Agenda of Council Meeting - 5 September 2016

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 5 September 2016 Page 2

Environment and Planning

Item: CCL059-16 Status of Compliance with Court Orders - 84D Roberts Avenue, Mortdale

Author: Manager Building Assessment, Michael Alexander and Acting Director Planning & Environmental Services, Rod Logan

Directorate: Environment and Planning Directorate

Matter Type: Environment and Planning

Recommendation

(a) That the report on the status of compliance with Court Orders at 84D Roberts Avenue, Mortdale be received and noted.

Executive Summary

1. 84D Roberts Ave, Mortdale (Site) consists of a multi-storey commercial development with basement parking. Upon the Site and immediately westwards lies a natural open creek and riparian zone that transfers drainage waters to the Georges River. Unauthorised landfilling and non-compliant drainage works have been carried on the site and Council has previously taken Class 4 & 5 Land & Environment Court proceedings.

2. Consent Orders were entered into on 25 July 2014 following Council enforcement proceedings for unauthorised building works and breaches of development consent. The Orders were subject to mediation and were amended and finalised on 24 July 2015.

3. There are currently development and amended s68 (Local Government Act) variation applications before Council seeking approval for remedial works. These works are required to be carried out in accordance with the independent site auditor’s (SA) recommendations. The applications are currently being assessed by Council and following assessment and endorsement, the approved works will be required to be carried out in accordance with the Court Orders.

4. This report details compliance by the respondents with the Court Orders and matters outstanding.

Background

5. Council granted development consent for the construction of a supermarket and shops on the site on 16 December 2009. Works commenced in May 2012 and during routine inspection of the site under construction in 2013, Council Officers observed unauthorised building works consisting of land filling and non-compliant stormwater drainage.

6. During the course of further inspections loose piece asbestos cement fibre materials were observed on site. In 2013, Council commenced Class 4 Land & Environment Court proceedings seeking Orders to remediate the site. In July 2015 following a compulsory mediation, consent orders were finalised and issued for the remedial works to be carried out.

7. The orders set out a regime for a remedial action plan (RAP) and are attached. The RAP requires substantial development works necessitating a new development application for retaining walls, earthworks, contamination and vegetation works and an amended section 68 application for alterations to the stormwater drainage system.

8. Essentially the orders require the developer to do the following within specific timeframes:

(a) The Respondents appoint an independent SA and the SA provide an agreed Sampling, Analysis and Quality Plan (SAQP) to him/her for approval;

(b) After approval of the SAQP by the SA, carry out testing etc;

(c) Prepare a draft remedial action plan (RAP) after considering the results of the testing, and submit the draft to Council for comment;

(d) Submit the final RAP to the site auditor after comment by Council;

(e) On approval of the RAP by the site auditor:

i. Prepare and lodge with Council a development application and a modified section 68 application relating to stormwater drainage works, works within the water course, reconstruction of block walls, modification to pipelines, decontamination of soils, works required by the vegetation management plan (VPR) and bush regeneration.

ii. Within 5 weeks of the DA and section 68 approval, the respondents shall carry out retaining wall and drainage works

iii. Within 4-8 weeks of completion of retaining wall and drainage works, cause the contamination works to be carried out

iv. Within 3 weeks of completion of the contamination works, obtain a validation report from the SA

v. Within 4 weeks of completion of the contamination works, carry out vegetation works.

vi. Vegetation works are to be continually maintained for a period of 2 years.

9. Prior to approval of the development application and amended section 68 application for remedial works, temporary measures rendering the site safe for use have been implemented. The temporary works are inspected on a weekly basis by an independent consultant attesting to the adequacy for use.

10. Court proceedings, fines and costs: Council commenced a Class 5 environmental prosecution in the Land & Environment Court for breaches of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) and the Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act) in December 2014. The matter was heard by the Court in February 2016 with judgment handed down in March 2016.

11. The Defendants pleaded guilty and were both found guilty of offences against the Protection of the Environment Operations Act and ordered each to pay the Council $42,000 and costs of $70,000 ie $84,000 fines and $140,000 costs (Total $224,000). The costs awarded to Council in the Class 4 proceedings totalled $170,000. Total fines and costs for both class 4 and 5 proceedings amounted to $394,000.00.These fines and costs have been paid.

Operational Plan Budget

12. Within budget allocation.

File Reference

LA13/10, LA14/22

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

L&E Court Orders - 84D Roberts Ave Mortdale

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 5 September 2016 Page 11

Item: CCL060-16 Heritage Grants Program

Author: Senior Planner, Rebecca Lau

Directorate: Environment and Planning Directorate

Matter Type: Environment and Planning

Recommendation

a) That $50,000 be allocated for a Heritage Grants Program that includes Heritage Building Grants and Heritage Publication Grants to encourage the retention and maintenance of properties with heritage significance, and to promote conservation values within the Georges River LGA.

Executive Summary

1. The purpose of this report is to seek approval for the establishment of a Georges River Council Heritage Grants program which includes Heritage Building Grants and Heritage Publication Grants.

2. Under the Heritage Building Grants program, owners and agents of heritage listed buildings in Kogarah LEP 2012, Hurstville LEP 1994 and Hurstville LEP 2012 would be eligible for financial assistance for specific restoration or conservation works on their property.

3. Under the Heritage Publication Grants program, authors may apply for funds to publish original works or important primary sources that contribute to the information and education of the public about the heritage of the Georges River Council LGA.

4. The Georges River Council Heritage Grants program aims to directly encourage the retention and maintenance of properties that have heritage significance, and promote and celebrate our community’s local heritage.

Background

5. It is proposed that Council establish an annual Heritage Grants program to assist in the promotion and protection of the area’s local heritage. Local heritage listing of individual heritage items is essentially for a local community benefit, providing a visual representation of development trends in the locality, over time, and deepening our community identity and sense of place. Grant programs are an effective means of promoting conservation values to owners, and the community generally, and provide an opportunity for Council and the community to offset the burden of caring for our local heritage items.

Heritage Building Grants

6. Heritage building grants benefit property owners and managers and foster a positive relationship between the wider community and Council in the following ways:

· encourage good heritage conservation works and well-maintained property;

· encourage good urban design and well-designed adaptive reuse, sympathetic alterations and additions; and infill developments for heritage buildings and items;

· support sustainability and heritage tourism; and

· encourage works to heritage places get done because funding is provided on a contributory basis.

7. Within the Georges River LGA there are over 300 properties listed in the Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) applying within the LGA.

8. Under the program it is proposed that owners of a property listed as a heritage item, in one of Council’s three (3) LEPs may be eligible for grant funding for specific restoration or conservation works on their property under the Heritage Building Grants. Generally these works are limited to small conservation projects or extraordinary maintenance requirements. Examples of works previously funded by the former Kogarah Council’s Heritage Grants program include repointing of brickwork, roof restoration works, re-painting exteriors of dwellings and restorative work to timber windows.

9. It is recommended that a budget of $45,000 be allocated to the program, which is proposed to run annually. Grants may range from $100 to a maximum of $10,000 and funding is provided on a dollar to dollar basis up to a maximum of 50% of the project value.

10. Applicants will be requested to make submissions in writing giving a detailed outline of the works proposed, including sketches if warranted, and an outline schedule of costs. Works should be able to be completed before the end of that current financial year. The Applicant Guidelines for Heritage Building Grants is included as an annexure to this report.

11. Grant applications will be managed and assessed by Council’s Strategic Planning team in conjunction with Council’s Heritage Advisor who will assist in assessing, recommending and approving suitable projects for funding.

Heritage Publication Grants

12. Heritage Publication Grants support the promotion of publications relevant to the history and development of the Georges River Council area.

13. Financial assistance is offered for the publication of historical works of sufficiently high standard for:

a) Original research submitted by their authors or copyright holders.

b) Items of primary source material relevant to the Georges River area.

14. The Heritage Publication Grants would be limited to a budget of $5,000. The Applicant Guidelines for Heritage Publication Grants is included as an annexure to this report.

15. Applicants will be required to demonstrate their project contributes to the community’s understanding, and enjoyment of local history. Grant applications will be examined and assessed by an internal working group consisting of Council’s Heritage Advisor, Local Studies Librarians, and Community and Cultural Development Officers. The working group may also seek advice from an adviser/s with specialist knowledge of the subject area to help inform its decision.

16. Publications may be in the form of books, booklets, e-books, or online. It is expected that any online publication will be made accessible through Trove, the National Library’s online content aggregation system.

Promotion of the Heritage Grant Programs

17. It is recommended that applications for the Heritage Grant Program open annually in August/September. Applications will be recorded, processed and assessed in the same way annually for consistency and transparency.

18. The following consultation plan is proposed for the promotion of the Heritage Grants Program:

· Owners of heritage listed items will be notified by mail of the Heritage Building Grants and invited to make submissions.

· Heritage Grants program will be announced on Council’s website and in Council’s newsletter.

· Promotional materials will be displayed in Council’s libraries.

· Letters will be sent to interested local community groups (e.g. historical societies).

· An email list will be complied from enquiries for funding received throughout the year.

Reporting

19. A summary report of submissions and recommended successful projects will be reported annually to Council. The assessment, managing and reporting process of this program will be the responsibility of Strategic Planning Unit.

20. Successful applicants will be notified by mail and the funding offer package will include a covering letter, a project funding agreement, standard conditions and any project specific conditions.

21. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified by mail and informed about other current and future funding opportunities.

Conclusion

22. It is recommended that Council establish a Heritage Grants program consisting of Heritage Building Grants and Heritage Publication Grants with a total amount of $35,000 being allocated annually.

23. The Heritage Grants program aims to encourage the retention and maintenance of properties that have heritage significance, and promote and celebrate our community’s local heritage.

24. The Program aligns with Georges River Council Operational Plan 2016-17 under Theme 2 - Planning, Regulatory and Environmental, Action 2.27 - Encourage the retention and maintenance of properties that have heritage significance or are within a Heritage Conservation Area.

Operational Plan Budget

25. This program is proposed to be funded by allocating the current budgeted funds ($15,000) from the former Kogarah City Council and from a reallocation of programmed funds from the former Hurstville City Council Strategic Planning Unit following cost centres:

· Heritage Assessment - Consultants (Cost centre 2515.62404): $5,000

· Comprehensive LEP - Professional Services (Cost centre 2535.62412): $30,000

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1	Guidelines for Heritage Building Grants
Attachment View2	Guidelines for Heritage Publication Grants

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 5 September 2016 Page 19

Item: CCL061-16 2-10 Woniora Road, Hurstville - Covenant

Author: Manager Planning and Development, George Andonoski

Directorate: Environment and Planning

Matter Type: Environment and Planning

Recommendation

(a) That Council agree to the removal of the Restriction as to User, which limited the maximum floor space area for Lot 101 DP 773278 and SP 33174 (formally Lot 102 DP 773278), subject to a formal application being made to Council to release and extinguish the easement.

