committee of the whole agenda no 9/04, 19 october 2004 · sue weatherley sam cappelli group manager...

CITY OF RYDE

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA NO 9/04

The above Committee will meet on Tuesday, 19 October 2004 in Committee RoomNo. 2, Fifth Floor, Civic Centre, Ryde at 7.30pm to discuss the following matters.

CONTENTS

Item Property/Subject Page

1 CONFIRMATION OF COMMITTEE REPORT ....................................................1

2 GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIAPRESENTATION ................................................................................................2

3 7-9 RUTLEDGE STREET, EASTWOOD - Local DevelopmentApplication. LDA 953/2003. Applicant: Crown Atlantis J Venture ................4

4 SYDNEY WATER’S ‘EVERY DROP COUNTS’ PROGRAM..............................9

5 DRAFT LOCAL AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 2004 - 2009 ...............13

6 DRAFT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN - Program of Works2004-2007 .........................................................................................................16

7 EXEMPT & COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT – Draft PlanningInstruments......................................................................................................21

8 DECOMMISSIONING OF COUNCIL’S FORMER DEPOTS –Status Report...................................................................................................37

9 HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE – Minutes 01/04 ..................................44

10 PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES COMMITTEE’S REPORTNO.15/04 – Items not determined by the Committee under delegatedauthority...........................................................................................................56

11 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE’S REPORT NO.15/04 – Items notdetermined by the Committee under delegated authority ...........................57

CONFIDENTIAL12 PROSECUTION FOR MISLEADING INFORMATION......................................58

LATE ITEM13 NORTH RYDE COMMON – Status of Trees ...................................................64

Committee of the Whole Agenda No. 9/04 Page 1

ITEM 1

CONFIRMATION OF COMMITTEE REPORT

RECOMMENDATION:

That the report of the meeting of the Committee of the Whole No 8/04 held on 5October, be confirmed.


ITEM 2

GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIAPRESENTATION

File No: S9634

The Manager, The Environment reports dated 15 September 2004:

Report SummaryTo receive a presentation from the Green Building Council of Australia in response toa Notice of Motion from the Council meeting held on 10 August 2004 where it wasresolved on the Motion of Councillors Campbell and McCosker that:

“(A) The Chief Executive invite the Executive Director of the Green Building Councilof Australia to make a presentation to Council on the role of the Green BuildingCouncil and the development of the ‘Green Star’ environmental design ratingtools for office design and fitout.

(B) Following this presentation Council considers joining the Green Building Councilof Australia.

(C) Council considers incorporating a minimum 4 Green Stars (Equivalent to BestPractice) in the development control plan (DCP) for Macquarie Park Corridorand in other DCP’s that include commercial buildings”

BackgroundThe Green Building Council of Australia's (GBCA) stated mission is to define anddevelop a sustainable property industry in Australia and to drive the adoption of greenbuilding practices through market-based solutions.

Their objective is to promote sustainable development and the transition of theproperty industry to implementing green building programs, technologies, designpractice and operations.

ReportIt will be useful to Council to hear how they are advancing and promoting the creationof a green building rating tool, economic incentives, government initiatives andprograms, new technologies and industry knowledge.

Council is already considering incorporating requirements for a minimum green starrating equivalent to ‘Best Practice’ in all new commercial building DCP’s, particularlythe DCP for the Macquarie Park Corridor and will further explore this with the GBCAafter the presentation.

Arrangements have been made for their Executive Director Ms Maria Atkinson todeliver her presentation at this evening’s committee of the whole meeting of Council.

The presentation will take approximately 20 minutes and there will be an opportunityfor questions immediately after the presentation.


ITEM 2 (continued)

RECOMMENDATION

That the presentation from the Executive Director of the Green Building Council ofAustralia on its role and the development of the ‘Green Star’ environmental designrating tools for office design and fitout be received and noted.

Sue Weatherley Sam CappelliGroup Manager Manager, The EnvironmentEnvironmental Planning


ITEM 3

7-9 RUTLEDGE STREET, EASTWOOD - Local Development Application. LDA 953/2003. Applicant: Crown Atlantis J Venture

File No. LDA 03/953

The Group Manager, Environmental Planning reports 26 August 2004:

Report SummaryThis report considers a request by the applicant for DA 953/2004 (10 storey mixeduse development of 7 and 9 Rutledge Street for Council to review its decision torefuse the application.

BackgroundCouncil at its meeting of 13 July 2004 considered a report about a DA for a 10 storeymixed used development at 7 and 9 Rutledge Street. A copy of the Officers report isCIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.

ReportThe Council resolved to refuse the application on the following grounds:

The proposal does not comply with Clause 3.3 of the Development Control Plan No 39 – Eastwood Town Centre, in particular the height plane measured from theeastern side of Trelawney Street.

On the 4 August 2004 Council received a request by the applicant for Council toreview its decision under the provision of Section 82A of the Environmental Planningand Assessment Act.

Section 82A of the Act states:

82A Review of determination

(1) If the consent authority is a council, an applicant may request the council toreview a determination of the applicant’s application, other than:

(a) a determination to issue or refuse to issue a complying developmentcertificate, or

(b) a determination in respect of designated development, or

(c) a determination in respect of integrated development, or

(d) a determination made by the council under section 116E in respect of anapplication by the Crown.

Note: This section does not apply to State significant development because it onlyapplies if the consent authority is a council.


ITEM 3 (continued)

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

(2A) A determination cannot be reviewed:

(a) after the time limited for the making of an appeal under section 97 expires,if no such appeal is made against the determination, or

(b) after an appeal under section 97 against the determination is disposed ofby the Court, if such an appeal is made against the determination.

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

(3A) In requesting a review, the applicant may make amendments to thedevelopment described in the original application, subject to subsection (4) (c).

(4) The council may review the determination if:

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

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

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

(b) it has considered any submissions made concerning the request for reviewwithin any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the developmentcontrol plan, as the case may be, and

(c ) in the event that the applicant has made amendments to the developmentdescribed in the original application, the consent authority is satisfied that thedevelopment, as amended, is substantially the same development as thedevelopment described in the original application.

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

(5) The decision whether or not to review the determination must not be made by theperson who made the determination unless that person was the council, but is to bemade by a person who is qualified under subsection (6) to make the review.

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

(a) if the determination was made by a delegate of the council - the council oranother delegate of the council who is not subordinate to the delegate whomade the determination, or


ITEM 3 (continued)

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

(7) The council must give notice of the result of the review to the applicant as soon aspracticable after the review.

(8) If on the review the council grants development consent, or varies the conditionsof a development consent, the council must endorse on the notice the date fromwhich the consent, or the consent as varied, operates.

(9) If on the review the council changes a determination, the changed determinationreplaces the earlier determination as from the date of the review.

(10) If on a review the council grants development consent, or varies the conditions ofa development consent, the council is entitled, with the consent of the applicant andwithout prejudice to costs, to have an appeal made under section 97 in respect of itsdetermination withdrawn at any time prior to the determination of that appeal.

(11) A decision on a review may not be further reviewed under this section.

A copy of the applicant’s request is ATTACHED.

During the notification period (31 August 2004 to 15 September 2004) the 2submissions were received, one from the owners of 200 Rowe Street and the otherfrom the resident of 1/20 Clanalpine Street.

