Agenda of Council Meeting - 6 February 2017

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 6 February 2017 Page 2

Environment and Planning

Item: CCL001-17 Exhibition of Draft Policy Changes (NSW Department of Planning) - Intended Effects - Proposed Medium Density Housing Code and Draft Medium Density Design Guide

Author: Coordinator Strategic Planning, Rita Vella and Strategic Planner, Kerry Longford

Directorate: Environment and Planning

Matter Type: Environment and Planning

Recommendation

(a) That the report be received and noted.

(b) That the issues raised in the body of the report be incorporated in a submission to the NSW Department of Planning & Environment in respect to the Explanation of Intended Effects – Proposed Medium Density Housing Code and Draft Medium Density Design Guide.

Executive Summary

1. The NSW State Government on 12 October 2016 released the draft Medium Density Design Guide (MDDG), along with the draft complying development standards (Explanation of Intended Effects) for medium density development, including dual occupancy development, terraces, manor houses and townhouse development.

2. The Explanation of Intended Effects aims to “outline the proposed amendments to the state policy on exempt and complying development to introduce a new Medium Density Housing Code”.

3. The document forms an explanation of the intended effect of the proposed amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (the Codes SEPP) and the Standard Instrument LEP.

4. Council considers that the proposed Medium Density Housing Code, as detailed in the Explanation of Intended Effects, does not set out clear and simple (and consistent) planning rules for certain types of low density medium density housing that could be carried out as complying development.

5. The Explanation of Intended Effects states that “For a type of development to be considered appropriate for approval through the complying development pathway it must:

§ Be delivered through a simple set of pre-defined measurable development standards

§ Result in predicable outcomes with predicable impacts

§ Have minimal scope for impact on adjoining properties” (page 7)

6. For the reasons highlighted in this report, Council considers that the Medium Density Housing Code, as presently proposed, does not satisfy the above prerequisites for those low rise medium density housing types to be a type of development considered appropriate for approval through the complying development pathway.

Background

7. The NSW State Government on 12 October 2016 released the draft Medium Density Design Guide (MDDG), along with the draft complying development standards for medium density development, including dual occupancy development, terraces, manor houses and townhouse development.

8. These documents follow on from the Discussion and Background Paper “Options for low rise medium density housing as complying development” which was exhibited by the Department from 27 November 2015 until 1 March 2016.

9. The former Kogarah Council made a submission to the Discussion Paper. A copy of this report is included as Appendix 1 and elements of the submission which were highlighted in the former Kogarah Council’s previous submission which have not been addressed still apply as relevant.

10. The Explanation of Intended Effects of the Proposed Medium Density Housing Code states that the intention of the new Code is to provide the efficient delivery of low rise medium density housing as complying development, however the documentation exhibited does not provide a clear indication as to how (and what) the proposed medium density housing legislative amendments are, and how (and when) those proposed amendments are proposed to be implemented.

11. The Explanation of Intended Effects is not easy to clearly understand, and complicates what is meant to be a simplified process of development assessment through the introduction of new and confusing definitions (manor house, multi-dwelling housing (terraces)) and lack of clear information on how the proposed changes will be enacted and implemented (amendments to Council’s LEPs)

12. The expansion of the Code is proposed to apply to residential accommodation where:

§ Dwellings are either attached or detached

§ Each dwelling fronts a public road
No building is more than two (2) storey

13. The R3 - Medium Density Residential zone in the Kogarah Local Environmental Plan (Kogarah LEP) 2012 and both the R2 Low Density Residential zone and R3 Medium Density Residential zone in Hurstville Local Environmental Plan (Hurstville LEP) 2012 currently including a variety of medium density housing types (with consent) and including multi dwelling housing, with both the R3 zones also permitting residential flat buildings.

General Comments

14. Council considers that the scale of development (medium density housing) is considered well beyond the scope of low risk/low impact development which was intended for the Complying Development pathway.

15. Council strongly objects to the introduction of medium density development, and specifically de-facto residential flat buildings in the form of manor houses in the R2 – Low Density Residential zone (Hurstville LEP 2012) as complying development. Council considers that this type of development particularly in areas with a low density residential character should be assessed as a DA so as to adequately address and resolve issues which may arises relating to bulk, scale, view loss, privacy and overlooking and car parking.

16. As the scale of development increases, so does the need for a more comprehensive assessment. It is considered that medium density development would require a merit based assessment, to take into account issues related to streetscape, view loss, topography, vegetation etc. The issue of amalgamated Councils and differences within LEPs and Land Use Tables also creates further complexities.

17. Council is not convinced that the design verification process, as proposed will be able to provide the independent and effective assessment needed to deliver site specific design outcomes that are satisfactory to the adjoining property owners.

18. There is also an expectation within the community with respect to medium density development that neighbours will be consulted (and their views considered) prior to development proposals being determined. Council’s experience is that private certifiers generally do not have in place adequate structures to respond to and deal with community enquiries.

19. In addition, private certifiers, through the Complying Development process do not operate equivalent systems to engage, inform, communicate and explain decisions with third parties. Removing these layers of scrutiny and transparency from the decision making process for medium density development is at odds with the expectations of neighbouring residents and communities and is likely to undermine to credibility of the Complying Development approval pathway.

District Plans

20. The draft District Plans aim to enable councils to review current local strategic plans to meet growth demands and review housing targets to deliver a more integrated plan for Sydney. The complying codes do the opposite. There needs to be some acknowledgement of the draft District Plans as part of this process.

Community Expectations

21. As outlined above, there is currently an expectation within the community that medium density development will be assessed through the DA process. The impacts of medium density development, on adjoining properties may potentially be greater and the current system does not allow neighbours to provide comment on proposals.

22. The current planning reforms (currently being exhibited) identify community engagement as a priority. If medium density development is to be included within the expanded complying development provisions, there needs to be a more rigorous level of community engagement and the system needs to be set up to ensure that private certifiers are able to comply with engagement requirements.

Governance of Private Certifiers

23. The community and councils concerns about governance and oversight of private certification must be addressed before any expansion is made to complying development. There is ample evidence of private certifiers certifying non-compliant developments or issuing construction certificates in contravention of consent. As noted by Justice Pepper in 2013 in Kogarah City Council v Armstrong Alliance Pty Ltd:

Once again before the Court is an application for declaratory relief sought by a council occasioned by the unlawful certification by an accredited certifier of a development that is markedly different to the approval granted by that council. Regrettably this is becoming an all too common occurrence in this Court…..It brings the certification system into disrepute and undermines the planning regime of this State.

24. Ongoing breaches not only undermine community confidence in the system and puts increased pressure on council’s resources (which are already limited) – there is a responsibility on council to manage resident concerns and in certain instances commence proceedings in the Land and Environment Court.

25. Council considers that increasing the responsibility of private certifiers before addressing the ongoing and serious concerns raised by the community, councils and the Court would lead to further issues with respect to compliance and enforcement.

Implementation of the exhibited Medium Density Housing Code

26. The documentation states that the intention of the new Code is to provide the efficient delivery of medium density development as complying development, however the documentation does not provide a clear indication as to how (and what) the proposed medium density housing legislative amendments are, and how (and when) those proposed amendments are to be implemented.

