HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
CIVIC CENTRE, MACMAHON STREET, HURSTVILLE.
__________________________________


SUMMARY OF ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE
DIVISIONAL MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH - SECTION ONE' REPORT
TO THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
TO BE HELD ON 97 02 26TH FEBRUARY, 1997-



05:01 Ward Councillors Reports
05:01.01 10-12 Cairns Street, Riverwood (D.A. 41/95)
Section 102 Modification - Residential Flat Building

05:02 Development Applications - Hurstville Ward
05:02.01 155 Vanessa Street, Beverly Hills (D.A. 256/96)
Changerooms, Storerooms, Kiosk and Toilet Facilities

05:02.02 39-43 Hudson Street, Hurstville (D.A. 334/96)
12X2 And 2X3 Bedroom Residential Flats With Associated Car Parking Under

05:04 Development Applications - Peakhurst Ward
05:04.01 5 Hedley Street, Riverwood (D.A. 338/96)
Detached Two Storey Dual Occupancy

05:05 Miscellaneous And Other Matters
05:05.01 Review Of Late Trading In Nsw Licensed Premises And Registered Clubs (File T/00584
05:05.02 Integrated Development Assessment - A Single Approvals System (File T/01273)

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH
DIVISIONAL MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH - SECTION ONE
REPORT NO 01TO THE DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
TO BE HELD ON 97 02 26TH FEBRUARY, 1997-


The General Manager
Hustville City Council
The Civic Centre
HURSTVILLE

Dear Sir,

Hereunder is my report No.01 to be submitted to the DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND PLANNING Committee:-


05.01 WARD COUNCILLORS REPORTS



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.01.01 10-12 CAIRNS STREET, RIVERWOOD (D.A. 41/95)
SECTION 102 MODIFICATION - RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING
(Report by Town Planner, Ms. L. Yousif)




Applicant : Huntington & MacGillivray, Architects
Proposal : SECTION 102 MODIFICATION
RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING
Zoning : Zone No. 2 - Residential
Residential Development
Control Plan 1994 : Development Area "D"
Owners : Green & Javeski


PRECIS OF REPORT

1. Proposed modification of development to that approved in DA 41/95 is to re-configure internal layout and move four (4) storey section from the front to the centre of the building. The number of units remains the same at twenty (20).

2. Modified design lessens the impact of approved design in regard to privacy loss and streetscape.

3. Thirty-one (31) submissions received from thirteen (13) residents for this modification.

4. Recommendation - approval.


A report on the above application was considered by Council at the Meeting held on 29 January, 1997, when it was resolved :

"THAT the matter be deferred for an inspection and report by Ward Councillors and appropriate Council officers."

As a result, the matter is relisted for this meeting and a copy of the report as considered by Council on 29 January, 1997 is reproduced below :

Background

On 13 December, 1995, Council approved the development of a residential flat building containing twenty (20) two bedroom units at 10-12 Cairns Street, Riverwood.

On 4 April, 1996, the applicant submitted new plans for the development in the form of a proposed modification of the approved development under Section 102 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. Subsequently further amendments were made to the new plans, which were received by Council on 5 September, 1996. These latter plans have since been advertised and notified and are the subject of this report.

Site and Locality

The site is located on the north side of Cairns Street, approximately 100 metres east of its intersection with Belmore Road. the site encompasses two house blocks and is rectangular in shape, having a frontage to Cairns Street of 25.6 metres and a depth of 56.98 metres. Each block contained a house, both of which were in poor condition but have since been demolished. The site slopes towards the rear and the west (No. 8 Cairns Street), with a total fall diagonally across the site of approximately 3.0 metres.

Adjoining the site are cottages on the west side and an approved residential flat building on the east side. To the rear is the St. Patrick's Anglican Church (which addresses Littleton Street). On the opposite side of Cairns Street and further up and down the street are single cottages.

Proposal

The applicant has lodged a written submission on the modified proposal and it states as follows :

"An application is before council for a section 102 amendment to the development consent on the above property.

The existing approval is for 20 times two bedroom home units.

The amended plans are for 20 times two bedroom units.

We believe the approved plans have the following deficiencies :

a. The garaging is for cars in open spaces. Enclosed separate garages are preferable.

b. The development proposes four storeys to the street frontage. A development of three storeys facing the street would be more in scale with existing developments in the area and more in keeping with peoples expectations of three storeys for high density development.

c. The proposed front elevation does not agree with the plans. This means that what is actually depicted will not be what is actually built.

d. The building because of its configuration requires a fire isolated stair. Before the fire isolated stair can provide entry to individual flats it must give access to an internal foyer at each floor. Those foyers can only be artificially lit and this is practically undesirable and wastes energy.

e. A fire isolated stair must be lined with non-combustible materials. This means that the stair cannot be carpeted but must be tiled with a hard material that generates unwanted noise when in use.

f. The south facing residential flats have their dining rooms located so far from a window that the available natural light would be insufficient for normal use, requiring artificial lighting for most of the daytime that the room was in use.

g. The rear units have been planned so that their living areas overlook their adjoining neighbours whilst the bedrooms to the same units are orientated to the north sun.

h. On the fourth floor the approved plans show in about the middle of the block, a living room window, a balcony a kitchen window and two bedroom windows all overlooking their adjoining neighbours. The window sills to these top floor flats are about 9000 above natural ground. In addition the east facing flats on the fourth floor are setback 7000 from the boundary, a marginal increase on the 6700 of the approved plans and hence a marginal improvement on the loss of privacy issue to the adjoining neighbour.

i. The proposal is excavated so that two of the ground floor south facing two bedroom flats are of a 1600 high retaining wall. Because of the south orientation these flats would be rather dank and dark

A meeting was held with Councillor Sansom regarding the proposed changes. His main objection dealt with the apparent increase in windows to the fourth floor overlooking the adjoining neighbours.

Three sets of amended plans, drawings 3.127.1, 2, 3a, 4a, 5a, 6, 7a and 8a are enclosed that address that problem. Whereas the approved plans have a total of four windows and a balcony overlooking the neighbouring property on both the east and west sides, on the fourth floor the amended plans have two bedroom windows overlooking the neighbouring property on both the east and west sides. The potential for overlooking has been more than halved. There is more potential for undesirable overlooking from balconies, living rooms and kitchen windows. This is eliminated in the amended plans.

On the approved plans the walls of the fourth storey is set back, 6500 to 7000 from the side boundaries. The amended plans that are the subject of the section 102 amendment are set back 7000 and 4505 from their side boundaries. When compared with the numbers of windows and the side setback on the approved plans with the lesser numbers of windows and the setback to the amended design to the additional loss of privacy due to decreased setback is nullified by the numbers and types of windows on the amended plans.

The amended plans provide for, as opposed to the approved design :

a. Enclosed self contained garages.

b. Three storeys to the street frontage providing a more apt scale to the street.

c. A redesigned front elevation that is in our opinion an improvement on the approved design.

d. The amended design now does not require a fire isolated stair. There is then no internal artificially lit foyer. The stair can be carpeted thereby reducing noise transmission.

e. The South facing flats are redesigned so that the almost internal dining room is now located closer to a natural light source.

f. Half of the rear facing flats have been redesigned so that their living areas face north with an attendant reduction in potential overlooking of an adjoining neighbour.

g. The fourth floor is in roughly the same position on plan as the approved plans. The numbers of windows overlooking their adjoining neighbours has been more than halved.

h. The amended design now provides for the lowest of the southern most flats looking over natural ground rather than into an excavated cavern.

On the evidence above it is clear that the amended proposal is superior to both the approved plans and to a lesser extent to our plans originally submitted with the section 102 amendment.

We ask that council consider the amendment favourably.

As a footnote our client has indicated he may sell the plans with the original approval if council rejects the section 102 amendment rather than build a development he feels is inferior.

He must feel strongly about the approved plans to invest so much time in obtaining a 102 amendment when the interest clock is ticking so loudly.

Should council reject the proposed amendments then the development WILL proceed on the already approved development consent."

Whilst there is general agreement with the points made by the applicant in the submission above a comment is made as follows :

"clause (c)" - The approved plans did depict what was going to be built. The floor plan for first and second floors did not show the off-set of facades as marked on the front elevation because it was a composite drawing on one sheet. However, this construction was understood and would have been clearly shown on construction plans with the building application.

"clause (g)" - The rear units balconies did overlook adjoining properties to each side and now one will look to rear instead of the side. Whilst it is still overlooking rear properties it is preferable as rear wall is 9 metres away from the boundary.

"clause (i)" - The building floor level has been raised up by 1.4 metres to eliminate the low level of the ground floor units but the overall height of the building has been increased by only 0.3 metres due to a change in roof shape and reduction in roof pitch.

The proposed modified design generally seeks to reconfigure the internal layout of the approved development. Its general configuration is similar to that approved by Council in DA 41/95. Details of the approved scheme and the proposed modified design are shown below:

Approved
Proposal
No. of Units20 x 2 bedroom20 x 2 bedroom
FootprintRectangularRectangular
Height3-4 storey over basement3-4 storey over basement
Setbacksoff all boundariesoff all boundaries
Driveway and Parkingsouth-western corner down to basementsouth-western corner down to basment
LevelsBasement - RL 22.0Basement - RL 22.45
Ground - RL 25.0Ground - RL 26.4/25.45
1st - RL 27.551st - RL 29.15/28.0/28.2
2nd - RL 30.102nd - RL 31.9/30.55/30.85
3rd - RL 32.7363rd - RL 33.1
Overall - RL 36.9Overall - RL 37.2
Max. Heightless than 12.0 m12.0 m

From the above table it is clear that the proposed design is substantially similar to that approved by Council. Consequently Council is within its power to consider the new scheme as a proposed modification to the original consent.

Section 90

The site has been inspected and the proposal examined in accordance with the provisions of Section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, and the following comments are submitted for consideration.

Statutory Requirements

The subject site is zoned No. 2, Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, and the modified proposal is permissible with Council consent. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the (now repealed) Residential Development Control Plan 1994, because DA 41/95 was lodged at a time when that plan was still in force. For comparison purposes the proposal has also been assessed against the provisions of Council's Interim Residential Development Code.