• Development too high• Excessive traffic• Loss of privacy• Basement car parking may create drainage and subsidence problems.• Concerned site may remain vacant for a long period ot time.• Adverse impacts during construction such as noise and dust.• Proposed widening of Rutledge Street will be inappropriate.• Adverse impact on property values.

RECOMMENDATION:

For the consideration of the Council.

Sue WeatherleyGroup ManagerEnvironmental Planning


ITEM 3 (continued)


ITEM 4

SYDNEY WATER’S ‘EVERY DROP COUNTS’ PROGRAM

File No. S1769-03

The Manager, The Environment reports 12 October 2004:

Report SummaryTo provide a progress report on the City’s involvement in Sydney Water’s ‘ EveryDrop Counts’ Program. The City of Ryde is performing at “Best of Sector” level in5 out the 19 listed elements and above average in all but 4 elements.

BackgroundCouncil at its meeting held on 3 August 2004 resolved to join this program which isdesigned to drive sustainable improvements in water efficiencies through reducedwater consumption and related costs. The program is fully funded by Sydney Waterand is predicted to be able to deliver at least a 15% reduction in water consumptionacross Council operations by improved water management practices andimplementation of sustainable water saving measures.

Council joined the program on 9 August 2004 and a comprehensive watermanagement diagnostic assessment of our 10 highest water use facilities wasconducted on 15 September 2004 to commence the program.

Results of the diagnostic assessment have now been received and the report fromSydney Water is CIRCULATED SEPARATELY.

ReportSydney Water identified the top 10 water use facilities owned by Council and it wasagreed that this program would focus on those facilities to achieve best results.

The 10 facilities from highest to lowest water use are:

1. Ryde Aquatic and Leisure Centre (RALC)2. ELS Hall Park3. Eastwood Oval4. Magdala Park5. Ryde Bowling Club6. Banjo Patterson Reserve7. Putney Tennyson Bowling Club and Community Centre8. Argyle Centre9. Morrison Bay Park10. Various Standpipes used by Enviroserve Operations Centre


ITEM 4 (continued)

The diagnostic assessment of these facilities was completed on 15 September 2004except for the 2 listed clubs and the Next Generation Fitness Club, which is part ofRALC, because, despite being owned by Council, they are separately tenanted.Nevertheless, the tenants still attended the workshop as interested observers.

The diagnostic tool used in this process utilises a unique One-2-Five ® star ratingsystem to measure and audit progress in water management and to benchmarkagainst similar organizations.

= Best Practice and continuous improvement

= Water management integrated into business systems

= Water management systems established

= Basic water management practiced

= Understanding water and wastewater regulatory req’s (default rating)

This tool addresses water management as a business issue, rather than a technicalengineering issue and focuses on the following key elements:

1) Demonstrated corporate commitment2) Understanding of performance and opportunities3) Targets, performance indicators (KPI’s) and motivation4) Plans5) Accountabilities6) Awareness and training7) Resourcing8) Criteria/budgets for CAPEX9) Operating budgets10) Water supply, quality and reliability11) Compliance with legal and other requirements12) Operating procedures13) Maintenance procedures14) Efficiency of existing plant design15) Innovation and new technology16) Metering and monitoring17) Reporting, feedback and control systems18) Documentation and records19) Water cost performance in past 12 months.

Overall, after completing the diagnostic assessment, our rating on the One-2-Five ®star rating scale resulted in 2 stars which when benchmarked against a pool of 21other local government participants around Australia and against all 110 otherparticipants across all sectors is a very strong result for so early into the program.


ITEM 4 (continued)

Ryde is one of 8 councils to achieve 2 Stars with 14 councils achieving 1 Star andnone achieving 3 Stars or better. Of the above elements, Ryde is performing at “ Bestof Sector” level in 5 out the 19 listed elements and above average in all but 4elements.

Across all sectors, Ryde is averaging or better in 12 out of the 19 elements, which isa good result and demonstrates our commitment to reducing water consumptionacross various Council activities.

The diagnostic report has identified the following 5 areas for improvement to take usto the next level and these areas are certainly within our resources to achieve by thefirst review date scheduled for 15 April 2005:

a. Better understanding of performance and opportunities• Conduct a “Water Efficiency Audit”

b. Reporting, feedback and control systems• Record overall monthly/quarterly water usage for water intensive facilities

c. Demonstrated corporate commitment• Include water efficiency on the agenda of facility management meetings

and ensure reports are given on the progress in achieving goalsd. Operating Budgets

• Set a specific budget allocation for water and wastewater costs annually,with input from facility management

e. Targets, performance indicators (KPI’s) and motivation• Develop water efficiency KPI’s for all water intensive facilities.• Set water efficiency targets for facilities based on savings assessment

and/or benchmarking (eg Kl / production unit, kg load / production unit).

Arrangements are now being made for the “Water Efficiency Audit” to be undertakenfollowing which a water conservation plan of action involving input from all waterintensive facility managers will be developed to address each of the target areasreferred to above.

I will continue to keep Council informed as we progress through the program.

Financial Impact There is no cost to Council as the program is fully funded by the Sydney WaterCorporation. Any sustainable work initiatives required to be undertaken resultingfrom the program could be funded from recurrent budget allocations and fromresultant cost savings in reduced water use.


ITEM 4 (continued)

RECOMMENDATION:

That the report of the Manager – The Environment dated 12 October 2004 on the City’sinvolvement in Sydney Water’s ‘Every Drop Counts’ Program and results of a WaterManagement Diagnostic Assessment carried out as part of this program on15 September 2004, be received and noted.

Sam Cappelli Sue WeatherleyManager, The Environment Group Manager

Environmental Planning


ITEM 5

DRAFT LOCAL AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN 2004 - 2009

File No. S1587-02

The Manager, The Environment reports 11 October 2004:

Report SummaryFor Council to adopt the revised Draft Local Air Quality Management Plan 2004-2009dated 8 October 2004.

BackgroundCouncil at its meeting held on 3 August 2004 considered the draft Local Air QualityManagement Plan (LAQMP) dated 29 June 2004 and resolved:

(a) That the report of the Manager, The Environment dated 16 July 2004 on the DraftLocal Air Quality Management Plan 2004-2009 for the City of Ryde be receivedand noted.

(b) That the Draft Local Air Quality Management Plan 2004-2009 dated 29 June 2004be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days and any submissionsreceived within the exhibition period be considered in a further report to Council.

The Draft Plan was exhibited from 11 August 2004 to 17 September 2004 withsubmissions being received up to Friday 1 October 2004. No submissions werereceived during the exhibition period.

ReportAfter careful consideration of the milestone dates listed against each of the strategiesin Section 8 of the Draft Plan, several minor revisions have been made to the datesto more realistically reflect achievable completion dates and the resources that arenecessary to achieve compliance with the plan objectives and satisfy reportingrequirements. No other changes have been made. The revised draft LAQMP (CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER) will facilitatethe development of a more strategic approach to air improvement initiatives and willprovide the City of Ryde, and the broader community of Ryde, with a set of guidelinesfor the development of both short and long term goals and management strategies toimprove air quality within the City, particularly from the impacts of photochemicalsmog and particle pollution (brown haze) from local sources.

The plan focuses on the key elements of energy efficiency, land use andtransportation planning, vegetation management, specific industry source control andeducation, information and public participation to reduce local air-polluting emissionsand improve regional air quality.