27. The Explanation of Intended Effects is not easy to clearly understand, and complicates what is meant to be a simplified process of development assessment through the introduction of new and confusing definitions and lack of clear information on how the proposed changes will be enacted and implemented.

Cumulative Impact of Development on Streetscape

28. The documentation does not adequately address the potential cumulative impacts of multiple complying medium density developments in a streetscape/locality. This may have significant impacts on the water table (through excavation of basements – for which there also does not seem to be any controls/requirements) and biodiversity (through the removal of trees and vegetation).

29. There will also potentially be a significant change in the local character of an area through the incremental development of medium density development, without any consideration of the streetscape or local character statements.

30. Although the draft code includes content related to the preservation of local character, it is not reasonable to anticipate that a private certifier can adequately consider and comprehend the full complexity of these matters.

Design of Developments

31. Council is not convinced that the proposed design verification process will be able to provide independent and effective assessment needed to deliver site specific design outcomes that are satisfactory to the community. The consideration of planning issues such as view loss, building articulation, neighbours privacy, protection of solar access is better achieved by a merit assessment under the DA process.

32. Trying to incorporate a design test within the complying development process requires a stringent set of design criteria being devised and complied with. This will result in a high degree of prescription and very stringent controls.

33. Assessment of medium density development under the certification process will be restricted to a numeric compliance test. There will be no discretion to alter any of these standards or criteria to achieve a more appropriate design outcome.

34. This also raises the question of how visual appearance and articulation can be addressed. The Guide requires the applicant to provide in the design statement a description as to how the aesthetics and articulation contribute to the character of the area. This reflects a somewhat limited understanding of what constitutes a visual impact assessment undertaken by councils in a development assessment. While there can be a difference of opinion regarding the architectural merit and/or aesthetics of a proposed development, the assessment process is much more than descriptive, it also involves consideration of the elements of the development that may or may not be compatible with the character of the area.

Specific Comments

35. The Explanation of Intended Effects proposes to introduce new terms within the “multi dwelling housing” land use term including “manor house” and “multi dwelling housing (terraces)” and recommends that dual occupancies, manor houses, townhouses (undefined term) and multi dwelling housing (terraces) be permitted as complying development in order to make approvals for these low rise medium density housing types more efficient and provide greater consistency with approvals.

36. Council does not support the introduction of these new proposed land use terms and considers that rather than introduce the new terms within the Standard Instrument LEP (and therefore all LEPs in the State), the wording of the Codes SEPP should identify the scale and type of residential development to which it applies, similar to that used in SEPP 65 (clause 4).

37. The proposed land use term “manor house” is unclear and unfamiliar and should not be used to define what is essentially a two (2) storey residential flat building containing no more than four (4) dwellings.

38. Council also objects to the introduction of what may be considered to be a de-facto residential flat building in the form of “manor houses” in the R2 – Low Density Residential zone (Hurstville LEP 2012), as these will be permitted as “multi-dwelling housing”. Council considers that “manor houses” are an inappropriate type of development particularly in low density residential areas and such developments should be assessed as a Development Application so as to resolve issues which may arise around bulk, scale, location of car parking, open space etc.

39. Council understands that the term has been used in the SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) but objects to its insertion in the Standard Instrument LEP when a clearly worded clause in the Codes SEPP would suffice.

40. The following provides a summary of the key issues identified in the documentation in relation to the Kogarah LEP 2012 and Hurstville LEP 2012 and it is recommended that the issues identified be included as a submission to the Department:

Issues/Concerns	Council’s Comments
The documentation does not set out clear, simple and consistent requirements for medium density housing that could be carried out as complying development	The Explanation of Intended Effects is not easy to understand. The documentation is not clear with respect to what amendments are proposed to the planning legislation, and how those proposed amendments are to deliver the types of development that is being proposed. The documentation provided to Council during the exhibition does not provide any indication how the proposed amendments will be enacted, and specifically how changes will be enacted to each Councils’ Standard Instrument LEPs.
1.3 Proposed development types
Rationalisation of development terms in the Standard Instrument LEP	Although Council is supportive of efforts to rationalise terms and create a hierarchy to provide better definition to the development types, the documentation presented does not achieve this (refer consideration above in relation to the proposed new land use terms).
Clarification around the definition of multi-dwelling housing	Under the Part 3.7 Definitions, the term “multi dwelling housing” is proposed to be defined as follows: “multi dwelling housing means 3 or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land, each with direct access to the dwelling and private open space at ground level, but does not include a residential flat building.” This definition is different to the definition currently contained in the Standard Instrument LEP and Kogarah LEP 2012 and Hurstville LEP 2012: *multi dwelling housing* means 3 or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land, each with access at ground level, but does not include a residential flat building. The inclusion of the word “direct” and the requirement that direct access is also required to private open space at ground level in the revised definition of “multi dwelling housing” is welcomed. However the definition is not sufficiently definitive enough to distinguish “multi dwelling housing” from other forms of “residential accommodation”. It is considered that the characteristic which distinguishes a dwelling in a “multi dwelling housing” development from a dwelling in other forms of “residential accommodation” such as a “manor house/home” or “residential flat building” is the fact that none of the dwellings contained within such developments are located above any part of another dwelling (except in some circumstances where a dwelling may be located above a communal basement car parking level). It is recommended that the definition be amended to include that none of the dwellings are located above any part of another dwelling in order to provide clarity.
Definition of manor house vs manor home	As noted above, Council does not support the introduction of a new definition “manor house” into the Standard Instrument LEP. This is a new definition proposed to be included and under Part 3.7 Definitions, a manor house is proposed to be defined as follows: “manor house* means a building containing 3 or 4 dwellings on one lot of land, where:* (a) each dwelling is attached to another dwelling by a common wall and / or floor, and (b) the building contains no more than two storeys, excluding any basement storey.” The previous Discussion Paper exhibited late last year referred to this development type as manor home rather than manor house. Whilst not expressing a preference for either term, whatever term is chosen, the terminology used should be consistent in all environmental planning instruments, including the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006
Clarity around definition of manor house.	The proposed definition of manor house may also comply with other forms of residential accommodation under the SI LEP. For example some forms of residential flat buildings, multi-dwelling housing and multi-dwelling housing (terraces) could constitute a “manor house” under the proposed definition of that term contained within the Explanation. Part (a) of the definition requires each dwelling within the building to be “attached to another dwelling by a wall and / or floor”. A “residential flat building” would satisfy that prerequisite, and provided that building did not contain more than 4 dwellings and was not more than two storeys, excluding any basement storey, that building would fall within the proposed definition of a “manor house”. It is recommended that if the proposed definition of “manor house” is to be introduced in the SI LEP, that it be refined including the incorporation of wording at the end of the definition (like that contained in the definition of the term in State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 that the term “but does not include a residential flat building or multi dwelling housing.” Alternatively, the inclusion of the new definition of “manor houses” would not be required if the Codes SEPP stated in relation to the “Land to which code applies” that: Applies to development for the purpose of a “residential flat building” if: § The building concerned is no more than two (2) storeys, and § The building concerned contains no more than four (4) dwellings.
Incorporation of additional definitions such as multi-dwelling housing (terraces) may cause confusion and is not consistent with the intent of the documentation as it does not simplify and rationalise terms	Under the Part 3.7 Definitions, the term “multi dwelling housing (terraces)” is proposed to be included and is defined as follows: “multi dwelling housing (terraces) means 3 or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land, each with direct access to the dwelling and private open space at ground level and a frontage to a public road.” The new term “multi dwelling housing (terraces)”, when those terraces are attached, is virtually identical to the existing term “attached dwelling” in the Standard Instrument, particularly if “multi dwelling housing (terraces)” developments are to be permitted to be concurrently Torrens title subdivided. It is considered that the new term “multi dwelling housing (terraces)” would not provide better definition to the development types. The introduction of the new term would add further confusion to the medium density housing development types. Rather than introducing the proposed new term “multi dwelling housing (terraces)” , which may create confusion it may be more appropriate to permit “attached dwellings” and “semi-detached dwellings” as “complying development” on residentially zoned land where “attached dwellings” and “semi-detached dwellings” are permissible with consent under the existing environmental planning instrument. Alternatively, the new proposed definition of multi dwelling housing (terraces) would not be required if the Codes SEPP stated in relation to “Land to which code applies” that: Applies to development for the purpose of “multi dwelling housing” if: § Each of the dwellings has a frontage to a public road, and § No other dwellings are above or below.
No discussion has been provided around the introduction of “Studio dwellings”	Reference is also made to “studio dwellings” (pg 26), although no other reference is included in the document. Council notes that SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) includes a definition of “studio dwelling” as: *studio dwelling* means a dwelling that: (a) is established in conjunction with another dwelling (the principal dwelling), and (b) is on its own lot of land, and (c) is erected above a garage that is on the same lot of land as the principal dwelling, whether the garage is attached to, or is separate from, the principal dwelling, but does not include a semi-detached dwelling. Council strongly objects to the introduction of the land use term “studio dwellings” into the Standard Instrument LEP definitions and including “studio dwellings” in the Codes SEPP.
Consistency between development types listed as specified complying development and terms defined in the Standard Instrument LEP	Table 2 lists the following development types as “Specified Complying Development: i. Two dwellings side by side (attached); ii. Two dwellings (detached); iii. Multi Dwelling housing (terraces); iv. Dual Occupancy (attached – one above the other) and v. Manor Houses (3-4 dwellings) Consistency should be ensured between the defined terms and the terms identified within the Complying Development provisions. It should also be noted that one of the development types listed (“Two dwellings (detached)”) is not referred to in “Part 3 Development Standards” in the Explanation of Intended Effects. If that development type is proposed to be a form of development being considered for “complying development” the Explanation of Intended Effects needs to include development standards and design standards for that development type however it is recommended that rather than introducing more definitions, the definitions be streamlined.

