    They are purposeful and established with clear motives, obligations, objectives and outcomes

·    They show that the communities of both cities have a demonstrated commitment to, and interest in, forming and maintaining the relationship

·    They align with the Community Strategic Plan.

11.    Sister City relationships will be formally adopted by Council.

Conclusion                                                    

12.    The draft Policy will provide clear guidance for Council in the formation and maintenance of Sister City relationships which are successful, meaningful, beneficial and accountable to the new Georges River community.

Financial Implications

13.    No budget impact for this report.

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Draft Georges River Council Sister City Policy

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL078-17          Draft Georges River Council Sister City Policy

[Appendix 1]         Draft Georges River Council Sister City Policy

 

 

Page 320

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                                                                    Page 327

Item:                   CCL079-17        Draft Georges River Council Sponsorship and Donation Policy 

Author:              Manager Community and Cultural Development

Directorate:      Community and Culture

Matter Type:     Community and Culture

 

Recommendation

(a)     That Council endorse the attached draft Georges River Council Sponsorship and Donation Policy for the purpose of public exhibition for a period of not less than 28 days.

(b)     That the submissions received during the public exhibition period be reported back to Council together with any recommended changes to the draft Sponsorship and Donations Policy prior to adoption.

(c)     That the General Manager investigate the creation of a sponsorship and donations budget for consideration as part of the 2017/2018 draft budget process.

(d)     That during the public exhibition period, a copy of the draft Georges River Council Sponsorship and Donation Policy be referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption for review and comment.

(e)     That during the public exhibition period, a copy of the draft Georges River Council Sponsorship and Donation Policy be referred to the Implementation Advisory Committee for review and comment.

 

Executive Summary

1.      This report is presented to Council to seek endorsement for the draft Georges River Council Sponsorship and Donation Policy to be placed on public exhibition.

2.      The draft Sponsorship and Donation Policy has been developed through an internal working party with the intention of providing a clear framework and general principles for managing Council’s incoming and outgoing sponsorship and donation programs and to ensure that they are dealt with in an equitable, transparent and consistent manner.

Background

3.      Council receives many unsolicited requests from individuals and organisations within the community for financial support through sponsorship and donations. Council will at times also seek to engage in a sponsorship agreement with an organisation or business to support a program, event or activity for the benefit of the community.

4.      A working party was established comprising relevant staff from various teams within Council to review extant policies and create a draft Sponsorship and Donation Policy in order to develop a framework for assessing and managing requests for donations and sponsorship. 

5.      The working party reviewed former Hurstville City Council and Kogarah City Council policies, as well as researching similar policies from other local Councils and relevant sections of the Local Government Act 1993. Extant policies taken into consideration included the former Kogarah City Council’s Sponsorship Policy and Library Collection Development Policy; Hurstville City Council’s Youth Sponsorship Policy, LMG Collection Development Policy; and both former Councils’ Gifts and Benefits Policies.

6.      The draft Sponsorship and Donation Policy sets out to clearly define incoming and outgoing sponsorship and donations and the scope and limitations within which these will be accepted by Council.

7.      Should the attached draft Sponsorship and Donation Policy be supported by Council, it is recommended that it be placed on public exhibition in accordance with Section 160 of the Local Government Act 1993 in order to seek feedback from the community. In addition to the standard exhibition methods it would also be appropriate that a copy of the draft Policy be referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption for review and comment. 

 

Financial Implications

 

8.      Within budget allocation.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

D17 54782  Draft Sponsorship and Donations Policy(2)

 


Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 1 May 2017

CCL079-17          Draft Georges River Council Sponsorship and Donation Policy

[Appendix 1]         D17 54782  Draft Sponsorship and Donations Policy(2)

 

 

Page 329

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                                                                    Page 337

Confidential items (Closed Council Meeting)

 

Council's Code of Meeting Practice allows members of the public present to indicate whether they wish to make representations to the meeting, before it is closed to the public, as to whether that part of the meeting dealing with any or all of the matters below should or should not be closed.

 

Recommendation

That in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Chapter 4 of the Local Government Act 1993, the following matters be considered in closed Council Meeting at which the press and public are excluded.

 

CON005-17       Tender for Public Amenties Upgrades at Lower Gannons Park and Oatley Park

(Report by Manager Project Delivery, Michelle Whitehurst)

THAT in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Chapter 4 of the Local Government Act 1993, the matters dealt with in this report be considered in closed Council Meeting at which the press and public are excluded. In accordance with Section 10A(2) (d(i)) (d(ii)) it is considered the matter concerns commercial information of a confidential nature that would if disclosed prejudice the position of a person who supplied it; AND commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council.

THAT in accordance with Section 10D it is considered that if the matter were discussed in an open Council Meeting, it would on balance, be contrary to the public interest as it concerns commercial information of a confidential nature that would if disclosed prejudice the position of a person who supplied it; AND commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council.

 

That in accordance with the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Act, the reports and correspondence relating to these matters be withheld from the press and public.

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting -  Monday, 1 May 2017                                                                                    Page 338

11.    Open Council

12.    Consideration of Closed Council Recommendations