Agenda of Environment and Planning

Committee Reports

Item: ENV027-19 Options for Council's New Development Contributions Plans

Author: Strategic Planner / Information Management

Directorate: Environment and Planning

Matter Type: Committee Reports

Recommendation

(a) That Council endorse the preparation of a Georges River Section 7.11 and 7.12 development contributions plan in accordance with the principles of Option 2b outlined in this report.

(b) That Council note the SGS Economics and Planning report on family friendly apartments in the Kogarah North Precinct and resolve not to provide discounts or waivers on development contributions for family friendly apartments.

Executive Summary

1. SGS Economics and Planning has been engaged to review Georges River Council’s seven development contributions plans, recommend a proposed structure for new development contributions plans and prepare a new plan for the whole Georges River Council area.

2. SGS completed its review of the Georges River Council’s seven development contributions plans and presented five options to the Councillor Briefing on 17 June 2019.

3. At the briefing held on 17 June 2019 Option 2b was received as the preferred option. Option 2b is a mixed contributions plan with section 7.11 (formerly section 94) contributions applying to residential development that increases population and section 7.12 (formerly section 94A) levies are collected for other developments. This option is fully explained in this report.

4. The key issues raised at the briefing were regarding mixed use development and the potential for contributions being missed under Option 2b. Because only one type of contributions can be levied on each development, in any mixed use only the greater contributions would apply. Option 3, which only levies 7.11 contributions, was also raised as a potential solution to ensure that mixed use developments are levied for all the components of their development.

5. Following the Councillor Briefing, SGS also modelled two additional options, 4a and 4b. Option 4a is to include commercial development in the Kogarah and Hurstville strategic centres in the s7.11 component of the plan, and option 4b is to have an LGA wide 7.11 and 7.12 plan, which is the maximum contributions possible. However, whilst the two additional options are predicted to collect a similar amount of contributions compared to Option 2b, they carry an additional administrative burden and require application of a nexus requirement for the allocation of collected funds. The full range of options is outlined in Table 1 as follows:

Table 1 – Summary of Options for Structure of Contributions Plan

Plan	Type of Plan	Development Levied	Area Applied
Option 1a	· s7.12 plan	· All development	· Applies to all land in Georges River LGA
Option 1b	· s7.12 plan	· All development	· Applies to all land in Georges River LGA. · Seek permission from DPIE to levy 3% in Kogarah Town Centre and Hurstville City Centre
Option 2a	· Mixed s7.11 and s7.12 plan	· All development	· 7.11 in Kogarah Town Centre and Hurstville City Centre · 7.12 for the remainder of the LGA
Option 2b (preferred)	· Mixed s7.11 and s7.12 plan	· s7.11 for residential development · s7.12 for other developments (mainly non-residential)	· Applies to all land in Georges River LGA
Option 3	· s7.11 plan	· All development	· Applies to all land in Georges River LGA
Option 4a	· Mixed s7.11 and s7.12 plan	· s7.11 for all development in Kogarah Town Centre and Hurstville City Centre · s7.11 for residential in the remainder of the LGA · s7.12 for other developments in the LGA (mainly non-residential)	· s7.11 in Kogarah Town Centre and Hurstville City Centre · Mixed s7.11 and s7.12 by development type outside strategic centres
Option 4b	· Mixed s7.11 and s7.12 plan	· s7.11 across the whole LGA for increased population and workers · s7.12 for other developments	· Applies to whole Georges River LGA

6. Following a full assessment of all the options, Option 2b remains the preferred structure for the Georges River Development Contributions Plan. The modelled income from this option is only slightly lower than the other options, and it also reduces the administrative burden and provides more flexibility in the allocation of the contributions. This report recommends that Council endorse the preparation of a Georges River Section 7.11 and 7.12 development contributions plan in accordance with the principles of Option 2b.

7. SGS was also engaged to examine the feasibility of waiving a portion of contributions to promote family friendly apartments in the Kogarah North Precinct, which was a resolution adopted by Council on 17 December 2017.

8. SGS has recommended that Council not provide a discount or waiver on contributions for family friendly apartments for the following reasons:

- The increase in value for developers will not outweigh the demand profile in the area for smaller apartments, and

- The waivering or discounting on contributions will inhibit Council’s ability to deliver infrastructure. This is explained in more detail in this report.

