AGENDA


Environment and Planning Committee

 

Monday, 08 March 2021

7.00pm

 

BLENDED MEETING

Dragon Room (Level 1, Georges River Civic Centre,

Hurstville)

and

Skype Online Meeting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Georges River Council –           Environment and Planning -  Monday, 8 March 2021                                                       Page 1

 

          Environment and Planning

ORDER OF BUSINESS

 

1.      OPENING

2.      ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

3.      APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE

4.      NOTICE OF WEBCASTING

5.      DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

6.      PUBLIC FORUM

7.      CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

ENV003-21       Confirmation of the Minutes of the Environment and Planning Committee Meeting held on 8 February 2021

(Report by Executive Services Officer)....................................................................... 2

8.      COMMITTEE REPORTS

ENV004-21       Draft 2021/22 Budget - Consideration of Significant Tree Register

(Report by Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services)......................... 4

ENV005-21       Outcomes of Public Exhibition - Planning Proposal (Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2021)

(Report by Strategic Planner/Urban Designer)....................................................... 10

ENV006-21       Public Exhibition of Draft Georges River Affordable Housing Policy 2021

(Report by Manager Strategic Planning).................................................................. 36

ENV007-21       Georges River Council Waste Strategy 2021 - 2040

(Report by Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services)...................... 47

ENV008-21       Status Update on the Food Waste Feasibility Study

(Report by Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services).................... 142

ENV009-21       Waste Services Community Consultation - Implications for Waste Contracts

(Report by Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services).................... 145

 

 


Georges River Council –           Environment and Planning -  Monday, 8 March 2021                                                       Page 2

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

Item:                   ENV003-21   Confirmation of the Minutes of the Environment and Planning Committee Meeting held on 8 February 2021 

Author:              Executive Services Officer

Directorate:      Office of the General Manager

Matter Type:    Previous Minutes

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Minutes of the Environment and Planning Committee Meeting held on 8 February 2021 be confirmed.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Minutes of the Environment and Planning Committee - 8/02/2021


Georges River Council –          Environment and Planning -  Monday, 8 March 2021                                                      Page 5

 

 

 

 

 

MINUTES


Environment and Planning Committee

 

Monday, 08 February 2021

 

 

 

BLENDED MEETING

Dragon Room (Level 1, Georges River Civic Centre,

Hurstville)

and

Skype Online Meeting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


PRESENT

COUNCIL MEMBERS

Councillor Con Hindi (Chairperson), Councillor Vince Badalati, Councillor Nick Katris, Councillor Kathryn Landsberry and Councillor Leesha Payor.

COUNCIL STAFF

Director Environment and Planning - Meryl Bishop, Manager Development and Building - Ryan Cole, Manager Environment, Health & Regulatory Services - Andrew Spooner, Manager Office of the General Manager - Roxanne Thornton and Executive Services Officer - Neil Treadwell.

OPENING

Councillor Hindi opened the meeting at 8.32pm.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

Councillor Hindi acknowledged the traditional custodians of the land, the Biddegal people of the Eora Nation.

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE  

There were no apologies or requests for leave of absence.

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING

The Chairperson, Councillor Hindi, advised staff and the public that the meeting is being recorded for minute-taking purposes and is also webcast live on Council’s website, in accordance with Section 4 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice. This recording will be made available on  Council’s website.

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

There were no disclosures of interest made.

PUBLIC FORUM

ITEM

SPEAKER

Management of Feral and Infant Companion Animal Animals Policy 2021

Dr Renae Jackson

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENV001-21       Confirmation of the Minutes of the previous meeting held on 7 December 2020

(Report by Executive Services Officer)

RECOMMENDATION: Councillor Landsberry and Councillor Katris

That the Minutes of the Environment and Planning Committee Meeting held on 7 December 2020 be confirmed.

Record of Voting:

For the Motion: Unanimous

  

COMMITTEE REPORTS

ENV002-21       Adoption of Management of Feral and Infant Companion Animals Policy 2021

(Report by Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services)

Recommendation: Councillor Katris and Councillor Payor

(a)      That Council adopt the Georges River Management of Feral and Infant Companion Animals Policy (2021) as contained in Attachment 1 to this report.

(b)      That a further report be provided to Council on a future companion animal identification and de-sexing program within 12 months of the commencement of the Policy.

Record of Voting:

For the Motion: Unanimous

   

CONCLUSION

The Meeting was closed at 8.53pm.

 

 

 

Chairperson

 

 

 


Georges River Council –           Environment and Planning -  Monday, 8 March 2021                                                       Page 7

COMMITTEE REPORTS

 

Item:                   ENV004-21   Draft 2021/22 Budget - Consideration of Significant Tree Register 

Author:              Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:    Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council consider the allocation of $40,000 within the draft 2021/2022 budget for the engagement of a suitably qualified environmental consultancy to prepare a Significant Tree Register for the Georges River local government area.

 

Executive Summary

1.      The purpose of this report is to provide an update on elements of the implementation of the Tree Management Policy to date and to provide details of a proposed Significant Tree Register (STR).

2.      This report recommends that Council consider the allocation of $40,000 within the draft 2021/2022 budget for the engagement of a suitably qualified environmental consultancy to prepare a STR and undertake a process that includes:

•        Draft definition and assessment criteria for a significant tree.

•        A draft list of Council trees in parks and streets to be considered for the STR;

•        A draft nomination form for the STR including background information on the STR;

•        Review nominated trees and recommend trees to be placed on the STR.

3.      The STR would form part of a suite of strategic documents for tree management, which includes Council’s Tree Management Policy, Kogarah Street Tree Masterplan and Strategy 2009, Hurstville Street Tree Management Study 2015 and relevant controls for tree preservation in Council’s current Development Control Plans (DCPs).

Background

4.      Council at its meeting on 23 April 2019 resolved to adopt the Tree Management Policy and that a further report be provided to Council addressing:

(i)      the operation of tree review panels;

(ii)     the application of fees including the Offset Fee for Tree Replacement (per tree) for trees on private land and the Security against compliance with tree preservation requirements/conditions (street tree) fee and;

(iii)    the development of a Significant Tree Register.

5.      This report provides details on the above points.

6.         Council at its meeting on 27 July 2020 resolved (in part) in relation concerning a Moreton Bay Fig Tree located in Sans Souci Park, Water Street adjacent to the Bathers Pavilion as follows:

That Council give serious consideration to the inclusion of the tree in Council’s future STR once finalised.

7.      As a result of the 27 July 2020 resolution, the Moreton Bay Fig Tree located in Sans Souci Park has been included on the draft list of trees to be considered for inclusion on the STR.

8.      Further, Council at its meeting on 14 December 2020 resolved (in part) in relation to significant trees:

That subject to funding of a STR, Council include within the scope of the STR report, the need to address succession planning for street tree planting programs and prioritise planting locations for significant trees on public lands. The report should also include public consultation to help identify these priority planting areas.

9.      At the same meeting, Council resolved the following in relation to tree canopy:

(a)     Take all practical steps to retain all of our mature trees in public spaces such as parks, nature strips and golf courses;

(b)     In cases where they need to be removed, they are replaced with species of a similar size where possible, with an appropriate tree;

(c)     Adhere to its "two for one" replacement ratio; and

(d)     Ensure that private land owners also adhere to this policy.

 

REPORT

10.    Council at its meeting on 25 February 2019 adopted a target of 40% urban canopy by 2038. To help achieve this, the adoption of the Tree Management Policy in April 2019 implemented a number of actions, two detailed within this report as follows:

a.      A two-stage review panel, including panels of senior staff to be used for reviewing decisions to prune or remove trees on private land.

b.      The application of fees such as the Offset Fee to Tree Replacement and the Security against compliance with tree preservation requirements/conditions (street tree) fee.

Tree Review Panels and Other actions

11.    Section 3.3.1 of the Policy requires that applications for the removal of trees on private or public land, 10m and over in height are to be “determined by the Director Assets and Infrastructure following advice and recommendation from Tree Management Officer and documented”.

12.    To better achieve accurate monitoring of canopy loss and additions and further enhance implementation of the Tree Management Policy, Council’s Environmental Sustainability and Waste and GIS Teams have created a new layer in the Planning and Development module of Council’s Intramaps GIS system titled ‘Tree Approval (DA’s)’. This layer has two sub-layers; one for mapping trees retained and the second for mapping trees removed.

13.    Recording tree removals, replacements and fees paid as recommended below will best place Council to ensure the Policy is being adhered to.

14.    Since the introduction of the Policy, there have been 10 applications for Stage 1 Reviews and no Stage 2 Reviews received by Council. Based on records maintained by the Assets and Infrastructure Directorate, nine of these 10 applications have been approved as the applicants provided additional information to enable Council’s determination. Assets and Infrastructure staff maintain records of all reviews in Council’s document management system in accordance with the Tree Management Policy and related procedures.

 

Offset Fees

15.    In June 2019, Council publicly exhibited the Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges 2019/20, including the following:

•        Offset Fee for Tree Replacement (per tree) for trees on private land, as valued by Thyer (2011) Tree Valuation Method (fee range between $1,000 and $10,000);

•        Security against compliance with tree preservation requirements/conditions (Street Tree) payment, as valued by Thyer (2011) Tree Valuation Method (fee range between $1,000 and $10,000);

•        Review of Tree Removal and Pruning Application on Private Land – Stage 1 Review - $70.00; and

•        Review of Tree Removal and Pruning Application on Private Land – Stage 2 Review - $144.00.

16.    No comments were received from the public on these fees; therefore they were adopted in accordance with the 23 April 2019 resolution and became part of Council’s Adopted Fees and Charges 2019/20. These fees were carried over to the Adopted Fees and Charges for 2020/21 with standard fee increases to account for inflation. The resultant 2020/21 Schedule of Fees and Charges for Stage 1 and Stage 2 Review Fees are now $72.00 and $144.00, respectively.

17.    Since the adoption of fees, the Council is to note that the Offset Fee has been applied during the development assessment process on several occasions whereby the tree replacement ratio of 2:1 for native trees cannot be met by the landholder.

18.    Since February 2020 Offset Fees ranging between $1,700 and $10,000 has been received from six applications.

19.    The funds from these Offset Fees are currently sitting in the Tree Preservation Reserve. Funding will be allocated towards the planting of appropriate trees in public areas in proximity to the development sites where the trees have been subject to removal. Internal planning is underway to use these fees for offset tree planting in Autumn 2021.

 

Significant Tree Register

20.    The current Policy contains references to significant trees and a STR, therefore there is no need to amend the Policy, however it is necessary to create a framework for a STR to support the Policy.

21.    To assist in forming the STR framework, Council staff have suggested a draft definition of a significant tree that would include elements such as:

a.      is visible over a wide area due to its size;

b.      is a specimen in a prominent location;

c.      has ecological values because it forms part of the remnant vegetation of the area and contributes to the gene flow, has habitat hollows or provides food for wildlife;

d.      is a species in good condition;

e.      exhibits exceptional form;

f.       is associated with the history of a place; or

g.      forms part of an avenue of trees.

22.    Draft assessment criteria for a significant tree will also be developed and the criteria will include elements such as:

·        Visual significance

·        Botanic significance

·        Ecological value

·        Historical significance

·        Social significance

23.    The definition and assessment criteria for a significant tree will be developed with the draft STR.

24.    It is also proposed that Council staff nominate trees located on public land to be considered for the STR. Further, it is proposed that members of the community can also nominate trees located on their own private land once per annum. It is suggested that significant tree nominations for private trees on private land follows a similar process to nominating heritage properties under the LEP in that it is restricted to land owners only; more specifically, the land owner of the land upon which the tree is located.

25.    The environmental consultant will, as part of their engagement, be required to outline a robust assessment process by which Council staff can then determine applicability of trees (located on public land). The consultant will also develop a methodology for an independent assessment of trees located on private land for consideration for inclusion on the STR.

26.    The consultant will lead the community consultation process once the STR has been drafted, along with the supporting criteria and methodology. 

CONCLUSION

27.    To continue with the program of protecting trees and canopy in the local government area, it is recommended that Council consider a budget bid of $40,000 in the preparation of the 2021/2022 budget for the engagement of a suitably qualified environmental consultancy to prepare a draft Significant Tree Register and implement the processes to create the register.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

28.    Funds of $40,000 are required to fund the STR development and will be included as a budget bid within the 2021/2022 budget.

RISK IMPLICATIONS

29.    No risks identified.

Community Engagement

30.    Community engagement will be not be required at this stage.

File Reference

19/2272, D20/259437

 

 

  


Georges River Council –           Environment and Planning -  Monday, 8 March 2021                                                       Page 10

Item:                   ENV005-21   Outcomes of Public Exhibition - Planning Proposal (Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2021) 

Author:              Strategic Planner/Urban Designer and Senior Strategic Planner

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:    Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation:

(a)     That Council notes the submissions received during the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal (PP2020/0002) to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (or if gazetted, Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020).

(b)     That Council endorses the amended Planning Proposal as follows to be forwarded to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for gazettal in accordance with Section 3.36 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

i)       Amend the Land Zoning Map to rezone the Narwee Housing Investigation Area from R2 Low Density Residential to a combination of R3 Medium Density Residential and R4 High Density Residential;

 

ii)      Amend the Lot Size Map to increase the minimum subdivision lot size:

a.      in the proposed R3 Medium Density Residential from 450sqm to 800sqm; and

b.      in the proposed R4 High Density Residential from 450sqm to 1,000sqm;

 

iii)     Amend the Height of Buildings Map to:

a.      increase the maximum building height in the proposed R4 High Density Residential from 9m to 13m (Narwee HIA);

b.      increase the maximum building height in the Hurstville – Hillcrest Avenue HIA from 12m to 13m;

c.      amend the maximum building height applied at 33 Dora Street, Hurstville from 30m to 15m; and

d.      amend the maximum building height applied at 199 Rocky Point Road, Ramsgate from 21m to 15m and 21m in accordance with the existing split zoning;

 

iv)     Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to:

a.      to increase the maximum floor space ratio in the proposed R3 Medium Density Residential from 0.55:1 to 0.7:1 (Narwee HIA);

b.      to increase the maximum floor space ratio in the proposed R4 High Density Residential from 0.55:1 to 1:1 (Narwee HIA); and

c.      amend the maximum floor space ratio applied at 199 Rocky Point Road, Ramsgate from 2.5:1 to 1.5:1 and 2.5:1 in accordance with the existing split zoning;

 

v)      Amend Clause 4.1B Minimum lot sizes and special provisions for certain dwellings to include:

a.      minimum lot size of 800sqm for manor houses;

b.      minimum lot width of 18m for manor houses;

c.      minimum lot size of 800sqm for multi dwelling housing (terraces); and

d.      minimum lot width of 21m for multi dwelling housing (terraces);

 

vi)     Restrict the following sensitive use development types on all land located within the Narwee Housing Investigation Area:

a.      Hospital

b.      School

c.      Child care facility

d.      Old age housing

(c)     That Council endorses the Director Environment and Planning to make minor modifications to any numerical, typographical, interpretation and formatting errors, if required, in the finalisation of the Planning Proposal.

(d)     That all persons who made a submission to the Planning Proposal be notified of the outcomes of this meeting.

 

Executive Summary

1.      In June 2020, Council was advised by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (“DPIE”) that Council must create capacity for additional dwellings to meet the Greater Sydney Commission’s short term housing target of 3,450 - 4,250 dwellings (for the period from 2021 to 2026).

2.      The DPIE also advised that the surplus grant funding from the NSW Government’s Accelerated LEP Program would be made available to enable the expedited preparation of a planning proposal to address this shortfall in housing delivery, subject to the submission of this planning proposal for finalisation by 31 March 2021.