ITEM 5 (continued)

The key objectives of the draft LAQMP are:

1. To pursue the preparation and implementation of a LAQMP that is fully integratedinto the Management Plan and State of the Environment Report;

2. To work in partnership with the community to develop consistent and integratedair quality policies across the City of Ryde;

3. To raise awareness of local air quality in the community;

4. To encourage and adopt energy conservation and energy efficient measures thatreduce demands for energy and highlight opportunities for and the benefits ofenergy conservation strategies;

5. To develop and implement strategies that incorporate land use and transportplanning initiatives that reduce dependency on motor vehicle use and encourageuse of public transport and pedestrian walkways and cycleways;

6. To limit the loss of vegetation;

7. To review Council’s vehicle fleet and plant management and purchasing policiesand make decisions that serve to improve air quality and promote sustainability;

8. To review and recommend measures and technologies that minimise the level ofair emissions;

9. To develop targeted strategies that effectively respond to air pollutants fromspecific sectors and point source emissions;

10. To develop partnerships and programs that encourage ongoing involvement fromthe commercial, industrial and residential community, as well as government andnon government organisations in reducing air pollution in the City of Ryde;

11. To take a regional leadership role and work with neighbouring Councils inmanaging issues associated with improving air quality;

12. To comply with state and federal laws and regional objectives;

13. To develop a community air quality education, information and participationstrategy that serves to reduce air pollution throughout the City of Ryde.

To assist in the LAQMP development and implementation process, it is intended thatthe City of Ryde will form a specialist team of multi disciplinary staff who wouldoversee the formation and implementation of the plan objectives and completeannual reviews and reporting requirements.


ITEM 5 (continued)

Financial Impact Provision has been made in the Operating and Capital Works Budget in 2004-07 Cityof Ryde Management Plan for appropriate funding to meet the LAQMP objectives.

RECOMMENDATION:

(a) That the Draft Local Air Quality Management Plan 2004-2009 dated 8 October2004 referred to in the report of the Manager – The Environment dated11 October 2004 be adopted and implemented.

(b) That the Group Manager, Environmental Planning facilitate the formation of aninterdepartmental team of staff to meet quarterly to guide the implementation,review and reporting processes of the adopted Local Air Quality ManagementPlan.

(c) That the Local Air Quality Management Plan 2004-2009 be reviewed annuallyand an annual progress report be incorporated into the Ryde State of theEnvironment Report.

Sam Cappelli Sue WeatherleyManager, The Environment Group ManagerEnvironmental Planning Environmental Planning


ITEM 6

DRAFT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN - Program of Works 2004-2007

File No. S7244

The Manager – The Environment reports 20 September 2004:

Report SummaryFor Council to consider submissions received during the exhibition period on theDraft Stormwater Management Plan Program of Works 2004-07 dated 15 June 2004and to adopt an appropriate plan.

BackgroundCouncil at its meeting held on 20 July 2004 considered the draft StormwaterManagement Plan and resolved:

1. That the report of the Manager, The Environment dated 18 June 2004 on theDraft Stormwater Management Plan Program of Works 2004-2007 dated 15June 2004 for the City of Ryde be received and noted.

2. That the Draft Stormwater Management Plan Program of Works 2004-2007 beplaced on public exhibition for a period of 28 days and any submissionsreceived within the exhibition period be considered in a further report toCouncil.

The Draft Plan was exhibited from 3 August 2004 to 10 September 2004 and 18submissions were received.

Report Of the 18 submissions received, 16 were a proforma letter on the same issue.

1. Submissions from 16 residents from Morrison Bay

The same letter was received from 16 separate residents and referred toconcerns about litter and rubbish from roadway runoff entering the canal atMorrison Bay. The residents are calling on Council to include provision for arubbish boom in the program of works. They cite similar booms outside ofRyde on canals flowing into Blackwattle Bay and Iron Cove (Timbrell Drive).

Comment:

The provision of a litter boom across the outlet of the Morrison BayStormwater channel would undoubtedly be of some value by removing thiscomponent of the pollutant load from stormwater overflows. However, whilstthis litter has a high visual impact, it only comprises a small proportion of thetotal pollutant load.


ITEM 6 (continued)

It is anticipated that the costs for the installation of and the on-goingmaintenance for a suitable litter boom would probably be quite high and it maybe more prudent for Council to spend the limited funds it has available onstormwater management projects to those with greater benefits.

The limited funds that have been allocated to the Stormwater ManagementPlan portion of the Stormwater budget are already committed to theundertaking of biological monitoring of selected waterways and thecontinuation of the Archers Creek Drainage Catchment Project (Maze Park).

Stage 2 of the Maze Park project involves the installation of anotherContinuous Deflection Separator (CDS) type control device and an extensionof the creek bank remediation and revegetation works in conjunction with theworks undertaken by Sydney Water on the North Shore Ocean Outfall Sewer.

The CDS type pollution control device installed as part of the Stage 1 work inMaze Park has contributed significantly to stream water quality in thecatchment by removing over 8.3 tonnes of material during 2003 and so far thisfinancial year over 3.2 tonnes.

Given the limited funds set aside for stormwater quality improvement projects,priority needs to be given to those works which provide the best value formoney spent.

Whilst the provision of a litter boom across the Morrison Bay stormwaterchannel could be worthy of consideration, there are many projects already inthe City’s adopted program of works, which would have a higher priority.

2. Submission from resident in Pellisier Rd Putney

The submission agrees with the thrust of the Draft plan but requests Council toconsider:

• The inclusion of appropriate management controls for dogs allowed toroam or being walked along foreshore areas as well as parks

• Better at source litter controls• A greater emphasis on harvesting rainwater for irrigation of public areas• Taking a more proactive stance in promoting grey water reuse, the use

of rainwater tanks and greater encouragement for the use of poolcovers to reduce water consumption.

• Pushing Sydney Water to reduce the number of sewerage overflows towaterways.

• Lobbying State Government to make water saving devices andassociated fittings and fixtures GST free.


ITEM 6 (continued)

Comment:

Unless a foreshore area is declared a public place or public reserve, thecontrol of dogs roaming or being walked on private foreshore land isoutside the control of Council. Council is unable to enforce the provisions ofthe Companion Animals Act in these circumstances unless it is on theowner of the land. Nevertheless, Action E9 from the draft plan can beamended so that the education and awareness program includes parksand foreshore areas.

The program of works is based on better at source controls and there arevarious aspects of the draft plan that comprehensively address this issue.

The various water saving issues raised in the submissions are valid but areoutside the scope of the Stormwater Management Program. There areother initiatives being taken through planning instruments, developmentcontrols and consideration of water reclamation option studies to reducewater consumption. The only issue in the draft stormwater managementplan that could be related was Action S3 ‘ Investigate further water reuse inparks’ but this relates to the infrastructure needed to make this happen.

The issue relating to sewer overflow and pushing Sydney Water is alreadyan ongoing process. Sydney Water is currently implementing a sewerinfrastructure upgrading program to improve capacity and efficiency of thesewerage system across the State. Actions P4 and P12 from the draft planserves to address the submission.

3. Submission from resident in Amiens Rd Gladesville

This submission requests that Action S3 from the draft plan be amended toinclude the word implement and that a commensurate increase in funds beallocated to enable this to happen.

The submission also refers to Action P1 and for the review of streetsweepingand pit cleaning to be made in conjunction with the educational activitiesoutlined in the draft plan. The submission argues for better at source controlsto reduce the need for more expensive GPT’s and for the savings from thisbeing channelled back in water conservation initiatives.