(b) The release and extinguishment of the Restriction as to User not being reliant on the submission of a Development Application for the site or the Gazettal of the New Kogarah LEP 2012.

(c) That delegation is given to the Acting General Manager to execute the formal application on behalf of the Council for the release and extinguishment of the Restriction as to User.

Executive Summary

1. The above sites were burdened with a covenant in 1988 which restricted the floor space ratio of the subject site and their development potential. This was imposed to compensate for additional floor space given to the adjoining site and redevelopment for the Australian Taxation Office. The restricted floor space was to accommodate the existing buildings on each lot. Over time, there have been a number of changes to the Kogarah Planning Scheme going from KLEP 20, to KLEP 1998 and finally KLEP 2012. There is also a current Draft LEP with the Department for final approval allowing a significant increase in FSR and height for this location. The purchasers of the site are seeking Council’s position in relation to the removal of the restriction as to user.

Background

2. The property at 2-10 Woniora Road, Hurstville was recently put up for sale through an Expression of Interest campaign. The sites consist of two (2) commercial buildings. One building sits on Lot 101 DP 773278 and the other building sits on SP 33174 (Lots 1-9) and was previously known as Lot 102 DP 773278 prior to its strata subdivision in May 1998.

3. Through this sale process it has been discovered that these two lots are burdened by a Restriction as to User Covenant placed upon the titles of the Lots in February 1988. The terms of the restriction are as follows:

“No building will be erected upon Lots 101 and 102 having a floor space (excluding driveways, car parking spaces, external stairs, landscape areas and voids) in excess of the following:-

Maximum floor space area for all buildings erected on Lot 101 - 622 square metres

Maximum floor space area for all building s erected on Lot 102 - 855 square metres

4. It is intended by the imposition of this covenant to permit the development of the land surrounded by the Illawarra Railway Line, Woniora Road, Greenbank Street and Ormonde Parade, Hurstville after the excision therefrom by transfer of Lots 101 and 102 in accordance with the provisions of Kogarah Local Environmental Plan No. 20 as if such excision by transfer had not taken place and to facilitate the development of the balance of the said land excluding Lots 101 and 102 on the basis of a gross floor area ratio of up to 4:1 for the whole of the land bounded by the Illawarra Railway Line, Woniora Road, Greenbank Street and Ormonde Parade as aforesaid notwithstanding the transfer of ownership of Lots 101 and 102, but taking into account buildings erected upon Lots 101 and 102.”

5. The balance of the said land, referred to in the terms of the restriction, is the land that had been redeveloped for a six (6) storey commercial building, with three levels of basement parking comprising of 230 parking spaces and a public car park with 79 spaces. The building was occupied by the Australian Taxation Office following its construction.

6. It appears that the purpose of the covenant was to allow the floor space area for all lots bounded by the Illawarra Railway Line, Woniora Rd, Greenbank St and Ormonde Parade to be concentrated onto the residual lot (excluding Lots 101 and 102) to allow for the construction of the higher density commercial building.

7. The floor area permitted on Lots 101 and 102 as listed in the covenant was to accommodate the existing commercial buildings that were located on each lot.

8. Lot 101 has a site area of approximately 1183 sqm and is restricted to a development of 622 sqm, which represents a floor space ratio of 0.52:1.

9. Lot 102 has a site area of approximately 1002 sqm and is restricted to a development of 855 sqm, which represents a floor space ratio of 0.85:1.

10. The development of the residual lot for the six storey commercial building was on a lot with a site area of 5,564sqm with an approximate building floor area of 14,000sqm. This represented a floor space ration of 2.5:1.

11. At the time of the imposition of the Covenant, Kogarah Local Environmental Plan 20 (KLEP 20) was the applicable planning instrument. Since that time, this has been superseded by KLEP 1998 and more recently KLEP 2012.

12. Kogarah LEP 2012 does not contain any standards in relation to floor space ratio and height controls for these sites.

13. The site is identified as Block 32, within Section E2 – Hurstville Town Centre of the Kogarah Development Control Plan 2013 (KDCP). The DCP is silent on Block 32 and there are no controls for this site.

14. Council, through the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP), recently approved the demolition of the former ATO site for a new mixed use development of up to 16 stories in height, a total floor area of 26,671 sqm and an approved floor space ratio of 4.79:1. This application was also accompanied by a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA).

15. Under the Draft LEP (New City Plan) the zoning of the site does not change from B4 Mixed Use and will include height and floor space ratio controls of 39m and 4.5:1 respectively.

Proposal

16. As initially stated, the property was up for sale by expression of interest and the preferred purchaser has contacted Council in relation to the Restrictions on the site and Council’s position in relation to the removal of this restriction. They have provided a legal opinion from Mark Green of Pykes & Verekers Lawyers who states “It is a logical conclusion that the 88B Private Covenant is, with the effluxion of time, redundant…….” Their full submission is included in the appendices to the report.

17. The covenant is a restriction and impediment on the orderly redevelopment of the site and contrary to the objectives of the zone and future planning direction for this precinct. It is clear that with the evolution of time and the redevelopment of the adjoining site (former taxation office) that this restriction has no relevance to the current planning controls applicable to the site.

18. Clause 1.9A of KLEP 2012 – Suspension of covenants, agreement and instruments states that any agreement, covenant or other similar instrument that restricts the carrying out of development that is otherwise permissible under the provisions of the LEP or with consent granted under the Act, does not apply to the extent necessary to serve that purpose. However, the above does not apply to covenants imposed by the Council or that the Council requires. As such, the covenant cannot be simply dismissed during the assessment of an application and needs to be removed from title of each lot.

19. The removal of the covenant does not affect the zoning of the site or increase the development potential of the site to what is anticipated under the provisions of the Draft LEP. The objectives of the zone and permitted use are what will drive the type of redevelopment. Its removal will provide more clarity and certainty for the purchaser of the land and their preparation of a Development Application for the site in terms of bulk and scale.

20. Any application for the redevelopment of the site will still be required to address the objectives of the site, the current and proposed controls under the Draft LEP (New City Plan) and be in context with the surrounding developments. A subsequent development application will be subject to a full detailed assessment by Council.

21. In this regard, it is recommended that Council agree to the removal of the restriction subject to a formal application being made to Council to enable the site to be redeveloped to its potential and future desired character of the locality.

Operational Plan Budget

22. No budget impact for this report.

File Reference

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Submission from Purchaser

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 5 September 2016 Page 29

Item: CCL062-16 Future Management of Companion Animals seized and impounded within Georges River Council LGA

Author: Manager Environmental Health & Regulatory Services, Jason Kneipp

Directorate: Environment and Planning

Matter Type: Environment and Planning

Recommendation

(a) That the creation of a new Companion Animal Policy be endorsed.

(b) That the Sydney Dogs and Cats Home (SDCH) continue to be utilised as an animal impounding/rehoming facility, until such time as the Home ceases trading or upon the establishment of a replacement facility, whichever occurs first.

(c) That ongoing support be provided to the SDCH in their efforts to relocate to a suitable site that will enable that organisation to continue its exemplary service to the community.

(d) That Council construct a holding facility at Council’s Carlton Depot for the temporary detainment of companion animals.

(e) That Council commence negotiations to enter into a long term agreement with Sutherland Shire Council (SSC) for the use of the Sutherland Shire Animal Shelter as an animal impounding/rehoming facility.

(f) That quotes be obtained for an external veterinary practitioner, as a means of providing a pre-impounding assessment service for cats seized within the Georges River area.

Executive Summary

1. This report is to seek Council’s support to alter management practices in relation to companion animals that are seized and impounded within the Georges River Council area. The impending redevelopment of the premises currently housing Council’s animal impounding/rehoming facility presents significant risks to the organisation should an alternate solution not be available. To minimise these risks an alternate solution has been identified that will place Council in a strong, long term position with respect to the management of animals.

Background

2. Council has a long and proud history of utilising and supporting SDCH, located on the corner of Princes Highway and Edward Street, Carlton. SDCH has provided a high level impounding and rehoming service for Hurstville and Kogarah Councils and well as many other Sydney based Councils during this time. These relationships with SDCH stretch back to July 1966 and have focussed on and succeeded in, providing the best possible care for seized and impounded animals.

3. Given the longevity of this relationship and SDCH’s urgent need to relocate, it is with reluctance that Council is now forced to seek an alternate arrangement for an animal impounding/rehoming facility.

4. The owner of the premises on which SDCH is located has indicated an intention to redevelop the land once the new LEP is adopted. The uncertainty of SDCH’s long term future places Councils utilising the facility in a precarious position should the owner issue a notice to vacate.

5. Contracts between Council and SDCH expired on 5 December 2013. Since the expiration of these contracts Council has attempted to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with SDCH to continue this relationship; unfortunately, they have declined to enter into such an agreement. As such Council has neither contractual obligations or any other form of legal protection should SDCH be forced to close.

6. The risks to Council in continuing with this relationship are numerous and significant. The expectation of the community with respect to the provision of services in this area must also be considered. Council is required to provide an animal impounding facility to house animals seized and impounded within the Georges River Council area. Failure to provide such a facility would result in Council failing to meet its basic obligations under the Companion Animals Act 1998.

7. To ensure that the future management and care needs of companion animals in the Georges River Council area is assured an alternate arrangement must be secured. Such an arrangement would unfortunately result in Council ceasing to utilise SDCH as an animal impounding/rehoming facility.

8. The proposed process for managing companion animals is comprised of a series of actions commencing with an overarching policy position being developed (Companion Animals Policy) and actions to secure a new impound/rehoming facility and temporary holding facility on Council land.

9. Despite the fact that Council would be utilising an alternate facility for the impounding/rehoming of animals, the ability remains for Council to continue to support SDCH into the future via avenues such as community grants programmes and support through education programs should they be available.

Proposed Companion Animal Policy

10. Given the significant shift in current practices it is prudent that a Companion Animals Policy be created to reflect a strong animal welfare focus to animal owners and other residents of Georges River.

11. The Policy, which is currently under the final stages of drafting and will be presented to a future Council meeting, will outline Council’s methods for managing these animals and provide residents with details as to how these animals will be handled by the organisation in future.

12. The separation of companion animals into two processing streams (cats and dogs) will be explained in detail within the Policy. These proposed actions are designed to increase the rates of animals returned to their owners without the need for the animal to be formally impounded whilst also enabling Council to maximise rehoming rates for all other animals delivered to the animal impounding/rehoming facility.

Short Term Holding Facility

13. The facility is proposed to hold a seized animal up until Council staff are able to identify and contact the owner of the dog. Once this has occurred Council will ensure the safe return of the dog. Should the owner of a dog not be located, within 24-48 hours, the animal will be delivered to Council’s impounding/rehoming facility for rehoming after 14 days if it bears identification or 7 days if not identified.