Background

General

9. Council currently has seven current development contributions plans, shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2 – Summary of Council’s current contributions plans

Plan	Detail	Area Applied
Hurstville S94 Development Contributions Plan (2012)	§ Levies residential development for community facilities, open space and public domain works § Non-residential development in the Hurstville City Centre is levied for public domain works § In commercial centres contributions levied if car parking not provided on site	§ Applies to all land in Hurstville, Mortdale and Peakhurst wards (Hurstville LGA) § Commercial centres are Penshurst, Mortdale, Beverly Hills and Riverwood
Ramsgate commercial centre S94 Development Contributions Plan (2006)	§ Joint works schedule § Identifies works on Bayside and Georges River side of the Ramsgate Centre	§ Overlaps Bayside Council and Georges River § Applies to former City of Kogarah and City of Rockdale that comprises Ramsgate city centre § Applies to the Ramsgate commercial centre
Kogarah S94 (Road and traffic management) Development Contributions Plan (Plan No. 1) (1994)	§ Levies residential and retail/commercial development for road and traffic management improvements	§ Kogarah Bay and Blakehurst Wards § Applies outside Kogarah
Kogarah S94 (Open space) Development Contributions Plan (Plan No. 5) (2007)	§ Applies to all residential development § Contributions used for embellishment of existing open space	§ Applies to Kogarah Bay and Blakehurst wards, except where Plan 8 and the Ramsgate Plan apply
Kogarah S94 (Town Centre) Development Contributions Plan (Plan No. 8) (2006)	§ Levies residential, retail and commercial development § Contributions for streetscape works, roads and traffic, pedestrian upgrades § Collected in lieu of on-site car parking, community facilities, stormwater and drainage	§ Land within the Kogarah town centre
Kogarah S94 (Libraries) Development Contributions Plan (Plan No. 9) (2001)	§ Levies residential development for library building upgrades and acquisition of new books	§ All land in Kogarah Bay and Blakehurst wards
Georges River S94A Development Contributions Plan (2017)	§ Applies to development not subject to S94 contribution under any other contributions plan § Levies for a range of community facilities and services	§ Applies to whole Georges River LGA

Plan

Detail

Area Applied

Hurstville S94 Development Contributions Plan

(2012)

§ Levies residential development for community facilities, open space and public domain works

§ Non-residential development in the Hurstville City Centre is levied for public domain works

§ In commercial centres contributions levied if car parking not provided on site

§ Applies to all land in Hurstville, Mortdale and Peakhurst wards (Hurstville LGA)

§ Commercial centres are Penshurst, Mortdale, Beverly Hills and Riverwood

Ramsgate commercial centre S94 Development Contributions Plan

(2006)

§ Joint works schedule

§ Identifies works on Bayside and Georges River side of the Ramsgate Centre

§ Overlaps Bayside Council and Georges River

§ Applies to former City of Kogarah and City of Rockdale that comprises Ramsgate city centre

§ Applies to the Ramsgate commercial centre

Kogarah S94 (Road and traffic management) Development Contributions Plan

(Plan No. 1) (1994)

§ Levies residential and retail/commercial development for road and traffic management improvements

§ Kogarah Bay and Blakehurst Wards

§ Applies outside Kogarah

Kogarah S94 (Open space) Development Contributions Plan

(Plan No. 5) (2007)

§ Applies to all residential development

§ Contributions used for embellishment of existing open space

§ Applies to Kogarah Bay and Blakehurst wards, except where Plan 8 and the Ramsgate Plan apply

Kogarah S94 (Town Centre) Development Contributions Plan

(Plan No. 8) (2006)

§ Levies residential, retail and commercial development

§ Contributions for streetscape works, roads and traffic, pedestrian upgrades

§ Collected in lieu of on-site car parking, community facilities, stormwater and drainage

§ Land within the Kogarah town centre

Kogarah S94 (Libraries) Development Contributions Plan

(Plan No. 9) (2001)

§ Levies residential development for library building upgrades and acquisition of new books

§ All land in Kogarah Bay and Blakehurst wards

Georges River S94A Development Contributions Plan

(2017)

§ Applies to development not subject to S94 contribution under any other contributions plan

§ Levies for a range of community facilities and services

§ Applies to whole Georges River LGA

10. There are significant differences between the plans, including but not limited to the:

- Methods of calculation

- Indices used to calculate contribution over time

- Development types that require contributions

- Arrangements for deferred and staged payments

11. Many of the plans’ works schedules also require updating. These differences create administrative difficulty both in calculating contributions and allocating contributions to the correct projects. These difficulties were previously reported to the Council’s Finance Committee on 13 May 2019, paragraphs 17-23.