Comment:

No objection is raised in principle however for Action S3, the implementation issubject to appropriateness of work and provision for funding. It was alwaysintended to progress implementation work after the options were investigated.To satisfy the submission, S3 will be amended to read ‘ Investigate andimplement, wherever appropriate, further water reuse in parks, subject tofunding’.


ITEM 6 (continued)

For P1 and as stated earlier in this report, the draft plan is based on better atsource controls and a strong focus on education and awareness. Whilst thereis a definite need for the GPT installation program to continue, the intent of thesubmission is wholeheartedly agreed with. To this end, the Council hasalready added a 3rd street sweeper and an extra staff member to increase thefrequency of sweeping operations. Pollution from urban runoff is inevitablemaking the continuation of the GPT installation program an important featureof the stormwater management plan.

ReportThe submissions have been considered and, where appropriate, the StormwaterManagement Program can be readily amended to satisfy most of the concernsraised. Areas where submissions could not be addressed have been covered in thecomments above.

A revised Stormwater Management Program of Work 2004-2007 dated20 September 2004 (CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER) has incorporatedthe changes foreshadowed above and is now ready for Council to consider anddetermine.

To assist Councillors, the revised plan is the same as the Draft Plan that Councilconsidered previously on 20 July 2004 except for the following changes:

• E9 reads ‘Conduct education and awareness program targeting dog ownerson pet poo requirements, when using parks and foreshore land’. Note: reference to foreshore land added.

• S3 reads ‘ Investigate and implement, wherever appropriate, further waterreuse in parks, subject to funding’. Note: Words ‘implement, whereverappropriate’ and ‘subject to funding’ added.

Funding ImplicationsProvision has been made in the Operating and Capital Works Budget in 2004-07Management Plan for appropriate funding to meet the SMP objectives.

In the event the required level of funding to undertake a specific schedule of work oractivity does not become available, then the Stormwater Management Program ofWork will require further modification and the Department of Environment andConservation advised accordingly.


ITEM 6 (continued)

RECOMMENDATION:

(a) That the revised Stormwater Management Plan – Program of Works 2004-2007dated September 2004 referred to in the report of the Manager – TheEnvironment dated 20 September 2004 be adopted and implemented.

(b) That the Group Manager, Environmental Planning facilitate the formation of aninterdepartmental team of staff to meet quarterly to guide the implementation,review and reporting processes of the adopted Stormwater Management Plan.

(c) That the Stormwater Management Plan – Program of Works 2004-2007 bereviewed annually and an annual progress report be incorporated into the RydeState of the Environment Report.

Sam Cappelli Sue WeatherleyManager, The Environment Group Manager


Greg Hunt Barry HodgeManager Acting ManagerStormwater Facilities & Services Public Works & Services


ITEM 7

EXEMPT & COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT – Draft Planning Instruments

File: 7802 - 02

The Manager Strategic Planning reports 8 October 2004:

Report SummaryThis report provides details on the exhibition process of the draft planning documentsfor exempt and complying development. The report summarises the issues raised inthe submissions received and outlines the amendments made to the draft plans inorder to address these issues.

The report recommends that draft Local Environmental Plan No. 116 and draftDevelopment Control Plan No. 34 as amended be adopted by Council.

BackgroundCouncil is presently subject to State Environmental Planning Policy No 60 – Exemptand Complying Development. The State Policy applies to those councils that havenot adopted a local environmental plan (LEP) and a development control plan (DCP)for exempt and complying development.

Whilst Council adopted the draft LEP and draft DCP for exempt and complyingdevelopment for the City on 28 November 2000 the implementation of the plans hasbeen delayed mainly by the deliberation of the Department of Infrastructure Planningand Natural Resources (DIPNR).

Since November 2000 there have been a number of new initiatives that requireamendments to Council’s draft documents. This time frame has provided Councilofficers with an opportunity to closely examine the provisions of the draft plans and todiscuss their content with other sections of Council. This review has resulted inamendments being made to the draft instruments.

Exempt Development is minor development that does not need developmentconsent. For example – minor-advertising structures, small-scale householdstructures, change of use, flagpoles, fences, home occupations etc.

Complying Development is development that complies with a set of standardscontained in a LEP or DCP and requires the issuing of a complying developmentcertificate. Complying development includes development ancillary to a dwellinghouse, detached dwellings, swimming pools, commercial uses and minor buildingalterations.

Council or an accredited certifier can issue a complying development certificate.


ITEM 7 (continued)

Review of Exempt and Complying Development Planning InstrumentsTowards the end of 2002 DIPNR advised Council that the draft plans should berevisited to update the provisions. In support of the Department’s suggestion, it wasfound that following the continued use of the State Policy by officers it becameevident that a number of the provisions in Council’s draft plans required review. Theareas of review identified by planning and customer service staff include: -

• The need to amend the provisions to ensure a clear and consistent interpretationof the controls,

• To expand the types of exempt development.

• The concerns regarding the impacts that some exempt development may have ona property - e.g. the cumulative impact of a number of retaining walls on one site.

• The need for the controls to be consistent with the Council’s DCPs and Stateplanning policies.

Council considered the draft plans as amended at its meeting on 2 December 2003. Council resolved that draft Local Environmental Plan No. 116 and draft DevelopmentControl Plan No. 34 as amended, be placed on public exhibition.

The approach taken to amend the draft plans are broadly summarised as follows:-

• The generic restriction on exempt development on environmentally sensitive landhas been removed. The draft plan identifies where an exempt development typecan not occur in an area. For example a BBQ is allowed on all land within theCity, whereas a deck attached to dwelling houses and dulpex buildings can notbe exempt development on land located in an overland flow path.

• The restrictions on complying development on environmentally sensitive land arebased on the individual development type and the impact this would have on theenvironmentally sensitive elements. For example a swimming pool can not becomplying development on land identified as environmentally sensitive.

• The range of development types categorised as exempt and complyingdevelopment has been broadened where considered appropriate, to assist in reducing the number of development applications lodged for minor low impactdevelopment.

ReportThis section of the report provides information on:

• the exhibition period and the submissions received, and

• provides an overview of the amendments made to the draft plans.


ITEM 7 (continued)

Exhibition PeriodThe draft planning documents were publicly exhibited from 9 June 2004 to 9 July2004. Eight submissions were received: -

• 5 from Government Agencies

• 1 from a land owner

• 2 from Service Units with Council

A summary of the issues raised in the submissions and Council’s comments on thematters are outlined below.

i) Energy AustraliaEnergy Australia has requested that works that the authority undertakes thathas a low environmental impact be classified as exempt development, subjectto the implementation of an Environmental Management Plan. The type ofworks include:

• Provision of public lighting requested by Council;

• Additions or alterations to apparatus or equipment within an existing substation building or enclosure;

• Installation of underground customer connection not involving more than 20metres of excavation;

• Emergency utility repairs and installations.

The utility is seeking exemption for these works in areas reserved as openspace, public space or public reserve because SEPP No. 4 – Developmentwithout consent and Miscellaneous Complying Development and the ModelProvisions does not cover works in these locations.

Comment

The works raised by Energy Australia currently do not require Council approvalas the works are subject to the Saving Provisions outlined in cl.73 andSchedule 8 of the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance.

ii) State RailRail Estate have requested that a clause be included in the DDCP that statesthat noise sensitive development such as dwellings that are in close proximityto a rail corridor are to comply with the rail and vibration attenuation standardsoutlined in the publication - Consideration of Rail Noise and Vibration in thePlanning Process: Interim Guidelines for Councils.