Issues/Concerns

Council’s Comments

The documentation does not set out clear, simple and consistent requirements for medium density housing that could be carried out as complying development

The Explanation of Intended Effects is not easy to understand.

The documentation is not clear with respect to what amendments are proposed to the planning legislation, and how those proposed amendments are to deliver the types of development that is being proposed.

The documentation provided to Council during the exhibition does not provide any indication how the proposed amendments will be enacted, and specifically how changes will be enacted to each Councils’ Standard Instrument LEPs.

1.3 Proposed development types

Rationalisation of development terms in the Standard Instrument LEP

Although Council is supportive of efforts to rationalise terms and create a hierarchy to provide better definition to the development types, the documentation presented does not achieve this (refer consideration above in relation to the proposed new land use terms).

Clarification around the definition of multi-dwelling housing

Under the Part 3.7 Definitions, the term “multi dwelling housing” is proposed to be defined as follows:

“multi dwelling housing means 3 or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land, each with direct access to the dwelling and private open space at ground level, but does not include a residential flat building.”

This definition is different to the definition currently contained in the Standard Instrument LEP and Kogarah LEP 2012 and Hurstville LEP 2012:

multi dwelling housing means 3 or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land, each with access at ground level, but does not include a residential flat building.

The inclusion of the word “direct” and the requirement that direct access is also required to private open space at ground level in the revised definition of “multi dwelling housing” is welcomed.

However the definition is not sufficiently definitive enough to distinguish “multi dwelling housing” from other forms of “residential accommodation”.

It is considered that the characteristic which distinguishes a dwelling in a “multi dwelling housing” development from a dwelling in other forms of “residential accommodation” such as a “manor house/home” or “residential flat building” is the fact that none of the dwellings contained within such developments are located above any part of another dwelling (except in some circumstances where a dwelling may be located above a communal basement car parking level).

It is recommended that the definition be amended to include that none of the dwellings are located above any part of another dwelling in order to provide clarity.

Definition of manor house vs manor home

As noted above, Council does not support the introduction of a new definition “manor house” into the Standard Instrument LEP.

This is a new definition proposed to be included and under Part 3.7 Definitions, a manor house is proposed to be defined as follows:

“manor house means a building containing 3 or 4 dwellings on one lot of land, where:

(a) each dwelling is attached to another dwelling by a common wall and / or floor, and

(b) the building contains no more than two storeys, excluding any basement storey.”

The previous Discussion Paper exhibited late last year referred to this development type as manor home rather than manor house.

Whilst not expressing a preference for either term, whatever term is chosen, the terminology used should be consistent in all environmental planning instruments, including the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006

Clarity around definition of manor house.

The proposed definition of manor house may also comply with other forms of residential accommodation under the SI LEP.

For example some forms of residential flat buildings, multi-dwelling housing and multi-dwelling housing (terraces) could constitute a “manor house” under the proposed definition of that term contained within the Explanation.

Part (a) of the definition requires each dwelling within the building to be “attached to another dwelling by a wall and / or floor”.

A “residential flat building” would satisfy that prerequisite, and provided that building did not contain more than 4 dwellings and was not more than two storeys, excluding any basement storey, that building would fall within the proposed definition of a “manor house”.

It is recommended that if the proposed definition of “manor house” is to be introduced in the SI LEP, that it be refined including the incorporation of wording at the end of the definition (like that contained in the definition of the term in State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 that the term “but does not include a residential flat building or multi dwelling housing.”

Alternatively, the inclusion of the new definition of “manor houses” would not be required if the Codes SEPP stated in relation to the “Land to which code applies” that:

Applies to development for the purpose of a “residential flat building” if:

§ The building concerned is no more than two (2) storeys, and

§ The building concerned contains no more than four (4) dwellings.

Incorporation of additional definitions such as multi-dwelling housing (terraces) may cause confusion and is not consistent with the intent of the documentation as it does not simplify and rationalise terms

Under the Part 3.7 Definitions, the term “multi dwelling housing (terraces)” is proposed to be included and is defined as follows:

“multi dwelling housing (terraces) means 3 or more dwellings (whether attached or detached) on one lot of land, each with direct access to the dwelling and private open space at ground level and a frontage to a public road.”

The new term “multi dwelling housing (terraces)”, when those terraces are attached, is virtually identical to the existing term “attached dwelling” in the Standard Instrument, particularly if “multi dwelling housing (terraces)” developments are to be permitted to be concurrently Torrens title subdivided.

It is considered that the new term “multi dwelling housing (terraces)” would not provide better definition to the development types. The introduction of the new term would add further confusion to the medium density housing development types.