14. This construction of this facility is aimed at maximising the return rate of dogs to owners whilst also minimising stress to the animal and its owner during the seizure process. Having a localised short term holding facility will enable Rangers to have a greater opportunity to locate the owner of the animal, even if it is not identified, without the need to deliver the animal to an impounding facility.

15. Many dog owners are unaware of their animals escape until Council contacts them and the provision of this facility will enable Council to return animal when the owner returns home, rather than them waiting until the impounding facility opens to the public the following day.

16. The facility is to be located within Council’s Carlton Depot and will built in accordance with Department of Primary Industries and RSPCA recommendations, that will ensure that animals are kept in a safe and healthy environment

Sutherland Shire Animal Shelter

17. Given the timeframe for SDCH to remain at its current location is unknown, Council has undertaken a search for potential future partners for the provision of an impounding facility that are capable now, or in the short term future, of receiving animals from Georges River Council.

18. Preliminary discussions have been held with SSC regarding the possibility of utilising their Animal Shelter at Taren Point. As a result of these discussions Georges River Council has been offered an opportunity to join the shelter as a partner, alongside both the City of Sydney Council and SSC.

19. Current euthanasia rates at the shelter are amongst the lowest in NSW and have been for several years. Figures for the 2015/16 financial year alone were 2.8% (cats) and 1.4% (dogs). These figures reflect the shelter’s aim of finding a home for all of the animals that enter the facility. The shelter is supported by a volunteer force of 55 people who provide daily interaction, care and exercise for all animals.

20. The utilisation of this facility would form the final stage of Council’s management process for the seizure/impounding of companion animals. This facility has an outstanding reputation in NSW and is a facility that both Council and the residents of Georges River can be proud to be associated with into the future.

External Veterinary Contractor

21. The introduction of an independent qualified veterinary surgeon into the process for the seizure and impounding of cats is designed to ensure that the health and wellbeing of the animals is maintained at all times.

22. Identified cats will be held at the veterinary surgery for a maximum of 24-48 hours to enable Council to locate and contact the owner of the animal. Once this has been undertaken the animal will be reunited with its owner.

23. As part of this process the veterinary surgeon will undertake a pre impoundment assessment to determine whether or not an unidentified animal poses a threat to the remaining animal population through disease or lack of domestication.

24. To maximise the return to owner rate of unidentified seized cats; and to ensure that only those cats deemed suitable by a qualified veterinary surgeon, be delivered to Council’s impounding/rehoming facility, all unidentified cats will pass through this process.

Cost Analysis

Current expenditure:

25. The monies outlaid by Council for the impounding/rehoming of companion animals over the past 2 years was $134,877.60 (2014/15) and $119,779* (2015/16) respectively. This equates to an average spend of $127,328* per annum.

(*some information was not available at the time of this report, this figure is based upon the information available as at 17.8.16).

Proposed expenditure:

Sutherland Shire Animal Shelter

26. SSC has provided the following estimates for the construction of additional facilities and also the annual fee it proposes to establish should Georges River Council elect to utilise the animal shelter. All figures are based on an estimate of 300 seizures per annum.

27. It should be noted that these estimates are based on figures resulting from the last improvement at the shelter that occurred in 2009.

28. In order to provide for 300 animals, Sutherland would require a facility upgrade of approximately 10-12 dog kennels and 15 Cat Condos (Cages). The costs are as follows:-

(a) $160,000 for kennel/cattery construction. This estimate is based on Sutherland’s current besser block and existing construction;

(b) $100,000 as an improvement and infrastructure fee. As part of the development of the Animal Shelter, to refresh the facility and to increase the aesthetics of the existing shelter facilities, an upgrade/refurbishment would be undertaken. The current level of service provision was provided for by City of Sydney Council who also utilise this facility. The upgrade would be seen as improving the culture and perceptions of the animal shelter as a facility where the success of the re-homing and low euthanasia rates are in line with those of a state of the art animal shelter; and

(c) $120,000 p.a. as the annual service fee covers cost of staff, (estimate 2), sustenance of animals, and cleaning of the facility to a standard no less than that prescribed by the Department of Primary Industries Animal Shelter Guidelines (Please note these are currently in DRAFT and legislation may increase or decrease shelter requirements).

NB: Items a) & b) are one off costs, which are capitalised with the revenue to offset the 20 year agreement.

29. For Georges River Council to enter the facility, SSC requests entering into a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ that allows both organisations to commit time, energy and resources to progressing the project, should Council wish to proceed.

30. Veterinary care for animals would be the responsibility of Georges River Council. In order to ensure the lowest price is provided for veterinary fees and charges, SSC recommends that Georges River Council undertakes a tender process along with SSC and the City of Sydney Councils to ensure maximum economies of scale are achieved for all parties.

31. (Reference figure for previous veterinary figures: based on estimates provided by SSC costs of approximately $17,000 in shelter provided veterinary fees may apply annually for the service to GRC).

Engaging a local veterinarian to provide a pre impounding assessment service for cats

32. A preliminary quote has indicated figures in the vicinity of:-

Assessment and handling fee: $40 per animal

Boarding: $20 per animal/per day

Euthanasia: $50 per animal

Disposal: $2.50 per kg

Construction of a holding facility at Council’s Carlton Depot

33. Discussions with Council’s Buildings & Facilities Officer indicate that the construction of a facility would cost $20,000 as a maximum.

34. Annual running costs including, food, power, water etc. would be approximately $2,000 - $3,000

First year cost of this proposal:-

Construction of Facility	$160,000
Improvement & infrastructure Fee	100,000
Annual service fee	120,000
Shelter veterinary fees	17,000
External veterinary service	34,500
Construction of holding facility	20,000
Running Cost of holding facility	3,000
Total	$454,500

35. As the above relates solely to the provision of a public service it is anticipated that the above expenditure could be funded from contributions that are proposed to be collected through introduction of a Section 94A contributions Plan to the whole of the Georges River Council area. Such a contribution currently applies in the Kogarah Bay and Blakehurst Wards. The establishment of the Section 94 Contributions Plan is subject of a separate report to Council.

Ongoing Annual Costs:-

Annual service fee	$120,000
Shelter veterinary fees	17,000
External veterinary service	34,500
Running cost of holding facility	3,000
Total	$174,500

(*total will be adjusted annually in accordance with CPI rates)

Conclusion

36. The inevitable redevelopment of the site upon which the Sydney Dogs and Cats Home is located, together with their inability to obtain a replacement location, places Council in the unfortunate position of having to source an alternate facility. Entering into a long term agreement with SSC has numerous benefits for both the organisation and the animals that enter into the facility.

Operational Plan Budget

37. Establishment funding is proposed to be provided from S94A contributions. This project has been listed in the forthcoming draft 2016/2017 works schedule of the proposed Section 94A Contributions Plan. Ongoing costs are recurring and are currently budgeted.

File Reference

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 5 September 2016 Page 35

Item: CCL063-16 Summary of Development Applications lodged and determined and new Class 1 Appeals filed

Author: Manager – Development Assessment, Tina Christy and Manager Planning and Development, George Andonoski

Directorate: Office of Environment and Planning

Matter Type: Environment and Planning

Recommendation

(a) That the information on development applications lodged and determined and new Class 1 Appeals filed for July 2016 be received and noted.

Executive Summary

1. A snap-shot of Georges River Council’s development applications over the past 3 months and also new Class 1 Appeals lodged with the Land and Environment Court for the month of July 2016 is contained within this report.

2. The information includes details on numbers received and determined, a breakdown of application types, mean and median time-frames and the estimated value of applications determined. This information will be prepared monthly and enable review of trends in assessment timeframes and Class 1 Appeals filed.

Background

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

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

5. The figures for the Outstanding Applications in the table for May cannot be retrieved retrospectively, hence those figures commence from June 2016. This will be provided on a monthly basis in future reports.

6. The major category of developments being lodged with Georges River are Residential New, Residential Alterations and Additions and New Second Occupancies. This is evident in the attached Appendix which has a detailed breakdown of each development type, the value of work for each type, the numbers received and determined and the mean determining times for each category.

7. The slight increase in undetermined applications reflects the constant high number of applications being lodged at Council. However the number of applications being determined has remained constant over the past 3 months.

8. The total estimated cost of works determined over the past 3 months was just short of $230,296,000, reflecting the mix in commercial/retail/office and mixed use development.

Month	Wards	Applications Received	Applications Determined	Outstanding Applications	Mean Gross Days for DAs	Mean Gross Days for s96
MAY	Kogarah Bay/Blakehurst	18	32	-
	Hurstville/Penshurst/Peakhurst	45	50	-
	Combined	63	82	-	174	102

JUNE	Kogarah Bay/Blakehurst	43	27	108
	Hurstville/Penshurst/Peakhurst	49	60	233
	Combined	92	87	341	154	129

JULY	Kogarah Bay/Blakehurst	31	18	121
	Hurstville/Penshurst/Peakhurst	45	48	230
	Combined	76	66	351	200	106

9. The following new Class 1 Appeals have been filed with the Land and Environment Court:

July:

- Filed 22/07/16 – LEC No. 221690 of 2015 – DA2015/0031 – Jack Fatouleh – 1 – 3 Peake Parade Peakhurst – Refusal of demolition of existing structures, construction of a three storey residential flat building and basement parking.

Operational Plan Budget

10. Within budget allocation.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Council DA data May - Jul 2016

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 5 September 2016 Page 40

Item: CCL064-16 Update and Status Report on Planning Proposal - PP2014/0003 - Nos. 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville - Hurstville Ward

Author: Senior Strategic Planner, Ms H Singh and Manager Strategic Planning, Carina Gregory

Directorate: Environment and Planning

Matter Type: Environment and Planning

Recommendation

(a) THAT the report on the status of Planning Proposal (PP2014/0003) for Nos. 29-31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville be received and noted.

Executive Summary

1. This report provides an update on the status of the Planning Proposal (PP2014/0003) for Nos. 29-31 MacMahon Street Hurstville (the Site). The Planning Proposal was lodged on 7 November 2014 by KPoint Investments Pty Ltd on behalf of the Churches of Christ Trust and requested the following amendments to the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (“HLEP 2012”):

· increasing the maximum building height from 40m to 55m

· increasing the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) from 4.5:1 to 7:1

· including a bonus 1:1 FSR for a community facility within the proposed FSR of 7:1.

2. The former Hurstville City Council considered the Planning Proposal on 1 April 2015 and resolved not to support the Planning Proposal request due to a number of reasons including:

· the exceedance of development standards,

· inconsistency with the Hurstville City Centre Transport Management and Accessibility Plan, 2013 (the “TMAP”) recommendations,

· inconsistency with S117 Direction 3.4: Integrating Land Use and Transport and

· the setting of a precedent.