ITEM 7 (continued)

The Authority also has requested that a clause be included in the DDCP thatensures that run off or stormwater discharge from a development / site locatednext to a rail corridor is managed appropriately to the waste water is notdischarged into the corridor.

CommentsThe matters raised by Rail Estate are acceptable and the DDCP has beenamended as follows: -

• Complying Development Type relating to Detached Dwelling Houses(including alterations and additions) has been amended to include anadditional requirement, which refers to the noise and vibration issueswhere the site is within 60m of a rail corridor.

• The general provisions relating to Exempt Development (s2.2) andComplying Development (s3.2) have been amended to include a provisionthat states “the development when located next to a rail corridor mustmanage the drainage from the site to ensure it does not discharge into thecorridor, unless prior approval has been obtained from State Rail.”

iii) NSW Heritage OfficeThe Heritage office raised no objection to the draft LEP and DCP. The Officeacknowledges that heritage safe guards had been included in the DDCP forexempt development.

The Office indicated that the heritage provisions for complying developmentwere inconsistent with S76 (a) of the Environmental Planning and AssessmentAct.

CommentTo address the issue raised by the Heritage Office the provisions in s3.3 WhenDevelopment is not Complying Development – has been amended to statethat a development is not complying development where the land is an item ofenvironmental heritage -including being subject to an interim heritage order,listed on the State Heritage Register or identified as an item in anenvironmental planning instrument.

iv) Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation (TIDC)The Corporation requested a number of minor amendments to the DDCP toensure that a development proposal to excavate to a depth of 3m or more onland over the underground rail transport corridor is not exempt or complyingdevelopment.


ITEM 7 (continued)

CommentsTIDC’s requirements are supported and the DDCP is amended as follows: -

• A new clause is added to s2.2 When Development is not ExemptDevelopment and s3.3 When Development is not Complying Development.The clause states - “Is over the rail transport corridor of the Epping toChatswood rail line and proposes excavation or other penetration of theground to a depth of 3m or more measured vertically from the bestassessment of natural ground level as defined in State EnvironmentalPlanning Policy No. 63 – Major Transport Projects.”

• Amendments to Complying Development type - Swimming Pools and Spas–Bulk and Scale, Inground Pools to state -

- “Any excavation is not to exceed 3m below natural ground level”

- “Drawings indicate accurate RLs (relative levels) for natural groundlevel in the pool vicinity and a permanent datum to allow verification offinished levels above and below ground.”

v) NSW Rural Fire ServiceThe Rural Fire Service raised no concerns in relation to bushfire matters withinthe draft LEP and DCP provided that references to Environmentally SensitiveLands incorporated land identified on the Bush Fire Prone Land Map.

CommentsBushfire Prone Land is environmentally sensitive land.

Exempt Development can occur on land identified as Bush Fire Prone Land. However for certain types of exempt development such as garden sheds,decks, play equipment, aviaries an exemption requirement has been includedthat states: “structures consisting of highly flammable material are not to beerected on land shown as Designated Bushfire Prone Land on a map held byCouncil.”

The majority of complying development is not permissable on environmentallysensitive land. .

vi) Macquarie Shopping CentreAMP Capital’s submission was made in relation to the Macquarie ShoppingCentre. The issues raised are summarised as follows:

• Change of use in the shopping centre cannot be exempt development.

• Change of use from a shop to a shop in the shopping centre is complyingdevelopment but a change of use from office to office or between officeand shop will require a DA.


ITEM 7 (continued)

• Minor Ancillary development relating to a shop is complying developing ifthe shop has an area less than 300m2. Works to shops with a floor spaceover 300m2 require a development application.

The requirements in the draft plans are considered more restrictive than theprovisions of SEPP 60 and inconsistent with the objective to simplify thedevelopment approval process through the development categories of exemptand complying development.

The company indicated that the provisions for the Macquarie Centre should beconsistent with the other areas and centres within the City of Ryde. Theyrequested that current provisions in SEPP 60 for Minor Development, BuildingAlterations and Change of Use be incorporated into the draft DCP and LEP.

Comments The issues raised by AMP Capital are relevant. A number of amendments tothe provisions of the draft plans have been undertaken to simplify thedevelopment approval process for minor development within the Macquarieand Top Ryde shopping centres. The amendments are outlined as follows: -

• Change of use relating to shops and offices is exempt development withinthe shopping centres where the floor space of the building or part of thebuilding is not more than 200 m2. Note – uses relating to food, beautytreatments, hairdressing and skin penetration procedures are not exemptdevelopment in the Top Ryde and Macquarie shopping centres.

• Change of use of a building or part of a building relating to shops andoffices that has a floor space of not more than 2000 m2 is complyingdevelopment. Uses relating to food, beauty treatments, hairdressing andskin penetration procedures can be complying development within the TopRyde and Macquarie shopping centres.

• An additional exempt development type has been introduced to allowminor internal works such as fit outs, partitions, shelving etc to beundertaken in a building or part of a building used for retail, commercialand industrial purposes. The floor space of the premises must be less than200 m2.

• Minor internal works to a building or part of a building used for retail,commercial and industrial purposes can be complying development wherethe premises has a floor space of less than 2000 m2 .

• The deletion of s2.3 (f).

vii) Customer Service CentreThe Customer Service Centre (CSC) suggested amendments to the DCP thatrelated to:

• clarification of the use of terms and phrases to improve the interpretation ofthe controls,


ITEM 7 (continued)

• formatting and grammatical issues,

• introducing exempt development types for paving and landscaping /gardening, and

• amendments to the Complying Development conditions to ensurecompliance with recent legislative amendments.

CommentsThe matters raised by CSC have been incorporated into the DDCP.

viii) Environmental Health UnitThe Environmental Health Unit suggested the following amendments to theDDCP:

• The inclusion of a definition for minor internal alterations.

• A general provision stating that development is not exempt and complyingdevelopment where it involves a potentially hazardous industry or apotentially offensive industry. (Amendments required to cl 2.3 and 3.3).

.• The exempt development type for air conditioning units has been expanded

to apply to detached dwelling, duplex buildings, commercial/industrial andtemporary buildings. The development type does not allow the creation ofnew openings within a structure or building.

• The inclusion of the following additional development types as exemptdevelopment: -

- events, community and fundraising;- fowl houses;- mechanical services- ornamental ponds;- outdoor lighting;- solid fuel heaters;- works required by order or notice.

• The Complying Development type - Commercial /Retail Change of Use andAlterations to the Premises be amended to include hairdressing shops,beauty salons, skin penetrations and food premises.

• The Complying Development type - University be amended to include foodpremises.


ITEM 7 (continued)

• Two additional complying development types - Air Conditioning Units andMechanical Services be included in the draft DCP. These developmenttypes often relate to works involving alterations and fit out of a premises.

• The inclusion of general and specific requirements within a number of thecomplying development types that relate to waste management andcontrols for food premises and beauty treatment and hairdressing.

• The inclusion of additional complying development conditions relating towaste material, mechanical ventilation, and food premises.

Note: the majority of the issues raised by the Environmental Health Unitrelating to technical aspects were included in the DDCP prior to the plan beingplaced on exhibition.