12. When adopting the comprehensive Georges River 7.11 and 7.12 development contributions plan, Council will need to repeal the current plans and accounts, and allocate the remaining funds to projects in the new Georges River development contributions plan.

Council Resolution to Examine Family Friendly Apartments

13. On 18 December 2017, Council resolved:

“That the General Manager prepare a report for Council consideration on the options available for encouraging a higher percentage of family friendly apartments (containing two and three bedrooms) within the Kogarah North Precinct, including any cost implications of reduction or waiving of Section 94 Contributions.”

14. This report and review was included in the brief for consultants to prepare the Georges River development contributions plan.

Appointment of SGS Economics and Planning

15. SGS Planning and Economics (SGS) was engaged in December 2018 to review Council’s existing contributions plans, recommend a structured contributions plan that best suits the Georges River LGA, and then prepare the new contributions plan. As a part of this task, it was required to examine the effect of reducing or waiving the contributions on the provision of additional family friendly apartments.

16. SGS completed their review of the Council’s existing contributions plans in May 2019, and presented their findings and recommended approach for the new plans to a Councillor Briefing on 17 June 19 (refer to Attachment 1).

17. Table 3 shows the results of the financial modelling for each of the 7 options considered by SGS. The modelling is based on the following assumptions:

- Council’s population and employment forecasts are as detailed in the Georges River Council Evidence Base for Local Housing Strategy and the Georges River Economic Study.

- A $150 million capital works program over the next ten years, and

- The cost of all new infrastructure in the capital works program is allocated to new development.

Table 3 – Comparison of financial performance of different contribution plan structures.

Option	Description	Total collections over 10 years
Option 1a	s7.12 across the whole LGA	$22,061,000
Option 1b	s7.12 across whole LGA (seek 3% levy in Kogarah and Hurstville)	$41,254,000
Option 2a	s7.11 in Kogarah and Hurstville, 7.12 elsewhere	$79,288,000
Option 2b (preferred)	s7.11 for residential development, s7.12 for other developments (mainly non-residential)	$136,110,000
Option 3	s7.11 across the whole LGA	$137,846,000
Option 4a	s7.11 in Kogarah and Hurstville, elsewhere s.7.11 for residential and s.7.12 for other developments (mainly non-residential)	$137,692,000
Option 4b	s7.11 across the whole LGA for increased population and workers and s7.12 for other developments.	$147,706,000

Note: The detailed assessment to determine the apportionment of the capital works program to either the new population (s7.11 and s7.12) and the existing population (Council funds) will be completed in the next stage.

Discussion of Options/Structure of Contributions Plan

18. A series of criteria for determining the best contributions plan structure for Georges River was developed by SGS and workshopped with Council officers. The criteria are:

- Ability to generate contributions revenues: The ability of the option to generate contribution revenues and provide for the infrastructure needs in Georges River.

- Administrative efficiency and costs: The ease of administration of the option by the Council and use by the development industry.

- Flexibility: to achieve timely and cost effective infrastructure delivery.

- Transparency: in regards to the collection and use of development contribution funds.

- Achieving price signals that reflect the variation in infrastructure costs in different locations. Decisions regarding the application of development contributions based on local/precinct demand should consider the degree to which infrastructure supply costs vary from one development location to another. If there is spatial variation in infrastructure delivery costs at the local level, the location signalling role to the market of variations in development contributions can be applied.

- Risk and the certainty of funding outcomes: The ability of the option to provide a clear funding outcome and minimise risk to the Council.

- Strategic intent: the extent to which the option will support the strategic planning intent for developments in the LGA.