3. The Applicant lodged a Pre-Gateway Review Application (PGR_2015_HURST_001_00) with the Department of Planning and Environment (the “Department”) on 22 May 2015. The application was considered by the Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel (“JRPP”) at its meetings of 20 April 2016 and 1 June 2016. The JRPP recommended that “the proposed instrument should be submitted for a Gateway determination” subject to a number of amendments.

4. Georges River Council advised the Department that it would agree to act as the Relevant Planning Authority on 15 July 2016 and prepared a Planning Proposal for the Site in accordance with Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) and the Department's guidelines titled, “A guide to preparing local environmental plans” and “A guide to preparing planning proposals” which reflected the JRPP recommendations and includes a minimum “non-residential” FSR of 0.5:1 on the site.

5. A Gateway Determination request was submitted to the Department on 10 August 2016 and Council is currently waiting for a response.

Background

The Site

6. The Site is located at Nos. 29 and 31 MacMahon Street, Hurstville. The site is rectangular in shape, has a total site area of 1,112.6m², a frontage of 30.18m and the depth is 47m.

Figure 1: Site Location

The Site is owned by The Churches of Christ Property Trust and contains an existing two storey residential apartment block (4 dwellings) and a single storey Church. Vehicular access is provided off MacMahon Street.

Applicant’s Planning Proposal Request, 7 November 2014 (PP2014/0003)

7. The Planning Proposal request was lodged by KPoint Investments Pty Ltd on 7 November 2014 and requested the following amendments to HLEP 2012 in relation to the Site:

· Amend the Height of Buildings Map to increase the height from 40 metres (approx. 12 storeys) to 55 metres (approx. 17 storeys)

· Amend the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Map to increase the FSR from 4.5:1 to 7:1 (this included an FSR of 1:1 for a ‘community facility’).

Council’s consideration of Planning Proposal

8. Hurstville City Council considered the Planning Proposal request its meeting of 1 April 2015 and resolved not to support the Planning Proposal due to:

· the request exceeded the development standards in HLEP 2012 (Amendment No. 3) by a significant amount. At the time of consideration of the PP2014/0003, the Hurstville City Centre amendment was awaiting finalisation. This amendment was finalised in July 2015

· inconsistency with the Hurstville City Centre Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (the “TMAP”) recommendations, which informed the development standards in the Hurstville City Centre

· inconsistency with S117 Direction 3.4: Integrating Land Use and Transport as the Planning Proposal did not examine the traffic movements from the total development (including the additional 30 dwellings), or the cumulative impacts of land uses and approved and proposed developments in the vicinity

· the setting of a precedent of amendments to the development standards in an instrument recently finalised which had considered the Hurstville City Centre as a whole and undertaken urban design analysis and transport modelling.

Pre Gateway Review Application (22 May 2015) and JRPP consideration

9. The Applicant lodged a Pre-Gateway Review application (PGR_2015_HURST_001 00) with the Department on 22 May 2015. The Application was considered by the JRPP on two (2) occasions; 19 April 2016 and 1 June 2016.

10. After receiving further information from the Applicant in the form of an Urban Design Study in May 2016, the JRPP recommended that the Proposal should proceed to the Gateway stage. On 30 June 2016, the Department requested that the Planning Proposal be updated to reflect the JRPP recommendations by:

· reducing the proposed maximum height to 50m (approx. 15 storeys)

· reducing the proposed FSR to 5.5:1

· removing the site specific 1:1 FSR bonus for development involving a community facility

Applicant’s amended Planning Proposal - 3 August 2016

11. The Applicant submitted an amended Planning Proposal on 3 August 2016 which reflected the recommendations of the JRPP. Also, as required by the JRPP, the Applicant submitted a revised Urban Design Study.

12. The amended Planning Proposal removed all references to “community use” and “place of public worship” on the Site and has included reference to “non-residential” uses on the ground floor level.

Council’s request for Gateway Determination

13. Council advised the Department that it will act as the Relevant Planning Authority on 15 July 2016.

14. In line with the recommendations of the JRPP in its determination of PGR_HURST_001_00 and in accordance with Section 55 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) and the Department's guidelines titled, “A guide to preparing local environmental plans” and “A guide to preparing planning proposals”, Council submitted a Planning Proposal for the Site to the Department for a Gateway Determination on 10 August 2016.

15. A summary of the current planning controls, Applicant Proposal (original lodged in November 2014 and revised lodged in August 2016), JRPP Recommended and Final Recommended is provided in the Table below:

	Current Controls	Applicant Proposal (Original Nov 2014 and revised August 2016)	Recommended JRPP (June 2016)	Recommended
Site Area	1,112.6m²	--		--
Zone	B4 Mixed Use	B4 Mixed Use		B4 Mixed Use
FSR	4.5:1 (5,007m²)	Original: 7:1 (7,788m²) (approx. 70 apartments) Revised: 5.75:1 (6,398m²)* (approx. 60 apartments)	5.5:1 (6,119m²)	5.5:1 Including a minimum non-residential floorspace of 0.5:1
Height	40m (12 storeys)	Original: 55m (17 storeys) Revised: 50m (15 storeys)	50m (15 storeys)	50m (15 storeys)

* The total GFA of 6,398m² includes a non-residential floorspace of approx. 1,000m² (0.9:1) and a residential floorspace of 5398m² (4.8:1) as detailed in the Urban Design Study which results in an overall FSR of 5.75:1. The revised Planning Proposal request identifies an FSR of 5.5:1.

16. In summary, the proposed changes included in the Planning Proposal request to the Department for Gateway Determination, in line with the recommendations of the JRPP include:

· reducing the requested height from 55m (approx. 17 storeys) to 50m (approx. 15 storeys)

· reducing the requested FSR from 7:1 (including bonus FSR) to 5.5:1

· consultation with the appropriate authorities about the height in relation to Obstacle Limitation Surface.

17. An additional proposed change has also been included in the Planning Proposal request in response to the current strategic planning studies being undertaken in relation to the business zones and reflecting the identified ground level “non-residential” land use in the Applicant’s revised Planning Proposal request:

· a minimum 0.5:1 “non-residential” FSR be required on the site for employment purposes.

18. It is noted that the following supporting studies may be required and that these issues have been previously raised by both Council and the Department in its Information Assessment and Recommendation Report (February 2016):

· a Traffic Study to demonstrate consistency with the TMAP, traffic impacts of the proposed place of worship and community facilities and consultation with TfNSW and RMS,

· a Heritage Impact Assessment to address any potential impacts of the revised Planning Proposal on the two heritage items, and

· an analysis of demand for recreation and community facilities.

Next Steps

19. A further report to Council will be provided once a Gateway Determination has been received from the Department, including consideration of any details of conditions on the Determination or additional information requirements.

Operational Plan Budget

20. Within budget allocation.

File Reference

14/1818

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 5 September 2016 Page 45

Item: CCL065-16 Report on Public Exhibition of Planning Proposal to vary Clause 4.4A and Clause 6.6 of Hurstville LEP 2012 and Amendment to Planning Proposal

Author: Manager Strategic Planning, Carina Gregory

Directorate: Environment and Planning

Matter Type: Environment and Planning

Recommendation

(a) THAT Council resolve to note the public exhibition and the comments raised in submissions received.

(b) THAT Council endorse a change to the Planning Proposal to amend Clause 4.4A of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 by renaming the clause to “Non-residential floor space ratios”, including a clause objective and reducing the non-residential floor space requirement from 0.5:1 to 0.3:1.

(c) THAT Council endorse a change to the Planning Proposal and not proceed with the proposal to expand the application of Clause 6.6 Active street frontages of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 to include land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre.

(d) THAT Council endorse a change to the Planning Proposal to include an amendment to Clause 6.6 Active street frontages of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 which includes “medical centre” within the definition of Active street frontage.

(e) THAT Council forward the amended Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Environment and seek advice on whether public exhibition of the amended Planning Proposal is required.

Executive Summary

1. On 20 May 2015, the former Hurstville City Council endorsed a Planning Proposal to amend the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 as follows:

· Remove Clause 4.4A which requires that a minimum area of non-residential floor space of 0.5:1 be provided in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones

· Expand the application of Clause 6.6 Active street frontages and amend the Maps to include land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre.

2. The Planning Proposal to remove Clause 4.4A and amend Clause 6.6 was initiated following a Court decision on a Development Application for a Boarding House in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre Zone which raised questions about the evidence base supporting the non-residential FSR requirement of 0.5:1 under Clause 4.4A. The Planning Proposal received a Gateway Determination from the Department of Planning and Environment on 17 July 2015 and was placed on public exhibition from 20 August to 4 September 2015. Two submissions were received from Government agencies during the public exhibition, however these did not raise any specific issues with the Planning Proposal.

3. Since the public exhibition Council has commissioned an Employment Lands Study to provide a strategic direction on employment land within the Hurstville, Peakhurst and Mortdale Wards of the Georges River Council. The initial findings of the Draft Hurstville Employment Lands Study (ELS) in relation to Industrial zoned land were reported to Council on 9 December 2015. The draft Study’s outcomes and recommendations in relation to business zoned land (B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre) will be reported separately. One of the recommendations related to Clause 4.4A and the level of non-residential floor space required in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centres zones. The findings of the Draft Hurstville ELS in relation to this issue have informed the recommendation to proceed with an amended Planning Proposal which differs from the exhibited Planning Proposal in the following ways:

· Retain Clause 4.4A and reduce the amount of non-residential floor space required from 0.5:1 to 0.3:1, rename the clause and add a clause objective

· Not proceed with the proposal to expand the application of Clause 6.6 Active street frontages to land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre.

4. The following new amendment is also proposed for Clause 6.6:

· Clause 6.6 Active street frontages is to be amended by including “medical centres” as a land use which satisfies the Active street frontage definition.

Background

5. The current Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Hurstville LEP 2012) took effect on 7 December 2012 and applies to all land in the Hurstville, Mortdale and Peakhurst wards of the Georges River Council (with the exception of Deferred matter sites in the Hurstville City Centre). Prior to Hurstville LEP 2012 coming into operation, there was a minimum numerical requirement for the amount of non-residential floor space within business zones set at a 1:1 Floor Space Ratio (FSR). The Draft Hurstville LEP 2012 was exhibited inclusive of Clause 4.4A in its current form (including a minimum non-residential FSR of 0.5:1) with the intention of maintaining the integrity of the business zones (B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre) consistent with the stated objectives of those zones to serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding areas. Through the public exhibition process, no submissions were received on this Clause and the minimum non-residential floor space amount of 0.5:1 and the Hurstville LEP 2012 was gazetted accordingly.

6. Court proceedings in 2015 in relation to a Development Application for a boarding house raised questions about the evidence base supporting the non-residential FSR requirement of 0.5:1 under Clause 4.4A.