3.      In response, Council, at its meeting on 24 August 2020, resolved to prepare a Planning Proposal to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“HLEP 2012”) and Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“KLEP 2012”), or if gazetted, the Georges River LEP 2020 to promote housing choice and create capacity for additional dwellings to meet the Greater Sydney Commission’s 6-10 year housing target (3,450 - 4,250 additional dwellings) for the period from 2021/22 to 2025/26.

4.      The Planning Proposal, known as LEP21, was endorsed by Council at its meeting dated 23 November 2020 to be forwarded to the DPIE for a Gateway Determination.

5.      The primary objective of LEP21 is to identify additional housing opportunities in the LGA to meet the short term targets imposed by the State Government. This Planning Proposal creates capacity for 300 additional dwellings through the rezoning of a housing growth area which has been identified by Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement 2040.

6.      In addition, this Planning Proposal also seeks to address a number of considerations unresolved by the Georges River LEP 2020.

7.      A Gateway Determination for the Planning Proposal was issued by DPIE on 23 December 2020, including a number of Conditions to be fulfilled prior to the commencement of public exhibition (refer Attachment 1). The Conditions as summarised below required the Planning Proposal to be updated prior to community consultation:

·        Remove the proposed insertion of ‘manor house’ and ‘multi dwelling housing (terraces)’ into the LEP Land Use Tables;

·        Note that the minimum lot width controls in a LEP for ‘manor house’ and ‘multi dwelling housing (terraces)’ will not apply to complying developments;

·        Identify that this Planning Proposal will amend the Hurstville LEP 2012 and Kogarah LEP 2012 unless the Georges River LEP 2020 comes into effect; and

·        Adopt the recommendations of the Narwee Housing Investigation Area Risk Assessment.

8.      The required amendments have been made in response to the Gateway Conditions and the amended Planning Proposal for LEP21 was placed on public exhibition from 20 January 2021 to 17 January 2021 (inclusive).

9.      A total of 36 community submissions and 2 public authority submissions were received. All submissions have been reviewed and summarised. Public authority submissions are provided in Attachments 2 and 3. The summary of each community submission and Council’s response are provided in Attachment 4.

10.    In summary, the content of the community submissions can be categorised into the following topic areas:

·        Hurstville Hillcrest Avenue Housing Investigation Area

·        Manor houses and multi dwelling housing (terraces)

·        Mapping anomaly at 199 Rocky Point Road, Ramsgate

·        Narwee Housing Investigation Area

·        General objections to development and any increase in density

·        Requests for upzoning of particular areas and properties

·        Requests for changes in controls unrelated to this Planning Proposal

11.    This report considers whether amendments to the Planning Proposal for LEP21 should be made in response to the submissions received from public authorities and the community.

12.    One amendment is proposed to the Planning Proposal in response to the submission from APA Group, the operator of the high pressure gas pipeline:

·        Amend the Planning Proposal to restrict sensitive use development types on all land located within the Narwee Housing Investigation Area.

13.    In relation to the consideration of community submissions, this Report details the analysis undertaken with respect to the Narwee Housing Investigation Area (“HIA”) in response to the key issues raised by the submissions as follows:

·        Objection to any increase in density in the precinct;

·        Objection to R4 High Density rezoning but supportive of R3 Medium Density zones; and

·        Request for the whole precinct to be rezoned to R4 High Density.

14.    The detailed analysis indicates that the most appropriate outcome is to proceed with the as-exhibited Planning Proposal which seeks to rezone the Narwee HIA to a combination of R3 Medium Density and R4 High Density zones. Further details are provided under the heading “Narwee HIA Analysis”.

15.    In accordance with the NSW Government’s funding agreement, Council must submit this Planning Proposal for final legal drafting by 31 March 2021.

16.    A consequence of not meeting this mandated timeframe may include not receiving the grant funding of approximately $750,000, and as such Council will need to meet the costs of relevant LEP-related expenses.

17.    It is recommended that Council endorses the recommended amendment to the Planning Proposal for LEP21 and forwards the revised Planning Proposal to the DPIE for finalisation.

Background

18.    On 7 September 2018, Council received funding from the NSW Government of $2,500,000 for an accelerated review of Council’s existing LEPs and the preparation of a new LEP that aligns with the priorities outlined in the South District Plan. The grant funding also enabled Council to prepare the Local Housing Strategy and Inclusive Housing Strategy to inform the new LEP and a local strategic planning statement for the LGA.

19.    The Planning Proposal for the Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020 (“LEP 2020”) was revised with consideration of the public exhibition outcomes and was reported to the Georges River Local Planning Panel (“LPP”) in June 2020 seeking endorsement to submit the revised Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (“DPIE”) for final legal drafting. It is anticipated the LEP 2020 will come into effect in the coming months.

20.    The LEP 2020 was the first stage of a four-stage approach to preparing the principal Georges River LEP. The staged approach was developed to enable detailed investigations to be conducted to support the full suite of actions and changes proposed by Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement 2040 (“LSPS 2040”).

21.    LEP 2021 is the next stage within the Georges River LEP staged approach. However before the preparation of LEP 2021 could commence, in June 2020 the DPIE advised that Council must create capacity for additional dwellings to meet the Greater Sydney Commission’s 6-10 year housing target of 3,450 - 4,250 dwellings (for the period from 2021 to 2026).

22.    The DPIE also advised that the surplus grant funding from the NSW Government’s Accelerated LEP Program would be made available to enable the expedited preparation of a planning proposal to address this shortfall in housing delivery, subject to the submission of this planning proposal for finalisation by 31 March 2021. The remaining LEP funding is approximately $750,000.

23.    The revised Local Housing Strategy demonstrates that based on the existing development completions data, the LGA will struggle to meet its 0-5 year target of 4,800 additional dwellings as specified by the South District Plan. The delivery shortfall has been identified to be approximately 700 dwellings.

24.    To ensure the LGA delivers an additional 14,000 dwellings as required by 2036, Council at its meeting held 24 August 2020 resolved to prepare a Planning Proposal to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“HLEP 2012”) and Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“KLEP 2012”), or if gazetted, the Georges River LEP 2020 to promote housing choice and create capacity for additional dwellings to meet the Greater Sydney Commission’s 6-10 year housing target (3,450 - 4,250 additional dwellings) for the period from 2021/22 to 2025/26.

25.    Further work will need to be conducted throughout the Georges River LEP staged program to create capacity and flexibility for additional take up to meet the 10-20 year dwelling target (period from 2026 to 2036).

26.    The staged approach to preparing the Georges River LEP has been updated in response to the preparation of this Planning Proposal, known as LEP21. The following LEP Program was endorsed by Council at its meeting dated 23 November 2020:

·        Stage 1: Housing and Harmonisation (completed with no change)

 

·        Stage 1B: LEP21 Housing Capacity (this Planning Proposal)

 

·        Stage 2: Housing Choice (update timeframe from 2021 to 2022)

-        Seek to promote inclusive and affordable housing

-        Investigate mechanisms such as big house conversions and build to rent to provide more housing choice across the LGA

 

·        Stage 3: Jobs and Activation (update timeframe from 2022 to 2023)

-       Review development standards in centres

-       Infrastructure delivery mechanisms

-       Review and implement the outcomes of the Hurstville City Centre and Beverly Hills Local Centre masterplans

 

·        Stage 4: Housing and Future Growth (no change to schedule for 2025 and beyond)

-       Focus on land use changes beyond the next 5 years.

 

27.    In addition to the preparation of this Planning Proposal, the LEP grant funding has also enabled the preparation of a number of key strategic studies and plans which will be used to inform future amendments to the Georges River LEP subject to Council’s endorsement. The following additional projects are currently underway:

·        Georges River Affordable Housing Policy

Preparation of Council’s Affordable Housing Policy includes considerations of build-to-rent provisions and inclusionary zoning to promote inclusive and affordable housing. A draft Policy has now been prepared and is subject of a separate report to this meeting. It is anticipated the draft Policy will be placed on community consultation in mid-2021.

·        Georges River Biodiversity Study

A Biodiversity Study is being prepared to provide an encompassing assessment of the current biodiversity values across the entire LGA. Through detailed field surveys, this Study will identify areas of high biodiversity value and importance to the LGA to ensure its protection. The Study will provide recommendations to enable better protection of the LGA’s biodiversity within the development process and to inform the preparation of a future biodiversity strategy.

·        Mortdale Local Centre Masterplan

A masterplan for the Mortdale Local Centre is being developed to explore opportunities to make Mortdale a better place to live, work and visit with the aim to improve the amenity and quality of the built environment and will include recommendations for:

-        future land use zones

-        building heights

-        floor space ratios (FSRs)

-        road network improvements

-        provision of affordable housing

-        public domain improvements that will facilitate activation

-        job creation and housing choice.

·        Foreshore Scenic Character Review

The Foreshore Scenic Character Review is being prepared with the intent of further investigating the role, mapped extent and zoning of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area (“FSPA”) in accordance with the following resolution made by the Georges River Local Planning Panel at its meeting dated 25 and 26 June 2020: 

2.      The Panel recommends that Council as part of the preparation of the draft Local Environmental Plan in 2021/2022, further define the role, mapped extent and zoning of the FSPA, in both the former Hurstville and Kogarah Local Government Areas, having regard to those properties and ridge lines visible to and from the Georges River and its tributaries, and associated environmental protection applying to those areas in order to better reflect the objectives of Clause 6.7 of the Georges River Local Environmental Plan 2020. This may include the consideration of additional environmental protection zones or modifications of the FSPA. 

The outcomes of this Review will inform investigations of the FSPA and other aspects of local character across the foreshore localities of the LGA.

PLANNING PROPOSAL AND GATEWAY DETERMINATION

28.    The primary objective of this Planning Proposal for LEP21 is to identify additional housing opportunities in the LGA to meet the short-term targets imposed by the State Government. In addition, this Planning Proposal also seeks to address a number of considerations unresolved by draft LEP 2020.

29.    A Gateway Determination for the Planning Proposal was issued by the DPIE on 23 December 2020, including a number of Conditions to be fulfilled prior to the commencement of public exhibition (refer Attachment 1).

30.    The Gateway Conditions and the corresponding amendments to the Planning Proposal are outlined in Table 1 below:

Table 1 – Gateway Conditions and Amendments to Planning Proposal

Gateway Condition

Planning Proposal Amendment

Gateway Condition 1(a) to remove the proposed permissibility amendments to the land use tables for ‘manor houses’ and ‘multi dwelling housing (terraces)’ as these are inconsistent with the Codes SEPP and Standard Instrument

The LEP cannot be inconsistent with the Codes SEPP and the Standard Instrument LEP. The land use terms of ‘manor houses’ and ‘multi dwelling housing (terraces)’ do not exist in the Standard Instrument LEP as land use terms that can be inserted into Land use Tables.

 

Council was advised that DPIE is currently investigating an amendment of the Standard Instrument LEP to formally introduce the land uses of ‘manor houses’ and ‘multi dwelling housing (terraces)’ across all LEPs.

 

In the meantime, the permissibility of manor houses as development applications is currently enabled by the application of Clause 3B.1A of the Codes SEPP while development applications for terraces are to be considered by Council as a type of multi dwelling housing. Council must rely on the Codes SEPP for the permissibility of these developments.

 

Accordingly, the Planning Proposal will be amended to remove the proposed insertion of ‘manor houses’ and ‘multi dwelling housing (terraces)’ in the Land Use Tables of the R3 and R4 zones.

Gateway Condition 1(b) to note that complying development under the Codes SEPP does not give regard to the minimum lot width in a LEP for ‘manor house’ and ‘multi dwelling housing (terraces)’

The explanation of provisions publicly exhibited with the Planning Proposal includes a statement clarifying that the minimum lot width requirements for ‘manor house’ and ‘multi dwelling housing (terraces)’ of 18m and 21m respectively will not be applicable to complying developments carried out under the Codes SEPP.

Gateway Condition 1(c) to ensure the explanation of provisions identifies that the Hurstville LEP 2012 and Kogarah LEP 2012 will be amended unless the Georges River Comprehensive LEP is subsequently notified

The explanation of provisions states that this Planning Proposal seeks to amend the existing Hurstville and Kogarah LEPs unless the draft LEP 2020 is subsequently notified.

Gateway Condition 1(d) in accordance with the recommendations of the Narwee Housing Investigation Area Risk Assessment prepared by Arriscar dated 23 December 2020. The identification of sensitive land uses is to be in accordance with those defined under Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No 4 – Land Use Safety Planning Criteria (HIPAP 4).

Arriscar’s Risk Assessment contains two recommendations pertaining to the rezoning of the Narwee HIA in response to the risk criteria requirements specified by the Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper (HIPAP):

·    Recommendation 1 - Remove lots 407 and 432 of DP752056 from the HIA planned rezoning to ensure the criteria for residential development area complied with.

 

The Risk Assessment has identified that 5 and 7 Bryant Street are located in very close proximity to the Ethane Pipeline and possess very high individual risk of fatality. The level of individual risk of fatality on these two sites cannot satisfy the risk criteria stipulated by the HIPAP for rezoning and/or intensification. Therefore, the Risk Assessment has made the recommendation to remove 5 and 7 Bryant Street from the proposed upzoning and retain the existing R2 zone on these sites to ensure there will be no intensification in future development density.

 

In accordance with Recommendation 1, the two sites in question located at No.5 and 7 Bryant Street (Lots 407 and 432 in DP 752056, refer Figure 1 below) have been removed from the proposed rezoning at the Narwee HIA.

 

Figure 1 – Location Map of No.5 and 7 Bryant Street, Narwee (blue outline)

 

·    Recommendation 2 - Ensure sensitive use development such as aged care facilities, childcare centres or schools is not approved for lots 1 through to 7 of DP16824 in the northeast corner of the HIA.

 

In accordance with Recommendation 2, the following sensitive use developments as defined under the HIPAP 4 are proposed to be restricted from being carried out on the properties located at No. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 Berrille Road, Narwee (being Lots 1-7, DP 16824, refer Figure 2 below):

·      Hospital

·      School

·      Child care facility

·      Old age housing

 

Figure 2 – Location Map of No.1-13 Berrille Road, Narwee (blue outline)

 

It should be noted that HIPAP 4 was prepared prior to the implementation of the Standard Instrument LEP. As a result, the above development types are inconsistent with the land use terms specified within Direction 5 of the Standard Instrument LEP. It is anticipated that the relevant land use terms will be nominated during legal drafting of this Planning Proposal.

 

31.    The Planning Proposal was revised in accordance with the Gateway Conditions prior to community consultation. The exhibited Planning Proposal comprised of the following components:

·        Identify additional housing opportunities in the LGA through a review of future housing growth areas nominated by the Local Strategic Planning Statement 2040 (“LSPS 2040”);

·        Contribute to the supply and diversity of housing within the LGA by creating capacity for an additional 300 dwellings through the rezoning of the Narwee HIA to a combination of R3 Medium Density and R4 High Density Residential, which is one of the six future housing growth areas identified by the LSPS 2040;

·        Ensure sensitive use developments as defined under the Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Paper No.4 (“HIPAP 4”) are restricted on No. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 Berrille Road, Narwee;

·        Introduce minimum lot size of 800sqm for “manor houses” and “multi dwelling housing (terraces)” to apply to development applications carried out under LEP 2020 and complying developments carried out under the Low Rise Housing Diversity Code in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008;

·        Introduce minimum lot width of 18m for “manor houses” and 21m for “multi dwelling housing (terraces)” to apply to development applications carried out under LEP 2020;

·        Resolve mapping anomalies that were not included in LEP 2020 on the following sites:

o   199 Rocky Point Road, Ramsgate – amend height and floor space ratio (“FSR”) to 21m/15m and 2.5:1/1.5:1 FSR to match the split zoning applied to the site;

o   33 Dora Street, Hurstville – amend height to 15m to match the adjoining sites; and

·        Increase the maximum building height from 12m to 13m for the Hurstville – Hillcrest Avenue Housing Investigation Area which was rezoned in LEP 2020 to enable residential flat building developments of four storeys which are compliant with the Apartment Design Guide.