Tabled Information

Proposed
Repealed
DCP
Com
pliance
Draft
DCP
Rep
Dft
Site Area
1458.69 m2
-
-
-
-
Density
20
-
-
No
13.9
Development Area "D"
Building Height
12.0m max
12
Yes
Yes
12.0 m
Private Open Space:
10.8 m2 min
15.0 m2
No
No
12.0 m2
Landscaped Area
734.4 m2
50.3%
656.4 m2
45%
Yes
Yes
656.4m2
45%
Building Setbacks: Front
7.3 m
6.0 m
Yes
Yes
6.0 m
E Side
3.2/3.2 m
-
Yes
No/No
4.0/7.0 m
W Side
3.7/3.7 m
-
Yes
No/No
4.0/7.0 m
Side/rear
9.0 m
-
Yes
Yes
6.0 m
Residential Parking
20
20
Yes
Yes
20
Visitor Parking
5
5
Yes
Yes
5
Building Envelope - Front
5.5m/45o
5.5m/45o
Yes
No
1.5m/45o
Frontage
25.6 m
-
-
Yes
24.0 m

Comment :

i) Private Open Space

The stated objectives of private open space as stated in the Interim Residential Development Code area to ..... "meet user requirements for privacy, access, outdoor activities and landscaping...."

The proposal supplies each dwelling with a private open space, either in the form of a courtyard/terrace or a balcony. While there are eight (8) units that have private open spaces less than the required 15 square metres, the actual average provision is 28.2 square metres per dwelling. This indicates that a range of users can be catered in this development, from those that require/wish little private open space, to those that require/wish to have more.

Privacy will be maintained for the nominated private open spaces either by courtyard walls, or planter boxes and railings for balconies above ground level. The privacy of these spaces is reasonable given the density of development proposal.

There is an adequate provision of landscaping in this development proposal. The submission of a landscaping plan will ensure the effective utilisation of this area.

The actual requirement of future users of private open spaces is difficult to predict. While a reasonable area per unit may be desirable on a theoretical level, it should be remembered that perceived excess/inadequacy of private open space will be a matter for future occupants to consider in deciding to occupy the dwellings. The development as a whole caters for a wide range of private open space requirements.

In this light the apparent shortfall of private open space for some units, is not a matter that detracts from the proposed design.

ii) Side Setbacks/Building Envelope/Privacy

The proposed development scheme is designed to the former envelope control applicable to this site. This control of 5.5 metres and 45 degrees was considered appropriate to assess the approved development, consequently it is now considered appropriate to utilise it for assessing the modified design.

In regard to impact it should be noted that the proposed scheme is 300mm higher but it does not exceed the 12 metre height limit. Further the proposed scheme contains only seven (7) balconies facing side boundaries, the approved scheme has ten (10). The redesigned top level also greatly reduces the opportunity to overlook the neighbouring properties.

Generally the proposed scheme represents at worst no difference to the approved scheme, and at best represents an improvement to the privacy of neighbouring properties.

iii) Density

The proposal contains 20 units, which is the same as that approved by Council in DA 41/95 after having accepted review of this application under the Repealed Code. As long as there is no nett deterioration of impacts from development of this site, no objection is raised to the excess density in this instance.

iv) Storeys

The proposal exceeds the limit on the number of storeys in the Interim Residential Development Code for Development Area "D". It contains a development of 3/4 storeys over a basement level, which is the same as that approved by Council in DA 41/95. In the same vein as iii) Density above, no objection is raised to the excess storey in this instance.

Other Section 90 Issues

i) Solar Access

The proposed design offers marginally better solar access into the living and dining areas of many of the units in the building.

Public Notification and Comment

The proposed modification was advertised in the "St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader" and adjoining residents were notified by letter and given twenty-one (21) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. Upon receipt of amended plans for the proposed modification the matter was re-advertised in the "St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader" and adjoining residents were re-notified by letter,. inviting them to view the plans and submit comments on the proposal within twenty-one days. The twenty-six (26) people who had previously lodged a submission at some time since the original application was first lodged on 8 February, 1995 were also further notified for comment on the amended proposal.

As the Council is also aware, at the Council Meeting of 29 November, 1995 a petition, against development in this area, containing over 114 signatures was tabled and received by Council. A further petition calling for a rezoning of the area and containing 26 signatures was received on 5 February, 1996. Copies of both petitions were forwarded to all Councillors.

For this modified application a total of thirty one (31) submissions were received from thirteen (13) residents. A total of twenty-one (21) issues were raised and these issues are addressed below :

i) Non-compliance with Section 102

Comment : It has been submitted that the proposal differs to a substantial degree to the approved development and cannot therefore be considered a modification to DA 41/95. Previously in this report it is shown that the proposal is substantially similar to that approved by Council in DA 41/95 and can therefore be considered as a proposed modification to that approval.

It has also been submitted that Council has not permitted adequate public consultation, nor made correct and complete plans available for public viewing. The fact of the matter is that the proposal has been advertised twice, neighbours have been advised twice, there have been two (2) twenty-one day periods in which to view plans and all relevant plans available to Council have been available for public viewing. Given the level of public interest shown and the volume and content of correspondence it is difficult to support these allegations.

It has been claimed that the correct form has not been completed for the 102 Modification Application but the applicant submitted the required information in letter form and this is legally acceptable.

It has been claimed that the application is invalid as Council did not notify the application within twenty-one (21) days of receipt but that is a matter for action by the applicant and does not invalidate the application.

ii) Incorrect Wording in Advertisement

Comment : The first advertisement placed in the local press used the term "levels" in place of storeys. It has been claimed that this use of the term "levels" misrepresented the initial proposal.

While the two words are not the same, they are considered sufficiently similar to the reasonable reader. Irrespective of the choice of words, levels/storeys, the advertisements correctly invited the public to inspect the plans between certain dates, it correctly advised of the address of the proposed development, it correctly invited the public to make submissions, and it satisfactorily translated the fact that the proposal represented a modification to the approved development. Consequently no concern is raised in regard to the inhibition of public comment, nor of any prejudice caused to previous objectors, with regard to the proposed modifications. There is no evidence that anybody in the immediate vicinity is unaware of this proposed development.

iii) Townhouses and Villas are Preferable to Units - Object to Four (4) Storeys

Comment : Council's Development Area plan for the locality shows that the northern side of Cairns Street is zoned to permit home units, while the southern side is zoned to permit townhouse/villa style developments. On this basis it is unlikely that private developers would consciously not attempt to extract the maximum yield of units from land zoned for units. Whilst the Interim RDC limits development of residential flat buildings to three (3) storeys this application has been accepted under the Repealed Code.

iv) Residents not Advised of Rezoning

Comment : This matter is more relevant to the conduct of the preparation of the Hurstville LEP 1994 and the Residential Development Control Plan. Accordingly this matter is not one for assessment with the proposal at hand. It is a matter which can be considered together with Council's future review of residential strategies for this area.

v) Residents Do No Want Units in the Area

Comment : As for iv) above.

vi) Unit Development Will Turn Riverwood Into a Slum

Comment : The proposed residential building will be located within an established residential area. It will be closely situated to good quality shops and services, an express train route, and the M5 motorway. The proposal is of good quality design and is likely to actually enhance the streetscape in Cairns Street. Accordingly, it is suggested that units located in this development are likely to attract premium prices relative to poorly designed and poorly located developments evident elsewhere.

vii) Units Degrade Safety and the Street

Comment : Poorly designed and constructed development of any density will degrade any suburban street. Unit developments are considered no worse or better in this respect.

Public safety, especially in areas close to commercial precincts, is related to issues of safety in publicly accessible areas, rather than related to types of residential developments nearby. Assertions that home unit occupiers tend to be more criminally inclined cannot be reasonably considered.

viii) Destruction of an Established Area

Comment : In zoning the immediate vicinity of the site as Development Area "D", Council envisaged that significant change in the character of the area will occur. The future character, as dictated by the planning controls, are for walk-up unit developments. The current proposal is consistent to Council's envisaged future for Cairns Street.

ix) Amendments do not Make Building More Attractive

Comment : The amendments proposed do not change the size of the building but improve conditions for future occupiers and slightly reduce the impact on adjoining properties.

x) Privacy Loss

Comment : The development of 3-4 storey flat building adjoining cottages will lead to a degree of lost privacy. However, this must be considered in light of Council's long-term strategy for the areas, and the acceptance of a period of transition where this type of privacy loss is almost inevitable. In this instance, the proposed development actually represents an improvement over the approved scheme with respect to neighbour's privacy.

xi) Sunlight Loss

Comment : Similarly to x) Privacy Loss, some loss of sunlight to adjoining properties is inevitable in the "D" area. Council's Interim Residential Development Code specifies a minimum of four (4) hours of sunshine adjoining open space areas. The proposal permits the retention of the morning/midday sun to the back yard of No. 14 Cairns Street, and the midday/afternoon sun to the rear yard of No. 8 Cairns Street. Accordingly the proposal permits adequate sunlight to adjoining properties. As this building is of similar size to the previous approval and overshadowing was considered in that case there was no requirement for shadow diagrams with the amended plan.

xii) Excessive Height

Comment : The proposal satisfies the 12.0 metre height limits of both the Repealed Code and the Interim Residential Development Code.

xiii) Size and Bulk

Comment : The proposal presents no real difference to the overall size or bulk of the approved development on this site. In fact both the approved and proposed schemes utilise balconies and building variations that will reduce the perceived bulk of the building. The proposed repositioning of the fourth storey component to the middle of the building will obscure it from view from the street, and is therefore considered an improvement in the relationship of the proposal to the existing and likely future streetscape.

xiv) Inadequate Setbacks

Comment : This matter has been addressed previously in this report.

xv) Lack of Landscaping

Comment : This matter has been addressed previously in this report.

xvi) Insufficient Parking

Comment : The proposal satisfies the on-site parking requirements of the Interim Residential Development Code.

xvii) Increase in Traffic is Too Much for Local System

Comment : The capacities of the local traffic network, and its relationship to land use are clearly strategic issues. Accordingly the assessment of this proposal can only be made in light of the incremental increase in traffic. Assertions about saturation of the local network are properly considered within dedicated and comprehensive studies, not in response to individual development proposals.

xviii) Noise from Change in Driveway Location

Comment : Both the approved development and the proposed modified design utilise a driveway crossing at the south-western corner of the site adjoining No. 8 Cairns Street.

xix) Insufficient Play Area for Children

Comment : The proposal more than satisfies the requirements for landscaping area on the site. Most ground floor units actually retain a courtyard area directly accessible from the unit.

xx) Did Not Receive Notification of the Amendment

Comment : Neighbours to the development site were individually notified on two separate occasions in regard to the proposed modification. The proposal was also advertised in the "St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader" on two separate occasions. While it is an unfortunate fact that, on occasion, mail is misplaced, or does not reach its addressee, the local level of public interest demonstrated by the volume of submissions, and the advertisements ensured adequate public notification of the proposed modifications.

xxi) Did Not Receive a Copy of the Plans.

Comment : The author who raised this issue claimed that they did not receive a copy of the plans with their notification. Copies of the plans are not sent with the notification letters to adjoining neighbours, however, plans of the proposal were available for inspection at Council's office during both notification periods. This information was contained in the letters of notification.