Rather than introducing the proposed new term “multi dwelling housing (terraces)” , which may create confusion it may be more appropriate to permit “attached dwellings” and “semi-detached dwellings” as “complying development” on residentially zoned land where “attached dwellings” and “semi-detached dwellings” are permissible with consent under the existing environmental planning instrument.

Alternatively, the new proposed definition of multi dwelling housing (terraces) would not be required if the Codes SEPP stated in relation to “Land to which code applies” that:

Applies to development for the purpose of “multi dwelling housing” if:

§ Each of the dwellings has a frontage to a public road, and

§ No other dwellings are above or below.

No discussion has been provided around the introduction of “Studio dwellings”

Reference is also made to “studio dwellings” (pg 26), although no other reference is included in the document.

Council notes that SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) includes a definition of “studio dwelling” as:

studio dwelling means a dwelling that:

(a) is established in conjunction with another dwelling (the principal dwelling), and

(b) is on its own lot of land, and

(c) is erected above a garage that is on the same lot of land as the principal dwelling, whether the garage is attached to, or is separate from, the principal dwelling,

but does not include a semi-detached dwelling.

Council strongly objects to the introduction of the land use term “studio dwellings” into the Standard Instrument LEP definitions and including “studio dwellings” in the Codes SEPP.

Consistency between development types listed as specified complying development and terms defined in the Standard Instrument LEP

Table 2 lists the following development types as “Specified Complying Development:

i. Two dwellings side by side (attached);

ii. Two dwellings (detached);

iii. Multi Dwelling housing (terraces);

iv. Dual Occupancy (attached – one above the other) and

v. Manor Houses (3-4 dwellings)

Consistency should be ensured between the defined terms and the terms identified within the Complying Development provisions.

It should also be noted that one of the development types listed (“Two dwellings (detached)”) is not referred to in “Part 3 Development Standards” in the Explanation of Intended Effects. If that development type is proposed to be a form of development being considered for “complying development” the Explanation of Intended Effects needs to include development standards and design standards for that development type however it is recommended that rather than introducing more definitions, the definitions be streamlined.

The Role of the draft Medium Density Design Guide

The draft Medium Density Design Guide (MDDG) has been developed to encourage best practice design of low rise medium density dwellings. Council supports in principle a design guide for medium density residential developments, however the following comments are made with respect to the documentation on exhibition:

Issues/Concerns	Council’s Comments
1.5 Permissibility
Inconsistency between controls contained within the MDDG and standards identified in Part 3 – General Housing Code and the Apartment Design Guide (ADG)	A number of controls contained within the document are inconsistent with the principal development standards and design standards specified in the Explanation of Intended Effects for some residential development types. It is unclear what the intended controls are proposed to be.
Amendments to Kogarah DCP 2013 and Hurstville DCP No 1 (Amendment No 5) and resourcing the changes to the respective DCPs	The Explanation of Intended Effects states that “It is not proposed that the MDDG would automatically override council controls. Council would need to adopt the MDDG by reference within a development control plan…..Where a council does adopt the MDDG it is to be adopted in its entirety…..Where council does adopt the MDDG it will still need (to) prepare the principal development standards that include height, floor space ratio, landscaped area and setbacks. ” (pages 7 and 8) Principal development standards relating to height and floor space ratio are contained within the LEPs and any amendment to the height and floor space ratio would require the preparation of a planning proposal. Adopting the MDDG by reference within a development control plan would require an amendment to be made to that DCP and this would need to be factored into the Strategic Planning Work Program. There are considerable differences between the two Development Control Plans (DCP) that apply to land in Georges River Council, including differences in the planning controls and design guidelines that relate to low rise medium density housing development types. The controls would need to be reviewed for both DCPs
Making amendments to a Council’s planning controls are now considerably more complex due to the amalgamation	The provisions and development standards contained within Kogarah LEP 2012 and Hurstville LEP 2012 vary considerably including the way in which Land Use Tables are structured in those instruments, and the types of development that are permitted/prohibited within respective land use zones and the requirements relating to minimum lot size and/or minimum site requirements for certain forms of residential development.
The documentation is unclear with respect to the implementation of the proposed amendments	A planning proposal would be required to make any amendments to those development standards contained in environmental planning instruments. Regardless of whether a council adopts the MDDG changes would be required to be made to council’s Development Control Plans (DCP) because the proposed amendments contain new development types (such as “manor houses”) that did not exist when those DCP were prepared. The Explanation of Intended Effects does not state whether the proposed MDDG is intended to be incorporated into the Codes SEPP before the principal development standards prepared by Councils have been incorporated into their respective environmental planning instrument(s) and development control plan(s).
Permissibility and clarity around defined terms within the Standard Instrument LEP	The example provided to demonstrate medium density housing permissibility under the proposed amendments is as follows: “To construct a dual occupancy as complying development, dual occupancies must be permitted development in the zone that applies to the land. …..”(page 16) Firstly, the parent term “dual occupancies” should not be used in the example. That is especially the case as it would appear that the only type of dual occupancy being considered to be able to be carried out as complying development under the proposed amendments are “dual occupancy (attached)”. Under the Codes SEPP one of the prerequisites for a development to be “complying development” is that the development type must “be permissible, with consent, under an environmental planning instrument applying to the land on which the development is carried out.” (Clause 1.18 (1) (b) of the Codes SEPP) If the intended outcome is for attached dual occupancy to only be complying development, then the definition “dual occupancy (attached)” should be identified.
Unclear from the Explanation of Intended Effects as to how the Department intends to make “manor houses” a type of development “Permitted with consent” on all “land where multi-dwelling housing or a residential flat building is permitted.”	The Explanation of Intended Effects states that: “It is proposed to amend the Standard Instrument LEP to add the manor house, which is currently not a defined term. As a new development type, to enable it across NSW it is proposed to allow a manor house as complying development on any land where multi-dwelling housing or a residential flat building is permitted. Further it is proposed to restrict complying development to R1, R2, R3 and RU5 land use zones. R4 zoned land is excluded as typically larger scale residential flat buildings are anticipated in this zone.” (page 16) By virtue of the above it is presumed that, in the case of “complying development”, the “any land”, where “manor houses” would potentially be able to be carried out as complying development, only means land zoned R2 Low Density Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential, and only where “multi-dwelling housing or a residential flat building is permitted” on that land. It is unclear from the Explanation of Intended Effects as to how the Department intends to make “manor houses” a type of development “Permitted with consent” on all “land where multi-dwelling housing or a residential flat building is permitted.” As outlined above it is considered that a manor house would constitute a “residential flat building” under the definitions currently contained within the Standard Instrument. “Residential flat buildings” are a type of development that is “Prohibited” in the R2 Low Density Residential zone, but permissible in the R3 – Medium Density Residential zone for both the Kogarah LEP 2012 and the Hurstville LEP 2012. Apart from stating that “It is proposed to amend the Standard Instrument LEP to add the manor house, which is currently not a defined term.” (page 16), the Explanation of Intended Effects does not include specific details as to how the relevant planning legislation is proposed to be amended to address permissibility issues.
Permissibility of multi-dwelling housing in the R2 – Low Density Residential zones	“Multi dwelling housing” is type of development that is permissible with consent in the R2 Low Density Residential zone in Hurstville LEP 2012 but is not a permitted form of development in the R2 – Low Density Residential zone in the Kogarah LEP 2012 If “manor houses” were to be permitted with consent in the R2 Low Density Residential zone as a form of multi-dwelling housing then the Land Use Table for the R2 Low Density Residential zone for the Hurstville LEP 2012 would need to be amended. “Manor houses” are considered an inappropriate type of development for land zoned R2 Low Density Residential as they are considered to be a type of residential flat building.
Introduction of new definitions in the Standard Instrument LEP may have unforeseen impacts on existing Land Use Tables (LUT)	The introduction of any new terms into the Standard Instrument LEP Dictionary can have significant implications/ramifications or unforeseen consequences for the Land Use Tables, particularly where the Land Use Table for the zone is an “open zone” as opposed to a “closed zone”. Council would need to review any changes to the LUT to ensure that the outcome is consistent with the intent of the zone.
Inconsistency between terms used in the documents	In the proposed structure of the Medium Density Housing Code Division 2 is titled “New dual occupancies”. Under Section 3.3 of the Explanation Division 2 is titled “DIVISION 2 – TWO DWELLINGS SIDE BY SIDE”(page 32). Terms should be consistent and in accordance with the definitions in the Standard Instrument LEP.
Basement development in complying development are not supported due to potential adverse impacts on the streetscape	The Specified Development in proposed Part (c) relates to the development for the purposes of a basement where the basement is “for the purpose of car parking and access to that parking”. It is considered inappropriate to allow basements to be carried out as complying development and any development with a basement should be considered as a development application so that an assessment can be undertaken of the proposed impacts. In certain streetscapes, the intrusion of a basement garage opening may disrupt the character of those areas and streetscapes, particularly if the vehicular access to that basement is provided from a primary road. It should also be noted that the Design criteria (Objective 3.1F-2) under the Medium Density Design Guide for this form of development do not include any limitations on the width of basement car park entrances. This should be specified.
Maximum height of all buildings as complying development should be consistent	The proposed maximum height of building development standard of 9.0m for Multi-dwelling housing (Terraces) should be reduced to 8.5m to be consistent with the maximum height development standard set for the other development types and to ensure that the development proposed as complying development is of a similar scale to other complying developments, including dwelling houses.
Subdivision	The three options in Section 2.2 (Torrens vs Strata Titling) are unclear as a reference to ‘attached dwellings’ (as SI term) would mean that each of the dwellings would already be located on a separate Torrens lot - the subdivision would just therefore be a boundary adjustment. If the reference to ‘attached dwellings’ was not meant to be the SI term, then the words ‘attached dwellings’ should be replaced to avoid confusion. Option C (construction of a dual occupancy multi-dwelling terrace development) is another confusing term if this is meant to mean two dual occupancy (attached) developments joined together.