TARGETED PRE-EXHIBITION CONSULTATION

32.    Targeted consultation was conducted with the owners and occupiers of properties located within and adjacent to the Narwee HIA (refer Figure 3 below) prior to formal public exhibition.

33.    It should be noted that this pre-exhibition consultation is not a required step in the Planning Proposal process.

Figure 3 – Location of Narwee HIA (outline in red)

34.    This preliminary targeted consultation session commenced on 7 December and closed on 20 December 2020 and provided the opportunity for affected and potentially affected property owners to respond to the proposed changes.

35.    The 2 week engagement period is consistent with the targeted HIA consultation conducted as part of the preparation of LEP 2020.

36.    The targeted pre-exhibition consultation was comprised of the following components:

·        309 targeted letters sent to owners of properties located within and adjacent to the Narwee HIA

·        4 notification signs fixed on street poles within and around the Narwee HIA

·        Your Say project page

·        Survey requesting feedback on the proposed changes

·        Fact sheets explaining the following:

o   Background and selection rationale

o   Existing and proposed controls

o   Examples of development outcome

o   LEP process and next steps

·        Dedicated email for enquiries

·        Dedicated phone line for enquiries

·        One-on-one online meetings with interested property owners

37.    The survey comprises of the following questions:

1)      Where do you live?

o   Within the boundary of the Narwee Housing Investigation Area

o   Outside and adjacent to the Narwee Housing Investigation Area

o   More than a few streets away and/or in another suburb

 

2)      Do you own property within the Narwee Housing Investigation Area?

o   Yes - If yes, how long have you owned the property?

o   No

 

3)      Do you agree with the proposed boundary of the Narwee Housing Investigation Area?

o   Yes, I agree without changes

o   No, I disagree with the boundary - Please specify reasons

o   Neutral, neither agree or disagree

 

4)      Do you support the proposed rezoning from R2 low density to R3 medium density and the proposed building heights (e.g. various 2 storey medium density developments like townhouses and manor houses)?

o   Yes, I support the rezoning

o   Yes, but I think the heights could be increased - Please specify reasons

o   No, I do not support the rezoning - Please specify reasons

o   Neutral, neither agree or disagree

 

5)      Do you support the proposed rezoning from R2 low density to R4 high density and the proposed building heights (e.g. 4 storey apartments)?

o   Yes, I support the rezoning

o   Yes, but I think the heights could be increased - Please specify reasons

o   No, I do not support the rezoning - Please specify reasons

o   Neutral, neither agree or disagree

 

6)      What do you like now about the Narwee Housing Investigation Area?

 

7)      If there is anything else you would like to tell us about the changes proposed in the Narwee Housing Investigation Area, please use the space below.

 

8)      Your age group?

o   18 to 24 years old

o   25 to 39 years old

o   40 to 60 years old

o   60 years or older

 

9)      Do you want to join the mailing list to stay updated on the proposed changes?

 

38.    A total of 34 survey responses were received as part of this targeted consultation. The survey responses are summarised as follows:

·        Less than half (45%) of the respondents live within the Narwee HIA;

·        In terms of responses from owners within the Narwee HIA:

o   Most responses supported the proposed rezoning from R2 Low Density to R3 Medium Density;

o   Most responses did not support the proposed rezoning from R2 Low Density to R4 High Density;

o   Some responses supported the rezoning to R4 High Density but requested increases to the proposed building heights. These responses suggested including both side of Mercury Street in the proposed R4 zone and providing increased building heights of 6 to 8 storeys to enable more apartments to be built;

·        More than half (55%) of the respondents live immediately outside of the Narwee HIA and/or in other suburbs;

·        In terms of responses from owners located outside of the Narwee HIA:

o   The majority of the responses objected to any form of increase in density in the area;

o   Some responses did not object to the proposed rezoning from R2 Low Density to R3 Medium Density; and

o   All responses objected to the proposed rezoning from R2 Low Density to R4 High Density.

39.    The key issues raised in the objections are summarised as follows:

·        More development will result in more traffic congestion, greater conflict between cars and pedestrians and reduce the availability of on-street car parking;

·        The existing character of the low-scale streetscape will be negatively impacted;

·        There is insufficient infrastructure in the area to accommodate more people;

·        Existing amenity will be reduced by more development;

·        Value of property will be reduced due to oversupply of apartments;

·        Greater density will cause increases in crime rates, anti-social behaviour and illegal dumping;

·        High density developments will cause the area to become congested like Hurstville; and

·        The proposed rezoning is skewed to the southern side of the railway line. Council should be working together with Canterbury Bankstown Council to review the density in the 800m catchment around Narwee Station.

40.    It should be noted that due to the short timeframe between the conclusion of this pre-exhibition consultation on 20 December 2020 and the receipt of the Gateway Determination on 23 December 2020, the exhibited Planning Proposal was not amended to include responses to the survey results. Nonetheless, the survey results have been reviewed in conjunction with the written submissions received during the formal public exhibition period.

41.    This Report details the analysis undertaken with respect to the Narwee HIA in response to key issues raised by the survey results and written submissions as follows:

·        Objection to any increase in density in the precinct

·        Objection to R4 High Density rezoning but supportive of R3 Medium Density zones

·        Request for the whole precinct to be rezoned to R4 High Density

42.    Further details are provided under the heading “Narwee HIA Analysis”.

PUBLIC EXHIBITION PROGRAM

43.    The Planning Proposal was revised in response to the Gateway Conditions and was placed on public exhibition from 20 January 2021 to 17 February 2021 (inclusive) for a total of 29 days.

44.    The public exhibition of the Planning Proposal was conducted in accordance with Council’s Community Engagement Strategy and the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and its Regulations 2000.

45.    The main objective of the public exhibition was to inform and engage target groups who may be impacted by the changes proposed by LEP21 and provide accessible opportunities for all to receive more information and speak with Council’s strategic planning staff.

46.    The following materials have been made publicly available during the exhibition period:

·        The Planning Proposal and relevant maps

·        Supporting documentation:

o   Gateway Determination from DPIE

o   Traffic Impact Assessment

o   Ethane Pipeline Risk Assessment

o   Lands register of Council-owned land in the R3 Medium Density and R4 High Density Residential zones

o   NSW Government’s Best Practice Guideline for LEPs and Council Land (dated January 1997)

·        Plain-English explanatory information detailing of all the changes proposed by LEP21

·        Fact sheets on the following key elements:

o   FAQs on the LEP process and planning proposals

o   Narwee HIA – existing and proposed controls

o   Narwee HIA – proposed development types

o   Narwee HIA – selection rationale

o   Narwee HIA – hazard analysis and sensitive uses

o   FAQs for the Narwee HIA informed by targeted consultation outcomes

 

47.    The public exhibition program comprised of the following components:

·        Your Say project page

·        Online submission form

·        Hard copies of the Planning Proposal and exhibition package in Council Libraries and Customer Service Centres

·        Dedicated email for enquiries

·        Dedicated phone line for enquiries

·        One-on-one online meetings with strategic planning staff

·        Social media (Facebook posts)

·        Newspaper advertisement in The Leader (fortnightly)

·        Your Say project updates to all registered users

48.    Targeted letters were also sent out to the following stakeholders as they are directly affected by the changes proposed by LEP21:

·        Property owners located within the Narwee HIA (consistent with pre-engagement)

·        Property owners adjoining the Narwee HIA (consistent with pre-engagement)

·        Property owners of sites affected by mapping anomaly rectification:

o   33 Dora Street, Hurstville

o   199 Rocky Point Road, Ramsgate

·        Property owners located within R3 and R4 zones

·        Property owners located within the Hurstville – Hillcrest Avenue HIA (consistent with LEP 2020 consultation)

·        Property owners adjoining the Hurstville – Hillcrest Avenue HIA in the O’Briens HCA and to the south on Hillcrest Avenue(consistent with LEP 2020 consultation)

OUTCOMES OF PUBLIC EXHIBITION – PUBLIC AUTHORITY SUBMISSIONS

49.    In accordance with Condition No.3 of the Gateway Determination, the following public authorities were provided with a copy of the Planning Proposal and the relevant supporting material during the public exhibition period of the Planning Proposal from 20 January 2021 to 17 February 2021 (inclusive):

·        Transport for NSW

·        APA Group (Pipeline Operator)

·        Canterbury Bankstown Council

50.    Transport for NSW and APA Group both did not object to the Planning Proposal for LEP21. Council did not receive a response from Canterbury Bankstown Council.

51.    A summary of the comments received from Transport for NSW (“TfNSW”) and APA Group and Council’s response are provided below in Table 2 and 3 respectively:

Table 2 – TfNSW Submission Summary and Council Response

TfNSW Submission Summary

Council Response

Ensure that the Narwee HIA remains accessible via Broadarrow Road for public transport service access.

Noted and this Planning Proposal does not include changes that will affect existing public transport service access via Broadarrow Road.

Advises Council to advocate for delivery of transport related infrastructure and services in this part of the LGA that can be well integrated into land-use planning so as to support the growth of the area and adequately distribute reliance on various transport modes.

Council is currently preparing a Georges River Transport Strategy which will address all modes of transport including public transport, private vehicles, freight movements, active transport (walking and cycling) and non-government transport services.

Advises that a traffic assessment should investigate the suitability and alignment of speed limits and supporting infrastructure.

 

There are no existing traffic issues known to Council in the local road network of the Narwee HIA with regards to speed limits and this is supported by the findings of the Traffic Impact Assessment. However, Council is open to preparing Local Area Traffic Management Schemes where required to address significant traffic issues as they emerge in the future.

Recommends Council investigate local area traffic management measures that could be implemented in this area to mitigate any efficiency and safety impacts from additional traffic generated by the proposal. 

 

The Traffic Impact Assessment recommends that a traffic management measure be implemented to restrict right turn movement from Mercury Street to Stoney Creek Road periodically using appropriate signage during the PM peak only (i.e. 4pm to 6pm on weekdays).

Recommends Council review car parking provisions to minimise private vehicle use for medium and high density residential zones close to the station utilising maximum car parking rates (including for visitor parking).

 

After an extensive review through the Georges River Car Parking Strategy (2018), at its meeting dated 27 April 2020 Council endorsed a Car Parking Positions Paper which adopts the continued application of a minimum car parking rate in the LGA. The rates have been included in the draft Georges River DCP 2020.

Requests to meet with Council to discuss the potential rezoning of rail land identified as surplus land.

This request is noted and Council welcomes opportunities for future collaborations with TfNSW. Any future rezoning will be subject to a separate planning proposal process.

Recommends Council engage and collaborate closely with TfNSW for future strategy plans.

This recommendation is noted and Council will continue to actively engage with TfNSW for future strategies and plans.

 

Table 3 – APA Group Submission Summary and Council Response

APA Group Submission Summary

Council Response

The Narwee HIA is located entirely within the Measurement Length (ML), which is the area affected by heat radiation in the unlikely event of the pipeline’s rupture.

 

There is insufficient pipeline fatality data in Australia to produce accurate likelihood values for the fatality rates in the event of a gas pipeline failure. Subsequently there are shortcomings within the risk assessment methodology required under ‘HIPAP 10’.

The Hazardous Industry Planning Advisory Papers (HIPAPs) are planning guidelines developed by the DPIE for hazardous development. APA Group’s submission will be forwarded to DPIE to highlight APA’s concerns with the shortcomings of the assessment criteria under HIPAP 10.

Assessment of land use and construction risks should be undertaken in accordance with the Australian Standard 2885 (Pipelines – Gas and Liquid Petroleum) (AS2885).

Council notes the requirement for risk assessments in accordance with AS2885 for future development applications in areas affected by the gas pipeline.

A Safety Management Study (SMS) should be undertaken when a planning proposal or development application seeks to change the risk profile of the gas pipeline through a change in the existing use of the land.

 

However, APA determines that this Planning Proposal does not require a SMS due to the current location class and the characteristics of the subject gas pipeline.

The outcomes of APA Group’s assessment are noted and there is no need for a SMS to be prepared for this Planning Proposal.

 

Council will continue to refer to the outcomes and recommendations of the Ethane Pipeline Risk Assessment.

APA is supportive of the Ethane Pipeline Risk Assessment recommendation to exclude sensitive uses such as aged care facilities, childcare centres or schools from Lots 1-7 of DP16824 in the north-eastern corner of the Narwee HIA.

 

APA recommends this exclusion to be expanded to cover the whole HIA, as the precinct is located entirely within the area of consequence in the very unlikely event of a pipeline failure.

The recommendations are noted and this Planning Proposal has been amended to restrict sensitive uses such as aged care facilities, childcare centres or schools from the entire precinct of the Narwee HIA.

 

The expansion of the restriction on sensitive use development types to the whole Narwee HIA is considered to be consistent with the objective of the Planning Proposal in creating additional housing capacity. The increased restriction will not impact the development potential of the precinct as the ‘highest and best use’ development types of multi dwelling housing and residential flat buildings will continue to be permitted.

 

OUTCOMES OF PUBLIC EXHIBITION – COMMUNITY SUBMISSIONS

52.    The Planning Proposal for LEP21 was placed on public exhibition from 20 January 2021 to 17 February 2021 (inclusive) for a total of 29 days, which exceeds the minimum 28 day exhibition period requirement stipulated by Section 3.34 and Schedule 1 of the EP&A Act, and the requirements of the Gateway Determination Conditions.

53.    During the public exhibition period, the Your Say project page registered around 1,400 visits and the Strategic Planning staff members responded to over 130 phone and email enquiries. A total of 12 one-on-one meetings were provided by Strategic Planning staff through a combination of online and in-person meetings.

54.    A total of 36 unique written submissions were received, including 1 petition with 36 signatures. All submissions have been reviewed and summarised. The summary of each submission and Council’s response are provided in Attachment 4.

55.    In summary, the content of the submissions can be categorised into the following topic areas:

·        Hurstville Hillcrest Avenue HIA – 2 submissions

o   Objection to the rezoning of this area;

o   Support for the proposed increase in maximum building height;

 

·        Manor houses and multi dwelling housing (terraces) – 7 submissions

o   Objection to the proposed controls;

o   Concern for increased manor house and terrace developments which will cause overdevelopment and detrimental impacts to the existing local character;

 

·        Mapping anomaly – 1 submission

o   Objection to rectifying the anomaly at 199 Rocky Point Road, Ramsgate;

 

·        Narwee HIA – 11 submissions

o   Support for the rezoning as an opportunity to improve the area;

o   Support for rezoning to only R3 Medium Density to retain the existing character of the area;

o   Objection to any uplift in the area due to concerns for traffic and amenity impacts, incompatibility with the existing low density character, insufficient infrastructure capacity, increased crime rates and impact on property prices;

o   Request for the whole HIA to be rezoned to R4 High Density to create more housing;

o   Request for review of the Narwee centre;

 

·        General objections to development and any increase in density due to existing issues such as traffic, insufficient infrastructure and community facilities, loss of trees and landscaping, high density developments affecting views and adverse impacts on existing local character – 8 submissions;

 

·        Requests for upzoning of particular areas and properties – 3 submissions;

 

·        Request for changes to planning controls to address climate change and to protect and enhance the natural environment – 2 submissions; and

 

·        No justification or no written content in the submission – 2 submissions.

56.    In addition to the community submissions, support for the Planning Proposal was received from Urban Taskforce and the Property Council of Australia. Council was congratulated for providing capacity for 300 additional dwellings to meet the 6-10 year housing target for the LGA, as well as taking steps to contribute to greater housing diversity in accordance with Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement 2040 and Local Housing Strategy.