Manager, Building Services

The matter was referred to the Manager, Building Services who raised no objection to the proposal subject to the submission of a building application and the provision of a bin storage area at the front of the site.

Manager, Development Advice

This matter was referred to the Manager, Development Advice who raised no objection to the proposal subject to stormwater draining to Cairns Street. This will require the pumping out of stormwater for the proposed basement which is below the street level.

Summary

The proposed scheme is substantially similar to that approved by Council on this site in DA 41/95. While there are changes in some details (i.e., split levels) the new scheme actually represents a net improvement in regard to privacy of neighbours to the east and west, and its streetscape appearance. Its size and bulk, will not be repeated on other sites in the area due to the adoption of the Interim Residential Development Code, though it is considered acceptable in this instance given the form of the approved development on this site.

It should be noted that the approved development can be developed on this site. Council support for the modification of the consent for DA 41/95 will permit the approved plans to be superseded by the current proposal. Submissions received in respect to the proposed modified design were substantial in quantity, though tended to raise strategic issues that cannot be properly considered within an assessment of one development proposal. In view of the above matters the modification to DA 41/95 is supported.

For the benefit of Councillors the report to the Council meeting held on 13 December, 1995 for the original approval of this application is reproduced below :

Locality

The site is located on the northern side of Cairns Street and is centrally located within this block. The land currently accommodates a single storey fibro cottage and a single storey brick and tile residence with associated rear garages and sheds. The site has a fall of approximately 2 metres from the south (Cairns Street) to the north. The site is only sparsely vegetated with a number of semi-mature trees across the rear of the site.

The surrounding locality is predominantly residential in nature with the housing form being single storey detached residences. The locality is also in close proximity to the Riverwood Shopping Centre. The northern side of Cairns Street is identified for Multiple Dwelling Building redevelopment as a "D" area, whilst the southern side of the street is identified for Townhouse/Villa style housing potential as a "B" area.

Proposal

Demolition of existing two residences and the erection of a brick and tile part four/three storey above basement carparking, residential building. The ground, first and second floor levels shall accommodate six units with the third level accommodating two units. The upper level is partially with a roof space design. The complex will accommodate 20 x 2 bedroom units whilst the basement carpark provides for twenty (20) resident and five (5) visitor carparking spaces.

Section 90

The site has been inspected and the proposal examined in accordance with the provisions of Section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, and the following comments are submitted for consideration.

Statutory Requirements

The subject site is zoned No. 2 - Residential under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, and the proposal is permissible within the zoning with Council consent. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of Council's Residential Development Control Plan 1994 and is generally in compliance with the provisions of the Residential Development Control Plan.

Manager, Building Services (South)

The matter was referred to the Manager of Building Services who raised no objections to the proposal subject to standard conditions.

Manager, Development Advice

This matter was referred to the Manager, Development Services who raised no objections to the proposal subject to all stormwater being pumped back to Cairns Street.

Tabled Information

Proposed
Repealed DCP
Com
pliance
draft DCP
Rep
Dft
Site Area
1,458.68m2
-
-
-
-
Density
20
-
yes
no
13.9
Development Area ( D )
Building Height
12m
12m
yes
yes
12.0m
Private Open Space: Balconies
12m2
15m2
no
yes
12.0m2
Landscaped Area
734.47m2
50%
656m2
45%
yes
yes
656m2
45%
Building Setbacks: Front
6.5m
5.8m
yes
yes
6.0m
Side/rear
4.0m/9.0m
n/a
yes
no/yes
7.0m/6.0m
Residential Parking
20
20
yes
yes
20
Visitor Parking
5
5
yes
yes
5
Building Envelope - side
5.5m/450
5.5m/450
yes
no
1.5m/450
Frontage
25.6
n/a
yes
yes
24m

Building Envelope/Setbacks

The proposal does not comply with the 1.5m x 450 envelope control under the Interim RDCP, for the side boundaries however, the application was originally submitted in February, 1995 and designed to comply with the 5.5m x 450 envelope of the repealed RDCP. The development provides a minimum of 9 and 4 metre setbacks to the rear/side boundaries which generally exceeds setbacks which were required for similar two storey above carparking developments under the Old Residential Flat Building DCP pre-1994. The proposal as amended is considered to be satisfactory with acceptable boundary setbacks and compliance with the original envelope control.

Density

The proposal is for 20 units (a reduction from 26 units as part of the original application), whereas the Interim RDCP permits 13.9 units (at one per 105m2). This proposal equates to a rate of one per 72.9m2. This density rate is comparable to the current rates being applied to similar scale of developments lodged under the Repealed RDCP, which have been approved by Council. The 20 unit proposal is considered to be an acceptable compromise density for this particular proposal.

Storey's

The proposal is for three storeys plus two units in a roof area level above basement parking. This would be defined as a four storey building under the Interim RDCP and is not permissible under that Plan. The original application was for a straight four storey building with the fourth storey accommodating six units. The compromise proposal reduces the fourth storey to only two units and these are recessed within the roof space (permissible under the repealed RDCP), giving the development a less bulky appearance. The subject proposal is an acceptable design compromise and strict compliance with the three storey restriction is considered unwarranted, taking regard to the development being lodged five months prior to repeal of the RDCP.

Public Notification and Comment

In accordance with the requirements of Hurstville LEP the subject development was publicly notified for twenty one (21) days and adjoining owners were notified. At the close of this period seventeen (17) objections were received which raised the following concerns:

i) Lower Land Values

Claims of lower land values due to new developments being constructed have not been substantiated. Lower values is not likely for land which is in the "D" Area, whilst for lands on the southern side of Cairns Street in the "B" Area it is unknown what impacts will result on land values.

ii) Pollution

Arguments are raised that the developments during construction and later due to population/traffic increases will result in greater pollution concerns. This again has not been substantiated as a significant concern. It is agreed that dust/noise will result during construction and some increase in vehicle pollutants will result, however, these are not considered to be significant.

iii) Site "Public Notice" Signposting

It is noted that the DCP places the responsibility of signposting sites with the developer. It has become evident that this requirement has been overlooked on previous occasions by some developers. Clearly, by the 17 submissions received, the public was well aware of the development proposed for this site. Nevertheless, this site was subsequently sign-posted during the official newspaper "public notice" period for the amended application.

Photos have been submitted, a letter from the owner of No. 12 verifying their placement and a Council officer confirming their existence on site, is noted on file.

iv) Overshadowing

The site has a north/south orientation which results in any overshadowing of adjoining properties being restricted to either mornings or afternoons only. Hence, although overshadowing does result for the residences located to the west and east (subject of a recent refused multiple dwelling development) both properties will achieve at least four hours direct sunlight onto their lands. Minor overshadowing of lands to the south will result as they are separated by Cairns Street. Overshadowing is therefore considered acceptable in this instance.

v) Parking and Traffic

The application provides carparking on site in accordance with the requirements of the Residential DCP. The development will result in increased traffic generation in this locality, however, the capacity of the roads in this locality is adequate to cater for this increased traffic flow. The area was identified in this locality due to its close proximity to good public transport and the likelihood of future occupants utilising this public transport.

vi) Services

There is no substantiation that the proposed developments will result in servicing problems. Provision of satisfactory servicing of the development is a conditional requirement of developments of this nature. Should for unforeseen reasons servicing of the site be unavailable then any development consent would be invalid. It is considered that the site can be adequately serviced and this should not result in any servicing difficulties for the locality.

vii) Noise

Noise will be generated during construction stages of this development, however, this is expected with any new construction including single residences and will be for a restricted period only.

Additional street noise may be also generated following completion with the increased car usage associated with such developments. This again is an unavoidable result of development within the "D" Area and must be expected.

viii) Design

Claims are made that the design of the building is unsatisfactory and does not compliment the streetscape. Design is a subjective consideration and in this instance the design of the building is considered appropriate by providing a staggered facade to the street and makes use of roof elements within the design. The existing streetscape is of a single storey residential nature and the area at the time of lodgement was identified for redevelopment as two and three storey residential flat buildings with additional accommodation in the roof space.

ix) Open Space Usage

The development clearly provides more than adequate open space in accordance with Council's DCP. Objection was raised to the lack of adequate open space in the locality and the possible illegal use of open space. Section 94 contributions for Open Space would be imposed to provide and maintain future open space over and above the physical on-site provision.

Summary

The subject development as amended, achieves a reasonable design with sound use of roof elements and broken facades to reduce bulk and scale of the building. The development generally complies with the requirements of the Residential DCP and is recommended for conditional approval.

Additional Comment by Divisional Manager

This report has been prepared with regard to applying a consistent approach to outstanding development applications lodged under the repealed Residential Development Control Plan.

That is, the application has been considered on its merit with a view to achieving compliance with the repealed RDCP and some compliance towards the standards of the draft DCP.

Also it has been judged under a zone which permits residential flat buildings to a height of 12.0 metres.

An application for a four storey residential building on the adjacent site, 14-16 Cairns Street, was refused by Council earlier this year and Council's decision was upheld upon appeal.

The issues on that appeal were height, bulk, density, privacy, overshadowing, private open space and landscaping. These issues have been addressed in the subject application and their variances to the appealed application are as follows:

* height: four storeys reduced to three storeys with additional accommodation in roof space.
* bulk: building size reduced as less units.
* density: 26 units reduced to 20 in the subject application.
* privacy: 4 balconies each side reduced to 2.
* overshadowing: adjoining properties now receive four hours sunshine.
* private open space: increased to comply with code and communal open space provided at the rear.
* landscaping: 45% increased to 50%.

Amongst other things, Judge Bannon, stated in his judgement as follows:
It is open to conjecture which of the alternatives of three storey with attic, three storey or two storey, the judge would have found acceptable. Similarly, no indication was given that 75m2, 80m2 or 90m2 was preferable as a density per unit.

It is open to Council to apply more stringent requirements towards the draft DCP such as apply a maximum of three storeys with greater side boundary setbacks and apply a density closer to 105m2 site area per unit. The fact that it is new area for home unit buildings would probably support Council's case for applying its latest controls but this would not be ultimately known until tested at an appeal.

The impact of this proposal is greater as it is one of the first in a new zoning. However, similar buildings in other suburbs such as Hurstville, Penshurst and Mortdale have not adversely affected the general amenity of those areas.

Consequently, this application has been assessed according to area "D" requirements in the manner adopted for similar applications, whether they be at Hurstville, Penshurst or Riverwood.