7. Council resolved on 20 May 2015 to support the Planning Proposal to remove Clause 4.4A with the intention that the minimum non-residential floor space ratio of 0.5:1 would no longer by required for development in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones. The reasons given for supporting this change were that it would address any inconsistency between Clause 4.4A and boarding house development where the provisions of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARH SEPP) apply. It was also proposed that Clause 6.6 Active street frontages of the Hurstville LEP 2012 be amended by expanding its application to land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre.

The Public Exhibition

8. The exhibited Planning Proposal sought to amend the Hurstville LEP 2012 by:

· Removing Clause 4.4A which requires that a minimum area of non-residential floor space of 0.5:1 be provided in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones.

· Expanding the application of Clause 6.6 Active Street Frontages to land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre.

9. The Planning Proposal was given a Gateway Determination on 17 July 2015 and placed on public exhibition from 20 August to 4 September 2015.

Submissions Received During Public Exhibition

10. Two (2) submissions were received during the exhibition period, both from Government Agencies, the Department of Education and Transport NSW. Both submissions raised no issues with the Planning Proposal as noted below:

· The Department of Education submission notes that Government school sites are zoned SP2 Educational Establishment and as such the Planning Proposal to amend controls in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre Zones will have no impact.

· The Transport for NSW submission indicated that the Planning Proposal had been forwarded to the Roads and Maritime Service (RMS) for review. No comment on the Planning Proposal was received subsequently from RMS.

Draft Hurstville Employment Lands Study

11. In September 2014 the former Hurstville City Council commissioned independent consultants Jones Lang LaSalle and SJB Planning to prepare a Draft Hurstville Employment Lands Study (“draft strategy”) to review all industrial areas (i.e. lands zoned IN2 Light Industrial) and commercial centres (i.e. lands zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre) under Hurstville LEP 2012. The draft strategy provides:

· A detailed land use survey and analysis of the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities of the employment lands;

· A market assessment;

· A review of the NSW State Government’s employment targets; and

· A review of the effectiveness of the existing planning controls.

12. Initial findings of the Draft Hurstville Employment Lands Study in relation to industrial land were reported to Council in 9 December 2015.

13. The draft ELS considered the role of Clause 4.4A and the minimum level of non-residential floor space that should be required in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones of the Hurstville LEP 2012, stating that:

“We have had consideration to the minimum requirement of non-residential floor space in the B1 Neighbourhood and B2 Local Centre zones, currently at 0.5 FSR (although there is planning proposal with the Department to remove this clause). We are of the view this clause is beneficial to the employment lands to ensure a successful employment outcome; however, we believe the rate applied is too difficult to achieve and can prove to be an issue in the feasibility of projects. It is recommended that Clause 4.4A be amended to require a minimum provision of 0.3:1 of non-residential floor space in any development. Consideration was given to the inclusion of an active street front provision. This has not been pursued as the structure of Clause 4.4A provides a much greater level of certainty over the minimum delivery of employment floor space. The implementation of an active street frontage control in addition would simply add to the complexity and diminish the level of flexibility available to designers in preparing design proposals.”

14. Following the formation of the new Georges River Council, work is currently underway to expand the scope of this work by incorporating land in the former Kogarah Council area to form a comprehensive Georges River Council Employment Lands Study.

The role of commercial centres

15. The Hurstville, Penshurst and Mortdale Wards of the Georges River Council (the area where the Hurstville LEP 2012 applies) contain a number of small to medium sized commercial centres which are zoned either B1 Neighbourhood Centre or B2 Local Centre. The stated objectives of these zones are:

16. B1 Neighbourhood Centre

· To provide a range of small-scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.

17. B2 Local Centre

· To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

· To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

· To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

· To maintain a commercial and retail focus for larger scale commercial precincts.

18. Of the approximately 17km² of area where the Hurstville LEP 2012 applies there are 16 centres zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre and 9 zoned B2 Local Centre with a combined area of 257,049m². These centres range in size from small neighbourhood shops such as Isaac Rd, Peakhurst (600.7m²) to larger commercial centres like Beverly Hills (47,069.7m²).

19. There are sixteen (16) B1 Neighbourhood Centres with a combined total area of 50,890.5m²

· Stoney Creek Rd, Beverly Hills - 815.7m²

· Gloucester Rd, Hurstville - 1,231.6m²

· Kimberley Rd, Hurstville - 3,087.6m²

· Chivers Hill, Lugarno - 4,370.6m²

· Lime Klin Rd, Lugarno - 1,966.6m²

· Lansdowne Pde, Oatley - 1,537.3m²

· Mulga Rd, Oatley - 13,370.2m²

· Baumans Rd, Peakhurst - 873.1m²

· Boundary Rd, Peakhurst - 1,981.0m²

· Forest Rd, Peakhurst - 12,290.9m²

· Isaac Rd, Peakhurst - 600.7m²

· Ogilvy St, Peakhurst - 2,059.8m²

· Lorraine St, Peakhurst - 1,395.8m²

· Park St, Peakhurst - 2,365.2m²

· Pindari Rd, Peakhurst Heights - 1,946.9m²

· Broadarrow Rd, Riverwood - 997.6m²

20. There are nine(9) B2 Local Centres with a combined total area of 206,158.5m²

· King Georges Rd, Beverly Hills - 47,069.7m²

· Beverly Hills (The Kingsway) - 12,674.9m²

· Forest Rd, Hurstville (East) - 17,655.1m²

· Kingsgrove Rd, Kingsgrove - 19,686.6m²

· Morts Rd, Mortdale - 25,255.5m²

· Broad Arrow Rd, Narwee - 5,392.5m²

· Forest Rd, Penshurst - 7,718.2m²

· Penshurst St, Penshurst - 29,406.9m²

· Belmore Rd, Riverwood - 41,299.1m²

21. A number of these commercial centres benefit from good access to public transport, particularly those situated around train stations along the East Hills or Illawarra train lines.

22. It is also noted that of the approximately 17km²of land area where the Hurstville LEP 2012 applies (the Hurstville, Penshurst and Mortdale wards for the Georges River Council), a relatively low proportion of the land is zoned for business purposes. Just 1.5% of the land is zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre or B2 Local Centre. In contrast to this, 63% of land is zoned residential (either R2 Low Density Residential or R3 Medium Density Residential). Given the significant differences in the land areas where the business and residential zones apply, while residential apartments (in the form of shop top housing) are permitted as a part of mixed use developments in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre or B2 Local Centre zones it is Councils intention that the primary role of these centres will continue to be focused around providing the community with access to retail and business uses and allowing for local employment opportunities both now and into the future with shop top housing in the upper levels to take advantage of the services and facilities within these centres and good access to public transport. Retaining the minimum non-residential floor space requirement at a lower level of 0.3:1 in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centres zones is consistent with and will reinforce the stated objectives of these zones.

Metropolitan Strategy (A Plan for Growing Sydney)

23. In relation to commercial centres, the Metropolitan strategy for Sydney (A Plan for Growing Sydney) includes a direction to “Grow Centres that provide more jobs closer to home”. Relevant directions for housing in the centres include “Improve housing supply across Sydney”, “Ensure more homes are closer to jobs” and “Improve housing choice to suit different needs and lifestyles”. The Planning Proposal satisfies these directions by ensuring employment floor space continues to be provided in the commercial centres close to where people live while also allowing for new residential units in accessible locations close to jobs.

Section 117 Directions – Business and Industrial Zones

24. The amended Planning Proposal to retain Clause 4.4A and reduce the minimum level of non-residential floor space to 0.3:1 is consistent with the Section 117 Directions for Business and Industrial Zones. The proposal allows for future employment growth in the commercial centres by ensuring sites are not developed without adequate floor space set aside for non-residential purposes.

Post Exhibition Amendments to the Planning Proposal

25. In light of the recommendations of the Draft Hurstville ELS and in accordance with Section 58 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 which sets out that the Relevant Planning Authority may vary proposals or not proceed, it is proposed that the Planning Proposal be amended as follows:

· Retain Clause 4.4A and rename the clause “Non-residential floor space ratios”, include an objective to the clause and reduce the amount of non-residential floor space required for development in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones from 0.5:1 to 0.3:1,

· Not proceed with the proposal to expand the application of Clause 6.6 Active street frontages to land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre because by retaining a non-residential floor space requirement (at a reduced level of 0.3:1) it is no longer necessary to have active street frontage provisions in these smaller centres. The application of active street frontages in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone is also inconsistent with the smaller scale of these centres.

26. The following new amendment is also proposed for Clause 6.6:

· Clause 6.6 Active street frontages is to be amended by including medical centres as a land use which satisfies the active street frontage definition.

Proposed Clause 4.4A Amendments

It is proposed that Clause 4.4A be retained in the Hurstville LEP 2012 and amended as follows:

27. Name of the clause

The current name of the Clause 4.4A, “Exceptions to floor space ratios for buildings on land in certain zones”, does not make it clear that the clause essentially deals the level of non-residential floor space required in business zones. It is recommended that the name of Clause 4.4A be changed to “Non-residential floor space ratios”.

28. New objective

Clause 4.4A does not currently have an objective which identifies the outcome to be achieved by setting a minimum level of non-residential floor space for new development within business zones. It is recommended that the following objective be added to Clause 4.4A,

“The objective of this clause is to encourage an appropriate mix of residential and non-residential uses and ensure a suitable level of non-residential floor space is provided to promote employment and reflect the hierarchy of the business zones”.

Change to minimum non-residential floor space requirement

29. As noted above, as part of the Draft Hurstville Employment Lands Study (2015), the application of Clause 4.4A was considered. Particular focus was given to the suitability of requiring 0.5:1 of non-residential floor space in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones. In summary it was found that Clause 4.4A should be retained as it is beneficial for the employment outcomes of the centres. It also aligns well with the stated objectives for the business zones. However, it was also found that the level of non-residential floor space is set too high at 0.5:1 and could be reduced to 0.3:1 for the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones to address the issue of development feasibility in these centres.

30. It is recommended that the minimum non-residential floor space requirement for development in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones be reduced from 0.5:1 to 0.3:1. This will ensure a suitable level of employment floor space continues to be provided in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones consistent with the objectives of the zones and the goals and directions of A Plan Growing Sydney (the Metropolitan Strategy) and relevant Section 117 Directions. It is noted that shop top housing and boarding houses are the only forms of residential development permitted in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones and that the total maximum floor space ratio allowable in these centres ranges from 1.5:1 to 3:1. Setting the minimum level of non-residential floor space at 0.3:1 equates to a 20% of the total floor space potential of sites with a maximum FSR of 1.5:1 and 10% for sites with a maximum FSR of 3:1.

31. Boarding Houses will continue to be permitted in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre and B2 Local Centre zones in accordance with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARH SEPP). In the event of any inconsistency between the ARH SEPP and provisions of the Hurstville LEP 2012 (such as Clause 4.4A), the SEPP will prevail.