19. A detailed assessment of each option based on each of these criteria, known as a multi-criteria assessment matrix, is shown in Table 4. Table 5 contains an analysis of each option.

Table 5 – Assessment of options

Option	Description	Total collections over 10 years	Assessment based on Table 4 Matrix
Option 1a	s.7.12 across the whole LGA	$22,061,000	This option is the lowest scoring in the matrix. This is mostly due to the poor financial performance of this option, which is $120 million less than the top performing option
Option 1b	s.7.12 across whole LGA (3% levy in Kogarah Town Centre and Hurstville City Centre)	$41,254,000	This option is much improved on option 1a, but is still limited in the amount of contributions that can be collected. The process to gain an increase from 1% to 3% of the development cost is lengthy and requires the Minister’s approval.
Option 2a	s.7.11 in Kogarah and Hurstville, 7.12 elsewhere	$79,288,000	This option scores equal 2nd on the multi-criteria assessment. While this option scores lower on the financial performance, due to the forecast contributions being around half of the best performing options, it scores higher on the flexibility of spending funds, and the administrative efficiency and internal costs required.
Option 2b (preferred)	s.7.11 for residential development, s7.12 for other developments (mainly non-residential)	$136,110,000	This option scores highest on the multi-criteria assessment. The contributions totals are similar to other options at the top end of the financial estimates. However, this option scores higher on administrative efficiency, flexibility of spending funds and strategic intent. Because this option splits contributions based on development type, concerns were raised at the Councillor briefing about Council’s inability to levy 7.11 as well as 7.12 on mixed-use developments. Site specific modelling (Attachment 1, pp18-21) shows that the foregone 7.12 contributions are unlikely to significantly affect the total contributions for individual sites. For those developments with 1 storey of commercial development, the estimated foregone contributions are $15,000. For a hypothetical development site with 8 storeys, with 4 as commercial, the estimated foregone contributions are $249,000. Given that this option requires lower contributions for commercial, it is considered to provide incentive for additional commercial space, aligning with the strategic intent for Council’s centres.
Option 3	s.7.11 across the whole LGA	$137,846,000	Despite a similar financial performance, this option scores poorly compared to the mixed 7.11 and 7.12 plans. This is mainly due to the nexus requirements for the allocation of funds collected under s7.11 compared to 7.12. This option also requires more administration as it requires potentially complex calculations for every contribution amount. Despite the higher contributions that are collected in a 7.11 plan, this option does not account for any minor development types that would otherwise attract 7.12, and so still achieves a similar financial outcome.
Option 4a	s.7.11 in Kogarah Town Centre and Hurstville City Centre, elsewhere s.7.11 for residential and s.7.12 for other developments (mainly non-residential)	$137,692,000	Option 4a is a similar option to 2b, though it requires s7.11 contributions for new commercial floor space in the strategic centres of Hurstville and Kogarah. This would alleviate the concerns raised at the councillor briefing about allowing commercial floor space in mixed use developments to not require any contributions as in Option 2a. Though it would be expected that this option collects higher than Option 2b, the majority of redevelopment in centres only replaces the existing commercial space rather than providing additional commercial floor space. This means that the majority of the contributions are still driven by the residential component, which is the same in options 4a and 2b. This approach may be more appropriate to explore alongside Council’s 2022 LEP focussing on jobs and activation
Option 4b	s.7.11 across the whole LGA for increased population and workers, with s.7.12 for other developments	$147,706,000	Option 4b is based on the theoretical maximum contributions. This includes s7.11 contributions on all development that increases workers or population as well as 7.12 levies on all other development. It is modelled to collect around $1 million more per year than the other variations. However, this plan scores lower than option 2b as it is the hardest to monitor and administer, therefore carrying a higher level of risk. It is also less flexible to spend than the other options as a higher proportion of the funds are collected through nexus plans rather than a fixed rate plan.

Preferred Approach

20. Option 4b is the highest performer from a financial perspective. Options 2b, 3, and 4a show a similar level of performance, though have a drop of around $10 million over the 10 year time period from Option 4b. Options 1a, 1b and 2a are significantly lower than the other options.