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .01.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 10-12 CAIRNS STREET, RIVERWOOD (D.A. 41/95)
SECTION 102 MODIFICATION - RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING
(Report by Town Planner, Ms. L. Yousif)


. Recommendation 10-12 CAIRNS STREET, RIVERWOOD (D.A. 41/95)
SECTION 102 MODIFICATION - RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING
(Report by Town Planner, Ms. L. Yousif)



RECOMMENDATION


THAT Council as the consent authority modify the development consent to DA 41/95 for the erection of a 3/part 4 storey residential flat building with basement car parking, containing 20 x 2 bedroom units at 10-12 Cairns Street, Riverwood, by deleting condition Nos. 1, 9, 14, 22 and 29 and replacing them with the following :

1. Compliance generally with Drawing Nos 3.127 1, 2, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6, 7A and 8A tables and documentation prepared by Huntington and MacGillivray Architects, dated 2 April, 1996, and marked amended 19 August, 1996 except where amended by the conditions of consent.

9. The proposed building shall not exceed RL 37.2 or 12.0 metres at the ridge line as measured vertically from any nominated point from natural ground level to the roof line directly above the point.

14. The vehicular driveway and visitor carparking spaces shall be suitably constructed and sealed in material other than natural coloured concrete or bitumen and drained to Council's specifications. Footpath and crossing levels are to be obtained from the Engineering Division at a fee set by Council and details of this work shall be included with the Building Application.

22. The submission of a detailed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services, with the building application. This plan is to be prepared by an approved landscape consultant. The plan is to include details of the species, size and number of all plant material, the height and nature of all courtyard fencing, together with the surface treatment of all other areas. Landscaping shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services in accordance with the approved plan prior to occupation of the building. All landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services.

Note: In addition the Landscape Plan is to identify all existing trees by Botanical and Common names, having a height which exceeds 3 metres or a girth greater than 300mm at 450 mm above ground level, and their relationship, by scale to the proposed development. NO trees are to be removed or lopped without written Council approval.

29. A garbage storage area shall be provided towards the front of the site in lieu of the basement garbage rooms. Such area shall be capable of holding 12 x 240 litre mobile bins and ten (10) recycling crates. Details of this work shall be included with the Building application.

ADVISORY NOTES REGARDING THE SUBMISSION OF A BUILDING APPLICATION

A) Details of the mechanical exhaust ventilation system in relation to the wet rooms where natural ventilation in accordance with Clause F4.6 of the Building Code of Australia cannot be provided to these rooms.

The details should include whether the mechanical ventilation ductwork will be taken through each floor and discharged above the roof surface or will be discharged to the sky at each floor level.

B) Details of a hose reel/s in the basement carpark level and a hydrant in accordance with Part E1 of the Building Code of Australia.

C) Details of the smoke hazard management measures installed in the building to satisfy the mandatory performance requirements laid down in Clause E2.2(a) of the Building Code of Australia.

D) Details of the ventilation to be provided in the basement carpark level to meet the requirements of Clause F4.5 of the Building Code of Australia.
NOTE : In the event that a mechanical ventilation system is provided to the carpark level, such system will be required to be dedicated for smoke control purposes under Part E2 of the Code. In addition the smoke control measures and ventilation systems will be required to be designed in such a manner that in the event of the air handling system for ventilation purposes being off, the systems will continue to operate for smoke control purposes should a fire occur in the basement level.

E) Details of the subsoil drainage system around the basement carparking level.

F) Details of the method of complying with Council's Guidelines on Sediment and Silt Control.

G) Details of site fencing during construction.

H) Details of the means of storing building materials, such as bricks, reinforcing steel, sand or other filling materials, etc., on the site, particularly at the early stage of building works.

I) Details of the measures to prevent mud being taken onto the road from trucks leaving the site during excavation works.

J) Details of the means of constructing the footings under the eastern wall of the carpark ramp and subsoil drainage system around this wall within the curtilage of the subject property.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.02 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - HURSTVILLE WARD



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: 05.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.02.01 155 VANESSA STREET, BEVERLY HILLS (D.A. 256/96)
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)




Applicant : Hurstville City Council
Proposal : ERECTION OF AMENITIES
BUILDING CONTAINING
CHANGEROOMS, STOREROOMS,
KIOSK AND TOILET FACILITIES
Zoning : Zone No. 6(a) - Open Space
Owners : Hurstville City Council
Existing Development : Public Reserve
Cost of Development : $160,000

PRECIS OF REPORT

1. The proposal is to construct changerooms, storerooms, kiosk and toilet facilities for use in conjunction with playing fields in Beverly Hills Park.

2. The proposal is in compliance with Council's policies.

3. No objection is raised by Council's Engineers and Building Surveyors.

4. One (1) letter of objection, in the form of a petition, was received from nearby and surrounding residents.

5. Recommendation - approval subject to conditions of consent.


Proposed Development

It is proposed to construct an amenities building containing changerooms, canteen/kiosk, storerooms, equipment room and toilet facilities. The building is single storey of brick construction with colourbond roof, and when completed, will service the adjoining playing fields.



Site and Locality Description

The building is to be located within Beverly Hills Park adjacent to Vanessa Street and approximately 70.0 metres from the boundary of the park to The Crescent. The site is flat and the building will generally be screened from the street by an avenue of existing trees. Adjoining development on the opposite side of both Vanessa Street and The Crescent is generally characterised by dwelling houses.

Statutory Requirements

The subject land is zoned 6(a) - Open Space in accordance with Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 and as such the proposal is permissible with Council's consent.

Manager, Building Services

No objection is raised to the proposed development subject to the imposition of standard conditions and a building application being submitted.

Manager, Development Advice

No objection to proposed development. Detailed discussion of investigations considering alternative locations for the building are contained in the section of this report headed "Potential Relocation of Building".

Public Notification and Comment

The proposal was advertised for a period of two (2) weeks in August, 1996 with one (1) letter of objection, in the form of a petition with 44 signatures being received. The reasons for objection are listed as follows :

1. The proposed development is excessive in bulk, height and size and is not in character with the open space and green parkland;

2. The proposal is not appropriately located and should not be along or near the Vanessa Street frontage;

3. The proposal results in a loss in parkland/open space views from my residence;

4. The proposal is contrary to Council's Aims and Objectives in relation to alienation of its parks and open space;

5. The proposal detracts from the residential amenity and open space of this area;

6. The proposed facilities are excessive and not warranted;

7. There will be a reduction in direct view of those using the park resulting in added concerns on public safety, etc.

Comment :

1 and 2 - The development is excessive in bulk and height, is out of character and not appropriately located.

The building is single storey, low scale and is not considered to be of excessive bulk within its setting. While the building is to be situated along the frontage of the park to Vanessa Street, screening of the building will be provided by the existing avenue of trees. In addition should the application be approved the consent will be conditioned to require additional screen planting to Vanessa Street.

3, 5 & 7 - The proposal results in loss of open space views and detracts from residential amenity.

The existing views of some residents of Vanessa Street will be affected by the development, however, this will be compensated by the demolition of the existing amenities block. The design and appearance of the proposed building will clearly be an improvement on that existing and combined with the proposed additional screen planting will add, rather than detract from the visual amenity of the area.

4 & 6 - The proposal is contrary to Council's Aims and Objectives in respect to the alienation of open space and the proposed facilities are unnecessary and unwarranted.

Beverly Hills Park currently provides local clubs with sporting field facilities including the provision of amenities. The proposed building will merely improve these existing services through the erection of a modern, contemporary design building containing more accessible public toilets, facilities easier to clean and keep secure. The condition of the existing amenities building is such that the new development is both warranted and desirable.

Public Meeting

As a response to resident concern Ward Councillors requested a meeting be arranged with themselves, representatives of relevant sporting clubs, residents and Council officers in an attempt to resolve the issues of concern. The meeting was held on 13 January, 1997 and was attended by the Mayor and Councillors Lynch, Griffin and Dominelli and relevant Council officers. In addition, representatives from football clubs currently using the park and eight (8) residents of Vanessa Street were in attendance.

Issues Raised

i) Funding - it was explained that a $30,000 grant from the Department of Sport and Recreation had been provided, with the local football club providing an additional $15,000.

ii) Location - residents stated their preference was for the building to be located in the northern corner of the park, off The Crescent. Both the football club and Council's engineer object to this on the basis of increased vandalism, the impact on the existing cricket pitch and the need to avoid an existing drainage line.

iii) Contrary to Council's Objectives regarding open space - Residents felt open space should not be alienated by constructing additional buildings, however it was advised that because the Hurstville Ward suffered from a comparative shortage of open space it was necessary to maximise use of existing reserves.

Residents summarised their concerns by advising they are not against the football club using the park or Council providing facilities. However, they objected to the size of the building and felt it could be placed elsewhere to reduce loss of views and impact on amenity.

The club summarised their position by advising that they wish to improve the facilities in the park but also wanted to reduce the residents' concerns where possible. The Mayor closed the meeting by advising that Council, as applicant, would consider repositioning the building.

Potential Relocation of Building

Following the public meeting, Council's Manager, Special Projects investigated the potential to relocate the proposed amenities building from Vanessa Street to The Crescent/canal corner of the park. The outcome of the investigation indicated that the cost of the development would be substantially increased if the building were to be relocated as requested by local residents, due to the impact of this repositioning on the existing cricket pitch and drainage line. The additional cost is itemised as follows :

Demolish and rebuild the cricket pitch to suit the new location
$9,000
Extra costs for extending services and utilities to the new location
$4,000
Additional cost for foundations on softer ground near the stormwater canal
$5,000
Additional costs for vandalism resulting from being built in an unattended location (100m2 of additional external graffiti removal @ $60/m2 = $6,000 + other items, broken tiles, windows, doors, locks etc. $2,500)
$8,500/year*
Total first year
$26,500
Total other years
$8,500

* This figure has been estimated based on the difference between the existing dressing sheds on Vanessa Street and the unattended toilet blocks in Beverly Grove park. These toilets attract more graffiti in one moth than the life time of the Vanessa Street blocks

The above costs do not allow for retaining the existing toilet block to cater for the other end of the park. If the old toilet is to stay, an extra $8,000 will have to be voted to bring it to a reasonable condition and fit it with lockable gates. The toilet's running costs will also have to come into the equation.

Summary

The improvements to Council's reserves must receive a balanced judgement for needs of immediate neighbours plus those of the general community. This proposal is considered to be reasonable in bulk and scale for the park setting, and, when combined with landscaping will not detract from the visual amenity. Additionally, as a public building, Council must be concerned for the cost of the project.

On this basis it is considered that the location originally proposed in Vanessa Street is most appropriate from both a financial and planning point of view. It is therefore recommended that the development application be approved subject to conditions of consent.






HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .02.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 155 VANESSA STREET, BEVERLY HILLS (D.A. 256/96)
(Report by Town Planner, Ms. G. Vereker)


. Recommendation 155 VANESSA STREET, BEVERLY HILLS (D.A. 256/96)
(Report by Town Planner, Ms. G. Vereker)



RECOMMENDATION


THAT Council as the consent authority pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, approve development application No. 256/96 for the erection of an amenities building containing changerooms, storerooms, kiosk and toilet facilities in Beverly Hills Park, Vanessa Street, Beverly Hills, subject to the following conditions of consent :

1. The development take place in accordance with drawings notated KINGS02 and dated 27 June, 1995, except as amended by the conditions listed hereunder.

2. A Building Application being submitted to and approved by the Council in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993.

3. All building materials shall be compatible in colour and texture throughout the whole project. Details and colour of building materials shall be submitted with the Building Application.

4. The hours of work on the site during demolition of the existing building or excavation of the site and construction of the proposed building shall be limited to the hours of 7 am to 5 pm Monday to Saturday inclusive with no work on Sundays, Good Friday, Christmas Day or Public Holidays.
PLEASE NOTE : A separate application for demolition work is required to be lodged with Council for approval prior to the commencement of the work.

5. Activities such as the display or storage of goods, signs or any article outside the confines of the building is prohibited.

6. The whole of the premises shall be maintained in a clean and tidy state at all times to the satisfaction of Council.

7. No permission is given to remove any existing trees on site. Any existing tree which may be affected by the development must be suitably fenced and protected prior to site works commencing.

8. Additional screen planting must be provided between the proposed building and Vanessa Street to minimise the visual impact of the development. In this respect a landscape plan indicating the number of plants and species must be submitted in conjunction with the building application.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.02.02 39-43 HUDSON STREET, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 334/96)
12X2 AND 2X3 BEDROOM RESIDENTIAL FLATS WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING UNDER
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)






Applicant : McFadyen Anlezark
Proposal : RESIDENTIAL FLAT BUILDING
Zoning : Zone No. 2 - Residential
Residential Development
Control Plan 1994 : Development Area "D"
Owners : The Uniting Church
Existing Development : Church Hall and Associated Buildings
Cost of Development : $850,000

PRECIS OF REPORT

1. The proposal is to demolish the existing structures and to construct 12x2 and 2 x 3 residential flat buildings.

2. The proposal is in compliance with the criteria of Councils policy, except with regard to the building envelope and the minimum driveway width.

3. No objection is raised by Councils engineers, tree inspectors or building surveyors.

4. One submission was received from an adjoining resident during the notification period.

5. Recommendation - Approval subject to conditions of consent.



Proposed Development

It is proposed to demolish the existing church hall and associated buildings, and erect a three storey residential flat building containing 12 x 2 bedroom dwellings and 2 x 3 bedroom dwellings. The parking for the building will be provided in the form of a basement under the proposed development.

Site and Surrounding Area

The site comprises several properties owned by the Presbyterian church which contain a conglomeration of buildings being a presbytery office and church hall facilities.

The adjoining church building to the rear which has frontage to The Avenue, is presently the subject of a separate development application for the erection of a new church hall. In conjunction with this application, the National Trust was consulted and raised concerns regarding the possible demolition of the existing buildings fronting Hudson Street. These concerns were referred to the applicant who has advised that although the original church building was constructed in 1884, additions, demolition and other works have taken place on a somewhat ad-hoc basis at various times since then. The applicant argues that due to the substantial changes that have taken place on the site, much of its original significance has been lost.

The existing structures which are proposed to be demolished do not have a heritage listing and were not mentioned in Council's Heritage Study carried out in 1988.

Comment provided by the National Trust suggests that no demolition or alteration of these buildings should be permitted until a heritage study is carried out to determine their significance. However, on the basis that Council's Heritage Study listed the adjoining church as an item of heritage significance but made no mention of these ancillary structures, it can reasonably be concluded that they are not of such significance to preclude the proposed demolition. It is recommended that should Council approve the development application a condition of consent be included to require the developer to prepare a full historical record of each building to be submitted to Council with the building application.

The surrounding area is predominantly three and four storey residential flat buildings in the block bounded by Forest Road, Hudson, Cross Street and The Avenue. Opposite the subject site are also several three storey residential flat buildings along with a club facility.

Other developments in the immediate area include Westfield shopping complex and cinemas, a number of commercial developments and Woodville Park. There is also a scattering of single residential dwellings being both one and two storeys in height. In particular No. 37 Hudson Street is a relatively new two storey dwelling with garages under and No. 45 Hudson Street is a single storey brick and tile cottage.

Due to the proximity of the site to the Hurstville business centre, it is well serviced by public and private transport as well as shopping facilities.

Statutory Requirement

The subject site is Zoned No. 2 - Residential, under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994. The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council.

There are no numerical statutory provisions contained within the LEP relevant to the assessment of the current application.

The proposal has been assessed against Councils Interim Residential Development Code (IRDC) and exhibits compliance except with regard to the building envelope and the minimum driveway width. The following table summarises the proposals compliance with the provisions of the IRDC. Further comment is provided where appropriate.

ProposedCompliesInterim DCP
Site Area1560m2Yes1470m2
Density14 dwellingsYes14 dwellings
Frontage36.57mYes24m
Storeys:
Front
Rear
2
3
Yes
Yes
3
3
Building Height:
Front
Rear
9m
10.2m
Yes
Yes
12.0m
12.0m
Private Open Space61.74m2Yes12.0m2
Building Setbacks:
Front
Rear
6.0m
6.0m
Yes
Yes
6.0m
6.0m
Building Envelope:
1st & 2nd storey
3rd storey
4.0m
7.0m
Yes
No
4.0m/450
7.0m/450
Landscaped Area52.8%Yes45%
Residential Parking16Yes15
Visitor Parking4Yes4

Comment : Building Design/Streetscape

The proposal is considered to be of better than average design, particularly in comparison to existing development. The building has been well articulated with a varied roof pattern, differing setbacks and a building shape that is not regular. It will contribute to the streetscape as a result of being a higher quality development.

Building Envelope

The proposal breaches the building envelope along its south-eastern and north-western elevation by 1.1 metres and 1.5 metres, respectively. The cause of the breaches to each elevation are the dormer windows to the third storey level, which have been introduced to the proposal in lieu of the balconies accessed from bedrooms 2 and 3 of Units 7 and 14. The dormer windows have a sill height of approximately 1.6 metres, and introduce articulation to the upper level of the building which enhances its appearance from adjoining properties and public places.

The Interim Development Code allows for variations to the building envelope in all Development Areas, except Area D. The intrusion allowance applies to roofing and eaves overhang. Notwithstanding the said breach, the modified development satisfies all objective criteria established for the building envelope, which includes the compatibility of the building height and form. Additionally, the dormer windows do not create unreasonable environmental impacts with regards to overshadowing and highlighted windows have been used to remove potential overlooking.

It is considered acceptable to allow the variation in the building envelope in this instance for the reason stated above.

Relationship with Adjoining Development

The original proposal had minor concerns relating to the potential to impact on the adjoining property. The applicant considered these concerns and made subsequent changes to the plans. The result has been the removal of several balconies and the reduction in size of several others.

The building will now have a satisfactory relationship with adjoining development. Its design is complimentary to the streetscape and will not detract from the adjoining structures.

Amenity Considerations

It is considered that the impact on the amenity of the adjoining development will not be at a level that warrants changes to the application. The fact that this building is a three storey flat building will mean that there is some overshadowing of adjoining properties during the day.

As Hudson Street runs generally east west there will be a large portion of the day where there is no overshadowing to properties on either side. The street layout and the fact that 3 storey flats predominate this area combine to cause some overshadowing.

Landscape Quality

The proposal has been designed in a manner that allows for generous landscaping. The basement car park does not occupy a large area of the site and therefore does not unduly interfere with the ability for landscaping to be implemented. The articulation of the building also enabled the provision of larger setbacks in some areas which will facilitate larger trees to improve privacy.

A complete Landscape Plan will be required to be submitted with the building application which will enable Council to ensure the proposal makes a positive contribution to the landscape quality and character of the locality.

Vehicle Access and Manoeuvrability

The only concern in this area is the accessibility to spaces 10 and 11 in the car park. As these spaces are at the end of the car park manoeuvrability will be difficult. As there is an additional car space in the development and the width of the spaces vary between 2.75 and 2.81 metres it is not considered that change is necessary.

Manager, Building Services

“No objection has been raised to the proposed development subject to a number of conditions of consent including:

* submission of a building application;
* submission of stormwater drainage plans with building application.

Council’s Building Surveyor has also advised that the plans do not show a garbage storage area and that 15m2 of the landscaped area should be set aside for this purpose.”

After consideration of this point it appears possible that this area could be set aside in the basement in lieu of the space which is over and above Council’s requirements for parking. A toilet facility and egress from the basement also need to be resolved but it is perceived that with the removal of the additional car space this available area can accommodate these items. As the basement does not occupy much of the site area it could be varied slightly to allow for these additional facilities if required.

Manager, Development Advice

No objection has been raised to the proposed development subject to a number of conditions of consent. These include the following:
provision of an easement for drainage;
pay Council for construction of vehicular crossing and footpath.

Public Notification and Comment

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and given twenty-one (21) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. One submission was received raising the following issues:

i) Washing hanging from balconies

Comment : This is controlled by the Strata Titles Act and is not an issue for consideration at the development application stage.

ii) Traffic will be increased and there is inadequate on street car parking.

Comment : The proposal fully complies with Council’s requirements for car parking and it is not expected that the traffic will increase significantly above current levels. The development is in keeping with the density requirements that Council has set for this area.

iii) Loss of privacy

Comment : There was some potential for loss of privacy resulting from the plans that went on exhibition. Minor changes were made that deleted two balconies and reduced the proximity of others to the boundary. The result is that the proposal complies with Council’s requirements and significantly reduces the potential for loss of privacy.

iv) Overshadowing

Comment : There will be some overshadowing but any development on this site would result in the same or worse overshadowing. This proposal has increased setbacks on some elevations and therefore is better than a design that utilises all of the buildable area of the site. The subdivision pattern means that any development of this site will overshadow adjoining properties if it utilises the allowable three storey height limit in the area.
Summary

The proposal is generally in compliance with Council’s planning controls, and provides a reasonable development on the site within the context of the immediate locality. The bulk and scale of the proposal are compatible with existing development, and do not result in any unreasonable impacts upon the streetscape or the amenities enjoyed by adjoining properties.

The changes made to the plans after the consultation period, whilst minor, have largely overcome any concerns that the proposal may have had an impact on adjoining properties. It also overcome some minor non-compliances with Council policy.

The proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to the relevant matters pursuant to Section 90 of the Environment and Planning Act, 1979. Accordingly, approval of the application subject to conditions is recommended.




HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .02.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 39-43 HUDSON STREET, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 334/96)
12X2 AND 2X3 BEDROOM RESIDENTIAL FLATS WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING UNDER
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)


. Recommendation 39-43 HUDSON STREET, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 334/96)
12X2 AND 2X3 BEDROOM RESIDENTIAL FLATS WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING UNDER
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)



RECOMMENDATION


THAT Council as the consent authority, grant consent to the construction of 12x2 and 2x3 bedroom flats at 39-43 Hudson Street, Hurstville, subject to the following conditions:

1. Compliance generally with Drawing No 413-1A tables and documentation dated July 1996 (amended 8 December 1996 and 12 December 1996) and received by Council on 13 December, 1996 and submitted with DA , except where amended by the conditions of consent.

2. A Building Application being submitted to and approved by the Council in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993, accompanied by detailed building plans, specifications and the payment of relevant building application fees.

3. The hours of work on the site during demolition of the existing building or excavation of the site and construction of the proposed building shall be limited to the hours of 7am to 5pm Monday to Saturday, inclusive with no work on Sundays, Good Friday, Christmas Day or Public Holidays.
PLEASE NOTE: A separate application for demolition work is required to be lodged with Council for approval prior to the commencement of the work.

4. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for open space/community recreation facilities.

The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett increase in the City’s population which will create extra demand on open space and community recreation facilities. Therefore, the requirement for additional open space and embellishment of existing open space is a direct measurable consequence of the approved development.

The contribution is $55092.00 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

5. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for community services and facilities.

The contribution is based on the criteria of any development thatresults in a nett gain of people living in the City or a change in the population structure which will create extra demand on community services and facilities.

The contribution is $6140.00 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

6. The applicant to provide an on site detention (OSD) facility designed by a professional hydrological/hydraulic engineer, showing computations of the inlet and outlet hydrographs and stage/storage relationships of the proposed OSD using the following design parameters:

* For events up to a 5% annual exceedance probability (AEP) design event as defined by Australian Rainfall and Runoff (May 1987), maximum peak site discharge resulting from the development shall not be greater than peak site discharge under existing conditions for all duration’s up to the time of concentration with OSD included and of the same AEP.

* Where the stormwater discharge points are connected to the street gutter system, the peak flow from the site shall not increase the width of gutter flow by more than 200mm at the design storm.

* The OSD facility shall be designed to meet all safety requirements and child proof safety fencing around the facility must be provided where the OSD facility is open or above ground when the design peak storage depth is grater than 300mm.

7. Stormwater drainage plans prepared by a qualified practising hydraulics engineer being submitted to Council with the Building Application. The layout of the proposed drainage system, including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of drainage pits are to be shown.

8. All roof stormwater to drain by gravity to the kerb and gutter in Hudson Street. The pump system for the basement car park shall drain to the same kerb.

9. A 1m wide easement to drain water is to be created over the subject site to benefit the lands adjoining the southern boundary known as 20 and 22 The Avenue to allow their stormwater to be drained to the kerb and gutter in Hudson Street. The easement is to be registered with any plan of subdivision prior to issue of a Building Certificate. Where the easement is located under a proposed garage, the developer is to pipe that portion of the easement to the satisfaction of Council.

10. In accordance with the survey plan and levels submitted by the height of the proposed residential flat building shall not exceed RL 67.35 as measured vertically from any nominated point from natural ground level to the roof line directly above that point.

11. The vehicular driveway and visitor car parking spaces shall be suitably constructed and sealed in material other than natural coloured concrete or bitumen and drained to Council’s specifications. Footpath and crossing levels are to be obtained from the Engineering Division at a fee set by Council.

12. The ground levels of the site shall not be raised/lowered or retaining walls constructed on the boundaries unless specific details are submitted to and approved by Council at Building Application stage.

13. All building materials shall be compatible in colour and texture throughout the whole project. Details and colour of building materials shall be submitted with the Building Application.

14. The area and/or work being the subject of the development consent, shall not be occupied or the use commence until a final inspection has been carried out by Council and a Certificate of Classification being issued.

15. The side and rear boundaries of the site shall be fenced with either 1.8 metre high lapped and capped paling fences (suitably stained) or 1.8 metre high colour bond metal fencing, to Council’s satisfaction. This work is to be completed prior to the issue of Certificate of Classification. It is to be the responsibility of the developer to ascertain which type of fence is preferred by the adjoining property owners.

16. All car spaces shall have minimum dimensions of 2.5m x 5.5m, except for disabled spaces which shall have minimum dimensions of 3.0m x 5.5m.

17. All vehicle entry and exit points and one or two way circulation movements on-site are to be clearly signposted to the satisfaction of Council.

18. Visitor spaces to be identified on strata plan and spaces to be suitably signposted on site using metal screw-on or rivet-on type signs.

19. A minimum height between the floor surface and the lowest overhead obstruction shall be 2.1 metres for all areas traversed by cars.

20. All existing vehicular crossings adjacent to the subject property that have become redundant are to be reinstated with kerb and guttering at the applicant’s expense prior to issue of Certificate of Classification.

21. Applicant to replace the existing vehicle crossing with kerb, gutter and footpath, and to pay Council to construct a new 150mm thick concrete vehicular crossing reinforced with F72. Quote given on request.

22. The submission of a detailed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services, with the building application. This plan is to be prepared by an approved landscape consultant. The plan is to include details of the species, size and number of all plant material, together with the surface treatment of all areas. Landscaping shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services in accordance with the approved plan prior to occupation of the building. All landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services.

Note: In addition, the Landscape Plan is to identify all existing trees by Botanical and Common names, having a height which exceeds 3 metres or a girth greater than 300mm at 450mm above ground level, and their relationship, by scale to the proposed development. NO trees are to be removed or lopped without Council approval.

23. Perimeter planting along all boundaries shall be such as to provide a dense-foliaged plant screen of trees and shrubs over a broad height range to minimise the effect of the development upon adjoining development. Details are to be submitted on the landscape plan to Council for approval.

24. A retaining edge of masonry or other approved barrier of a minimum height of 150mm shall be erected around the landscape areas to contain the soil and mulch material and to prevent the encroachment of motor vehicles.

25. No approval is expressed or implied to the subdivision of the subject land or dwellings. For any future Strata subdivision, a separate Development Application is required to be submitted to and approved by Council.

26. No burning of demolition or waste materials shall be carried out on the subject site.

27. All plumbing and vent pipes shall be kept within the building and not exposed to public view.

28. Permanent power poles are to be either painted or stained with a suitable colour to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issue of Certificate of Classification/Building Certificate.

29. The applicant shall provide a garbage bay to Council’s satisfaction, details to be submitted with the building application.

30. The applicant is to provide at no cost to Council, a full recording of the building for historical purposes which is to be done prior to demolition. This is to involve photographs of the exteriors and interiors of the building, floor plans, elevations, and any other architectural details which contribute to the character and historical significance of the building. This historical recording is to be carried out by a person with demonstrated experience in this field and is to be submitted to Council prior to any demolition work on the building being carried out and prior to approval of the building application.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.04 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - PEAKHURST WARD



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.04.01 5 HEDLEY STREET, RIVERWOOD (D.A. 338/96)
DETACHED TWO STOREY DUAL OCCUPANCY





Applicant : M. Hart
Proposal : DETACHED DUAL OCCUPANCY
Zoning : Zone No. 2 - Residential
Residential Development
Control Plan 1994 : Development Area "C"
Owners : M. Hart
Existing Development : Single Storey Dwelling
Cost of Development : $120,000

PRECIS OF REPORT

1. The proposal is to retain the existing dwelling and construct a two storey dwelling house to the rear. Access to the new dwelling will be via the secondary street frontage of Jacques Avenue.

2. The proposed access from Jacques Avenue is subject to variation to the Plan of Management related to the public reserve adjacent to the subject site.

3. The proposal fails to comply with criteria of Councils planning controls, including the allotment width, number of storeys, building envelope and private open space provisions of the Interim Residential Development Code.

4. The proposal does not result in any unreasonable environmental impacts to adjoining properties.

5. No objection is raised by Councils engineers and building surveyors.

6. No submissions were received from nearby and surrounding residents during the notification period.

7. Recommendation - Approval.


Proposed Development

The proposal will retain the existing single storey dwelling fronting Hedley Street and will involve the construction of new two storey dwelling to the rear of the allotment, with vehicle access from Jacques Avenue. The existing dwelling is to be provided with a new covered parking space adjacent to the building and the southern property boundary. The new dwelling will have two parking spaces in the form of a double-car garage.

The development will be at variance with Council's requirements for Area "C" of Council's Interim Residential Development Code (IRDC). A detailed submission from the applicant setting out their reasons for proposing the variations has been separately forward to the Councillors as a hard copy prior to this meeting.

Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site has an area of approximately 637.7m2 and a frontage to Hedley Street and Jacques Avenue of approximately 15.85 metres. The site has a slight cross-fall from its Hedley Street frontage to its Jacques Avenue frontage. Existing development on the site consists of a single storey dwelling house and detached double garage.
The fence along the southern boundary adjoins Peakhurst Park Reserve, whilst the western boundary is separated from the Jacques Avenue road reserve by an extension of Peakhurst Park Reserve. Adjoining development comprises a one storey detached dwelling house adjacent to the northern property boundary. This is the only adjoining development as Peakhurst Park is on the other side of the property. Development in the locality generally consists of single storey detached dwellings, whilst some medium density townhouse and villa development is currently under construction further to the east along Hedley Street opposite Peakhurst Park Reserve.


Statutory Requirement

The subject site is Zoned No. 2 - Residential, under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan, 1994, and is located within Development Area C under the Councils Interim Residential Development Code. The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council. The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan, 1994, and the IRDC. The following table summarises the proposals compliance with the provisions of the IRDC. Further comment is provided where appropriate.

ProposedCompliesPermitted
IRDC
Allotment width15.85mNo24m
Site Area637.7m2Yes630m2
Density2 dwellingsYes2.02 dwellings
Storeys
Front
Rear
1
2
Yes
No
2
2 (2nd storey attic only)
Set Backs
Front
Rear
7.4m
4.5m
Yes
Yes
4.5m
4.5m building line to rear street
Residential Parking3Yes3
Building Envelope
Existing dwelling
Proposed dwelling
Nil
2.2m (max. projection)
Yes
No
3.5m/450
1.5m/450
Building Height
Existing dwelling
Proposed dwelling
Existing (< 9m)
7.1m
Yes
Yes
9.0m
9.0m
Private Open Space
Existing dwelling
Proposed dwelling
57.4m2
66.9m2
No
Yes
60.0m2
60.0m2
Landscaped Area
Existing dwelling
Proposed dwelling
Total
50.2% (169.4m2)
53.7% (161.1m2)
51.8% (330.5m2)
Yes
Yes
Yes
50% (168.85m2)
50% (150.0m2)
50% (318.85m2)

Allotment Width

The applicant has submitted a request as follows :

"Although the minimum sreet frontage required for development area "C" is a minimum of 24 metres, we feel Council could consider this application (with a street frontage of 15.85 metres), due to the following :

(i) The site is immediately adjacent to Peakhurst Park Reserve to the south, and amalgamation utilising portion of Council's park land is not viable.