32. In summary, Hurstville LEP 2012 Clause 4.4A is to be amended as follows:

Current Clause 4.4A	Proposed Clause 4.4A
Exceptions to floor space ratios for buildings on land in certain zones 1) Despite clause 4.4, development consent must not be granted for development on land in Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre and Zone B2 Local Centre unless the non-residential floor space is at least 0.5:1. 2) In this clause, non-residential floor space ratio means the ratio of the gross floor area of that part of a building used or proposed to be used for any purpose other than a residential purpose in a building on the site to the site area.	Non-residential floor space ratios 1) The objective of this clause is to encourage an appropriate mix of residential and non-residential uses and ensure a suitable level of non-residential floor space is provided to promote employment and reflect the hierarchy of the business zones. 2) Despite clause 4.4, development consent must not be granted for development on land in Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre and Zone B2 Local Centre unless the non-residential floor space is at least 0.3:1. 3) In this clause, non-residential floor space ratio means the ratio of the gross floor area of that part of a building used or proposed to be used for any purpose other than a residential purpose in a building on the site to the site area.

Current Clause 4.4A

Proposed Clause 4.4A

Exceptions to floor space ratios for buildings on land in certain zones

1) Despite clause 4.4, development consent must not be granted for development on land in Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre and Zone B2 Local Centre unless the non-residential floor space is at least 0.5:1.

2) In this clause, non-residential floor space ratio means the ratio of the gross floor area of that part of a building used or proposed to be used for any purpose other than a residential purpose in a building on the site to the site area.

Non-residential floor space ratios

1) The objective of this clause is to encourage an appropriate mix of residential and non-residential uses and ensure a suitable level of non-residential floor space is provided to promote employment and reflect the hierarchy of the business zones.

2) Despite clause 4.4, development consent must not be granted for development on land in Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre and Zone B2 Local Centre unless the non-residential floor space is at least 0.3:1.

3) In this clause, non-residential floor space ratio means the ratio of the gross floor area of that part of a building used or proposed to be used for any purpose other than a residential purpose in a building on the site to the site area.

Clause 6.6 Active street frontages

33. It is recommended that the expansion of active street frontages through Clause 6.6 to land zoned B1 Neighbourhood Centre not proceed. Guidance from the Department of Planning on the application of active street frontages sets out that they are suitable for the B3 Commercial Core and B4 Mixed Use zones and they will be considered in the B2 Local Centre zone only where soundly justified through Council’s strategic planning for local activity centres. Extending the application of active street frontage provisions to the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone is not in keeping with the objectives of the zone and the smaller scale of these centres.

34. The only forms of residential accommodation permitted in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone in Hurstville LEP 2012 are boarding houses and shop top housing which is defined as one or more dwellings located above ground floor retail premises or business premises. The shop top housing definition ensures the ground floor of any mixed use developments in the zone will feature retail premises or business premises on the ground floor and residential apartments above.

Changes to the Active Street Frontage definition - Medical Centres

35. As Medical Centres do not fall within the definition of either “business premises” or “retail premises” they fall outside the definition of “active street frontages” as set out in Clause 6.6 for the Hurstville LEP 2012, which is based on the Standard Instrument LEP. Active street frontages apply to land zoned B2 Local Centre, B3 Commercial Core and B4 Mixed Use. In accordance with Clause 6.6(5), active uses are limited to land uses that fit within the business premises or retail premises land use definitions. It is considered that medical centres adequately satisfy the objective of Clause 6.6 to “promote uses that attract pedestrian traffic along certain ground floor street frontages in Zone B2 Local Centre, Zone B3 Commercial Core and Zone B4 Mixed Use”. In particular, medical centres are considered to satisfy the objective to the same extent as land uses that fit within the business premises definition which include business uses such as post offices, hairdressers and travel agencies.

36. A precedent has been set in other LEPs where uses on the ground floor facing the street which are considered to constitute an “active street frontage” has been expanded to include a range of specific land uses, including medical centres. No change to the Hurstville LEP 2012 Dictionary will be required as the Dictionary only refers to the Map and the definition of active street frontages is defined in the clause.

37. Shop top housing and boarding houses will continue to be the only form of residential accommodation permitted in the B2 Local Centre zone in the Hurstville LEP 2012. In accordance with the shop top housing dictionary definition (see below), uses on the ground floor where there are residential apartments above will continue to be limited to retail premises and business premises. This means that when a medical centre is proposed on the ground floor in B2 Local Centre zone residential apartments will not be permitted above as this development does not satisfy the shop top housing definition. There will be potential to have a medical centre on the ground floor as the active use with apartments above in areas zoned B4 Mixed Use as residential flat buildings are also permitted in this zone.

shop top housing means one or more dwellings located above ground floor retail premises or business premises.

38. In summary Hurstville LEP 2012 Clause 6.6 Active street frontages is to be amended as follows:

Current Clause 6.6

Proposed Clause 6.6

Active street frontages:

1) The objective of this clause is to promote uses that attract pedestrian traffic along certain ground floor street frontages in Zone B2 Local Centre, Zone B3 Commercial Core and Zone B4 Mixed Use.

2) This clause applies to land identified as “Active street frontage” on the Active Street Frontage Map.

3) Development consent must not be granted to the erection of a building, or a change of use of a building, on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the building will have an active street frontage after its erection or change of use.

a. entrances and lobbies (including as part of a mixed use development),

b. access for fire services,

c. vehicular access.

2) In this clause, a building has an active street frontage if all premises on the ground floor of the building facing the street are used for the purposes of business premises or retail premises.

Active street frontages:

4) The objective of this clause is to promote uses that attract pedestrian traffic along certain ground floor street frontages in Zone B2 Local Centre, Zone B3 Commercial Core and Zone B4 Mixed Use

5) This clause applies to land identified as “Active street frontage” on the Active Street Frontage Map.

6) Development consent must not be granted to the erection of a building, or a change of use of a building, on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the building will have an active street frontage after its erection or change of use.

a. entrances and lobbies (including as part of a mixed use development),

b. access for fire services,

c. vehicular access.

7) In this clause, a building has an active street frontage if all premises on the ground floor of the building facing the street are used for the purposes of business premises, retail premises or a medical centre.

NEXT STEPS

If Council endorses the changes to the Planning Proposal as outlined in this report, the next steps will be:

39. Notify submitters (the Department of Education and Transport NSW) of the Council decision.

40. The revised Planning Proposal will then be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Environment. The Department will then have the following choices to make to determine how the Planning Proposal is to proceed in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

· Not support the revised Planning Proposal

· If supported, determine whether it is necessary to issue a revised Gateway Determination

· Support the revised Planning Proposal with a requirement to re-exhibit

· Support the revised Planning Proposal with no further exhibition required. Proceed with the finalisation of the proposed amendment to Hurstville LEP 2012

Operational Plan Budget

41. Within budget allocation.

File Reference

15/561

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 5 September 2016 Page 56

Finance and Governance

Item: CCL066-16 Advice on Court Proceedings - August 2016

Author: General Counsel, Jenny Ware

Directorate: Office of the General Manager

Matter Type: Finance and Governance

Recommendation

(a) That the information be received and noted.

Executive Summary

1. Advice on all Council’s Court proceedings for the period 23 July to 26 August 2016 is contained within this report. The current Court proceedings for the reporting period are broken down as follows:

Land and Environment Court Appeals

· 11 x Class 1 (Merit/DA)

· 1 x Class 2 Appeal (Appeal against Order)

· 4 x Class 4 Proceedings

Local Court

· 12 x Prosecutions

District Court

· 1 x Defamation Proceedings

Total Costs

2. The total costs to date for matters contained within this report are $618,825.20.

This figure comprises:

· $572,211.87 up to 2015/16 financial year; and

· $46,613.33 for 2016/17 financial year.

New Matters

3. Two new Class 1 appeals (Fatouleh) and (Marion McDowell and Associates) were received in the reporting period.

Finalised Matters

4. Two matters were resolved by way of S34 Agreement (Kozarovski and Adgemis Holdings) and one matter resolved 1 day earlier than allocated (Tanious) saving approximately 3 days of Court time and costs (estimated savings of $24,000.00).