57.    All submitters have been notified and invited to speak at the Council meetings.

Narwee HIA ANALYSIS

Background

58.    The Narwee HIA is one of six future housing growth areas identified by the Local Strategic Planning Statement (“LSPS”) 2040. In response to the need to create capacity for additional dwellings to meet Council’s 6-10 year housing targets, The Narwee HIA was selected to be rezoned in this Planning Proposal because of its existing access to a good level of infrastructure i.e. public transport, school education facilities, local open space opportunities, and commercial facilities.

59.    The area is conveniently located between Narwee Primary School, Narwee Preschool, Rasdall Park, Narwee Park and Beverly Hills Girls High School. It is immediately south of the Narwee Local Centre. It adjoins R4 High Density Residential land to the north east. There is good access to other local parks nearby.

60.    Rezoning for additional housing in this area in the future would provide the opportunity to create diversity in dwelling types, within walking distance to existing infrastructure.

61.    The Planning Proposal seeks to rezone the area from the existing R2 Low Density Residential zone to a combination of R3 Medium Density and R4 High Density Residential zones. A comparison summary of the existing and proposed precinct information for the Narwee HIA is provided in Table 4 below:

Table 4 - Narwee HIA Proposed Precinct Information

Estimated potential yield

407 dwellings

(107 existing and an additional 300 dwellings)

Existing zoning and controls (under GRLEP 2020)

R2 Low Density Residential

Height – 9m

FSR – 0.55:1

Proposed zoning and controls

R3 Medium Density Residential

Height – 9m

FSR – 0.7:1

R4 High Density Residential

Height – 13m

FSR – 1:1

Proposed built form

R3 Medium Density Residential –

One and two storey dual occupancies, manor houses, terraces, villas and townhouses.

 

R4 High Density Residential –

Small apartment blocks of a maximum of four storeys.

 

Summary of Issues Raised by Submissions

62.    A total of 11 submissions were received in relation to the Narwee HIA during public exhibition and comprised of the following:

·        3 supports for the proposed rezoning;

·        3 objections to any increase in density;

·        3 objections to the proposed R4 High Density Residential rezoning but are supportive of the R3 Medium Density;

·        1 petition with 36 signatures requesting that Council rezone the whole Narwee HIA to R4 High Density Residential; and

·        1 neutral submission expressing concern for the feasibility of the proposed building height in the R4 High Density zone.

 

63.    In summary, there are 3 key issues raised by the pre-exhibition survey results and the formal written submissions:

·        Objection to any increase in density in the precinct

·        Objection to R4 High Density rezoning but supportive of R3 Medium Density zones

·        Request for the whole precinct to be rezoned to R4 High Density

64.    Detailed analysis has been undertaken in response to each of the key issues for the purpose of determining whether the Planning Proposal should be amended prior to finalisation. Further details are provided below.

Issue 1 – Objection to any increase in density in the precinct

65.    Council must not proceed with the proposed or any future rezoning in the Narwee area to accommodate the objections against introducing increased population density into the precinct.

66.    The removal of the Narwee HIA rezoning from this Planning Proposal is considered to be inconsistent with Council’s strategic directions due to the following reasons:

·        Not proceeding with the proposed rezoning will lead to a loss of capacity for 300 dwellings in the LGA, which is contrary to the direction from the DPIE;

·        Council will not meet the conditions of the LEP grant funding agreement and subsequently not receive the State Government funding of approximately $750,000. Therefore Council must meet the relevant project costs;

·        Council will not be able to meet the prescribed housing targets for the ‘6-10 year’ period from 2021 to 2026 and potentially jeopardise the delivery of sufficient housing in the short and medium term;

·        To ensure additional housing capacity is created for the LGA’s future population, Council will need to rely on the provision of more housing in the other housing investigation areas and the delivery of housing in the commercial centres. This may create additional pressure on other areas of the LGA;

·        Furthermore, this will lead to an inequitable distribution of growth. Existing analysis demonstrates that subject area is well serviced by existing infrastructure, essential facilities and open spaces and is relatively unrestricted by environmental and traffic constraints. Not proceeding with the rezoning of this precinct is considered to be contrary to the strategic direction set out by the LSPS 2040 and its Criteria to Guide Growth; and

·        There will be a loss of opportunity to provide a diverse range of housing products ranging from medium to high density dwellings.

 

Issue 2 – Objection to R4 High Density rezoning but supportive of R3 Medium Density zones

67.    Two approaches have been analysed in response to the community’s preference for medium density developments:

·        Rezoning the Narwee HIA from R2 Low Density to R3 Medium Density only with no additional high density areas and no expansion of the Narwee HIA; and

·        Rezoning the Narwee HIA from R2 Low Density to R3 Medium Density only with no additional high density areas while ensuring the housing capacity for an additional 300 dwellings is retained.

68.    The replacement of the proposed R4 High Density zone in the Chamberlain and Mercury Street block with a R3 Medium Density zone will lead to the loss of 135 dwellings. This is a significant reduction from the existing proposal to accommodate an additional 300 dwellings.

69.    Accordingly, the approach of rezoning the whole precinct to R3 Medium Density will only be able to deliver a maximum of 165 additional dwellings. Council will not be able to meet the Greater Sydney Commission’s housing target for the 2021-2026 periods and will need to investigate alternative locations to create capacity for additional dwellings.

70.    If Council wishes to ensure the capacity for a total of 300 additional dwellings is maintained, the existing Narwee HIA is required to be expanded and additional areas will need to be rezoned from the existing R2 Low Density zone to R3 Medium Density.

71.    Due to the development constraints presented by the existing medium and high density properties surrounding the Narwee HIA, any expansion must be located towards the south-western corner of the precinct.

72.    Accordingly, Figure 4 below identifies the additional land that will be required to be incorporated into the Narwee HIA to ensure the housing capacity is created for an additional 300 dwellings with a consistent R3 Medium Density zone.

 

 

 

 

Figure 4 – Required Expansion to the Narwee HIA to ensure Dwelling Capacity

 

73.    Both approaches are not recommended as it requires Council to seek an Alteration to the Gateway Determination from the DPIE as they will alter the intent of the Planning Proposal. If an Alternation to Gateway is granted by the DPIE, the revised Planning Proposal will also require re-exhibition. The minimum public exhibition period is 28 days as specified by the EP&A Act and its Regulations.

74.    The above processes will result in Council not being able to meet the required finalisation timeframe of 31 March 2021. Therefore Council may not receive the State Government funding of approximately $750,000 and as such needing to meet the cost of relevant LEP related expenses.

Issue 3 – Request for the whole precinct to be rezoned to R4 High Density

75.    In response to the petition submission which contains 36 signatures from owners on Berrille Road and the eastern side of Mercury Street, this scenario explores the rezoning of the whole Narwee HIA precinct from R2 Low Density to R4 High Density.

76.    The rezoning of the Narwee HIA to R4 High Density will create capacity for a total of 495 additional dwellings, which significantly exceeds the forecasted capacity used to inform the preparation of the Ethane Pipeline Risk Assessment and the Traffic Impact Assessment.

77.    Furthermore, an analysis of the existing context, lot size and subdivision patterns in the Narwee HIA identifies that a R3 Medium Density zone is most appropriate for the area on the eastern side of Mercury Street in consideration of traffic impacts, amenity outcomes and development feasibility.

78.    Mercury Street is a key transition area in the Narwee HIA. The eastern side of Mercury Street is proposed to be rezoned to R3 Medium Density while the western side is proposed to be rezoned to R4 High Density to enable a more appropriate built form outcome.

79.    The existing medium density developments located on Bryant Street, which is behind the Berrille Road properties, will be adversely impacted by overlooking and other amenity issues if 4 storey apartments are permitted on Berrille Road. Additionally, Berrille Road is currently constrained with only 1 carriageway and a narrow laneway at the end of the cul-de-sac. Additional density is considered to be incompatible with the existing road infrastructure.

80.    One of the other key considerations in determining the proposed rezoning is development feasibility. Apartment developments are considered to be less viable on the eastern side of Mercury Street while there are significantly less constraints affecting development feasibility for the proposed R3 Medium Density zone.

81.    The comparison below in Table 5 demonstrates the key constraints impacting development feasibility if the area on the eastern side of Mercury Street is rezoned to R4 High Density to permit apartment development instead of the proposed R3 Medium Density zone:

Table 5 – Comparison of Lot Size and Subdivision Pattern

 

Eastern Side

Western Side

Average Lot Size

420m2

650m2

Number of Sites Required for Apartment Development

3 sites

2 sites

Average Site Length

32m

52m

Required Front Setback for Apartment Development

5m

5m

Required Rear Setback for Apartment Development

6m or 9m (6m plus 3m additional to enable transition to the lower density zone at the rear)

6m (no additional transition required as R4 zone is also applied at the rear)

Remaining Building Length (Site Depth minus Front and Rear Setbacks)

18m or 21m

41m

 

82.    The above comparison shows that the existing lot size and subdivision patterns on the eastern side of Mercury Street requires a minimum of 3 sites to be amalgamated to meet the lot size requirement of 1,000sqm for residential flat buildings.

83.    Development viability for apartments is further impacted by the limited site depth of these allotments (refer Figure 5 below) which will result in building floor plates that are half of the length of potential developments on the western side.

Figure 5 – Comparison of Average Site Lengths on the Eastern and Western Sides of Mercury Street

 

84.    In light of the above analysis, this approach is not recommended to be pursued due to the following:

·        Incompatibility of the requested R4 High Density zone on the eastern side of Mercury Street;

·        Requirement for an Alteration of Gateway to be sought from the DPIE; and

·        Need for revisions to the Ethane Pipeline Risk Assessment and the Traffic Impact Assessment to re-evaluate the suitability of increasing the proposed residential density.

85.    Pursuing this approach will require additional assessments to be conducted resulting in Council not being able to meet the required finalisation timeframe of 31 March 2021. Therefore Council may not receive the State Government funding of approximately $750,000 and as such needing to meet the cost of relevant LEP related expenses.

Recommended option – proceed with no amendments

86.    It is recommended that Council proceed with the proposed rezoning of the Narwee HIA (refer blue outline in Figure 6 below) as per the exhibited Planning Proposal – which seeks to rezone the precinct from R2 Low Density to a combination of R3 Medium Density and R4 High Density Residential zones to create capacity for an additional 300 dwellings in accordance with the Gateway Determination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6 - Proposed Land Use Zoning map

   

87.    This approach is recommended for the following reasons:

·        The additional capacity for 300 dwellings will enable Council to meet the Greater Sydney Commission’s 6-10 year housing target of 3,450 - 4,250 dwellings (for the period from 2021 to 2026);

·        The proposed rezoning to a combination of medium and high density residential zones will enable the delivery of a diverse choice of housing;

·        The high density built form of 4 storey apartments in the proposed R4 zone is consistent with the typology and density established by the existing walk-up flats adjoining the precinct;

·        The proposed R4 zone is bounded by Mercury and Chamberlain Streets, which are wide local streets with capacity for kerbside car parking on both sides as well as accommodate two-way vehicle carriageways;

·        The proposed R3 zone provides the opportunity for transition in built form to be provided towards the existing villa and townhouse developments located to the east of the precinct and is responsive to the access constraints of Berrille Road in comparison to Mercury Street and Chamberlain Street;

·        The existing lot sizes and subdivision pattern in the proposed R4 zone is conducive to apartment developments while the proposed R3 zone can appropriately accommodate medium density developments. Further analysis is provided under the investigation of Option 4 below;

·        The Ethane Pipeline Risk Assessment concluded that the increased capacity for an additional 300 dwellings is consistent with the risk criteria specified by the HIPAP; and

·        The Traffic Impact Assessment conducted for the uplift concluded that despite some existing constraints identified at the King Georges Road corridor, the development traffic resulting from the uplift will have a marginal impact on this network.

88.    If supported by Council, the Planning Proposal will be submitted to the DPIE for finalisation by 31 March 2021 in accordance with the timeframe mandated by the LEP funding agreement.

SUMMARY OF POST-EXHIBITION AMENDMENTS

89.    In summary, the following amendment is proposed to vary the Planning Proposal for LEP21 in response to the submissions received during the targeted pre-exhibition consultation and formal public exhibition periods:

·        Amending the Planning Proposal to restrict sensitive use development types on all land located within the Narwee Housing Investigation Area in response to submission received from APA Group.

 

90.    This report recommends that Council endorses the above amendment as a variation to the Planning Proposal in accordance with Section 3.35 of the EP&A Act and endorses the revised Planning Proposal to be forward to the DPIE under Section 3.36 of the EP&A Act for finalisation by 31 March 2021.

91.    The revised Planning Proposal is outlined as follows:

i)       Amend the Land Zoning Map to rezone the Narwee Housing Investigation Area from R2 Low Density Residential to a combination of R3 Medium Density Residential and R4 High Density Residential;

 

ii)      Amend the Lot Size Map to increase the minimum subdivision lot size:

·        in the proposed R3 Medium Density Residential from 450sqm to 800sqm; and

·        in the proposed R4 High Density Residential from 450sqm to 1,000sqm;

 

iii)     Amend the Height of Buildings Map to:

·        increase the maximum building height in the proposed R4 High Density Residential from 9m to 13m (Narwee HIA);

·        increase the maximum building height in the Hurstville – Hillcrest Avenue HIA from 12m to 13m;

·        amend the maximum building height applied at 33 Dora Street, Hurstville from 30m to 15m; and

·        amend the maximum building height applied at 199 Rocky Point Road, Ramsgate from 21m to 15m and 21m in accordance with the existing split zoning;

 

iv)     Amend the Floor Space Ratio Map to:

·        to increase the maximum floor space ratio in the proposed R3 Medium Density Residential from 0.55:1 to 0.7:1 (Narwee HIA);

·        to increase the maximum floor space ratio in the proposed R4 High Density Residential from 0.55:1 to 1:1 (Narwee HIA); and

·        amend the maximum floor space ratio applied at 199 Rocky Point Road, Ramsgate from 2.5:1 to 1.5:1 and 2.5:1 in accordance with the existing split zoning;

 

v)      Amend Clause 4.1B Minimum lot sizes and special provisions for certain dwellings to include:

·        minimum lot size of 800sqm for manor houses;

·        minimum lot width of 18m for manor houses;

·        minimum lot size of 800sqm for multi dwelling housing (terraces); and

·        minimum lot width of 21m for multi dwelling housing (terraces);

 

vi)     Restrict the following sensitive use development types on all land located within the Narwee Housing Investigation Area:

·        Hospital

·        School

·        Child care facility

·        Old age housing

Financial Implications

92.    This Planning Proposal has been prepared and exhibited within budget allocation. The source of budget is the LEP Accelerated Review Program funding from the NSW Government.

93.    The NSW Government funding agreement requires Council to submit this Planning Proposal for final legal drafting by 31 March 2021.

94.    A consequence of not meeting this mandated timeframe may include not receiving State Government funding of approximately $750,000 and as such Council needing to meet the cost of relevant LEP related expenses.