Issues/Concerns

Council’s Comments

1.5 Permissibility

Inconsistency between controls contained within the MDDG and standards identified in Part 3 – General Housing Code and the Apartment Design Guide (ADG)

A number of controls contained within the document are inconsistent with the principal development standards and design standards specified in the Explanation of Intended Effects for some residential development types.

It is unclear what the intended controls are proposed to be.

Amendments to Kogarah DCP 2013 and Hurstville DCP No 1 (Amendment No 5) and resourcing the changes to the respective DCPs

The Explanation of Intended Effects states that “It is not proposed that the MDDG would automatically override council controls. Council would need to adopt the MDDG by reference within a development control plan…..Where a council does adopt the MDDG it is to be adopted in its entirety…..Where council does adopt the MDDG it will still need (to) prepare the principal development standards that include height, floor space ratio, landscaped area and setbacks. ” (pages 7 and 8)

Principal development standards relating to height and floor space ratio are contained within the LEPs and any amendment to the height and floor space ratio would require the preparation of a planning proposal.

Adopting the MDDG by reference within a development control plan would require an amendment to be made to that DCP and this would need to be factored into the Strategic Planning Work Program.

There are considerable differences between the two Development Control Plans (DCP) that apply to land in Georges River Council, including differences in the planning controls and design guidelines that relate to low rise medium density housing development types. The controls would need to be reviewed for both DCPs

Making amendments to a Council’s planning controls are now considerably more complex due to the amalgamation

The provisions and development standards contained within Kogarah LEP 2012 and Hurstville LEP 2012 vary considerably including the way in which Land Use Tables are structured in those instruments, and the types of development that are permitted/prohibited within respective land use zones and the requirements relating to minimum lot size and/or minimum site requirements for certain forms of residential development.

The documentation is unclear with respect to the implementation of the proposed amendments

A planning proposal would be required to make any amendments to those development standards contained in environmental planning instruments.

Regardless of whether a council adopts the MDDG changes would be required to be made to council’s Development Control Plans (DCP) because the proposed amendments contain new development types (such as “manor houses”) that did not exist when those DCP were prepared.

The Explanation of Intended Effects does not state whether the proposed MDDG is intended to be incorporated into the Codes SEPP before the principal development standards prepared by Councils have been incorporated into their respective environmental planning instrument(s) and development control plan(s).

Permissibility and clarity around defined terms within the Standard Instrument LEP

The example provided to demonstrate medium density housing permissibility under the proposed amendments is as follows:

“To construct a dual occupancy as complying development, dual occupancies must be permitted development in the zone that applies to the land. …..”(page 16)

Firstly, the parent term “dual occupancies” should not be used in the example. That is especially the case as it would appear that the only type of dual occupancy being considered to be able to be carried out as complying development under the proposed amendments are “dual occupancy (attached)”.

Under the Codes SEPP one of the prerequisites for a development to be “complying development” is that the development type must “be permissible, with consent, under an environmental planning instrument applying to the land on which the development is carried out.” (Clause 1.18 (1) (b) of the Codes SEPP)

If the intended outcome is for attached dual occupancy to only be complying development, then the definition “dual occupancy (attached)” should be identified.

Unclear from the Explanation of Intended Effects as to how the Department intends to make “manor houses” a type of development “Permitted with consent” on all “land where multi-dwelling housing or a residential flat building is permitted.”

The Explanation of Intended Effects states that:

“It is proposed to amend the Standard Instrument LEP to add the manor house, which is currently not a defined term.

As a new development type, to enable it across NSW it is proposed to allow a manor house as complying development on any land where multi-dwelling housing or a residential flat building is permitted.

Further it is proposed to restrict complying development to R1, R2, R3 and RU5 land use zones. R4 zoned land is excluded as typically larger scale residential flat buildings are anticipated in this zone.” (page 16)

By virtue of the above it is presumed that, in the case of “complying development”, the “any land”, where “manor houses” would potentially be able to be carried out as complying development, only means land zoned R2 Low Density Residential, R3 Medium Density Residential, and only where “multi-dwelling housing or a residential flat building is permitted” on that land.

It is unclear from the Explanation of Intended Effects as to how the Department intends to make “manor houses” a type of development “Permitted with consent” on all “land where multi-dwelling housing or a residential flat building is permitted.”

As outlined above it is considered that a manor house would constitute a “residential flat building” under the definitions currently contained within the Standard Instrument.