Background

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

No.	Property Address / Applicant / Proceedings Number	Description of Matter	Status / Critical Dates	External Costs to Date Up to 2015/16 FY	External Costs to Date From 2016/17 FY
Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Class 1 Appeals
1	849 King Georges Road SOUTH HURSTVILLE Applicant: Nassar Hussein Proceedings No. 157514 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against the deemed refusal of development application DA2015/234 for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a two storey place of public worship (being a mosque with associated classrooms) over three levels of basement car parking.	Matter heard by the Court listed for hearing on 22-25 August 2016. Sandra Duggan Senior Counsel is appeared on behalf of Council. Applicant filed amended plans and amended Operational Plan of Management during the hearing. Judgment reserved.	$51,147.68	$6,887.00
2	48-50 Forest Road HURSTVILLE Applicant: Adgemis Holdings Pty Ltd Proceedings No. 11256 of 2015	Class 1 Appeal against the deemed refusal of development application DA2015/0413 for the construction of a three storey building comprising a childcare centre, two levels of residential apartments and basement car parking.	Following S34 conciliation conference on 8 April 2016, amended plans lodged and under assessment. Matter resolved through S34 Agreement on 22 August 2016.	$33,992.87	$1418.50
3	Unit 53 2-8 Bridge Street HURSTVILLE Applicant: Marko Kozarovski Proceedings No. 10105 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against actual refusal of development application DA2014/1108 for conversion of office to child care centre.	Matter resolved through S34 Agreement on 5 August 2016.	$16,070.38	$649.00
4	799 Forest Road PEAKHURST Applicant: CC Builders (NSW) Pty Ltd Proceedings No. 155689 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of development application DA2015/0457 for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a multi dwelling housing development including six dwellings.	Following S34 conference held on 16 June 2016, Applicant has lodged an amended proposal for consideration. Amended proposal sent to residents and experts for consideration. Directions hearing before Court on 6 September 2016.	$8,720.00	$9,531.25
5	45 Ogilvy Street PEAKHURST Applicant: Emad & Eva Nada Proceedings No. 11040 of 2014	Class 1 appeal relating to a child care centre. Commissioner satisfied that DA worthy of approval, subject to storm water issues being resolved.	Judgment handed down 21 July 2016. Advice from Senior Counsel confirms no avenue of appeal available. Residents advised.	$128,382.63	$2,242.50
6	78 Stuart Street BLAKEHURST Applicant: Nicaolas and Maria Kotsifas Proceedings No. 156135 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against actual refusal of Section 96 application to modify approved development application 306/2012/3 for detached extended family unit and swimming pool to delete conditions relating to vehicular and construction access from River Street.	Matter proceeded to full Court hearing as S34AA conciliation conference was terminated on site on 25 July 2016. Court judgment maintained Council’s refusal of vehicular access from River Street.	$2,911.70	$7,011.18
7	58 Lawrence Street PEAKHURST Applicant: Mehedin Abdul-Rahman Proceedings No. 162874 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of development application DA2016/0051 for demolition of existing dwellings and structures and subsequent construction of a multi dwelling housing development comprising seven dwellings, basement car parking and associated landscaping.	Matter listed for S34 conference on 1 September 2016.	$0	$0
8	26 Parkside Drive KOGARAH BAY Applicant: Jim and Harriet Raftopoulos Proceedings No. 163044 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against actual refusal of development application DA2015/0172 for the Torrens Title subdivision and construction of a new dwelling on a new rear lot.	Amended plans filed with the Court. Matter listed for S34AA Conciliation and hearing on 12-13 September 2016.	$2,370.50	$0
9	37 Ogilvy Street PEAKHURST Applicant: Rabi Moussawell Proceedings No. 195732 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against actual refusal of development application DA2015/0057 for the demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a two storey detached dual occupancy.	Matter listed for S34AA conciliation and hearing on 19 and 20 October 2016.	$0	$6,533.00
10	1-3 Peake Parade PEAKHURST Applicant: Jack Fatouleh Proceedings No. 221690 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against actual refusal of development application DA2015/0031 for the demolition of existing structures, construction of a three storey residential flat building and basement parking.	Matter listed for S34 conference on 14 October 2016.	$0	$0
11	58 and 60 Blackshaw Avenue MORTDALE Applicant: Marion McDowell and Associates Proceedings No. 241879 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against Council Order for demolition of existing unauthorised structure.	Matter listed for directions hearing on 8 September 2016.
Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Class 4 Proceedings
1	84D Roberts Avenue MORTDALE Parties: Romanous Developments Pty Ltd Proceedings No. 40883 of 2013	Class 4 commenced in relation to unauthorised works. Following Court Orders, the respondents have complied with their initial obligations to appoint a site auditor and to finalise the necessary remediation plan. Council’s costs paid by respondents.	Site subject to ongoing monitoring and compliance with Court Orders.	$283,921.51	$0
2	58 and 60 Blackshaw Avenue MORTDALE Parties: Marion McDowell & Associates Pty Ltd Proceedings No. 40249 of 2016	Class 4 commenced in relation to unauthorised use of premises as a waste transfer station.	Court Orders obtained by consent to cease use until development consent is obtained. Costs to be paid by 1 August 2016. Instalment plan for payment of Council’s costs in place.	$2,210.00	$0
3	37 Boronia Street KYLE BAY Parties: Mrs Megan McOnie Proceedings No. 40940 of 2015	Class 4 commenced in relation to failing to comply with Council Notices/Orders relating to a non-compliant swimming pool fence, overgrown vegetation and unhealthy swimming pool water.	Court Orders in support of Council’s Notices/Orders were provided on 21 April 2016. Application for substituted service on Respondent commenced.	$20,658.60	$0
4	105 Forest Road HURSTVILLE Parties: Australian Consulting Builder Pty Ltd Proceedings No. 40361 of 2016	Class 4 commenced in relation to failing to comply with Council Notices/Orders relating to overgrown vegetation, accumulation of waste and breeding place for vermin.	Consent orders made 29 July 2016. Respondent to pay Council’s costs.	$11,806.33	$2,457.55
Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Class 2 Appeals
1	1 Arnold Street PEAKHURST Parties: Mofeed Louis Tanious Proceedings No. 155914 of 2016	Class 2 commencing in relation to failing to comply with Council Notices/Orders concerning keeping of poultry birds.	Judgment handed down on 11 August 2016. Mr Tanious to remove all poultry from premises with exception of 10 chickens and 5 other poultry. 90 days to comply.	$0	$0
Local Court Proceedings
1	13-17 Peake Parade PEAKHURST Parties: Oxford (NSW) Pty Ltd	Appeal against PIN for breaches of development consent. Defendant pleaded not guilty.	Matter part heard on 20 May 2016. Listed for further hearing on 26 October 2016.	$221.50	$0
2-6	13-17 Peake Parade PEAKHURST Parties: Oxford (NSW) Pty Ltd	Appeals against five PINs for breaches of development consent and one water pollution offence under POEO Act. Defendant entered not guilty pleas on all offences.	Matter listed for fully contested hearing on all matters on 21 February 2017.	$190.00	$3,582.00
7-12	25 Koorabel, 25A Koorabel, 25B Koorabel Street LUGARNO Parties: Daoud & Daoud Developments Pty Ltd	Appeals against six PINs issued for carrying out development not in accordance with development consent.	Matter adjourned for further plea/mention on 6 September 2016.	$0	$0
District Court Proceedings
1	Con Hindi v Michael Watt No. 99504 of 2016	Proceedings commenced against former Council staff member for defamation.	Council has no part in the proceedings except for payment of insurance excess under its councillor and officer liability insurance policy.	$9,608.17	$6,301.35
			SUB TOTAL	$572,211.87	$46,613.33
			TOTAL		$618,825.20

Operational Plan Budget

6. Within budget allocation.

File Reference

09/1077

Item: CCL067-16 Property Matter - Proposed Easement to Drain Water at Emma Edwards Reserve Hurstville

Author: Property Portfolio Manager, Bernie Morabito

Directorate: Office of the Chief Operating Officer

Matter Type: Finance and Governance

Recommendation

(a) That Council grant an Easement to Drain Water over Lot 210 in DP2787 as detailed in this report.

(b) That the General Manager and Administrator be authorised to execute the s88B Instrument or Transfer Granting Easement and all associated documentation to create the easement, under the Common Seal of the Council, if required.

Executive Summary

1. As a condition of Development Consent DA2014/0969, the owner of No.51 Weston Road, Hurstville is required to obtain an Easement to Drain Water over adjoining Council land described as Lot 210 in Deposited Plan (DP) 2787. The subject land is part of Emma Edwards Reserve located at 85 Moore Street, Hurstville. The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the terms agreed to in principle between the parties and to subsequently seek approval to grant the proposed easement.

Background

2. The former Hurstville City Council is the registered proprietor of a parcel of open space land legally described as Lot 210 in DP2787 and known as Emma Edwards Reserve, located at 85 Moore Street, Hurstville.

3. Council has received a request from an adjoining owner located at 51 Weston Road, Hurstville for an Easement to Drain Water to be granted in favour of their property to the existing public drainage infrastructure located within Emma Edwards Reserve. The required easement is a condition of approved Development Consent DA2014/0969 dated 22 July, 2015.

4. The proposed easement to drain water will be granted over a Council owned parcel of “community classified land”. In accordance with Section 46 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council is permitted to grant easements for drainage over community classified land to existing drainage facilities located within public reserves.

5. The proposed easement will be 1m wide x 7.1m in length and will be situated along the boundary of the reserve as detailed in the annexure to this report.

Current Position

6. In exchange for granting the proposed easement, the applicant will be required to pay market value consideration for encumbering Council’s land as determined in the confidential valuation advice, shown as Attachment 3 to this report. Additionally, the applicant is required to pay Council’s incurred valuation, legal and all associated easement survey, lodgement and registration costs as well as costs for the necessary infrastructure works.

7. Council has in the past granted similar easements over public lands for comparable amounts of compensation. It is considered that the proposed easement, due to its location, will have a negligible impact on the reserve. Accordingly, the determined amount of consideration, is considered to represent fair market value for the proposed easement, that will burden Council’s public reserve in perpetuity.

Operational Plan Budget

8. No budget impact for this report.

File Reference

16/1093

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1	Easement Location Plan - 51 Weston Rd Hurstville
Attachment View2	Proposed Easement Plan
Attachment View3	Valuation Report (Confidential)

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 5 September 2016 Page 81

Item: CCL073-16 Investment Report as at 31 July 2016

Author: Coordinator Financial Management, Francis Mangru

Directorate: Office of Chief Operating Officer

Matter Type: Finance and Governance

Recommendation

(a) That the Investment Report as at 31 July 2016 be received and noted.

Executive Summary

1. This report details Council’s performance of its investment portfolio for July 2016 and compares it against key benchmarks. The report includes the estimated market valuation of Council’s investment portfolio, loan liabilities, and an update on Council’s legal action against various parties.

2. Council’s financial year to date return is 3.50%, which is 1.20% above benchmark. Income from interest on investments and proceeds from sale of investments totals $424,000, $95,000 above 2016/17 budget.

Background

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

Investment Performance Commentary

4. Council’s performance against the benchmark for returns of its investment portfolio for July 2016, are as follows:

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

Council’s Investment Properties Portfolio

6. Council’s investment properties updated as at the end of July were as follows:

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

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

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

Legal Issues

10. Council is participating in the IMF class action regarding Lehman Brothers Australia Liquidation. An interim dividend of $4.27 million net of costs has been received as at 31 July 2016.

Loan Liability

11. Council’s loan liability as at 31 July was $3 million which represents the balance of $5 million ten (10) year loan drawn down on 16 November 2012 for Jubilee Park upgrade. The outstanding balance on this facility is at a variable interest of 194 basis points over 90-day BBSW. At the current 90-day BBSW rate, the interest rate payable is 4.09%pa.

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

Cost of Loan/3 month Bank Bill Swap Rates (BBSW)

Comparison

Policy Limits

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

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

Policy Limits on Maturities

Investment Portfolio as at 31 July 2016

* Market value are indicative prices only, and do not necessarily reflect the price at which a transaction could be entered into.

Investment Income

Certificate by Chief Financial Officer (Responsible Accounting Officer): John Maunder

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

Analysis of Investments

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

· Institutions

· Type of Investment

· Durations

· Rating

Investment by Institution

Investment Duration

17. Council’s portfolio is very liquid, with 16% of assets maturing within 3 months and an additional 20% maturing within 12 months. FRNs, funds and fixed bonds also provide additional liquidity in an emergency.

Financial Implications

18. Income from interest on investments and proceeds from sales of investments totals $424,000, being $95,000 above revised budget projections.

Types of Investments

19. Council’s investment portfolio is mainly directed to deposits, which account for approximately 52% of total investments. Yields have steadily contracted, while tracking bond market volatility in the short term.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credit Rating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24. The credit quality of Council’s portfolio is relatively high with approximately 66% of assets rated ‘A’ or higher. The ‘AAA’ assets represent the deposit investments covered by the Federal Government’s Financial Claims Scheme (FCS).

25. The remaining 34% rated ‘BBB’ or ‘unrated’ reflects the attractive deposit and Floating Rate Notes (FRN) investments with the regional and unrated ADIs.