21. As detailed in Table 5 above, Option 2b is the preferred option for the structure of the Georges River Development Contributions Plan. While Option 4b collects the greatest revenue, the additional administrative burden and nexus requirements for the allocation of funds result in a lower score on the full assessment. Similarly, Options 3 and 4a score lower on administrative efficiency and while they collect a similar amount of total contributions, their overall score is lower than Option 2b. Option 2b provides flexibility in its operation, relative ease of administration and aligns with the strategic intent of Council in relation to other strategies.

22. Further, should Council proceed with Option 2b, there remains the potential to pursue the increase to the maximum fixed rate levy under s7.12 in our key centres. This would reduce the contributions shortfall on this option compared to the other high performing options, as those all assume 7.11 contributions on commercial floor space where this option is to levy 7.12.

23. As Councillors are aware the draft Commercial Centres Strategy identifies that the Georges River LGA requires an additional 187,450m2 of employment floor space to support the additional growth in resident, worker and visitor population.

24. Council at its Meeting on 23 April 2019 considered a report on the Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) and resolved to endorse the following staged approach to the new Georges River LEP:

- LEP 2020 to focus on Harmonisation and Housing,

- LEP 2022 to focus on Jobs and Activation,

- LEP 2025 to focus on land use changes beyond the next 5 years.

25. The work required for the Jobs and Activation LEP 2022 will allow Council to re-examine development contribution rates in strategic and commercial centres once studies have progressed in those areas.

26. These studies will assist in determining the true cost of infrastructure funding. For its Strategic Centres, the work from these studies will also allow Council to determine whether or not the option of making a submission to IPART to have the $20,000 cap per dwelling lifted on the residential component within Strategic Centres is a viable option.

Family Friendly Apartments

27. SGS has completed analysis of the market rates and construction costs for different apartment types, and created a model to test profit margins under different contributions scenarios (Attachment 2, pp14-19). This work indicates that even with complete waiving of development contributions for three bedroom apartments, there is still little incentive to provide larger apartment sizes.

28. To compare the feasibility between the unit sizes, gross realisation values (GRV) and development costs have been obtained for 1, 2 & 3 bedroom dwellings. GRV/m2 was obtained from analysis of recent sales and consultation with property agents, and development costs were obtained from Rawlinsons construction cost guide and industry standard assumptions. The results show that in Kogarah North, 2 bedroom apartments have a substantial higher value per sqm than 3 bedroom apartments – a difference of $533 per sqm.

29. Three sites were tested with discounted contributions under 4 different scenarios, shown in Table 6.

30. The scenarios are:

- Scenario 1 (Base case) uses the rates derived for Option 2b described above.

- Scenario 2 has a 50% discount on s.7.11 contributions for 3 bedroom units.

- Scenario 3 has a 100% discount on s.7.11 contributions for 3 bedroom units.

- Scenario 4 has a 25% discount on 2 bedroom units and a 100% discount on 3 bedroom units.

Table 6 – Changes in feasibility for discounted contributions rates in family friendly apartments, under scenario 3

Test Site	Original Feasibility Ratio (scenario 1)	Feasibility Ratio with 100% discount on 3B units (scenario 3)	Change in Feasibility Ratio	Foregone Contributions
Site 1	1.24	1.26	0.02	$340,000
Site 2	0.97	0.98	0.01	$80,000
Site 3	1.16	1.17	0.01	$120,000

31. This is mainly due to the demand profile in Kogarah North being weighted towards two bedroom apartments. This weighting is far more significant than the uplift in profit margins from reducing contributions on three bedroom apartments. The main additional cost associated with three bedroom apartments was identified as the additional parking requirements.

32. Further, the foregone revenue from reducing the contributions payable on larger apartments may reduce Council’s ability to deliver infrastructure in the area. Table 7 below shows the foregone revenue if this approach was adopted under the preferred option for the new Georges River Development Contributions Plan. This could further reduce demand for larger apartments, as this infrastructure typically makes an area more attractive to families.

Table 7 – Foregone revenue under different discount scenarios for family friendly apartments, if applied LGA wide

	Scenario 1	Scenario 2	Scenario 3	Scenario 4
Total Collections	$136,110,000	$130,109,000	$124,109,000	$104,606,000
Foregone Revenue (10 yrs)	-	$6,001,000	$12,001,000	$31,504,000

33. As a result, SGS recommends not providing discounts or waivers of s7.11 contributions for family friendly apartments.