CommentsThe DDCP has been amended to incorporate the issues raised by theEnvironmental Health Team.

House Keeping – Amendments to the DLEP and DDCP

A number of minor house keeping amendments have been made to the exhibitedDLEP and DDCP to ensure:

• consistency of the instrument with the planning scheme; • clarification of the controls;• the controls meet the relevant legislation;• appropriate requirements relate to each development type; • the complying development conditions address the development and legislative

requirements.

An outline of the key amendments is outlined as follows: -

• An additional amendment is required to Schedule 1 of the DLEP No. 116,which states: -

Omitting the words “works for the purposes of landscaping, gardening or bushfirehazard reduction” from Column II of the Table in the matter relating to zones 6(a),6(b) and 6(c).

These works are exempt development and are listed in the DCP (pages 38-39).

• The DDCP has been formatted to assist in the use of the plan and understandingthe controls.


ITEM 7 (continued)

• The DDCP has been amended to clarify the change of use provisions for lightindustry, shops and offices. The amendments state –

- Change of use relating to light industry, shops and offices is exemptdevelopment within the shopping centres where the floor space of the buildingor part of the building is not more than 200 m2.

A change of use relating to food, beauty treatments, and hairdressing and skinpenetration procedures are not exempt development.

- Change of use of a building or part of a building relating to retail andcommercial uses are complying development where the floor space of thepremises is not more than 2000 m2 .

Note:- Uses relating to food, beauty treatments, hairdressing and skinpenetration procedures can be complying development.

• A maximum floor area of 300m2 has been introduced to limit the size of a building,part of a building or structure that can be demolished under complyingdevelopment.

• Requirements relating to the Discrimination Disability Act and OccupationCertificates has been included in a number of complying development types.

• A requirement has been introduced in a number of the exempt and complyingdevelopment categories stating that the proposed development is not tocontravene any conditions that apply in respect of an existing consent applying tothe building or any part of the building.

Planning ConsiderationsA number of amendments have been made to the exhibited DDCP in order toaddress issues raised in the submissions. The amendments to the plans result incomprehensive and user friendly planning tool. It is considered the nature of theamendments to the plans do not warrant the re-exhibition of DLEP / DDCP as theintent of the controls remain unchanged.

A copy of DLEP No. 116 is ATTACHED and a copy DDCP No. 34 as amended isCIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.

Council aims to use the delegations of the Director General under s69 of the EP & AAct to submit the draft LEP to the Minister for Planning requesting that the plan bemade.

Council is currently awaiting the legal opinion from Parliamentary Counsel on whetherthe plan can legally be made.


ITEM 7 (continued)

The gazettal of the LEP will provide the City of Ryde with an exemption from SEPP60 – Exempt and Complying Development.

A Summary of Key Amendments to the Draft LEP and Draft DCP

• An amendment to the DLEP to remove landscaping, gardening and bushfirehazard reduction work from Column II of the zoning table in the 6(a)(b) and 6(c)zone. These works are categorised as exempt development within the DCP.

• The inclusion of a requirement for a new dwelling or alterations and additions to adwelling to ensure rail noise and vibration issues are addressed in the design ofthe building works.

• A requirement that development is not complying development if it relates to anitem of environmental heritage.

• A development proposing excavation to a depth of 3m or more of land within theEpping to Chatswood Rail Corridor is not exempt or complying development.

• For exempt developments such as decks, garden sheds on land that isdesignated as bushfire prone land a requirement has been introduced stating thatthe structures are not to be constructed of highly flammable material.

• Change of use relating to light industry, shops and offices is exempt developmentwhere the floor space of the building or part of the building is not more than 200m2.

Note - A change of use relating to food, beauty treatments, hairdressing and skinpenetration procedures are not exempt development.

• Change of use of a building or part of a building relating to retail and commercialuses are complying development where the floor space of the premises is notmore than 2000 m2 .

• Internal alterations to an existing industrial or warehouse building can becomplying development where the floor space of the premises is not more than2000 m2 .

• The inclusion of the following additional development types as exemptdevelopment: -

- Events – Community Fundraising- Fowl Houses - Landscaping Gardening – excludes paving and retention walls- Mechanical Services- Ornamental Pond


ITEM 7 (continued)

- Outdoor Lights- Paving- Minor Internal Works to Retail, Commercial and Business Premises – where

the floor area of the premises is not more than 200 m2 .- Solid Fuel Heaters- Works Required by Order or Notice

• The introduction of a maximum floor area (300 m2 ) of a building, part of a buildingor structure that can be demolished as complying development.

RECOMMENDATION:

(a) That draft Local Environmental Plan No. 116 - Exempt and ComplyingDevelopment as amended be adopted and forwarded to the Minister forPlanning under s69 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act with arequest that the plan be made.

(b) That draft Development Control Plan No. 34 - Exempt and ComplyingDevelopment as amended in accordance with submissions received from thepublic exhibition be adopted and a public notice of the adoption of this Plan beplaced in a local newspaper indicating that the Plan will come into effect on thegazettal of Local Environmental Plan No. 116.

Meryl Bishop Sue WeatherleyManager Strategic Planning Group Manager



ITEM 7 (continued)


ITEM 8

DECOMMISSIONING OF COUNCIL’S FORMER DEPOTS – Status Report

File No. P533.2-10 & P738.12-02

The Acting Group Manager – Public Works & Services reports 12 October 2004:

Report SummaryCouncil’s 2004-2005 Management Plan has allocated funds for the remediation of itsformer Depot sites. The former Works Depot at Parsonage Street, Ryde is to bedeveloped into a foreshore park as part of the Shepherds Bay Master Plan and theformer Parks Depot at Wellington Road, Ryde is to be returned to natural bushlandand a propagation nursery.

Due to complications associated with land ownership and costs associated with theremediation of the Parsonage Street site, it is proposed to prioritise the remediationof the Wellington Road site. However, it is proposed to proceed with a DevelopmentApplication for the Shepherds Bay Master Plan and develop a funding strategy forimplementing the project over the next few years.

It is proposed to proceed with submitting a Development Application for theremediation of the Wellington Road site and complete these works, during the currentfinancial year, from the funds allocated. The propagation nursery will require to befunded in the 2005-2006 Budget.

BackgroundThe remediation of both former Council Depots at Wellington Rd and Parsonage Stwas reported to the Public Facilities and Services Meeting on the 1 March 2004,when it was resolved: -

“That the balance of funds available for both remediation projects be carried forwardinto 2004/05 budget. “

This was in consideration of reports which detailed the level of contaminationidentified at both sites through a detailed environmental site assessment. This siteassessment was required as a condition of demolition approval. The demolition ofstructures on both sites was completed in March 2003.

Consultants, Coffey Geosciences Pty Ltd, who undertook the environmentalassessment were further commissioned to develop Remedial Action Plans (RAP) andpreliminary estimates for both sites. The lengthy lead time required for this processwas acknowledged, and it was deemed appropriate to transfer the funds to the nextfinancial year, as remedial works were not anticipated to commence.

The resulting Remedial Action Plans, estimates and property details were presentedto Council at its workshop on 17 August 2004.


ITEM 8 (continued)

Report

Parsonage Street Depot:Council’s Works Depot was established in 1948 on two (2) leaseholdings as shownon the ATTACHED plan, one controlled by the Department of Lands (Lot 840 ofDP752035) and the other controlled by the former Waterways Authority (now part ofLot 10 of DP1051607, that is owned by Council). The Remedial Action Plan for theold Works Depot site is outlined as follows: -

• Removal of underground storage tanks and remediation of associatedcontaminated soil (including off-site disposal to landfill).