Risk Implications

95.    No risks identified.

NEXT STEPS

96.    If Council endorses the Planning Proposal to be forwarded to the DPIE for finalisation, the anticipated next steps are outlined in Table 6 below:

Table 6 – Project Timeline

Task

Anticipated Timeframe

Reporting to the Environment and Planning Committee on Planning Proposal for finalisation

8 March 2021
(this report)

Reporting to Council on Planning Proposal for finalisation

22 March 2021

Submit revised Planning Proposal to the DPIE for finalisation

31 March 2021

Drafting of the Planning Proposal for LEP21 to be completed by the NSW Parliamentary Counsel's Office

April to June 2021

LEP21 is anticipated to be gazetted

Mid to late 2021

 

97.    All persons who made a submission to the Planning Proposal will be advised of the Council’s decision.

 

File Reference

D21/11414

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Gateway Determination and Conditions dated 23 December 2020 - published in separate document

Attachment 2

Submission from Transport for NSW - published in separate document

Attachment 3

Submission from APA Group - published in separate document

Attachment 4

Community Submission Summary and Council Response - published in separate document

Attachment 5

Amended Planning Proposal Report for LEP21 - dated March 2020 - published in separate document

Attachment 6

PP Appendix 1 - Draft LEP21 Instrument - published in separate document

Attachment 7

PP Appendix 2 - Proposed LEP Mapping - published in separate document

Attachment 8

PP Appendix 3 - Consistency with SEPPs - published in separate document

Attachment 9

PP Appendix 4 - Consistency with S9.1 Ministerial Directions - published in separate document

 


Georges River Council –           Environment and Planning -  Monday, 8 March 2021                                                       Page 1

Item:                   ENV006-21   Public Exhibition of Draft Georges River Affordable Housing Policy 2021 

Author:              Manager Strategic Planning

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:    Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation:

(a)     That the Council endorses the Draft Georges River Affordable Housing Policy 2021 for community consultation for a minimum period of 28 days.

(b)     That a further report will be provided to Council following the exhibition period.

 

Executive Summary

1.      A Draft Affordable Housing Policy has been prepared and is presented to Council for endorsement for community consultation. Attachment 1 contains the draft Policy.

2.      The Draft Policy contains the affordable housing targets from the Inclusive Housing Strategy and details Council’s commitment to increasing the range and supply of affordable housing in the Georges River to meet the growing needs of a range of households, including the very low to moderate income households, singles, families, couples, seniors, people with a disability, students, key workers and the broader residential market, including first home buyers.

3.      The purpose of the Draft Policy is to outline Council’s position and approach to the provision of affordable housing in Georges River. The Policy comprises principles and policy statements that together will guide Council’s actions to support affordable housing.

4.      The Policy is supported by the Inclusive Housing Strategy, which was adopted by Council on 24 August 2020.

5.      An Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme prepared in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 70 is being prepared for the Mortdale Local Centre. The scheme is being developed based on the masterplan being prepared for the Centre.

Background

6.      One of the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is the delivery and maintenance of affordable housing. The metropolitan plan for Sydney – The Greater Sydney Region Plan and the South District Plan support this objective.

7.      Objective 11 - Housing is more diverse and affordable of the Region Plan and Planning Priority S5 - Providing housing supply, choice and affordability, with access to jobs, services and public transport of the South District Plan also support the provision of affordable housing in our local government area (LGA).

8.      The NSW Government’s key policies that facilitate and encourage the development of new affordable housing and the maintenance of existing affordable housing include:

a.      State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARH SEPP)

b.      State Environmental Planning Policy No 70 - Affordable Housing (Revised Schemes) (SEPP 70)

9.      In February 2019, SEPP 70 was expanded to include all councils across NSW. This amendment removes the administrative step of entering a LGA into SEPP 70, thereby expediting councils' ability to investigate and develop an Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme (AHCS).

10.    The NSW Government has also placed on community consultation a proposed Housing Diversity State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing Diversity SEPP) which aims to facilitate the delivery of diverse housing that meets the needs of the State’s growing population and will support the development of a build-to-rent sector. The Housing Diversity SEPP would consolidate three current SEPPs and update some planning provisions in response to community and council concerns about boarding house and seniors’ housing development.

11.    The Georges River Community Strategic Plan includes the following goal and strategies:

a.      Goal 5.2: Affordable and quality housing options are available

i.     Strategy 5.2.1: Partner with State agencies to increase supply of affordable housing for residents on very low to moderate incomes.

ii.    Strategy 5.2.2: Advocate to the NSW Government to include ‘key worker’ housing for moderate income earners to be included in affordable housing initiatives.

iii.   Strategy 5.2.3: Advocate to the NSW Government to include mandatory affordable housing requirements in Council LEPs.

iv.   Strategy 5.2.4: Develop policies that encourage a greater supply of housing diversity and choice.

v.    Strategy 5.2.5: Council-led development proposals incorporate, where feasible, options that support affordable and diverse housing.

12.    The Georges River Local Strategic Planning Statement specifies measures to deliver an increased proportion of affordable housing provision in all new development. This includes planning priorities to deliver:

a.      P9 A mix of well-designed housing for all life stages caters for a range of needs and incomes

i.     A47. Complete a Local Housing Strategy that includes planning for District Plan housing targets, a hierarchy of residential zones, providing targets for inclusive housing and addressing housing diversity

ii.    A51. Utilise the provisions for planning agreements in the EP&A Act for affordable housing, drawing from the outcomes of the Inclusive Housing Strategy.

13.    Georges River Council prepared a number of studies that have informed the Georges River LEP 2020 which was lodged with the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment on 30 June 2020 for gazettal. One of the key studies is the Local Housing Strategy and the accompanying Housing Investigations Areas Paper which details how and where additional housing will be provided in the LGA.

14.    Council also prepared an Inclusive Housing Strategy and Delivery Plan which has informed the Local Housing Strategy. It ensures that the Local Housing Strategy reflects and promotes the inclusion of affordable/inclusive housing for the whole Georges River Community. The Delivery Plan in the Strategy provides a number of mechanisms that encourage and support Inclusive Housing.

15.    The key aims of the Inclusive Housing Strategy are:

a.      To research and develop strategies to increase affordable housing supply for a range of households including the very low to moderate income households, seniors, people with a disability, students, key workers and the broader residential market

b.      To encourage the provision of affordable, adaptable and diverse housing

c.       To develop planning controls and mechanisms that prevent the loss of existing and deliver new supplies of affordable housing

d.      To advocate for, and build partnerships to increase, affordable and liveable housing

e.      To explore options for managing affordable housing.

 

IMPLEMENTATION

16.    The Inclusive Housing Strategy contains a Delivery Plan. Work has commenced on some of the Strategies and actions in the Delivery Plan, including the preparation of an affordable housing policy.

Draft Affordable Housing Policy

17.    Action 1.1.2 of the Delivery Plan states:

a.      Revise Council planning documents and website to reflect Council’s policy position on affordable housing

b.      Ensure accurate information is available to the community and industry to encourage inclusive housing delivery

18.    A draft policy has now been prepared and is attached in Attachment 1.

19.    The draft policy restates the targets in the Inclusive Housing Strategy which are:

a.      2020-2025 - 14 affordable dwellings per year (70 dwellings to 2025, at 1.5%)

b.      2025-2030 - 24 affordable dwellings per year (120 dwellings to 2030, at 4%)

c.       2030-2040 - 34 affordable dwellings per year (340 dwellings to 2040, at 6%)

20.    These targets will achieve between 5% and 10% of new dwellings as affordable dwellings by 2040, consistent with the GSC requirement.

21.    The Draft Policy contains a number of policy statements outlining:

a.      Council’s commitment to affordable housing,

b.      The intended recipients of affordable housing,

c.       Targets for new dwellings

d.      Establishment of an Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme,

e.      Partnerships, and

f.       Overall Planning and Management

Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme (AHCS)

22.    Action 2.1.1 of the Delivery Plan states:

a.      Prepare an Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme (AHCS)

i.     An affordable housing contributions scheme would be prepared to comply with the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment’s Guideline

ii.    Inclusion of the scheme into Council’s LEP 2022 is subject review by DPIE and public exhibition.

23.    Council has commenced Part 2 of the Commercial Centres Strategy by starting with a detailed review of one local centre (being Mortdale Local Centre) within the LGA through a place-based master planning process.  The review of Mortdale Local Centre will go on to inform the review of the other local centres as part of the preparation of the Commercial Centres Strategy and LEP 2022, as well as providing guidance for the assessment of proponent-led planning proposals in the area.

24.    The completion of a masterplan will enable a holistic review of the centre and its surrounding area to encourage urban renewal, improve the amenity and quality of the built environment and public domain as well as provide new housing and employment opportunities to create a vibrant local centre.

25.    Conybeare Morrison has been appointed and has been requested to investigate an Affordable Housing Contributions Scheme tied to the Mortdale Masterplan. Further information will be provided to Council as the project progresses.

26.    The funding of this project is tied to the Accelerated LEP funding from DPIE and is statutorily required to be delivered by 31 March 2021.

Financial Implications

27.    No financial/budget impact for this report. However, some of the actions will have financial implications which will be reported to Council when required.

 

Risk Implications

28.    No risks identified.

 

Community Engagement

29.    Community engagement will be conducted including:

 

File Reference

CM9 SF20/4601 & D21/25222

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Attachment 1 to Draft Georges River Affordable Housing Policy to E&P 8 March 2021

 


Georges River Council -            Environment and Planning - Monday, 8 March 2021

ENV006-21             Public Exhibition of Draft Georges River Affordable Housing Policy 2021

[Appendix 1]           Attachment 1 to Draft Georges River Affordable Housing Policy to E&P 8 March 2021

 

 

Page 1

 







Georges River Council –           Environment and Planning -  Monday, 8 March 2021                                                       Page 1

Item:                   ENV007-21   Georges River Council Waste Strategy 2021 - 2040 

Author:              Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:    Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation:

(a)     That Council endorse the Georges River Council Waste Strategy 2021-2040 (Attachment 1) of this report.

(b)     That Council re-allocate $16.2 million from the Domestic Waste Reserve to a new Waste Strategy Implementation Reserve, dedicated to the implementation of the key actions and vision of the Waste Strategy until 2040.

 

Executive Summary

1.      Council at its meeting on 27 July 2020 resolved:

a.      That Council endorse the draft Georges River Waste Strategy 2020 for the purposes of community engagement.

b.      That a further report be presented to Council on the outcome of the draft Georges River Waste Strategy 2020 community engagement.

2.      The draft Waste Strategy was publicly exhibited for a period of 51 days, from 11 August 2020 to 30 September 2020. During the public exhibition period, 17 community submissions regarding the Waste Strategy were received. Submissions were generally in support of the vision and/or key actions outlined within the draft Waste Strategy.

3.      This report provides an update to Council on the outcomes of the community consultation program and seeks a resolution to endorse the Georges River Waste Strategy 2021 as exhibited.

REPORT

Background – Waste Strategy

4.      By way of background, MRA Consulting Group on behalf of Council prepared a draft Waste Strategy which outlines the strategic direction of both waste and resource recovery collection and processing/disposal services for the Local Government Area over the next 20 years.

5.      In March 2020, Council was briefed on available strategic waste options to include within the draft Waste Strategy by MRA Consulting. These options, including consideration of food organics/garden organics (FOGO) collections, contamination management and waste education were included within the draft Waste Strategy.

6.      In summary, the draft Waste Strategy outlines Council’s proposed vision: to continually improve a reliable environmental and economically sustainable waste management system for Georges River Council residents.

7.      This vision will be delivered by the following proposed objectives and actions:

·        Improving amenity and environmental management.

·        Optimising waste management costs and fostering adaptive waste management contracts.

·        Supporting and implementing innovative waste management initiatives.

8.      A total of 16 key actions have been determined to address the strategic objectives of the Strategy. These actions are proposed for staged implementation commencing prior to 2025 with results delivered up until 2040.

(1)     Trial and if successful then implement food organic/garden organic (FOGO) collections for all single unit dwellings (SUDs) and opt in service for multi-unit dwellings (MUDs) and businesses;

(2)     Develop and implement an education campaign to move recyclables from the general waste bin into the recycling bin and reduce contamination in the recycling bin;

(3)     Conduct competitive tender processes (potentially through joint procurement) for upcoming collection and processing contracts;

(4)     Draft flexible contracts for future general waste and recycling bins for processing/disposal to allow Council to transition alternate processing/disposal options such as Energy from Waste (EfW);

(5)     Finalise and publish the waste management conditions in the Georges River Council Development Control Plan;

(6)     Develop a new database to compile all relevant waste management contract information in one place and require all new waste management contracts to have specific reporting requirements to ensure the Waste Service Provider captures the necessary data and it is clearly presented;

(7)     Continue to monitor and apply for NSW and Commonwealth government grants to improve waste management outcomes for Georges River Council;

(8)     Undertake direct community consultation to inform the waste services tender for after 2021;

(9)     Develop a contamination management procedure with the recycling collections and processing contractors to reduce contamination in the recycling bin (average contamination rate of 32.6%) and FOGO trial through the use of enforcement policies such as the 3-strike rule with a focus on MUDs;

(10)   Conduct a review to determine if the existing Georges River Council resources to combat illegal dumping are sufficient to meet the desired targets for the local environment detailed in the Community Strategic Plan including an assessment of the value for money of Council’s partnership with the local Regional Illegal Dumping (RID) squad;

(11)   Conduct an assessment of Council’s litter management infrastructure to prevent the occurrence of litter items and to capture them before entering the environment including a review to determine optimal placement and sufficient capacity of public place litter bins and gross pollutant traps;

(12)   Investigate user pay principles for residential and commercial waste collections (including additional household clean up material collections) to incentivise waste minimisation;

(13)   Document and report the climate change benefits associated with capturing the embodied energy of recyclables and of diverting organics from landfill;

(14)   Develop a regional commercial food collection contract and develop local policies to maximise commercial food diversion from landfill;

(15)   Develop a regional policy and review collective procurement arrangements for alternative waste technologies (Anaerobic Digestion (AD), pyrolysis etc.) and EfW; and

(16)   Develop a regional Sustainable Procurement Policy with partners (SSROC) which requires minimum percentage recycled content in construction contracts, preferentially purchases local content (compost etc.) and imbeds recycled content (e.g. glass) into road building contracts.

9.      Many of the 16 key actions proposed are already underway and or have been delivered under business as usual. The recommended actions that are not yet underway, such as actions 1, 10, 12, 13 are achievable for delivery over the lifetime of the Strategy (20 years) and can be seamlessly incorporated into business as usual waste service provision, staff work plans and standard operating procedures and processes.

10.    Additionally, more strategic and regional based actions such as actions 14, 15 and 16 will continue to be progressed with neighbouring municipalities as part of the SSROC Waste Managers Network group.

11.    The estimated cost to implement the key actions is $16.2 million over the life of the strategy (20 years) and as they directly relate to domestic waste management services it is therefore recommended that once the Waste Strategy is adopted, priority funding of these projects be provided from the Domestic Waste Management Reserve into a new Waste Strategy Implementation Reserve, dedicated purely for the implementation of the Waste Strategy.

 

Community Engagement and Public Exhibition of the Strategy

12.    The draft Waste Strategy was placed on public exhibition during the waste service community consultation program which also included consultation regarding the future waste collection service specifications ahead of tender (outlined further within a separate report to Council in March 2021).

13.    The public exhibition of the draft Waste Strategy exceeded the minimum exhibition requirement of 28 days. In total, the document was available for community comment from 11 August 2020 to 30 September 2020, for a total period of 51 days, via Council’s YourSay platform.

14.    The draft Waste Strategy exhibition period was promoted through:

a.      Council’s website and social media platforms

b.      Council’s Youtube channel

c.       Hardcopy posters and flyers at Council and community facilities

d.      Council newsletters, and

e.      The Leader (printed newspaper).

15.    The key results of the exhibition, as documented through Council’s YourSay platform were as follows:

a.      Total project page visits: 306

b.      Community members ‘aware’ of the exhibition: 233

c.       Document downloads: 34

d.      Number of submissions made: 17.

16.    A total of 17 submissions were made during the exhibition period, through Council’s YourSay platform. The submission comment and the relevant response aligned to the submission comment are outlined within Table 1.

 

Table 1: Waste Strategy Submission Comments and Council Response

 

Number

Submission Comment through YourSay

Council Response

1

What are you wanting in this "submission" question? Looks like the survey is not near the end.  Who wrote this question?  Was it not reviewed before being uploaded.  I really don't have time for this.