“Residential flat buildings” are a type of development that is “Prohibited” in the R2 Low Density Residential zone, but permissible in the R3 – Medium Density Residential zone for both the Kogarah LEP 2012 and the Hurstville LEP 2012.

Apart from stating that “It is proposed to amend the Standard Instrument LEP to add the manor house, which is currently not a defined term.” (page 16), the Explanation of Intended Effects does not include specific details as to how the relevant planning legislation is proposed to be amended to address permissibility issues.

Permissibility of multi-dwelling housing in the R2 – Low Density Residential zones

“Multi dwelling housing” is type of development that is permissible with consent in the R2 Low Density Residential zone in Hurstville LEP 2012 but is not a permitted form of development in the R2 – Low Density Residential zone in the Kogarah LEP 2012

If “manor houses” were to be permitted with consent in the R2 Low Density Residential zone as a form of multi-dwelling housing then the Land Use Table for the R2 Low Density Residential zone for the Hurstville LEP 2012 would need to be amended.

“Manor houses” are considered an inappropriate type of development for land zoned R2 Low Density Residential as they are considered to be a type of residential flat building.

Introduction of new definitions in the Standard Instrument LEP may have unforeseen impacts on existing Land Use Tables (LUT)

The introduction of any new terms into the Standard Instrument LEP Dictionary can have significant implications/ramifications or unforeseen consequences for the Land Use Tables, particularly where the Land Use Table for the zone is an “open zone” as opposed to a “closed zone”.

Council would need to review any changes to the LUT to ensure that the outcome is consistent with the intent of the zone.

Inconsistency between terms used in the documents

In the proposed structure of the Medium Density Housing Code Division 2 is titled “New dual occupancies”.

Under Section 3.3 of the Explanation Division 2 is titled “DIVISION 2 – TWO DWELLINGS SIDE BY SIDE”(page 32).

Terms should be consistent and in accordance with the definitions in the Standard Instrument LEP.

Basement development in complying development are not supported due to potential adverse impacts on the streetscape

The Specified Development in proposed Part (c) relates to the development for the purposes of a basement where the basement is “for the purpose of car parking and access to that parking”.

It is considered inappropriate to allow basements to be carried out as complying development and any development with a basement should be considered as a development application so that an assessment can be undertaken of the proposed impacts.

In certain streetscapes, the intrusion of a basement garage opening may disrupt the character of those areas and streetscapes, particularly if the vehicular access to that basement is provided from a primary road.

It should also be noted that the Design criteria (Objective 3.1F-2) under the Medium Density Design Guide for this form of development do not include any limitations on the width of basement car park entrances. This should be specified.

Maximum height of all buildings as complying development should be consistent

The proposed maximum height of building development standard of 9.0m for Multi-dwelling housing (Terraces) should be reduced to 8.5m to be consistent with the maximum height development standard set for the other development types and to ensure that the development proposed as complying development is of a similar scale to other complying developments, including dwelling houses.

Subdivision

The three options in Section 2.2 (Torrens vs Strata Titling) are unclear as a reference to ‘attached dwellings’ (as SI term) would mean that each of the dwellings would already be located on a separate Torrens lot - the subdivision would just therefore be a boundary adjustment.

If the reference to ‘attached dwellings’ was not meant to be the SI term, then the words ‘attached dwellings’ should be replaced to avoid confusion.

Option C (construction of a dual occupancy multi-dwelling terrace development) is another confusing term if this is meant to mean two dual occupancy (attached) developments joined together.

Financial Implications

41. Within budget allocation.

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 6 February 2017 Page 21

Item: CCL003-17 Heritage Grants - request for additional funding for No.146 Penshurst Street, Penshurst.

Author: Senior Planner, Rebecca Lau

Directorate: Environment and Planning

Matter Type: Environment and Planning

Recommendation

(a) That a Heritage Grant offer be made to No.146 Penshurst Road, Penshurst as outlined in this report.

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to seek approval for additional funding for a heritage grant application received for No.146 Penshurst Road, Penshurst.

Background

1. On December 5, 2016, Council considered a report to endorse the recommendations for the allocation of grant funding under the Heritage Grants program. The total budget allocation was for $50,000.

2. During the application period, Council received two separate applications for No.146 Penshurst Road, Penshurst. Only one application was reviewed and considered by Council’s Heritage Advisor. This was an administrative error. As a result, the second application was not considered and no funding was allocated.

3. The applicant has requested that Council provide the grant funding for the project, as the completed application was submitted in a timely manner. A copy of the application has been provided under separate cover.

Consideration of the application

4. The second application for No.146 Penshurst Road, Penshurst proposes to restore the side boundary timber fence. This proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Heritage Advisor who supports the proposal on the condition that the replacement fence is constructed on a like-for-like basis in the original paling fence design with hardwood timber.

5. The estimated cost of works provided by the applicant is $3,500. The grant total offered in line with heritage grant guidelines would be half the cost, being $1,750.

6. It is considered reasonable for Council provide additional funding for this proposal, as the application was overlooked through no fault of the applicant.

Conclusion

7. It is recommended that a heritage grant of $1,750 be offered to 146 Penshurst Road, Penshurst, and that applicant be notified by mail.

Financial Implications

8. Additional non-budgeted funds of $1,750 from Planning Consultant Budget 2016/17.

Finance and Governance

Item: CCL004-17 Advice on Court Proceedings - December 2016 and January 2017

Author: General Counsel, Jenny Ware

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 November 2016 to 23 January 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

· 13 x Class 1 (Merit/DA)

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

· 4 x Class 4 Proceedings

Local Court

· 12 x Prosecutions

District Court

· 1 x Defamation Proceedings

Total Costs

· Total costs to date for the 2016/17 financial year are $368,260.00 [$209,219.00 (Hurstville) and $159,041.00 (Kogarah)].

· Total legal costs recovered to date for the 2016/17 financial year are $40,514.00 [$20,919.00 (Hurstville) and $19,595.00 (Kogarah)]. Therefore net legal costs for Court proceedings for the 2016/17 financial year are $327,746.00.

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. Four new matters were received during the reporting period: three Class 1 appeals (El-Assal, Cash Warwick Pty Ltd and Antoniou), one Class 4 enforcement (Mifsud) and one Class 2 Tree Dispute (Solo).

Finalised Matters

4. Four matters were resolved by way of S34 Agreement (Shayben, Abdul-Rahman and Fatouleh), saving approximately 6 days of Court time and costs (estimated $48,000). The Court handed down judgment in Hussein with appeal dismissed. Two matters were discontinued by the respective applicants (El-Assal and Mayer). Judgment was handed down in Tanious in Council’s favour.