• Removal of septic tanks and remediation of associated contaminated soil (if any).• Capping of the site with a minimum 0.3m thick layer of clean validated soil on

bitumen in paved areas in the upper part of the site, and a minimum 0.3m thicklayer of clean validated soil over a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) in the lower partof the site.

• Adequate validation of the above remedial activities.

The preliminary estimated costs for these remedial works is $620,000.

Both the Department of Lands and the former Waterways Authority have beenapproached to assist with a funding strategy for the remediation of the site. To datethese approaches have been unsuccessful, as generally Council is deemed to havebeen the major contributor to the contaminants since its occupation.

The Shepherds Bay Master Plan for this site also incorporates Lot 7055 in DP1065139 (known as Ryde Wharf Reserve) and Lot 7069 in DP 1058343 (known asSettlers Park), both of which are now Crown Land under the care and control ofCouncil.

Although a negative response for assistance with the remediation costs has beenreceived from the property owners of the above adjoining waterside reserves, apreliminary environmental site assessment has been undertaken by Council. Thisassessment reveals that a similar amount of contamination exists from its previousland use, which also incorporated Council activities. A preliminary cost estimate toremediate these adjoining reserves is $340,000.

The total preliminary cost estimate of remediating all parcels of land associated withthe Shepherds Bay Master Plan is $960,000.

While the terms of the lease of this land to Council are acknowledged, and that allattempts for financial contribution from the Department of Lands and the formerWaterways Authority have not been successful, it is still believed appropriate forCouncil to seek the assistance of its Local Member, The Hon John Watkins, MP,Member for Ryde, Minister for Police, in making representation on Council’s behalf togain assistance from the relevant Departments for a contribution in addition toconfirming that the Title of all land will be transferred to Council in fee simple.


ITEM 8 (continued)

To progress the implementation of the Master Plan, a Development Application (DA)needs to be submitted under SEPP 55/56. The DA would include the remediationproposals for all parcels of land. Also the proposal will require NSW Maritime’s(formerly Waterways Authority) approval, particularly in relation to the replacement ofseawalls and the installation of recreational jetties. Due to the lead time required forthe consent and approval processes it is not envisaged that any remediation workswill be commenced this financial year. A budget amount of $60,000 is consideredadequate at this stage to accommodate consultants fees and current sitemanagement costs.

It is proposed to clarify and confirm all land ownership issues and funding for theproject, including contributions from the State Government. A funding strategy willthen be developed to remediate the site and implement the Master Plan over thecoming years. This will be the subject of further report to Council.

Wellington Road Depot: The Parks Depot was established in 1974 on land leased from the Department ofPlanning (currently Department of Infrastructure, Planning & Natural Resources(DIPNR)). The Depot was located on parcels of land known as Lots 11 to 16 of DP240228 and Lot 2 of DP500228 as shown on the ATTACHED plan. The RemedialAction Plan for the old Parks Depot site is summarised as follows:-

• Remediation and validation associated with the underground storage tank (UST)in the northern corner of the site.

• Remediation and validation associated with Septic Tanks.• Removal of visible fragments of asbestos containing materials.• Stripping of fill material across the northern portion of the site and placing it in

other parts of the site.• Capping of remainder of the site.• Installation of drainage to collect and dispose of run-off.• Application of administrative controls on the embankments.• Validation of imported fill material.• Off-site disposal of soil.• Validation methodology and reporting.• Implementation of a Site Management Plan.

The preliminary estimated costs for these works are $325,000. It should be notedthat the initiative of developing a propagation nursery is at an additional cost, and willbe required for funding in the 2005-2006 Budget.

At the cessation of the lease with DIPNR, Council arranged for the demolition of thebuildings at DIPNR’s expense, in accordance with the lease conditions. Negotiationsare continuing with DIPNR to gain owner’s consent for the implementation of theWellington Road Master Plan, and formalise the transfer of the site. Council is alsorequesting a contribution from DIPNR towards the cost of the remediation as part ofthese negotiations.


ITEM 8 (continued)

The Master Plan for Wellington Rd proposes that the site be divided, along existingfolio boundaries, to provide for a component of approximately 4,480m2, to form partof the Field of Mars Reserve as Community Land (Lots 14 – 16 in DP 240228 and Lot2 in DP 500228) and the residual, of approximately 2,870m2, being utilised as aCouncil propagation nursery and held as Operational Land (Lots 11 – 13 in DP240228).

As the Field of Mars Reserve is to be placed under its own Plan of Management, it isbelieved that the separation of the areas will ensure that there is no conflict betweenthe operations of the Reserve and that of the nursery.

The remedial action plan for the Wellington Road site requires development consentunder SEPP 55/56. Consent will be dependent on a Department of Environment &Conservation (DEC) accredited auditor’s approval of a detailed design, specificationand Site Environmental Plan. These details are currently being finalised and theauditor’s approval is pending. It is proposed that following approval, a developmentapplication be submitted immediately so that remediation works can be undertakenthis financial year.

It is proposed that the cost of establishing the propagation nursery be funded in the2005/06 Management Plan

Financial ImpactThe decommissioning of both the Parsonage Street and Wellington Roads sites areincluded in the 2004-2005 Management plan, with an allocation of $438,00 fundedfrom the Depot Reserve. This report has indicated that the anticipated funds requiredto be expended in 2004-2005 will be as follows:

Wellington Road (remediation) = $325,000Parsonage Street (DA Submission) = $ 60,000Expenditure 2004/05 = $385,000

It should be noted that the propagation nursery at Wellington Road will need to be aconsideration in the 2005-2006 Budget. This expenditure, together with Council’srecent decision to fund an additional amount for the S.E.S. Depot, will bring theestimated balance of the Reserve to $20,000.

RECOMMENDATION:

(a) That the report of the Acting Group Manager – Public Works & Services dated12 October 2004, concerning decommissioning of Council’s former Depots bereceived and noted.

(b) That the actions proposed in the report for the Shepherds Bay Master Plan beendorsed and a further report be provided to Council on the proposedShepherds Bay funding strategy.


ITEM 8 (continued)

(c) That the actions proposed for the remediation of Council’s former Parks Depotsite at Wellington Road be endorsed noting that these works will be chargedagainst funds available in the 2004-2005 Management Plan.

(d) That negotiations continue with the Department of Infrastructure, Planning andNatural Resources in relation to obtaining a contribution towards theremediation cost for the Wellington Road site and securing of its Title.

(e) That Council seek the support of its Local State Member, The Hon JohnWatkins, MP, Member for Ryde, Minister for Police, in making representationsto gain a contribution to the remediation of the Parsonage Street Depot site andadjoining land as part of the Shepherds Bay Master Plan and to have all landtransferred to the City of Ryde in fee simple.

Barry Hodge Roy NewsomeActing Group Manager Group ManagerPublic Works & Services Corporate Services


ITEM 8 (continued)


ITEM 9

HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE – Minutes 01/04

File No. S8296

The Manager Strategic Planning reports dated 13 October 2004:

Report SummaryThis report advises Council of the outcomes of Heritage Advisory Committee meeting01/04 held on 18 August 2004.