The submission question was open ended enabling the community to provide feedback on the draft Waste Strategy - no applicable comment relating to the contents of the Waste Strategy.

2

I am very pleased to see that GRC is being proactive and giving thought to the issue of waste in our area, especially because the environment is being given major consideration.  No response from Council is required to my submission.

Positive support for the contents of the Strategy noted.

3

I would very much welcome the introduction of a FOGO recycling system. I tend to have a lot of food organic waste and would be very pleased to see it go to a good use rather than being thrown out. I also live in a MUD and, while I appreciate the reasons for a 'three strikes' rule, it would be great to have an alternative system for residents whose MUDs are excluded from recycling (such as a drop-off point). We have had significant problems with recycling contamination at my apartment building and I fear we may eventually be excluded from recycling under a 'three strikes' rule. However, I am personally very committed to recycling and would like to be able to continue to recycle even if my MUD is excluded due to the actions of other residents.

Reductions in contamination and potential FOGO collections are both explored in the Strategy. Further, the Compost Revolution program is currently offered to residents as a food waste reduction program.

No Multi-Unit Dwelling will be excluded from recycling efforts, contamination management will instead warrant increased waste education actions by Council.

Overall, positive support for the contents of the Strategy noted.

4

I welcome the trial of FOGO collection and hopefully its implementation, to (1) reduce general waste by redirecting organic waste to more suitable treatment than landfill, and (2) reduce greenhouse gas emissions from organic waste in landfill.


I furthermore suggest to look into study and trials for separate collection of some recyclables, such as glass, plastic drink containers, or paper/cardboard in order to reduce contamination of these recyclables in the generic recycling bin.


In general, the waste management strategy looks sensible.

Reductions in contamination and potential FOGO collections are both explored in the Strategy.

Further, and separate to the draft Waste Strategy, Council has committed to reduce carbon emissions by the year 2025 and support renewable energy within its operations by the same year.

Alternate recycling options are explored within the Strategy, including potential regional collaborations and/or trials.

Overall, positive support for the contents of the Strategy noted.

5

There should be a large recycling centre run by the government using labour provided by the prison population in NSW which numbers 11,000. All waste could be sorted by them and then converted to compostable, glass, plastics, metals etc ,if located at Hay or close Victoria and South Australia could also send their waste there .The cost of running this should be worn by all the manufacturers with local companies able to get some refund by using a proportion of recycled materials, overseas manufacturers should pay without a refund. WASTE management should be a National and State issue not just left to local councils

Alternate recycling options are explored within the Strategy, including potential regional collaborations and/or trials.

Local and/or regional options are preferred within the Strategy to enable Council to reduce carbon emissions, logistical and financial implications of lengthy transport distances associated with waste management.

Further, advocacy is supported within the Strategy and Council currently provides comment and support for regional and whole-of-government approaches to waste management.

6

Special Bins in Local Suburbs, Collection Service: Practically speaking, items that should not placed in the weekly garbage bin collection for disposal and which are not suitable for the council garbage collection by appointment (such as batteries, light bulbs, paints, etc.) are difficult to dispose off if one relies on public transport and does not have access to a private vehicle or is unable to travel to the depots at the specific locations (e.g. Mortdale, Rockdale) during the set opening times due to other clashing commitments. It would be helpful to have special bins for these waste items in more convenient locations within each suburb - such as at the local post office, branch library, community centre, supermarket, or outside the local train station - as the ready access would encourage more people to use them. For example, pre-COVID-19 when movement was less restrictive, we used to take our used batteries and light bulbs to the special bins that the City of Sydney Council provided at their branch libraries when we did our regular groceries shopping because it was a convenient service that was not available in our local area. (Only used mobile phone batteries can be sent via Planet Ark bags at the post office, not normal batteries.) This is something we have not been able to do for months. The travel restrictions under COVID-19 has really highlighted the importance of local access to such facilities without reliance on public transport or car to get to them.

It would also be helpful if it was possible to call the council for collection of used paints, etc., similar to the existing biannual special garbage collections service for used furniture and large organic waste items etc., for people who do not have private vehicles to take these waste items to the depots.

Reinstatement of Council Provided Sharps Disposal Collection in Local Suburbs:

In pre-coronavirus times, we used to take our sharps to a chemist in our suburb or, when the service was no longer available locally, were forced to take them to another suburb for safe disposal collection provided by another council. Under the current climate where unnecessary travel is discouraged, sharps disposals has become a lot more difficult, especially as we have to rely on public transport to get to another suburb's chemist sharps disposal service because our local Kingsgrove chemists have advised that our council sharps disposal collection service is no longer available in Kingsgrove. I have contacted Georges River Council to request a reinstatement of the Kingsgrove sharps disposal collection service through a local chemist, but have been advised that it is subject to budget, etc. and is unlikely to resume.


Providing a safe sharps disposal collection service via a local suburb collection point (a local pharmacy) is a community health service which should be considered part of GRC's waste strategy. The coronavirus situation highlights this community need - without a local sharps disposal collection service in Kingsgrove, it forces immune-compromised people (diabetics) to travel on public transport to dispose of sharps or to stockpile sharps for an indefinite period of time (6 months? a year? longer?).

Council has recently commenced the trial of small scale recycling stations at designated locations (such as libraries and customer service centres) for collection of items such as mobile phones and household batteries. The results of the trial will be reported to Council in mid-2021.

In the meantime Council continues to promote local recycling services available within and nearby to the Local Government Area through the A-Z Guide on the Council website, and promote a number of services available to the community to recycle a myriad of materials outside of the bin collection service.

The comment regarding an on-call collection service for problem wastes will be considered as a potential service offering within the future waste collection contract.

Sharps services are available at public hospitals and designated chemists and the disposal of these materials is closely aligned with the facilities providing sharps initially with the producers being responsible for the management of this hazardous waste stream. Further, community sharps services are provided in public bathroom facilities by Council in order to reduce community and environmental risk.

Council will investigate the delivery of a sharps collection program and consider this project for delivery within the 2021/22 financial year, in partnership with local and participating pharmacies within the Georges River LGA.

7

What ..

The submission question was open ended enabling the community to provide feedback on the draft Waste Strategy - no applicable comment relating to the contents of the Waste Strategy.

8

'-please make the organic green bin option not opt in for unit blocks
-please work on sustainable, innovative long term options for businesses eg all the cafes in the area keep their ground coffee which is collected by council to go into compost and potting mix to go on council gardens, schools and can be collected in bulk by residents.
-an education campaign is needed for recycling and kerb side collections, please offer more posters and brochures unit blocks can place on notice boards in other languages not only English. More stickers on bins too.
-please take the learnings from other councils already doing the green organic waste collection instead of reinventing the wheel

Thanks!

Garden organic bin services have been addressed under the Waste Services community consultation project and will be reported separately to Council in March 2021.

Council continues support of Responsible Café’s programs and enables community connections regarding ‘ShareWaste’ programs with households and community gardens.

A Multi-Unit Dwelling and translated education campaign will be progressively delivered by Council to residents, Strata Managers and/or Building Managers to support waste education. Translated material is currently available in digital format on Council’s website and Youtube channel.

Council will ensure future collection services are implemented based on successful case studies and learnings form other Council’s to ensure an effective and efficient service for the community.

9

Poorly designed survey.


1. Ensure all unit dwellers and single dwellings recycle food waste, not optional

2. Ensure restaurants and supermarkets donate excess food to places like FoodBank, OzHarvest etc


3. Support designout waste products - ensuring a circular economy that packaging is not produced unless it has been recycled first etc


4. Ensure all public bins have options for recycling - some don't in public spaces


5. Where possible use recycled materials for roads and infrastructure projects - ensure Council uses recycled products in landscaping including public seating.


6. Ensure the current strategy is flexible enough to incorporate elements of the NSW Waste Strategy and Plastics Plan, which is due to be out 2021. Have a discussion with DPIE prior to finalising your plan.


7. Facilitate development of a 'Repair and Reuse' cafe, similar to that seen on the North Shore and Inner West - to enable people to repair goods as opposed to throwing away and purchasing a short life product.


8. Promote fast food outlets, supermarkets and restaurants to allow people to buy take-away in own glass container - avoiding the use of plastic.

The submission question was open ended enabling the community to provide feedback on the draft Waste Strategy - no applicable comment relating to the contents of the Waste Strategy. 

1.   Food waste services will be trialled with outcomes informing collection arrangements, and case studies for best-practice implementation of a food waste service referred to in the design of such a service so as to minimise contamination risks. .

2.   Council currently promotes food reuse services to business within the LGA and undertook a targeted education campaign in July 2020 which included solutions such as OzHarvest and FoodBank.

3.   Advocacy for waste avoidance and sustainable design is supported within the draft Waste Strategy. Waste avoidance is the first priority in the waste hierarchy within the Strategy.

4.   Council will be undertaking a review of all public bin infrastructure to confirm existing service meet the needs of the community.

5.   Council currently participates in reuse projects for roads and infrastructure projects with SSROC and continued participation in reuse activities is supported within the draft Waste Strategy.

6.   A review period has been facilitated for the Strategy to enable response to changes at a State level, as State positions are finalised.

7.   Council currently provides Reuse and Repair Café’s throughout the year, and also makes the Bower Reuse service available via phone. Continued support of reuse initiatives is supported within the draft Waste Strategy.

8.   Council actively promotes and supports the Responsible Café’s program. Continued support of reuse and avoidance initiatives is supported within the draft Waste Strategy

10

Fully support waste and recycling improvements. It will be challenging in unit blocks as many occupants don’t seem to be too concerned.

Noted support of the direction of the Waste Strategy and continued need for education in Multi-Unit Dwellings.

11

We would like to return to 2 kerbside clean-ups per year.

Not applicable to the draft Waste Strategy public exhibition. This comment will be noted as part of the Waste Services Community Consultation (reported separately in a report to Council in March 2021).

12

I don't know what you want at this stage.

The submission question was open ended enabling the community to provide broad feedback on the draft Waste Strategy - no applicable comment relating to the contents of the Waste Strategy.

13

At the moment, it is quite difficult for a household to recycle metals.  Just a thought, but the Council might want to consider operating a metals drop-off recycling service in the same way as the E-waste drop off operates.

A metal recycling service will be considered within the Waste Services Community Consultation program to guide the new collection contract. A separate metal option may be best provided within the kerbside clean up service in a future collection contract.

14

I believe that Council should continue to provide a scheduled clean up service because it provides certainty for residents, avoids dumping arising from confusion, minimises the time when the  unsightly rubbish on the streets and is better for the environment because it allows pickers to take items which can be salvaged.

The clean-up service is a frequently utilised service that is likely to remain a desired service. Comment noted and will be included within the Waste Services Community Consultation program to guide the new collection contract.

15

Waste Management Strategy

The submission question was open ended enabling the community to provide feedback on the draft Waste Strategy - no applicable comment relating to the contents of the Waste Strategy.

16

One concern that I have about waste clean-up is the lack of education of the public as to what and what cannot be recycled. This is very evident during kerb side clean-ups. One solution could be instead of having one truck collect the waste, which would go to land fill, is to have a series of trucks (yes I know this is a greater expense) - one truck to collect e-waste (something no-one seems to recycle); one truck to collect green waste; one truck to collect the discarded cardboard (this is always out on the kerb clean up); and the last truck for the rest of the left-over waste.
One method of education is regular letterbox drops (add to council rates notices) - showing pictures/photos of what can & what cannot be recycled.
Also add stickers to the yellow bins tell people what can be put in these bins.
Finally - conduct regular bin audits to ensure that rate payers are doing the right thing. Leave the rate payer a note giving them praise or advising what was wrong in their bin. This will reinforce the education process.

Increased resource recovery is supported within the draft Waste Strategy. Council is committed to increasing resource recovery and is aware of the improvement to be made with the kerbside clean up service. This comment in support of the kerbside clean up service will be noted within the Waste Services Community Consultation program to guide the new collection contract.

The kerbside clean up waste education materials will be progressively reviewed and translated to ensure community engagement. The materials are reviewed regularly and updated in line with best practice. Further, the use of images remains important for communicating simply with the community.

Council currently provides education materials to inform residents of how to use dedicated services including stickers, flyers and posters for use in a variety of developments.

Contamination management is facilitated by the waste services collection contractor with targeted education occurring to correct contamination of bins.

17

Waste management strategy

The submission question was open ended enabling the community to provide feedback on the draft Waste Strategy - no applicable comment relating to the contents of the Waste Strategy.

 

17.    Overall, the submissions were generally in support of the draft Waste Strategy. There were three submissions lodged by community members who were challenged using the open-ended question. This was despite the submission survey operating as designed and without error throughout the exhibition period and effectively capturing useful submissions from other community members.

18.    Given the comments on the Strategy, no change to the contents of the Strategy is required. However, given the exhibition was held in late 2020, the Waste Strategy will be operational from 2021 and thus, the title has been updated to reflect the year it was adopted (Attachment 1) and reflect the 20 year life of the Strategy.

CONCLUSION

19.    In summary the content of the community submissions received for the draft Waste Strategy Public Exhibition were positive and in general, supportive, of the vision and the key actions for implementation outlined within the Strategy and this report.

20.    On the basis of supportive community feedback being received, the Waste Strategy 2021 is recommended for adoption to guide resource recovery and waste management until the year 2040.

 

Financial Implications

21.    The development of the draft Waste Strategy has already been funded as part of the Operational Budget 2019/20 and therefore has no financial implications.

22.    Key actions outlined within the Waste Strategy are expected to cost $16.2 million. These actions should be prioritised to ensure resource recovery and sustainable waste management until the year 2040. The $16.2 million is recommended to be transferred from the Domestic Waste Reserve into a newly created Reserve dedicated to Waste Strategy implementation.

 

Risk Implications

23.    Operational risk/s identified and management process applied.

 

Community Engagement

24.    Community engagement was conducted in accordance with Council’s Community Engagement Policy and as outlined in this report.

 

File Reference

SF21/24, D21/26136

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Georges River Council Waste Strategy 2021 - 2040

 


Georges River Council -            Environment and Planning - Monday, 8 March 2021

ENV007-21             Georges River Council Waste Strategy 2021 - 2040

[Appendix 1]           Georges River Council Waste Strategy 2021 - 2040

 

 

Page 1

 





















































































Georges River Council –           Environment and Planning -  Monday, 8 March 2021                                                       Page 1

Item:                   ENV008-21   Status Update on the Food Waste Feasibility Study  

Author:              Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:    Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation:

(a)     That the update on the status of the Food Waste Feasibility Study undertaken by the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils be noted.

(b)     That a further report be provided to Council following the completion of the Food Waste Feasibility Study.

 

Executive Summary

1.      At its meeting on 28 September 2020, Council considered a report (ENV037-Food Waste Feasibility Study and Recycling Trial) and resolved:

 

“That a further report detailing the outcomes of the Food Waste Feasibility Study be provided to Council in early 2021.”

 

2.      This report provides an update to Council regarding the progress of the SSROC regional Feasibility Study being undertaken through the provision of a Local Council Transition Fund grant.

 

3.      It is recommended that a Feasibility Study be completed prior to implementation of a Food Organics Garden Organics (FOGO) or Food Organics (FO) trial collection service to ensure Council implements a sustainable, efficient, effective service in accordance with industry best practice.

 

REPORT

4.      The Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) successfully applied on behalf of Georges River Council and other participating SSROC member Councils for the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment’s (DPIE) Local Council Transition Fund grant package. The funding package was created to provide funds to Council and incentivise consideration of Food Organics Garden Organics (FOGO) collection and processing options.