(ii) Amalgamation with the adjoining property to the north (No. 3) has been requested, however the Department of Housing owns both the two immediate adjoining properties (No. 1 and No. 3) to the north, denied our amalgamation request.

With the above factors, we seek Council to consider the street forntage deficiency."

The variation of allotment width is supported due to the unlikelihood of amalgamation in this instance.

Number of Storeys and Building Envelope

The development table above indicates inconsistencies between the proposed building and Council’s planning controls with regard to the number of storeys and building envelope. Two storeys is proposed in this instance due to the site having the advantage of street frontages at both ends of the site. The proposal has maintained the correct envelope and single storey to the adjacent neighbour but breaches Council's requirements on the public reserve side. It is noted, however, that the height of the building does not have a negative impact upon the streetscape of Hedley Street and Jacques Avenue and has limited environmental consequences to adjoining development.

Private Open Space

The provision of private open space for the existing dwelling to be retained on the site fails to satisfy Council’s minimum requirements by approximately 2.5m2. This non-compliance is considered acceptable in light of the existing elevated deck to the rear of the dwelling, which comprises a total area of approximately 29m2.

Building Design

The design of the building is considered acceptable with regard to the type of materials and its compatibility with adjoining development. The internal layout provides reasonable access to the private open space which is located favourably to the northern part of the site.

The impact upon the streetscape of Hedley Street in the immediate vicinity of the site is reduced due to location of the building to Jacques Avenue. The area is generally characterised by single storey detached residential development, and will not be adversely affected by the proposed development.

Amenity Considerations

Overshadowing - The two storey component of the proposed development has been set back from the adjoining property in order to minimise the overshadowing impact. Shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that the overshadowing associated with the proposed development will fall predominantly on the subject site, the reserve adjoining Jacques Avenue, and Peakhurst Park Reserve. No objections are raised in this regard.

Privacy - The impact upon the privacy of the rear of 3 Hedley Street to the north has been minimised through the location of limited windows to the northern elevation of the two storey component of the proposed building. The only clear glass window is associated with a bedroom which is unlikely to adversely affect the privacy of the adjoining property, whilst the remaining windows are to be obscure glass given they serve the upstairs bathroom and WC.

The privacy to the existing dwelling on the site and its rear courtyard will be adequately preserved given there are to be no windows in the first floor level of the eastern wall of the proposed dwelling, which is adjacent to the proposed line of subdivision. Privacy between the outdoor courtyards will be maintained through a 1.8 metre high boundary fence and dense landscape planting along the proposed boundary line.

Access

The vehicle access arrangements for the proposed dwelling requires that the driveway from Jacques Avenue crosses Council’s reserve, which is currently listed as “community land” under the Local Government Act, 1993, and as such, is subject to restrictions on its use and on the grant of leases and licences.

The Plan of Management for the “community land” fronting Jacques Avenue, adopted by Council on 26 June 1996, categorises the land for general community use, and makes provisions in its objectives to permit permanent private access across open space where appropriate. The means of achieving private access has been considered by Council's Divisional Manager, Engineering, who reports as follows :

"I refer to our discussions regarding an application for redevelopment of the site No. 5 Hedley Street, Riverwood, and, in particular, to a proposal to gain vehicular access to the rear of the property across a strip of community land adjacent to Jacques Avenue.

The strip of land in question of variable width extends on the northern side of Jacques Avenue, from Belmore Road to Pearce Avenue, and on the southern side of Jacques Avenue, from the fire station at Belmore Road to Church Street.

There are currently 10 properties where access across this community land is available as follows:-

1. 136 Belmore Road

2. 1 Lawrence Street
3. 11 Richards Avenue4. 37 Lawrence Street5. 37A Lawrence Street
6. 39 Lawrence Street7. 41 Lawrence Street8. 43 Lawrence Street9. 49 Lawrence Street10. 53 Lawrence Street
The majority of these arrangements appear to have been in place for many years.

In adopting Plans of Management for community land in June, 1996, Council adopted, in particular, a Plan of Management for parks general.

Table 4 of that adopted plan addressed physical issues including access to adjoining properties. The objective is to permit permanent access across open space where appropriate.

In accordance with the Plan of Management, Council should give consideration to an appropriate application in a satisfactory form and in compliance with Council's policies. In this respect, I would suggest that the Development Application under consideration is in "appropriate form". The Plan of Management also requires satisfactory community consultation and that the applicant pay associated application and/or legal fees.

Once again, I would consider that the Development Application gives ample opportunity for satisfactory community consultation and, in itself, carries the requirement to pay necessary fees.



In light of the current application’s dependence upon the access for the second dwelling from Jacques Avenue, it is recommended that determination of the application be subject to Council determining the provision of satisfactory access to the second dwelling across the “community land” adjoining the subject site and Jacques Avenue.

Manager, Building Services

No objection has been raised to the proposed development subject to a number of conditions of consent including:

* submission of a building application; and
* all stormwater from both dwellings to be drained to Jacques Avenue and the
* submission of stormwater drainage plans with the building application.

Manager, Development Advice

No objection has been raised to the proposed development subject to a number of conditions of consent. These include the following:

* legal permission being gained from Council to have vehicular access across the
* public reserve from Jacques Avenue in accordance with the adopted Plan of Management;
* all stormwater to drain by gravity to the kerb and gutter in Jacques Avenue via a registered 1.0 metre wide drainage easement across the public reserve in Jacques Avenue;
* drainage amplification; and
* contribute to council the payment for vehicular crossing.

Public Notification and Comment

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and given 14 days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. No submissions were received during this period.

Summary

The proposal is dependent upon access across the public reserve adjacent to Jacques Avenue. This land is classified as “community land” under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993. The adopted Plan of Management makes provision for permanent private access to adjoining private properties subject to application in the appropriate manner. Approval is recommended in this instance.

The proposal does not result in any unreasonable environmental consequences to adjoining development in the locality, and the design sits well within the context of the existing built environment. It is felt the particular location of this site and the unlikely amalgamation with the adjoining site warrants a variation to the Area "C" requirements of Council's IRDC.


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .04.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 5 HEDLEY STREET, RIVERWOOD (D.A. 338/96)
DETACHED TWO STOREY DUAL OCCUPANCY


. Recommendation 5 HEDLEY STREET, RIVERWOOD (D.A. 338/96)
DETACHED TWO STOREY DUAL OCCUPANCY



RECOMMENDATION


A) THAT Council approve permanent access to property 5 Hedley Street across the strip of community land in Jacques Avenue in accordance with the proposal set out in Development Application No. 338/96.

B) THAT Council as the consent authority grant development consent for the establishment of a detached dual occupancy dwelling at No. 5 Hedley Street, Riverwood, subject to the following conditions :

1. Compliance generally with Drawing No 96016, Sheets 1 & 2 tables and documentation prepared by Design Criteria dated 25 September, 1996 and submitted with DA 338/96, except where amended by the conditions of consent.

2. A Building Application being submitted to and approved by the Council in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993, accompanied by detailed building plans, specifications, and the payment of relevant building application fees.

3. The hours of work on the site during demolition of the existing building or excavation of the site and construction of the proposed building shall be limited to the hours of 7 am to 5 pm Monday to Saturday inclusive with no work on Sundays, Good Friday, Christmas Day or Public Holidays.
PLEASE NOTE : A separate application for demolition work is required to be lodged with Council for approval prior to the commencement of the work.

4. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for open space/ community recreation facilities.

The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett increase in the City's population which will create extra demand on open space and community recreation facilities. Therefore the requirement for additional open space and embellishment of existing open space is a direct measurable consequence of the approved development.

The contribution is $2967 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

5. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for community services and facilities.

The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett gain of people living in the City or a change in the population structure which will create extra demand on community services and facilities.

The contribution is $331 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

6. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94 (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for the provision of drainage services.

The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett gain of people living in the City or a change in the population structure which will create extra demand on drainage services.

The contribution rate for Georges River catchment is $1.77 per square metre of gross land area of the subject site. The amount is $1,129 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

7. Stormwater drainage plans prepared by a qualified practising hydraulics engineer being submitted to Council with the Building Application. The layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of drainage pits are to be shown.

8. All stormwater to drain by gravity to the kerb and gutter in Jacques Avenue via a registered 1.0 metre wide drainage easement across the Public Reserve in Jacques Avenue.

9. In accordance with the survey plan and levels submitted by Design Criteria, the proposed dwelling/s shall not exceed approximately 7.0 metres at the main ridge line as measured vertically from any nominated point from natural ground level to the roof line directly above that point.

10. The vehicular driveway and visitor car parking spaces shall be suitably constructed and sealed in material other than natural coloured concrete or bitumen and drained to Council's specifications. Footpath and crossing levels are to be obtained from the Engineering Division at a fee set by Council.

11. The ground levels of the site shall not be raised/lowered or retaining walls constructed on the boundaries unless specific details are submitted to and approved by Council at Building Application stage.

12. No filling of the land being permitted and building plans being appropriately noted.

13. All building materials shall be compatible in colour and texture throughout the whole project. Details and colour of building materials shall be submitted with the Building Application.

14. The building and or work being the subject of the development consent shall not be occupied until a final inspection has been carried out by Council and a Building Certificate issued.

15. The side and rear boundaries of the site shall be fenced with either 1.8 metre high lapped and capped paling fences (suitably stained) or 1.8 metre high colour bond metal fencing, to Council's satisfaction. This work is to be completed prior to the issue of Certificate of Classification. It is to be the responsibility of the developer to ascertain which type of fence is preferred by the adjoining property owners.

16. All car spaces shall have minimum dimensions of 2.5m X 5.5m.

17. Each proposed single garage shall have a minimum clear door jamb width of 2.7 metres. Details shall be submitted with the building application.

18. Applicant to pay Council to :
a) Construct a 100mm thick unreinforced concrete crossing in Jacques Avenue for the proposed garage.
Quote given on request.
OR
Construction of the above work by the applicant subject to:
a) This work being carried out in accordance with Council's conditions and specifications.
b) Payment of Council's administration fee.

19. The submission of a detailed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services, with the building application. This plan is to be prepared by an approved landscape consultant. The plan is to include details of the species, size and number of all plant material, together with the surface treatment of all areas. Landscaping shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services in accordance with the approved plan prior to occupation of the building. All landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services.