ReportThe Minutes of this meeting and the draft Responsibilities and Procedures for theCommittee are ATTACHED.

The draft Responsibilities and Procedures will be finalised by the Committee at itsmeeting on 20 October 2004.

Financial ImpactNo financial impacts are associated with the recommendations of this report.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Minutes of the City of Ryde Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting 01/04held on 18 August 2004 be received and noted.

Meryl Bishop Sue WeatherleyManager Strategic Planning Group Manager



ITEM 9 (continued)


ITEM 10

PUBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES COMMITTEE’S REPORT NO.15/04 – Items notdetermined by the Committee under delegated authority

The Manager Executive and Customer Services reports 14 October 2004:

ReportDue to the Local Government Association Conference being held in Armidalebetween Sunday 24 October 2004 and Wednesday 27 October 2004 the Councilmeeting scheduled for Tuesday 26 October 2004 has been cancelled.

Therefore, items not determined by the Public Facilities & Services Committee at itsmeeting No.15/04, 19 October 2004, will be referred by the Chairperson at the PublicFacilities & Services Committee to the Committee of the Whole for consideration.

RECOMMENDATION:

For the Committee’s consideration.

Evan HutchingsManager Executive and Customer Services


ITEM 11

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE’S REPORT NO.15/04 – Items not determined bythe Committee under delegated authority

The Manager Executive and Customer Services reports 14 October 2004:

ReportDue to the Local Government Association Conference being held in Armidalebetween Sunday 24 October 2004 and Wednesday 27 October 2004 the Councilmeeting scheduled for Tuesday 26 October 2004 has been cancelled.

Therefore, items not determined by the Development Committee at its meetingNo.15/04, 19 October 2004, will be referred by the Chairperson of the DevelopmentCommittee to the Committee of the Whole for consideration.

RECOMMENDATION:

For the Committee’s consideration.

Evan HutchingsManager Executive and Customer Services


ITEM 12 CONFIDENTIAL

PROSECUTION FOR MISLEADING INFORMATION

File No. PCA03/180

The Group Manager, Environmental Planning Reports 1 October 2004:

Confidential ItemPursuant to Section 10(A)(2)(g) of the Local Government Act 1993, this item is listedas confidential as it contains advice concerning litigation, or advice that wouldotherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legalprofessional privilege. It is further considered that discussion of this matter is openmeeting would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest as it would prejudiceCouncil’s position in this matter.


ITEM 13 LATE ITEM

NORTH RYDE COMMON – Status of Trees

FILE NO: S8544-03 and S7689

The Manager – Urban Landscape Facilities & Services reports 19 October 2004:

Report SummaryTo advise of further analysis and inspection undertaken on the trees at North RydeCommon. It is recommended that removal of barriers to all but twenty trees beundertaken following removal of dead wood or structural defects in the trees and thatfurther analysis be undertaken in respect to the twenty most at risk trees.

BackgroundAt its meeting of 14 September 2004, Council resolved in relation to the trees atNorth Ryde Common

(a) That the report of the Manager Urban Landscape Facilities & Services dated23 August 2004 concerning the status of the trees at North Ryde Commonnominated for inclusion on the Significant Tree Register be received and noted.

(b) That the land owners of North Ryde Common be approached to assist with theurgent works required to be undertaken on thirty-six trees in category one –dead, declining or otherwise hazardous.

(c) That a further report be submitted following the estimate of anticipated costsand funding strategies involved in remedial works to the trees using Visual TreeAssessment Stage 2 (Resistograph Reading) following which any furtherpruning works required on the trees in category two and three be undertaken ona progressive basis.

(d) That TAFE students be invited to undertake pruning or removal of trees on thesite as part of their training course subject to constant supervision by a teacherqualified in arboricultural work.

(e) That the trees located in North Ryde Common not be listed on the SignificantTree Register until a full assessment of costs and remedial treatment has beencarried out.

(f) That the category one trees be identified through the placing of tape around thetrunk of those trees.

(g) That signage be provided in North Ryde Common informing the public of thereasons why the tape has been placed around the trunk of the trees.

ReportDetailed assessment of the one hundred and thirty seven (137) trees identified in thereport of the Sugar Factory (previously circulated to Councillors), has beenundertaken by Council Officers. Inspection of each tree was undertaken by a teamcomprising the City’s Manager Urban Landscape Facilities and Services, AssetManager Urban Landscape Facilities and Services, Co-Ordinator Tree ManagementUrban Landscape Facilities and Services, Tree Management Officer UrbanLandscape Services and Capital Works / Arborist Co-Ordinator Urban Landscapes.


ITEM 13 (continued) LATE ITEM

The investigations have identified that the majority of the trees require some remedialwork, but not the removal of as many trees as first feared. A copy of the table ofassessment of each tree requiring works is ON FILE.

It was the opinion of the assessment team that twenty of the trees inspectedpresented serious structural defects likely to require removal. It is recommended thatthese trees be the subject of further scrutiny by the City’s Consulting Arborist inrelation to their requirement to be removed. At this stage it is recommended that thebarricades around these trees remain until the further assessment is made for thepurpose of public safety.

In relation to the remaining trees, it is recommended that remedial pruning beundertaken immediately and the trees made safe, after which the surroundingbarricades will be removed.

Management of the trees will require ongoing assessment and minor pruning asfurther deterioration occurs, as some of the trees will continue to decline. However itis recommended that de-compaction of the ground surrounding the trees be carriedout via aeration of the ground within the drip line. This will assist root growth andenable penetration of water in the critical zones around the trees. Due to the stressbeing experienced by many of the trees, the application of fertilisers or soilconditioners are at this stage not recommended until the soil has been de-compactedand becomes re-hydrated.

A number of the more highly stressed trees will benefit from the creation of mulchedgarden beds extending to the width of their canopy. This proposed action is indicatedon the above assessment table. This will also provide an elevated level of safety byproviding a buffer in the event of limb failure for these higher risk trees. Subject to theArborist’s findings in relation to the twenty highest risk trees, replacement trees wouldbe reinstated in mulched beds to replace the canopy and habitat in the long term.

Financial ImpactIn relation to seeking funding assistance from the NSW Health AdministrationCorporation, correspondence has been sent and the Corporation is considering aresponse. Long term involvement of TAFE to undertake management practices inconjunction with course work is still being negotiated. Immediate works will howeverneed to be funded from the existing maintenance budget for North Ryde Common. The cost of the remedial works only has been estimated at $15,000.


ITEM 13 (continued) LATE ITEM

RECOMMENDATION:

(a) That the report of the Manager Urban Landscape Facilities & Services dated19 October 2004 concerning the status of trees at North Ryde Common bereceived and noted.

(b) That removal of dead wood or structural defects in selected trees be undertakenand the barriers be removed at this time.

(c) That a further analysis be undertaken by Council’s Consultant Arborist, inrespect to the twenty most at risk trees which will remain barricaded, and that afurther report be presented on this matter.

(d) That immediate works be funded from the existing maintenance budget forNorth Ryde Common at an estimated cost of $15,000.

Anthony Powe Barry HodgeManager Acting Group ManagerUrban Landscape Facilities & Services Public Works & Services

Karl CotterAsset Management Officer

Urban Landscape Facilities & Services

Richard BullCo-ordinator Tree Management

Urban Landscape Facilities & Services

committee of the whole agenda no 9/04, 19 october 2004 · sue weatherley sam cappelli group manager...

Documents