Financial Implications

34. Within budget allocation.

35. The financial implications are dependent on the option selected for the preparation of new plans. Refer to Table 3 for a comparison of the financial performance of each option. Additionally, the options that include a portion of 7.11 contributions may require Council to fund the apportionment to the existing population. As noted above, the detailed work to determine this portion will be covered in the next stages.

Risk Implications

36. Council’s existing plans carry a level of administrative risk due to their number, complexity, and the age of the plans themselves. These issues were previously reported to the Finance Committee on the 13 May 2019, and are also included in the S7.11 and S7.12 Income Audit Recommendations dated 18 March 2019.

Community Engagement

37. The draft development contributions plans will be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Regulations.

File Reference

18/2872

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment ⇩1	Georges River - Stage 1 contributions system review Final
Attachment ⇩2	Georges River - Stage 2 Family Friendly Apartments Final

Georges River Council – Environment and Planning - Monday, 12 August 2019 Page 57

Item: ENV028-19 Summary of Development Applications Lodged and Determined - January to June 2019

Author: Manager Development and Building

Directorate: Environment and Planning

Matter Type: Committee Reports

Recommendation

That Council receive and note the Summary of Development Applications Lodged and Determined report for the third and fourth quarters of the 2018/2019 financial year being January 2019 – June 2019.

Executive Summary

1. This report provides a snap-shot of Council’s development applications lodged and determined within the third and fourth quarters of the 2018/2019 financial year.

2. In order to consider trends and Council performance associated with development assessment; information provided within the report includes:

· Applications Received for Processing and Determination;

· Applications Considered by the Local Planning Panel;

· Applications Considered by the Sydney South Planning Panel;

· Total Application Processing Times;

· Application Type Breakdown;

· Estimated Value of Development Applications Determined;

· Timeframes Associated With Undetermined Applications.

Background

3. The information contained below provides a snap-shot of Council’s development applications lodged and determined within the third and fourth quarters of the 2018/2019 financial year.

Applications Received for Processing and Determination – Q3 & Q4 2018/2019 Financial Year

4. The total development applications lodged (‘L’) and determined (‘D’) in the first quarter is provided as follows:

2019	DA (‘L’)	DA (‘D’)	MOD (‘L’)	MOD (‘D’)	REV (‘L’)	REV (‘D’)	TOTAL (‘L’)	TOTAL (‘D’)
January	26	42	11	13	0	0	37	55
February	28	37	28	10	0	1	56	48
March	26	31	20	15	0	0	46	46
April	31	41	14	20	1	0	46	61
May	31	41	11	25	0	0	42	66
June	35	41	15	18	0	0	50	59

Table 1

5. For ease of reference and comparative purposes a graph of all applications (DA’s, Modifications and Reviews) for July 2017 – June 2019 is outlined in Figure 1 following:

6. The supporting data for the total applications determined for July 2017 – June 2019 is outlined is based on the following:

Development Applications

Modification Applications

Applications Considered - Local Planning Panel – Q1 2018/2019 Financial Year

7. The total development applications considered by the Georges River Local Planning Panel (since commencement in March 2018) is 79. A break down per month is provided as follows:

8. A list of the applications considered by the Georges River Local Planning Panel in the third and fourth quarters is detailed as follows:

DA No.	Address	Proposal	Officer Recommendation	LPP Decision	Date
DA2017/0655 (Electronic Determination - Deferred from LPP meeting 15/11/18)	198-200 Princes Highway Kogarah Bay	Residential Flat Building	Approval	Approved	9/1/19
DA2018/0182 (Electronic Determination - Deferred from LPP meeting 20/9/18)	6 Cross Street Hurstville	Indoor/Outdoor Dining	Approval	Approved	21/2/19
DA2018/0217 (Electronic Determination - Deferred from LPP meeting 13/12/18)	1-5 James Street Blakehurst	Residential Flat Building	Approval	Approved	1/2/19
REV2018/0019	954-956 Forest Road Lugarno	Construction of 4 Dwellings	Approval	Approved	5/2/19
DA2018/0154	13 Pearce Avenue Peakhurst	Residential flat building	Approval	Approved	7/2/19
DA2018/0162	42 Herbert Street Oatley	Dwelling House	Approval	Deferred for amended plans – Electronically Approved on 17/4/19	7/2/19
DA2018/0091	58 Argyle Street Penshurst	Secondary Dwelling	Approval	Deferred for legal advice	21/2/19
DA2017/0570	1 Ellen Subway Mortdale	Mixed Use Development	Approval	Approved	21/2/19
DA2018/0038	11A Letitia Street Oatley	Mixed Use Development	Approval	Refused	21/2/19
DA2017/99	32-38 Judd Street Oatley	Boarding House	Approval	Approved	7/3/19
DA2017/0464	324-330 Railway Parade Carlton	Mixed Use Development	Approval	Approved	7/3/19
DA2018/0393	468-474 Princes Highway Blakehurst	Residential Flat Building	Approval	Approved	4/4/19
DA2018/0368	80-84 Regent Street Kogarah	Residential Flat Building	Approval	Deferred for survey – Electronically approved on 5 June 2019	4/4/19
DA2017/0402	1 Butler Road Hurstville	Mixed Use Development	Refused	Deferred for revised plans and traffic assessment	18/4/19
DA2019/0020	51 Laycock Road Penshurst	Landscape works on heritage item	Approval	Approved	18/4/19
DA2018/0462	87 Woronora Parade Oatley	Dual Occupancy	Refused	Deferred for redesign	20/6/19
MOD2019/0005	42 Carwar Avenue Carss Park	Retrospective approval for unauthorised works	Approved	Deferred for amended plans	20/6/19

Table 2

Total Application Processing Times

9. Based on the gross turn-around times of all applications (DA’s, Modifications and Reviews), the average processing times for applications determined in the third quarter was 117 days and 130 in the fourth quarter.

10. Based on application type, the average times for Q3 & Q4 is as follows:

	Average Processing Time (days) (Q2)	Average Processing Time (days) (Q3 & 4)
Residential	147	133
Tourist	0	0
Commercial / retail / office	106	99
Infrastructure	0	0
Industrial	0	101
Community facility	250	240
Subdivision only	74	15

Table 3

11. Whilst the average times in each category have dropped the above figures will remain higher for a period of time as planning officers continue to process the backlog of applications.

12. Whilst the average determination times vary at each quarter the average time of all applications determined in the 2018/2019 financial year was 130 days which has reduced from 143 days at the same time last year.

13. The average time of all currently undetermined applications is currently sitting at 124 days. As the backlog of applications continues to fall, this time period is also anticipated to reduce.

Application Types

Estimated Value of Development Applications Determined

14. The total estimated value of applications determined in the third quarter was $91,848,367.

15. The total estimated value of applications determined in the fourth quarter was $196,970,092.

16. For comparative purposes, a graph of 2018/2019 against the data for 2017/2018 is detailed below:

17. The respective breakdown of estimated cost of works against the total number of applications determined is as follows:

	Total Applications (Q2)	Total Applications (Q3)	Total Applications (Q4)
$0 - $100,000	42	50	42
$100,001 - $250,000	13	16	17
$250,001 - $500,000	10	8	15
$500,001 - $1,000,000	42	24	29
$1,000,001 - $5,000,000	16	7	12
$5,000,001 - $10,000,000	1	4	2
>$10,000,000	1	1	6

Table 5

18. A 2018/2019 financial year to date breakdown of development value is provided as follows:

Timeframes Associated With Undetermined Applications

19. At the end of the second quarter of the 2018/2019 total undetermined applications had dropped to 380.

20. By the end of the fourth quarter of the 2018/2019 total undetermined applications has dropped further to 284.

21. A breakdown of the total number of undetermined applications is provided as follows:

	Total Applications
Development Applications	237
Modifications	47
Reviews	0
TOTAL	284

Table 6

Conclusion

22. The number of applications being determined is increasing and the total number of applications within the system is decreasing which will in turn see an improvement in the overall processing times.

23. The Development Assessment Team continue to implement actions that assist in improving processing times and customer service. Such actions include referral templates, standardised conditions of consent, focus on provision of development planning advice.

Financial Implications

24. Within budget allocation.

Risk Implications

25. No risks identified.

File Reference

17/1645