 

5.      The $120,000 grant funding awarded to SSROC has been used to engage a consultant to develop recommendations for regional implementation of FOGO, including:

 

-        A desktop review with a focus on metropolitan areas

-        Onsite processing solutions for existing and new Multi-Unit Developments

-        Financial modelling including capital outlays and operational costs under various scenarios and cost benefit analysis

-        Risk mitigation strategies

-        Processing capacity

-        Regional contract and procurement models

-        Arrangements to create closed-loop cost efficiencies.

 

6.      The Feasibility Study will analyse case studies and experiences from regional-based Councils that have successfully implemented FOGO collections.  The Feasibility Study will inform and predict impacts at a metropolitan scale to prepare Council for a future FOGO collection trial. The Feasibility Study will predominantly be delivered via a desk-top study.

 

7.      The consultant will analyse the organics market and identify best practice FOGO and Food Organics (FO) service implementation. Best practice assessment will include onsite organics processing options, for both single-unit dwellings (SUDs) and multi-unit dwellings (MUDs) at each stage of the organics recovery process, from planning and early community engagement to end markets for processed organics. Assessment of best practice will be based on consolidated learnings from all relevant domestic and international FOGO/FO programs and research, the state of the NSW organics industry, NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) policy, and the consultant’s evidence-based recommendations.

 

8.      Upon completion of the Feasibility Study, Council can more confidently apply for grant funding and/or secure an internal funding source to enable delivery of a FOGO trial, as informed by the financial modelling included within the Feasibility Study, should the service be identified as viable.

 

9.      It is expected that the Feasibility Study will be completed by July 2021 with final project documentation provided to SSROC. 

 

10.    Pending the results of the Feasibility Study, it is anticipated that a FOGO trial methodology will be developed by a suitably qualified consultant which may be determined by DPIE as minimum requirements in order to obtain grant funding to deliver a FOGO trial.

 

11.    Details of a proposed methodology, if a trial is determined viable, will be provided to Council in a further report prior to the commencement of any trial.

 

12.    It is also anticipated that additional funds will be made available to councils in subsequent rounds of the Local Council Transition Fund to assist with implementing a FOGO trial if the Feasibility Study proves viability of this service.

 

13.    Council also regularly works in partnership with SSROC to identify suitable grant opportunities available at both local and regional levels.

 

14.    The use of composted material through FOGO collections should not be confused with the revocation of the permissions that allow the application of Mixed Waste Organic Output (MWOO) material to land. While Council has been impacted through this revocation, FOGO material can still be applied to land once processed correctly.  FOGO is a collection and processing option encouraged by the NSW EPA, particularly given the industry changes to MWOO (organics from the red lid waste bin) as a means to divert waste from landfill.

 

Implications for the 2023 Waste Collection Contact

15.    Based on community feedback sought during the waste services community consultation undertaken in September 2020, there is general positive community support for a food waste collection service.

 

16.    It is anticipated that the tender process for the waste collection contract commencing in late 2021 ahead of a February 2023 effective date will incorporate maximum flexibility and options for consideration and inclusion of any future FOGO services.

 

17.    This will ensure any concurrent FOGO trial and developments of a collection contract and tender documentation can align ahead of the implementation of a new contract and related waste collection services procured in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Conclusion

18.    Before a food waste (or FOGO) trial can be implemented, Council must first determine the viability of a regional/local food waste collection option to ensure the service is affordable to both Council and the community over the longer-term and that the service is delivered in accordance with industry best-practice. On the basis that most councils that have successfully implemented FOGO collection are regionally based and can use the outputs (processed food waste) on their grounds or in nearby agricultural applications, the service has proven viable in regional locations.

 

19.    To determine viability in metropolitan locations, a Feasibility Study will first be completed to inform the costs of implementing a FOGO service. The results of the Feasibility Study will be reported to Council in a further report in late 2021 and will guide a FOGO trial if deemed viable and inform future consideration of FOGO collection and processing services delivered within the LGA.

 

Financial Implications

20.    No budget impact for this report.

Risk Implications

21.    No risks identified.

 

Community Engagement

22.    Community engagement has been conducted seeking community feedback regarding food waste collections and the findings of this consultation program have been reported separately.

 

File Reference

SF21/24, D21/26156

 

 

 

  


Georges River Council –           Environment and Planning -  Monday, 8 March 2021                                                       Page 1

Item:                   ENV009-21   Waste Services Community Consultation - Implications for Waste Contracts 

Author:              Manager Environment Health & Regulatory Services

Directorate:      Environment and Planning

Matter Type:    Committee Reports

 

 

 

Recommendation:

(a)     That Council notes the results of the community consultation program and the impacts on future waste service tenders and contracts.

(b)     That a status report be provided to Council in late 2021 on the progress of the tender process.

 

Executive Summary

1.      At its meeting on 27 July 2020 Council considered a report (ENV027-20 Waste Management Services - Community Engagement Program) and resolved:

(a)     That Council approve the commencement of a comprehensive waste services community engagement program as outlined in the report to seek community feedback on the services to be provided in the next waste collection and processing contracts and Council’s proposed Waste Strategy.

(b)     That Council allocate $80,000 from the Domestic Waste Reserve (DWR) to fund this program and that this adjustment occurs as part of the 2020/21 Quarter 1 Budget Review.

(c)     That a further report be provided to Council on the outcomes of the community engagement program.

2.      At the same meeting, Council also resolved to undertake the draft Waste Strategy public exhibition which is related to the waste services community consultation program which is subject to a separate report to Council.

3.      The waste services community consultation engagement program sought community input regarding key aspects of the collection and processing/disposal services such as:

a.      Baseline service level satisfaction compared with desired future service levels

b.      Preference for certain processing/disposal options including resource recovery, food organics garden organics processing (FOGO) and landfill

c.      Perceived value for money relating to current and future services

d.      Collection service specifications such as: bin size, collection frequency, kerbside clean-up provisions including collection type (scheduled/pre-booked), materials, frequency and volume.

4.      Overall the consultation period commenced on Monday 31 August with the distribution of engagement and communication materials in accordance with the Communications and Stakeholder Engagement Plan developed to guide consultation activities. All consultation activities were completed by 30 September 2020.

5.      This report provides an update to Council on the outcomes of the community consultation program in accordance with Council’s 27 July 2020 resolution and the resulting impacts on future waste service tenders. 

6.      In summary, the future waste service contracts will be informed by the community feedback obtained during consultation and will include:

a.      Maintaining current contract KPI’s for continuation of current baseline contractor performance expectations

b.      Improved waste education and communication provisions with a collections contractor responsible for contamination management education

c.      Focus on resource recovery, diversion from landfill and foster implementation of Council’s Waste Strategy

d.      Provisions for high priority and urgent illegally dumped waste collections within 12 and 24 hours’ notice

e.      Standard 2 pre-booked bulky waste services per year with flexibility to enable the community to opt in to additional user pays pre-booked services to provide residents with flexibility is using up to 4 collections per year

f.       User pays business waste services

g.      Flexibility for domestic and commercial food waste collections through bin provision and additional food waste collection services

h.      Flexibility for Multi-Unit Dwelling properties lacking waste and bin storage space to request more frequent collection services

i.       Continued delivery of a commingled recycling bin service as currently provided.

7.      The current St George Waste Collection Contract is a joint contract between the former Kogarah, Hurstville and Rockdale Council’s. It expires in February 2023. The collection contract incorporates specific processing/disposal services which will be included in the upcoming tender process.

8.      Council will commence joint tender and contract preparation activities with Bayside Council for the future collection and processing contracts.

9.      In summary, Council will undertake the following essential activities by November 2021 in preparing for the new service tender and contract with Bayside Council:

·        Compile Status Report of current services by April 2021

·        Undertake Performance Review of existing services by May 2021

·        Undertake waste audits by July 2021

·        Research best practice Develop KPI’s

·        Undertake service Risk Assessment to satisfy Occupational Health and Safety requirements by October 2021

·        Develop a draft Community Education Strategy by October 2021

·        Appoint a Probity Officer by September 2021

·        Develop service options and specifications by October 2021

·        Consult with contractors (if recommended by the Probity Officer) by October 2021.

10.    A further report will be provided to Council outlining progress towards the future collection contract. Commencing in 2022 will be the tender process, with tender advertisement from February 2022 and appointment around May 2022. The new collection contract will then commence in February 2023.

Background

11.    Council’s current waste collection contract (with SUEZ) will expire in February 2023. Additionally, numerous processing and disposal contracts, specifically for the provision of all materials from the three bin system (waste, commingled recycling and garden organics) as well as bulky waste materials expire throughout 2023. Figure 1 displays the current collection and processing contracts for the various waste streams administered by Council.

 

Figure 1: Status of Key Waste Service Contracts Relevant to this Report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


12.    The work to be undertaken as outlined further within this report relates to the waste bin (red lid), recycling bin (yellow lid), garden organics bin (green lid) and kerbside clean up (bulky waste) services – both collection and processing/disposal services. The exceptions are:

a.      The processing of kerbside clean up (bulky waste, including illegally dumped bulky waste) from the former Kogarah area, as a preferred contractor was endorsed in 2020,

b.      The processing of material from the waste bin from the former Kogarah area with Veolia, as this service does not expire until 2027, and

c.      The collection and processing of mattresses, which relates to a Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Council’s (SSROC) contract, as it will be renewed at a regional scale.

13.    Prior to the creation of new specifications for waste collection and processing/disposal services, Council in delivering a best-practice waste service, must engage with the community to understand and document the community’s waste management needs. The current waste contracts, prior to inception, were informed by community engagement as led by both the former Kogarah and Hurstville Council’s.

14.    More specifically, the engagement program undertaken in 2020 was designed to determine the following:

a.      Desired service levels, including the community’s expectations for missed service response time

b.      Frequency, volume and acceptable materials and collection type (scheduled/pre-booked) for collection under the kerbside (bulky waste clean-up) collection service

c.      Desired bin size, number, collection frequency and streams desired for collection

d.      Comparison of service levels (current and future) and the costs willing to be paid for by the community as part of the domestic waste management charge

e.      Preference for certain processing/disposal options including resource recovery, food organics garden organics processing (FOGO) and landfill

f.       Current satisfaction levels with all aspects of current waste services.

15.    The primary purpose of the engagement program was to engage the community in the design of one of Council’s largest contracts, the waste collection service contract, to ensure the service, once tendered, will meet the needs of the community. The collection service is the most visible waste service currently provided by Council to the community.

16.    Additionally, the engagement program gauged the community’s preference for processing and disposal options explored within the Waste Strategy (reported separately to Council). This information will be used to inform the design of future processing/disposal contracts when tendering commences in 2021/22.

17.    The collection contract incorporates specific processing/disposal services which will be included in the upcoming tender process. This includes the disposal of material collected in public litter bins and materials collected in commingled recycling bins for example.

 

REPORT

(a)     Waste Services Community Consultation Program

18.    The consultation process was split into six core elements as listed below:

a)      Development of a Communications and Engagement Plan and related engagement materials such as posters, videos and flyers to support the project

b)      Resident Phone Survey

c)      Online Community Survey

d)      Business Phone Survey

e)      Online Focus Groups

f)       Supporting Communications and Engagement Tools (e.g. online submissions through Council’s YourSay platform).

19.    Overall there were 685 engagements during 1 September to 29 September 2020. The sample size, qualifiers (eligibility) and implementation details of the relevant engagement is summarised in Table 1 below.

 

Table 1: Summary of Consultation and Engagement Activities

 

20.    Overall the key consultation findings as captured from community feedback during the consultation and engagement program is summarised in Table 2.

 

Table 2: Summary of Key Community Consultation Findings and Relevant Recommendations for Council’s Contract Preparedness

Consultation Category

Key Consultation Finding

Council Response and Recommendations for Contract Preparedness

Overall community opinions of the waste service (residents and businesses)

The Georges River community view waste services as very important, and they also express high levels of satisfaction with the service.

 

This was consistent across both Residential and Business services and the different methods of engagement used to determine this finding (i.e. phone, online, focus groups).

 

Where normative data was available (for the three residential bins and bulky waste kerbside collections), Georges River ‘Importance’ scores are well above industry scores and the ‘Satisfaction’ scores are marginally above industry scores.

Council notes the high importance and satisfaction scores applied by the community with regards to the current waste collection services.

 

During future contract specifications, Council will ensure the current base level of services will continue so as to maintain the community’s expected service levels. This will be done by maintaining that current standard service specifications form the basis of the future general contract specifications. Further, standard reporting and service delivery timeframe KPI’s in the current contract will also form the basis of future contract KPI’s so as to continually have improved delivery of waste service contracts.

Awareness (residents and businesses)

Whilst awareness/usage of main waste and recycling services (i.e. three bins, bulky waste kerbside collections) is high, there are opportunities for Council to boost both awareness and usage of some of the other services. For instance:

 

-    Only 16% of Businesses engaged were aware of the bulk paper/cardboard drop-off centres available at Lucas Heights.

-    Whilst 94% of Residents from the phone survey were aware of bulky waste kerbside collections, only 62% were aware of special chemical/paint/motor oil drop-off events, only 55% were aware of e-waste drop-off service and only 25% aware of Council-run education workshops.

Council will develop a Communications Plan that will aim to increase waste education and awareness within the community.

 

Council has recently undertaken a review and upgrade of the waste service information available on the website in-line with website user feedback as obtained within webpage feedback forms. The waste webpages on the Council website feature significantly in the top 10 pages for monthly website views.

 

Further, Council will be reviewing the annual distribution of the waste services calendar and guide to reinvent the information with a focus of improving awareness of waste services provided by Council and ensure that the information provided to the community remains effective, efficient and accessible (for example, accessible, digital and/or translated).

 

Council will ensure a Communications Plan is developed to improve education and awareness prior to contract commencement in 2023. It is recommended that a new collection contractor fulfil education and awareness services in relation to contamination management and all collection services provided under the new contract, such as bin and kerbside collections. Therefore communications will be a joint requirement that is clearly defined with Council and a contractor delivering unified education.

Communication /Engagement with the Community – Residents and Businesses

The community expressed an interest in knowing more about waste – for instance:

 

-    On an open-ended ‘any other comments’ question at the end of the survey, one of the main responses on the Resident phone survey was more education and information – with this then being reiterated in the resident focus groups.

-    The Resident online survey identified that 83% of respondents wanted to know more about waste.

 

Whilst ‘instructional’ messages still have a place (e.g. on the Resident online survey 43% expressed interest in knowing more about what items can go in the recycling bin), there is more interest in ‘outcomes’ messages:

 

-    For instance, on the Resident online survey 53% expressed interest in knowing more about how household waste is currently processed/where it goes.

 

This was supported by the focus groups, where some participants suggested education needs to move beyond what goes in the bins to instead what happens with the waste and how it is processed, as well as what the consequences were of not diverting more waste from landfill.

 

The exception to the above ‘outcomes’ focus is perhaps Businesses, where respondents were least interested in knowing about how business waste is currently processed and more interested in actionable information for their business – how to reduce waste, how to dispose of hazardous liquids, e-waste, etc.

 

Some participants of the Resident focus groups mentioned the frustrations of potentially conflicting messages coming from neighbouring Council areas – perhaps Council should stress that systems/processes do differ by Council area due to back end processing etc.

Council will be developing a Waste Education Plan to coincide with preparations for the future waste collection contract. The Waste Education Plan will focus on:

 

-    Contamination management

-    Engaging with residents of Non-English Speaking Backgrounds

-    Digital assets in an effort to reduce waste (printed materials).

 

This Waste Education Plan will ensure that information is shared with the community regarding end use/disposal/processing outcomes for waste management within the Georges River LGA.  The Waste Education Plan will also integrate with the Communications Plan developed to guide increased waste awareness within the community and ensure consistency in messaging from Council and/or collection contractors.

 

A combination of education messages will be utilised so as to meet the varied needs of the community – both residents and business.