Council’s Investment Powers

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Local Government Act 1993 - Section 625

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

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

· Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1993

· Investment Guidelines issued by the Department of Local Government

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Georges River Council Overview of Investments as at 31 July 2016

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 5 September 2016 Page 103

Item: CCL075-16 Cooks River Alliance

Author: Manager Environmental Sustainability, Alison Hanlon

Directorate: Assets and Infrastructure

Matter Type: Assets and Infrastructure

Recommendation

(a) That Council discontinue its $49,000 annual membership with the Cooks River Alliance (CRA) and that these funds be re-directed to on-ground works to enhance the quality of stormwater entering the Cooks River

(b) That the additional resources available following Council amalgamations, Council will perform the functions of the CRA internally, to work towards the enhancement of the Cooks River.

Executive Summary

1. Council has undertaken a review of its membership to various Council committees following the recent Council amalgamation. Council has determined that with the pooled resources now available to it and our own independent success at obtaining grant funding for on ground environmental projects that Council can internally perform those tasks offered by the CRA.

Background

2. The Cooks River catchment encompasses an area of approximately 100 km² and 13 Local Government Areas (Figure 1). The catchment is one of the most highly urbanised catchments in Australia and is home to more than 500,000 people. Historically, the river has been subject to the detrimental impacts of industrial discharge, channelisation and stormwater pollution. As a result, the river is currently in a poor state of ecological health and has been described as one of the most polluted water ways in Australia. Approximately 36% of the former Hurstville Local Government Area (LGA) and less than 10% of the former Kogarah local government area drains to the Cooks River.

3. In May 2011 the former Hurstville Council joined the Cooks River Alliance along with seven other councils including; Ashfield, Bankstown, Canterbury, City of Sydney, Marrickville, Rockdale and Strathfield. The former Kogarah Council chose not to join the Cooks River Alliance.

4. The Alliance sought to work towards the realisation of the following long term outcomes:

· The quality and volumes of water flowing to the Cooks River from all parts of the catchment better reflect the natural water cycle

· Natural habitats are thriving and connected across the catchment

· Communities actively participate to improve the health of the catchment

· The Alliance councils have a high capacity for, and are known for, their leadership in sustainable urban water and catchment management

· Accessible, centralised and up-to-date information about the catchment is readily available

· The catchment’s resilience to pressures from changing environments has increased

5. Participation in the Cooks River Alliance during the first three years of membership was based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which Council signed when formally joining the group. Annual membership payments during the first term were $31,000 in the first year (2011-12), $38,000 in the second (2012-13) and $46,000 in the third and final year (2013-14). This MOU expired in 2014. Since that time there has been no Council budget for CRA membership and it has been reviewed on an annual basis based on performance and outcomes.

Alliance Structure

6. The Alliance's board members are made up of Councillors from each member Council with former Councillor Philip Sansom representing the former Hurstville Council as the Deputy Chair.

7. Following the recent Council amalgamations, the Alliance’s original membership of 8 Councils has reduced to 6 Councils. Amalgamations are still pending for two unmerged Alliance members, namely Rockdale City Council and Strathfield Municipal Council.

8. The Alliance operates at three levels: Board level, Executive Management level and Steering Committee /Officer level. The Board provides strategic direction and decision-making, and is made up of one elected councillor from each member council. The Steering Committee contributes ideas, resources and expertise to Alliance projects and issues and it is comprised of officers from each member council. The Executive provides management support to the Alliance staff and is made up of representatives from both the Board and the Steering Committee.

9. The Cooks River Alliance employs a small staff to manage the day-to-day activities of the Alliance and to drive the implementation of the CRA management and action plans.

Achievements of the first 3 year term:

10. In March 2015 a report went to the former Hurstville City Council summarising the achievements of the Alliance during the first three year term. Council’s membership contributions to the CRA during the first term of the Alliance totalled $115,000. There were two CRA achievements during this period. These were the development of the Cooks River Alliance Management Plan and the Cooks River Alliance Action Plan. During the first term of the Alliance the CRA did not reach the levels of activity anticipated due to ongoing staff vacancies and a lengthy strategic planning process. Eventually the abovementioned plans were developed to guide future CRA activity.

11. Other activities undertaken by the Cooks River Alliance during the initial MOU period included:

· the development of the Cooks River Interpretation Strategy and Signage Guidelines.

· Catchment Riverhealth Monitoring (then co-ordinated by the Georges River Combined Councils' Committee’s Riverhealth Program).

· the establishment of a Cooks River catchment volunteer litter removal initiative.

· supporting the campaign towards a container deposit levy.

· attending a number of community events.

12. In addition to the items above, in 2014 the Alliance received a $2 million, 3 year grant from the Commonwealth Caring for Our Country program to implement a series of on ground works. This project was known as ‘Cooks River: Place. People. Connections.

13. Under this grant project, the Cooks River Alliance sought to collaboratively implement community visions from OurRiver sub catchment planning and to overcome barriers to water sensitive communities identified in the Alliance Action and Management Plans & Botany Bay Water Quality Improvement Plans. The grant project also includes the construction of 7 Bio-retention systems (rain gardens) to reduce pollutants at priority sites.

14. One of the abovementioned bio retention systems is located in the Georges River LGA. The Alliance provided the former Hurstville Council with $161,748.94 from the Commonwealth grant in the 2014/2015 financial year to construct a rain garden at Butler Reserve, on the corner of Margaret St and Rayment Avenue, Kingsgrove.

15. The Butler Reserve rain garden project was first identified within the Upper Wolli Creek Sub catchment Management Plan prepared by the Cooks River Sustainability Initiative (CRSI), City of Canterbury, Hurstville Council and Rockdale Council in 2010.

16. Council is combining the construction of the rain garden with a scheduled playground upgrade being funded from Council’s Infrastructure Plus funds.

17. Council has also been provided with a smaller payment of $9247 from the CRA towards the development of designs for the Butler Reserve Project. The designs were to have originally to been produced by the CRA’s own staff engineer however the position was vacant for a lengthy period of time which required Council to take over the development of the designs. Council engaged Alluvium Consulting to develop the design plans for the rain garden.

18. Following the expiration of the original 3 year Memorandum of Understanding in 2013/14, Council has had no ongoing budget to support the CRA. The MOU has not been renewed with member Councils and the former Hurstville Council continued to pay membership fees to the Alliance on an annual basis from working funds surplus, following an annual review of performance and benefits to Council. The amounts paid since the MOU expired are provided below, ex GST.

· 2014/15 - $47,058

· 2015/16 - $48,140

19. Should Council wish to continue membership with the CRA for the final year of the three year Commonwealth Grant program (2016/17) the cost to Council would be $49,536. This amount would be required in addition to $140,000 being contributed from Council funds towards the Butler Reserve Rain garden and playground upgrade project.

Benefits to Council

20. As noted earlier, the achievements of the Alliance during the first 3 year term were lower than expected and limited to the development of the Cooks River Alliance Management Plan and the Cooks River Alliance Action Plan due to ongoing staff vacancies and a protracted strategic planning process.

21. Following the expiration of the original MOU in 2014 the output of the CRA was again constrained for a further 12 months staffing issues and vacancies. However, in August 2015 the Alliance employed a new Program Manager (Stephen Summerhayes) to lead the implementation of the CRA’s programs and an Engineer (Simon Levia) to oversee the delivery of the on ground works associated with the Australian Government grant. Achievements and outputs have increased since employing the new staff but have, as a matter of necessity, been primarily focussed on delivering the Commonwealth grant project.

22. By far the most tangible benefit to Georges River Council from the last 5 years of membership to the CRA has been the devolved Commonwealth grant funding that Council has received towards the construction of the Butler Reserve Rain garden.

23. Council staff participate in the Alliance Steering Committee and several of the Alliance Action Groups, such as the Capacity Building Group, Information and Website Group and Catchment Ecological Health Monitoring (which is based on the GRCCC’s River Health Monitoring Program). However, when taking into consideration the significant amount of time that staff have historically allocated to attend the numerous CRA committee and action group meetings, the direct benefits to Council from involvement in these action groups and sub-committees has been limited.

Membership going forward

24. While membership to the CRA publically demonstrates Councils ongoing commitment to improving the ecological health of the Cooks River, it is considered that many of the functions within the CRA Action Plan and Management Plan could be performed internally by Council staff given the additional resources available following the recent amalgamation between Hurstville and Kogarah Councils.

25. Such functions include increasing community awareness about the Cooks River, which is currently low given that the former Hurstville Council area has no Cooks River foreshore, engaging with Aboriginal communities, and on ground works where appropriate.

Operational Plan Budget

26. No budget impact for this report.

File Reference

D15/12649 and D15/112561

	Date	Ward	Venue
1	6 February 2017	Kogarah Bay	Kogarah Civic Centre, 2 Belgrave St Kogarah
2	6 March 2017	Hurstville	Hurstville Civic Centre, MacMahon St Hurstville
3	3 April 2017	Mortdale	Mortdale Community Centre, 2B-2C Boundary Rd, Mortdale
4	1 May 2017	Hurstville	Hurstville Civic Centre, MacMahon St Hurstville
5	5 June 2017	Peakhurst	Club Rivers, 32-34 Littleton St, Riverwood
6	3 July 2017	Hurstville	Hurstville Civic Centre, MacMahon St Hurstville
7	7 August 2017	Blakehurst	Kyle Bay on Georges, 12 Merriman St Kyle Bay
8	4 September 2017	Hurstville	Hurstville Civic Centre, MacMahon St Hurstville
9	9 October 2017	Hurstville	Hurstville Civic Centre, MacMahon St Hurstville
10	6 November 2017	Hurstville	Hurstville Civic Centre, MacMahon St Hurstville
11	4 December 2017	Hurstville	Hurstville Civic Centre, MacMahon St Hurstville

Lessor:	Georges River Council
Lessee:	Apex Shipping Pty Ltd
Address:	Suite 2C Hurstville House – 34 MacMahon Street, Hurstville
Area:	Approximately 67 square metres. Parking Space - Nil
Rental:	As per Confidential Letter of Intent.
Usage	Office Space – Shipping Agent
Lease Term	Eighteen (18) months
Option	One (1) Year
Rent Reviews	As per Confidential Letter of Intent.
Guarantee	Equivalent to 3 Months gross rent.
Commencement	8 September, 2016
Lease Expiry Date	7 March, 2018
Leasing Incentive	As per Confidential Letter of Intent.
Legal Costs	Lessee to pay Council’s reasonable legal costs.
Lessee Utilities	Lessee to pay for own usage of electricity, telephone, data line, internal cleaning etc.
Lessor’s Works	Nil
Lessee’s Works	To be approved by the lessor in writing.
Make Good	Standard make good clause applies but does not apply to hard fit-out
Outgoings	Payable by the lessor
Insurances	Lessee to provide Public Liability cover to $20 million AUD and note Georges River Council as an interested party
Special Conditions	As per Confidential Letter of Intent

Attachment View1	Notification of Grant Application Approval
Attachment View2	Concept design for Upper Boggywell Creek Water Quality Improvement Scheme