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	849 King Georges Road SOUTH HURSTVILLE Applicant: Nassar Hussein Proceedings No. 157514 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against the deemed refusal of development application DA2015/234 for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a two storey place of public worship (being a mosque with associated classrooms) over three levels of basement car parking.	Judgment handed down on 21 November 2016. Appeal dismissed and DA refused. S97B costs of $10,000 were paid on 16 January 2017.	$51,147.68	$128,536.50
2	799 Forest Road PEAKHURST Applicant: CC Builders (NSW) Pty Ltd Proceedings No. 155689 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of development application DA2015/0457 for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a multi dwelling housing development including six dwellings.	Matter listed for hearing on 30 January 2017.	$8,720.00	$40,691.25
3	58 Lawrence Street PEAKHURST Applicant: Mehedin Abdul-Rahman Proceedings No. 162874 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of development application DA2016/0051 for demolition of existing dwellings and structures and subsequent construction of a multi dwelling housing development comprising seven dwellings, basement car parking and associated landscaping.	Matter resolved by way of amended plans and S34 Agreement.	$0	$17,031.50
4	1-3 Peake Parade PEAKHURST Applicant: Jack Fatouleh Proceedings No. 221690 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against actual refusal of development application DA2015/0031 for the demolition of existing structures, construction of a three storey residential flat building and basement parking.	Matter resolved by way of amended plans and S34 Agreement.	$0	$27,525.66
5	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 was listed for S34 conference on 29 November 2016. Stood over to 20 February 2017 to allow applicant to undertake works and propose solution re stormwater management.	$0	$8,133.80
6	66 Mulga Road OATLEY Applicant: Foxground Property Investments Pty Ltd Proceedings No. 290679 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of development application DA2015/0035 for demolition of existing structures and construction of new two storey childcare centre for 51 children with basement car parking.	Matter listed for S34 conference on 6 February 2017 to enable Applicant to provide amended plans.	$0	$18,880.08
7	4 St Georges Parade HURSTVILLE Applicant: Shayben Construction Pty Ltd Proceedings No. 299262 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against actual refusal of development application DA110/2016 for an additional 3 levels (6 units) on a residential flat building under construction.	Following S34 conference on 17 January 2017 matter resolved through amended plans and s34 Agreement.	$0	$4,037.15
8	36 Chamberlain Street NARWEE Applicant: Katherine Mayer Proceedings No. 306015 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of development application DA2016/0086 for alterations and first floor addition to dwelling and use of building as childcare centre for 60 children.	Matter listed for S34 conference on 19 January 2017. S34 Conference terminated and applicant discontinued. Applicant likely to lodge new DA.	$0	$8,337.64
9	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 2016.	$0	$0
10	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 to delete conditions relating to a digital advertising sign.	Matter listed for hearing on 14 – 16 March 2017. RMS joined to proceedings. Council to file submitting appearance as it has no objection to application.	$0	$0
11	64 Carlton Crescent, KOGARAH BAY Applicant: Carl El-Assal Proceedings No. 352192 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against alterations and additions to approved dwelling house for use of the boatshed as a terrace.	Matter discontinued by Applicant. No order as to costs.	$0.00	$3,269.00
12	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 for demolition of existing dwellings and construction of 1 x 7 and 1 x 5 storey residential flat buildings.	S34 Conference listed for 6 April 2017.	$0.00	$0.00
13	25 Old Forest Road, LUGARNO Applicant: George Antoniou Proceedings No. 2826 of 2017	Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of child care centre for 45 children.	Matter listed for first directions hearing on 2 February 2017.	$0.00	$0.00
Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Class 4 Proceedings
1	84D Roberts Avenue MORTDALE Parties: Romanous Developments Pty Ltd Proceedings No. 40883 of 2013	Class 4 commenced in relation to unauthorised works. Following Court Orders, the respondents have complied with their initial obligations to appoint a site auditor and to finalise the necessary remediation plan. Council’s costs paid by respondents.	Site subject to on-going monitoring and compliance with Court Orders. Respondents have lodged required Wall DA and Section 106 application under final orders. Awaiting determination of applications by Council.	$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 were provided on 21 April 2016. Application for substituted service on Respondent commenced. Pool secured by Council December 2016.	$20,658.60	$5,575.65
3	159 The Promenade SANS SOUCI Parties: Gary Beers Valerie Beers Leonie Beers Proceedings No. 325776 of 2016	Class 4 commenced in relation to failing to remove overgrown vegetation from rear of property.	Inspection due 31 January 2017.	$0	$5,477.00
4	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.	Parties were given until 5 January 2017 to comply with orders. Respondents have not complied. Further enforcement action to be taken.	$0.00	$0.00
Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Class 2 Appeals
1	1 Arnold Street PEAKHURST Parties: Mofeed Louis Tanious Proceedings No. 155914 of 2016	Class 2 commencing in relation to failing to comply with Council Notices/Orders concerning keeping of poultry birds.	Judgment handed down on 11 August 2016. Mr Tanious to remove all poultry from premises with exception of 10 chickens and 5 other poultry. 90 days to comply. Mr Tanious lodged a s56A appeal on question of law upheld and matter listed for hearing before Commissioner on 16 January 2017. Judgment handed down on 25 January, 2017 in Council’s favour. Mr Tanious given until 25 April 2017 to comply with orders.	$0	$15,325.00
2	7B Tottenham Place, BLAKEHURST Applicant: Dr Eric Solo Proceedings No. 359122 of 2016	Class 2 Appeal – Tree Dispute Application.	Matter listed for 17 January 2017. Council has advised no objection to removal of trees.	$0	$0
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 entered not guilty pleas on all offences.	Matter listed for fully contested hearing on all matters on 21 February 2017.	$190.00	$3,924.00
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 listed for hearing for on 6 April 2017. Council to submit brief by 6 March 2017.	$0	$3,956.80
District Court Proceedings
1	Con Hindi v Michael Watt No. 99504 of 2016	Proceedings commenced against former Council staff member for defamation.	Council’s lawyers attended Court mention in October 2016 seeking to protect Council’s interests in relation to potential unauthorised release of Council’s confidential legal advices. Matter is listed again in February 2017.	$9,608.17	$10,554.70

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
Total	$154,000.00

Financial Implications

7. Within budget allocation.

File Reference

09/1077

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 6 February 2017 Page 30

Item: CCL005-17 Investment Report as at 30 November 2016

Author: Coordinator Financial Management, Francis Mangru

Directorate: Office of Chief Operating Officer

Matter Type: Finance and Governance

Recommendation

a) That the Investment Report as at 30 November 2016 be received and noted.

Executive Summary

1. This report details Council’s performance of its investment portfolio for November 2016 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 annual rate of return is 3.07%, which is 0.66% above benchmark. Income from interest on investments and proceeds from sale of investments totals $2.37 million, $28,000 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 November 2016, are as follows:

Council’s Investment Properties Portfolio

5. Council’s investment properties updated as at the end of November were as follows:

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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

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

Loan Liability

10. Council’s loan liability as at 30 November 2016 was $3 million which represents the balance of $5 million ten (10) year loan drawn down on 16 November 2012 for Jubilee Park upgrade. Next repayment of $125,000 is due 28th December 2016. 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 3.71% pa.

11. Council receives a 4.00% pa subsidy under the NSW Government’s Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme funding agreement for this Jubilee Park upgrade facility. Thus the net cost of this money is only 0.09%pa. It is intended to continue this financially-advantageous arrangement through to full term in 2022.

Policy Limits

12. 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.

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

Policy Limits on Maturities

Investment Income

14. Income from interest on investments and proceeds from sales of investments totals $2.37 million being $28,000 above current budget projections

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

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

Analysis of Investments

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

· Institutions

· Type of Investment

· Durations

· Rating

Investment by Institution

17. Council’s portfolio is very liquid, with 22% of assets maturing within 3 months and an additional 20% maturing within 12 months. FRNs, funds and fixed bonds also provide additional liquidity in an emergency.