Waste Diversion Options (residents)

Amongst Residents (and non-resident ratepayers), the most appealing options for reducing waste going to landfill were as follows:

 

-    Increased emphasis by Council on reducing illegal dumping – most appealing option for both Residents (across the phone and online surveys) and Businesses.

-    Council to devote more resources to lobbying government, retailers etc – second most appealing option for Residents (on phone survey) and Businesses.

-    Development of permanent reuse facility and community recycling centre – these two options were rated third and fourth most appealing on the Resident phone survey – and second and third most appealing on the Resident online survey, which is very consistent.

-    Processing of red-lid bin waste into energy – strong appeal for both Residents and Businesses.

-    Mattresses to be collected as part of bulky waste collections – only asked of Residents.

-    Minimum use requirements of recycled materials in building projects – only asked of Residents.

-    Additional litter and recycling bins in public places – strong appeal for both Residents and Businesses.

 

In contrast, those items that generated the lowest appeal amongst Residents included:

 

-    Reducing the size of the red-lid bin.

-    Provision of vouchers for access to a waste collection centre.

-    Introducing a user pays approach.

The most appealing options outlined by the community align seamlessly with the key actions proposed for Council within the Waste Strategy 2021-2040 (reported separately to Council), which supports:

 

-    Reducing illegal dumping

-    Lobbying and advocacy regarding waste management

-    Focus on reuse

-    Consideration of Energy from Waste

-    Collections to aid resource recovery.

 

Council currently permits collections of mattresses within the kerbside clean up service with mattresses collected separately from general waste and materials (foam, springs etc) separated for recovery and reuse.

 

Further, Council has:

 

-    Participated in a regional SSROC program in which to prioritise reused materials in new construction of road infrastructure

-    Participated in a Regional Illegal Dumping Squad with neighbouring Council’s in the SSROC region to undertake coordinated regulatory activities in combatting illegal dumping

-    Recently undertaken a review and audit of all public litter bins. An upgrade to this infrastructure will progressively be implemented from 2021.

 

The desirable options for reducing waste to landfill will be considered in future processing/disposal contract specifications as follows:

 

-    Preference for contracts with resource recovery commitments

-    Open approach to enable market led innovation in diversion technologies and processing solutions (other than waste to landfill) where market capacity is available

-    Flexibility in seeking pricing schedules for a variety of options for diversion.

 

The most undesirable services as communicated by the community will be noted in the development of future collection service specifications – prices for these service may be sought during tendering and included in a collection contract only for future proofing reasons, in case the community desire these services in the future, but not undertaken as a mandatory service from 2023:

 

There will be no LGA-wide mandated reduction in general waste bin size and any provision of a smaller general waste bin should be enabled within a future collection contract to provide future flexibility, and an 80L bin provided on request only.

 

There will also be no provision of vouchers for access to a recycling centre, particularly given the unanimous support for the kerbside clean up service.

 

A charge per bin weight process system will not be mandated on residents through a user pays system.

Illegal Dumping (residents and businesses)

As noted above, illegal dumping emerged as a very important issue for the community:

 

-    Both Residents and Businesses stated that Council’s efforts to stop illegal dumping was one of the most important waste services provided, but rated their satisfaction with the service marginally lower.

 

-    Furthermore, an increased emphasis by Council on reducing the illegal dumping of waste was viewed as the most appealing option to reduce waste to landfill for both Residents (across the phone and online surveys) and Businesses.

Council is a current member of the Regional Illegal Dumping (RID) Squad who work to reduce illegal dumping at a regional (Southern Sydney) scale and will maintain importance placed on illegal dumping and continue to undertake collaborations at a regional level for consistent and coordinated enforcement activities. 

 

The majority of illegal dumping instances occurring within the Georges River LGA occur outside Multi-Unit Dwellings and/or are associated with the kerbside clean up service.

 

Council will during implementation of the Waste Strategy prioritise waste avoidance and reductions in an effort to reduce waste to landfill, with offenders being held accountable for removing waste that is illegally dumped within the LGA.

 

Future contract specifications will allow for urgent and high priority illegally dumped waste removals within 12 and 24 hours’ notice to ensure waste is removed from the LGA in a timely manner.

Bulky Waste Kerbside Collection (residents)

Participants in the focus groups felt that the bulky waste kerbside collection service helped to minimise illegal dumping.

 

In terms of the different options that were presented to respondents in the phone and online surveys for bulky waste kerbside collections:

 

-    There was no clear preference (based on both the Resident phone and online surveys) between on-call and pre-scheduled collections – in fact, 52% of the phone sample found both options to be appealing (rather than favouring one over the other), suggesting a fair degree of ambivalence.

 

When discussed in further detail in focus groups however, Residents believed that a pre-scheduled service will help to reduce mess and dumping within the LGA by confining items to being placed kerbside to set dates – and allow for more coordinated scavenging to maximise re-use opportunities.

 

Scavenging was generally accepted by the focus group sample – although participants were not happy with the mess that some scavengers leave.

 

-    Similarly, there was no clear preference for either leaving the number of bulky waste collections per year at 2 or increasing the number of collections to 4. However, this was less about ambivalence (only 24% of the phone sample found both options appealing) and more about polarisation (22% clearly favoured leaving it as two collections, whilst 23% clearly favoured increasing to four collections).

This key finding will be noted in the design of future kerbside collection specifications which will be sympathetic to the community’s feedback regarding the kerbside collection service. Based on industry-best practice and operational efficiencies in providing a bulky waste kerbside collection service, Council will therefore proceed with a pre-booked service. Pre-booked services reduce illegal dumping by greater controlling the origin of waste once placed kerbside.

 

Council will consider reuse options that are more appropriate rather than scavenging in order to reduce waste to landfill and increase reuse of materials. A pre-booked service will result in waste being left kerbside for a shorter period of time, thus reducing the risk of waste being strewn by scavengers and reducing pollution and litter instances.

 

Further, a pre-booked service will enable Council to prepare through the contract specifications for increased diversion and resource recovery, ensuring Council can best prepare to meet the recycling and diversion targets as outlined within the Waste Strategy.

 

Council will proceed with the standard of 2 pre-booked bulky waste services per year, and seek prices for additional user pays pre-booked services to provide residents with flexibility is using up to 4 collections per year if desired. Residents who have no need for greater than two collections will therefore not be impacted, Overall this arrangement will enable greater choice and flexibility to the community in utilising waste services to meet their changing needs.

Food Waste Service (residents)

There appears to be a need for some form of food waste collection service:

 

-    Based on the phone survey, Residents stated on average that 33% of the waste in their red bin is food waste.

-    Residents find the idea of a food waste service, either in combination with the garden organics bin or as a separate new bin, appealing (86% and 82% at least somewhat appealing respectively, based on the phone survey). In fact, 63% of residents found both options appealing – so to some extent they are ambivalent about which option they prefer:

 

The community are seemingly more open to a reduction in the red general waste bin collection if it is coupled with a new food waste service:

 

-    Perhaps not surprisingly, those who reported a fuller red-lid bin were less likely to say they could manage with fortnightly waste bin collections if they had some sort of food waste service. This suggests that Council may need to inform residents about how their red bin volume will drop if they have a food bin option.

 

Residents in the focus groups raised concerns around smell and contaminations in terms of food waste services.

This community feedback is consistent with the strategic direction of Council’s waste management services as explored in the Waste Strategy (reported separately to Council).

 

The bin arrangement satisfaction levels as obtained during this community consultation program will be referred to in any future specifications and service offerings so as to ensure adequate general waste volume regardless of food collection service arrangements.

 

Currently, Council is participating in a Feasibility Study for FOGO which will be reported separately within the March business paper. The results of the Feasibility Study will inform future FOGO services if delivered within the LGA.

 

Council cannot provide a FOGO service without understanding the costs to deliver a service – costs which will be initially provided through the Feasibility Study.

Food Waste Services (businesses)

Of businesses surveyed, 58% stated that food scraps were one of the main items making up their general waste bin and of the 29 businesses that said they generate food scraps, 33% indicated they place food waste in their 240L recycling bin provided by Council, which is a concern.

The provision of any food waste collection service that may be offered to residential properties may also be extended to commercial properties utilising the Council waste service. Provision of a food waste collection service will be informed by a Feasibility Study currently being undertaken by the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils. Pending the findings of the Feasibility Study, a trial of food waste collections will be undertaken prior to LGA-wide implementation of any major collection service change.

 

Businesses within the LGA also have the option of engaging private waste collection service provider with existing food waste services, separate from the Council service.

 

Additional waste education is required and will be implemented to mitigate contamination within the commercial service recycling stream.

 

Business waste services will remain a user pays system to ensure that Council is not competing with the private market by offering the residential service to businesses at the same or similar cost as residents. Council in providing waste management services must not compete with the private market as this is anti-competitive. This also ensures that waste generators have the option of varying services to suit their needs. Lower cost services are available to businesses that reduce waste to landfill and increase recycling.

Recycling Bin Options (residents)

Appeal ratings amongst Residents for the two yellow-lid recycling bin options were very similar, with 80% finding the option of two recycling bins (to split out co-mingled items) at least somewhat appealing, and 76% finding the single split-down-the-middle bin option at least somewhat appealing. In reality, Residents are more ambivalent than polarised on this issue, with 47% committing to the top ‘appealing’ or ‘very appealing’ codes for both options.

 

The Resident focus groups identified the following reactions to the recycling bin options:

 

-    Concern with the two recycling bin approach was mainly around multi-unit dwellings – in particular, that items would still get co-mingled, and that there isn’t room for more bins.

 

-    Concern with the split-bin approach was more around how it would work if it all gets tipped into the same truck.

The community support for additional recycling and recovery options is noted. This support correlates with the contents of the Wast Strategy and is consistent with the planned future progression of Council’s waste management services.

 

Additional recycling options that may be implemented across the LGA will be implemented in consultation with Building Managers/Strata groups so as to ensure adequate storage capacity for additional services, and where required, collection frequencies altered to cater to inadequate waste storage areas within Multi-Unit Dwellings.

 

Tipping matters would be investigated with waste service providers prior to a service such as split bins being provided.

 

For future contract specifications, there will be no change to recycling bin arrangements given the relative ambivalence of the community.

Support for Additional Investment (residents and businesses)

When Residents were informed that over the next 10 years all NSW Councils must increase the percentage of waste diverted from landfill, 89% of phone respondents and 88% of online respondents were at least somewhat supportive of Council investing more residential rates into recycling, composting and other options.

 

When asked how much extra per week, if any, they would be willing to pay to help fund waste diversion strategies, 77% of both phone and online respondents indicated they would pay at least $1 extra per week (the lowest amount offered). The average residents were willing to pay was an extra $2.24 per week.

 

Businesses expressed very similar levels of support, with 90% stating they are at least somewhat supportive of Council investing more business rates into recycling, composting and other waste diversion options, and Businesses on average stating they are willing to pay an extra $2.58 a week to reduce business waste going to landfill.

The community feedback regarding support for diversion and resource recovery options is consistent with the contents of the Waste Strategy and the planned future progression of Council’s waste management services.

 

Council is committed to providing an effective and efficient waste collection service at a sustainable cost.

 

Council will endeavour to provide future residential waste services at the same or reduced costs for the community wherever possible, however, the provision of waste management services is subject to the private market throughout the tender process.

 

Business waste services will remain a user pays system to ensure that Council is not competing with the private market by offering the residential service to businesses at the same or similar cost as residents. Council in providing waste management services must not compete with the private market as this is anti-competitive. This also ensures that waste generators have the option of varying services to suit their needs. Lower cost services are available to businesses that reduce waste to landfill and increase recycling.

 

21.    Overall the information obtained during the comprehensive and detailed community consultation program will guide and inform specifications ahead of future tenders relating to waste collection and processing/disposal contracts.

22.    Based on the comments received, the future waste service contracts will include:

·        Maintaining current contract KPI’s for continuation of current baseline contractor performance expectations

·        Improved waste education and communication provisions with a collections contractor responsible for contamination management education

·        Focus on resource recovery, diversion from landfill and foster implementation of Council’s Waste Strategy

·        Provisions for high priority and urgent illegally dumped waste collections within 12 and 24 hours’ notice

·        Standard 2 pre-booked bulky waste services per year with flexibility to enable the community to opt in to additional user pays pre-booked services to provide residents with flexibility is using up to 4 collections per year

·        User pays business waste services

·        Flexibility for domestic and commercial food waste collections through bin provision and additional food waste collection services

·        Flexibility for MUD properties lacking waste and bin storage space to request more frequent collection services

·        Continued delivery of a commingled recycling bin service as currently provided.

23.    The current waste services collection contract due to expire in February 2023 incorporates a joint contract between Georges River Council and Bayside Council (the former Kogarah, Hurstville and Rockdale Councils). This contract arrangement provided operational efficiencies and financial savings at the time of contract development and commencement. Further, in implementing the contract, both Georges River and Bayside Councils benefit from shared findings and improvements in contractor liaisons and service delivery during day to day delivery of the waste service.

24.    Based on these benefits and efficiencies, staff from Council’s Waste Team have been in discussions with their counterparts at Bayside Council regarding the possibility of either conducting a complete joint tender and contract for the new waste collection service or as a minimum collaborating on key tender processes where financial savings can be achieved such as advertising, legal, probity, bin and property audits, documenting current services,  and tender documentation planning and preparations.

25.    Some of the key issues surrounding a joint contract include ensuring services are similar and specifications align across Council’s and including within the contract the relevant requirements of each Council in a manner that is not contradictory or in contrast across Council’s such as requirements for insurance, liability, bank guarantees and payment terms.

26.    Should Council decide to progress a joint contract an application would need to be made to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) which can grant immunity from the application of the competition provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 if it is satisfied that the benefit to the public from the conduct outweighs any public detriment. The former Councils along with Rockdale Council were previously provided with an exemption from the ACCC for the current (St George) waste and resource recovery collection services and a similar application would need to be made should Council elect to conduct a joint tender with Bayside Council.

27.    Given Council is in the initial stages of preparing and planning for the future contract tender (collections and processing/disposal services), these requirements have not yet been determined by both Councils. According to the NSW Environment Protection Authority’s Model Collection Contract Timeline, these specific service and contract requirements will not be determined until November 2021.

28.    In summary, Council will undertake the following essential activities by November 2021 in preparing for the new service tender and contract with Bayside Council:

·        Compile Status Report of current services by April 2021

·        Undertake Performance Review of existing services by May 2021

·        Undertake waste audits by July 2021

·        Research best practice Develop KPI’s

·        Undertake service Risk Assessment to satisfy Occupational Health and Safety requirements by October 2021

·        Develop a draft Community Education Strategy by October 2021

·        Appoint a Probity Officer by September 2021

·        Develop service options and specifications by October 2021

·        Consult with contractors (if recommended by the Probity Officer) by October 2021.

29.    A further report will be provided to Council with a progress update relating to the future collection contract. Commencing in 2022 will be the tender process, with tender advertisement from February 2022 and appointment around May 2022. The new collection contract will then commence in February 2023.

Financial Implications

30.    The funding required to commence tender and contract preparations is expected to cost $150,000 and will be sourced from the Domestic Waste Reserve.

 

Risk Implications

31.   No risks identified.

Community Engagement

32.    Community engagement was conducted in accordance with Council’s Community Engagement Policy as outlined within this Report.

 

File Reference

SF21/3559, D21/38598

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1

Waste Management Survey Final Report - GRC Waste Overall Summary Report

 


Georges River Council -            Environment and Planning - Monday, 8 March 2021

ENV009-21             Waste Services Community Consultation - Implications for Waste Contracts

[Appendix 1]           Waste Management Survey Final Report - GRC Waste Overall Summary Report

 

 

Page 1