Types of Investments

18. Council’s investment portfolio is mainly directed to term deposits, which account for approximately 53% of total investments. Yields have steadily contracted, while tracking bond market volatility in the short term.

19. 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.

20. 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

21. 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.

22. 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 characteristics or lack of protection against changes of economic conditions.

B1: Moderate 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.

23. 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).

24. 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

25. 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.

26. 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

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Investment Portfolio - GRC 30 November 2016

Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 6 February 2017

CCL007-17 Georges River Council Aquatic Facilites - Building Condition Assessments

[Appendix 1] Building Asset Condition Report - Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre

Page 47

Assets and Infrastructure

Item: CCL007-17 Georges River Council Aquatic Facilites - Building Condition Assessments

Author: Manager Project Delivery, Michelle Whitehurst and Manager Community and Cultural Development, Scott Andrew

Directorate: Assets and Infrastructure

Matter Type: Assets and Infrastructure

Recommendation

(a) That Council receives and notes the Building Services and Structural Evaluation Report for Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre, the Building Assets Conditions Assessment for Sans Souci Leisure Centre and the Building Assets Conditions Assessment for Kogarah War Memorial Swimming Pool.

(b) That Council develops an Aquatic Facility Strategy that identifies the longer term needs of the community to be tabled at the May 2017 Council Meeting.

(c) That $30,000 is allocated for the Georges River Council Property Asset Reserve to fund the Georges River Council Aquatic Facility Strategy.

(d) That all necessary action is taken to ensure fire and life safety standards are monitored immediately at each aquatic facility.

Executive Summary

1. This report is presented to Council to receive and note the Building Services and Structural Evaluation Reports for Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre, Sans Souci Leisure Centre and Kogarah War Memorial Swimming Pool.

Background

2. In 2016, Georges River Council commissioned Building Services and Structural Evaluation Reports and Building Assets Conditions Assessments for its Leisure Centres and swimming pools. This was undertaken by Cardno Pty Ltd to capture the existing condition of each asset, develop an overall service assessment and estimate the capital expenditure required at each facility.

3. The assessments will be used to develop an Asset Management Plan for each facility that will feed into the Georges River Council Long Term Financial Plan.

4. A summary of each facility is provided as follows:

a) Kogarah War Memorial Swimming Pool

The lease with Mr Caine has expired and is on a month to month lease with Council.

Income and expenditure is as follows:

• Income for 2015 – 2016 = $ 10,225.20

• Expenditure for 2015 – 2016 = $193,571.15

• Loss for 2015-2016 = $183,315.95

The following works have been identified for immediate action:

• Electrical = $ 58,000

• Mechanical = $ 165,000

• Fire = $ 40,000

• Structural steel = $ 100,000

• Cost of immediate works = $363,000

** The Building Assets Conditions Assessment for Kogarah War Memorial Swimming Pool states that the building structure is beyond its useful life and that the outdoor swimming pool has extensive cracking.

b) Sans Souci Leisure Centre

10 Year Lease (Finishing 31 May 2017) with 10 Year Option (to be exercised by 28 February 2017).

Income and expenditure is as follows:

• Income for 2015 – 2016 = $54,596.65

• Expenditure for 2015 – 2016 = $80,919.82

• Loss for 2015 – 2016 = $26,323.17

The following works have been identified for immediate action:

• Electrical = $ 4,000

• Hydraulic = $ 28,400

• Fire = $ 32,300

• Structural steel = $ 5,000

• Cost of immediate works = $ 69,700

** Building Assets Conditions Assessment for Sans Souci Leisure Centre indicates that the heat pumps require immediate replacing but fall under the lessee’s obligations.

** The outdoor swimming pool has extensive cracking, tile damage and refurbishment is required. In addition, the existing plant room for the 50m requires replacement to comply with current standards and guidelines.

c) Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre (including Johnny Warren Indoor Stadium)

Management Agreement – 3 x 3 x 3 year period (commencing 1 September 2016)

Income and expenditure is as follows:

• Income for 2015 – 2016 = $1,749,183.98

• Expenditure for 2015 – 2016 = $ 832,256.52

• Profit for 2015 – 2016 = $ 916,927.46

The following works have been identified for immediate action:

• Electrical = $ 120,000

• Mechanical = $ 45,000

• Hydraulics = $ 3,500

• Structural steel = $ 35,000

• Fire = $ 750

• Exposed structural steel = $ 100,000

• Cost of immediate works = $ 304,500

** The Building Services and Structural Evaluation Report for Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre notes that during the inspection corrosion of the exposed structural steelwork throughout the centre due to the humid environment needs attention.

5. In the Georges River Council 2016-2017 Operational Plan key action includes:

“1.15 Upgrade and improve Council’s open space, recreational facilities and related assets.”

As such, under the Stronger Communities Fund, $1,000,000 is proposed to be allocated to the Georges River Aquatic Facilities Refurbishment Program. This proposed funding is currently on exhibition for public comment until 17 February 2017.

6. The Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) has stipulated a requirement for all merged Councils to conduct service reviews across their portfolio and deliver a report to the Council. This report is to outline ‘recommendations on the best way forward to both serve the needs of the entire council area and use resources wisely’, along with identified ‘smart service improvements’ such as wider access to existing facilities, programs and number of community events.

7. Georges River Council will undertake a broader community needs analysis through the development of an Aquatic Facilities Strategy. This strategy will investigate the number and type of aquatic centres that will need to be provided to satisfy the recreation needs and demands of its community. Centres would need to be designed to increase participation in aquatic activities by all people, regardless of gender, age or physical capabilities. Encouraging greater participation in aquatic activities would deliver enhanced levels of physical and mental health benefits for Georges River Council residents.

8. Council supports community wellbeing by providing appropriate aquatic facilities and aquatic play spaces that will add to a suite of resources available to its community wanting to become actively involved in sport and recreation as recreational activities are often carried out for enjoyment, amusement, or pleasure and are considered to be "fun".

Financial Implications

9. Additional non-budgeted funds of $30,000 to be fund the Aquatic Facilities Strategy to be funded from the Property Asset Reserve.

10. Should the Stronger Communities Fund not become available to fund the necessary refurbishment of the aquatic facilities, an alternative source of funding will need to be identified to enable completion of the essential safety repairs and maintenance as identified in the Building Condition Assessment report.

File Reference

16/1710

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1	Building Asset Condition Report - Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre
Attachment View2	Building Asset Condition Report - Sans Souci Leisure Centre
Attachment View3	Building Asset Condition Report - Kogarah War Memorial Pool

Attachment View1	Lunar New Year Terms of Reference - November 2016
Attachment View2	Lunar New Year Advisory Committee Minutes - 7 September 2016
Attachment View3	Lunar New Year Advisory Committee Minutes - 26 October 2016
Attachment View4	Lunar New Year Advisory Committee Minutes - 23 November 2016
Attachment View5	Lunar New Year Advisory Committee Minutes - 11 January 2017

Month	Applications Received	Applications Determined	Outstanding Applications	Apps – with Council over 40 days <= 100 days	Apps – with Council over 100 days
Oct	57	66	302	86	115
Nov	91	84	315	78	148
Dec	105	76	347	100	125