Note: In addition the Landscape Plan is to identify all existing trees by Botanical and Common names, having a height which exceeds 3 metres or a girth greater than 300mm at 450 mm above ground level, and their relationship, by scale to the proposed development. NO trees are to be removed or lopped without written Council approval.

20. No approval is expressed or implied to the subdivision of the subject land or dwelling/s. For any future Torrens/Strata subdivision, a separate Development Application is required to be submitted to and approved by Council.

21. Should the applicant wish to subdivide the subject dual dwelling at a later date, the relevant authorities are to be contacted regarding their requirements prior to laying any cables or services; Australian Gas Light Company, Telecom and the Sydney Water Board.

22. Payment to Council for an additional garbage service on occupation of the new dwelling. For relief from the second garbage service the landowner shall signify, in writing, that one service is sufficient for the approved dual dwelling developments on the site and that there is no intention to seek approval for a subdivision of the lands by way of a strata subdivision or the like.

23. Provision is to be made for separate electricity and drainage services if a future subdivision application is to be made to Council.

24. No burning of demolition or waste materials shall be carried out on the subject site.

25. All plumbing except stormwater downpipes and vent pipes shall be kept within the building and not exposed to public view.

26. Permanent power poles are to be either painted or stained with a suitable colour to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issue of Certificate of Classification/Building Certificate.

27. The maximum amount of excavation at any point is 500mm, in accordance with Council's Interim Residential Code, 1995. Details are to be shown with the building application.



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.05 MISCELLANEOUS AND OTHER MATTERS



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.05.01 REVIEW OF LATE TRADING IN NSW LICENSED PREMISES AND REGISTERED CLUBS (File No. T/00584)
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)




Precis of Report

In September, 1996 the Department of Gaming and Racing announced a review of late trading premises to be undertaken at the direction of the Minister for Gaming and Racing, the Hon. J. Richard Face, MP. The review was to include both licensed premises and registered clubs and Councils throughout the State were invited to lodge a submission. Having regard to the information contained within this report, Council is asked to formalise a response to the request for submissions.

Background

In May, 1996 the Hon. J. R. Face, MP, Minister for Gaming and Racing announced in Parliament his intention to review late trading in NSW licensed premises and registered clubs. Notice of the review was forwarded to Council by the Department of Gaming and Racing in September, 1996 and submissions were invited to be lodged, prior to 28 February, 1997.

Reasons for the Review

In 1989 for the first time 24 hour trading was permitted for hotels, subject to an application to the Licensing Court and "where there would be no frequent undue disturbance to the neighbourhood". These 1989 changes have not been subject to any review process to date, and the advice of the government is that it is timely for this to occur. The review also includes Registered Clubs, as the relevant legislation does not place any limits on club trading hours.

Major Concerns Regarding Late Trading

Over many years Councils, Members of Parliament, Police and the community have raised concerns regarding the impact of late trading venues, in particular about alcohol-related violence, assaults, crime, drink driving, noise, property damage and other anti-social behaviour. These concerns relate to both residential and commercial and/or entertainment precincts.

In particular the following issues have been raised in relation to late night and 24 hour trading and have not yet been satisfactorily resolved :

* The community perception of late trading precincts being unsafe.

* The costs to councils in security patrols, cleaning services, plus risks to Council staff and resources required to investigate community complaints.

* Policing - the problems and costs of policing in the early hours of the morning.

* "Problem" premises, including those who serve already intoxicated persons or provide cheap drink nights which encourages binge drinking.

* Intoxicated patrons moving from one late trading premises to another.

Benefits of Late Trading

Despite the community-wide concerns regarding late trading, there is also a clear public demand for late night licensed venues. Benefits of late trading include :

* increased recreational and entertainment opportunities for the community;

* diversity in venues, providing greater consumer choices;

* development of businesses that are important to state tourism;

* enhancement of the viability of small business and local employment;

* staggered closing hours increase the potential for orderly dispersal of patrons in the early hours of the morning.

Terms of Reference of the Review

The government has established the following Terms of Reference for the review :

i) To describe the nature and extent of the impact of late trading on the communities of NSW - with regard to the problems that can occur in and around licensed premises and registered clubs that trade in the early hours of the morning.

ii) To consider relevant measures that will address alcohol-related violence and anti-social behaviour associated with late night/early morning drinking at licensed premises and registered clubs.

iii) To consider the desirability of requiring registered clubs (which currently do not have their trading hours limited by the Registered Clubs Act) to be subject to controls on their trading hours - in the interests of the amenity of the local communities in which they are situated.

iv) To consider the merits of changes to the legislation which would see the current 24 hour trading provisions tightened, including the merits of introducing a limit which (for example) would see premises required to close by 2.00 am, 3.00 am or 4.00 am (or some other specified hour).

v) To consider the merits of strengthening the powers of local councils within the licensing laws.

Existing Situation Within Hurstville City

The following table outlines the existing licensed hours and operating hours for hotels and registered clubs within Hurstville City.

HOTELS
LICENSED HOURS
OPERATING HOURS
Penshurst HotelMon to Sat - 10 am to midnight
Sunday - 10 am to 10 pm
As per License Hours, if demand exists. May close earlier Monday through Wednesday
Mortdale Hotel24 hours
Closed Sunday 12 midnight - 5 am
Monday & Tuesday - 10 am to midnight
Wednesday to Saturday - 10 am to 5 am
Sunday - Midday to 10 pm
May close at 10 pm on Monday through Wednesday
Peakhurst Inn Hotel24 hours
Entertainment License to 3 am
Monday - Thursday - 10 am to 11 pm
Friday & Saturday - 10 am to 5 am
Sunday - 12 noon - 9 pm
Bennelong HotelOscars - 24 hours
Closed Sunday 12 midnight - 5 am
Public
M/T/W 10 am TO 1 am
Th/F/S 10 am to 3 am
Sunday 10 am to Midnight

Bennelong - Entertainment License to 1 am
Oscars open to Public Bar Hours unless demand exists.

Public Bar operates to Licensed Hours
Roundabout HotelMonday to Saturday - 24 hours
Sunday - 10 am to 10 pm
Monday - 10 am - 12.30 am
Tuesday - 10 am - 3 am
Wednesday - 10 am - 1 am
Thursday - 10 am - 1.30 am
Friday - 10 am - 5 am
Saturday - 10 am - 3.30 am
Sunday - 12 noon - 10 pm
Ritz Hotel24 hoursAssessed daily, dependent upon level of patronage
CLUBS
LICENSED HOURS
OPERATING HOURS
St. George Business & Social ClubNo restrictionsMonday - Wednesday and Saturday - 10 am - 8 pm
Thursday - Friday 10 am - 12 midnight
Illawarra Catholic ClubNo restrictionsMonday - Thursday - 10 am - 11 am
Friday 10 am - 2 am
Saturday - 10 am - 12.30 am
Sunday - 10 am - 10 pm
Hurstville City Bowling ClubNo restrictionsMonday and Wednesday - closed
Remainder of week 10 am - 7 pm
Penshurst RSL ClubNo restrictionsMonday and Sunday - 10 am - 10.30 pm
Tuesday and Wednesday - 11 am - 11 pm
Thursday - Saturday - 10 am - 12 midnight
Mortdale RSL ClubNo restrictionsMonday and Tuesday - 10 am - 11 pm
Wednesday and Thursday - 10 am - 11.30 pm
Friday and Saturday - 10 am - 12 midnight
Sunday - 10 am - 10 pm
St. George Budapest Soccer ClubNo restrictionsMonday to Wednesday - 10 am - 11 pm
Thursday 10 am - 12 midnight
Friday to Saturday - 10 am - 12 midnight
Sunday - 10 am - 10 pm
Mortdale Bowling & Recreation ClubNo restrictionsMonday and Tuesday - 3.30 - 6.30 pm
Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday - 12 noon - 7 pm
(Saturday to midnight for functions)
Friday - 12 noon - 9 pm
Sunday - 9 am - 2 pm
St. George Masonic ClubNo restrictionsMonday and Wednesday - 10 am - 10 pm
Tuesday and Sunday - 11 am - 10 pm
Thursday and Saturday - 11 am - 12 midnight
Friday - 10 am - 12 midnight
Grandview Bowling & Recreation ClubNo restrictionsMonday - 11 am - 8 pm
Tuesday and Wednesday - 11 am - 9 pm
Thursday - 11 am - 10.30 pm
Friday - 11 am - 11 pm
Saturday - 9 am - 11 pm
Sunday - 9 am - 8 pm
Riverwood Legion ClubNo restrictionsMonday and Tuesday - 10 am - 11 pm
Wednesday and Thursday - 10 am - 11.30 pm
Friday and Saturday - 10 am - 12.30 am
Sunday - 11 am 0 11 pm
Riverwood Sports & Recreation ClubNo restrictionsMonday to Wednesday - 10 am - 10 pm
Thursday - 10 am - 11.45 pm
Friday - 10 am - 11.30 pm
Saturday - 10 am - 10 pm
Sunday - 11 am - 9 pm

Recommended Response to Terms of Reference

Registered Clubs - With respect to the trading hours of registered clubs within the City of Hurstville the Department of Gaming and Racing advised in its announcement of the Review of Late Trading that the Registered Clubs Act does not limit the trading hours of clubs. Based on the survey undertaken, it is apparent that although not legally restricted, clubs do not exploit their ability to trade 24 hours. In the majority of cases clubs could be said to follow a moderated and responsible trading hour policy and this should be acknowledged by Council. However, Council should advise the Department of Gaming and Racing that it favours the formalisation of the generally existing trading hours for registered clubs. Formalising the existing situation would avoid the potential for extensions to trading hours to an unacceptable level in the future and takes into account that Clubs are often located within close proximity to residential areas. Based upon the survey undertaken of a range of clubs within Hurstville City, it is suggested that a trading hour limit to 1.00 am would be reasonable.

Hotels - Despite the benefits of a variety of closing times mentioned earlier in this report, it is clear that substantial community concern exists concerning 24 hour trading and that these would be overwhelming support for the re-imposition of restricted trading hours for hotels to 3.00 am. Taking into account that at its meeting held on 20 November, 1996, Council resolved,
in relation to the Roundabout Hotel application :

"THAT the relevant Minister be advised that this Council would strongly support legislation to restrict the operation of licensed premises throughout Sydney to 3.00 am"

it is recommended that this decision be reiterated and incorporated in Council's submission.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation REVIEW OF LATE TRADING IN NSW LICENSED PREMISES AND REGISTERED CLUBS
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)


. Recommendation REVIEW OF LATE TRADING IN NSW LICENSED PREMISES AND REGISTERED CLUBS
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)



RECOMMENDATION


THAT Council formally respond to the Review of Late Trading in NSW in the terms outlined in this report, and specifically advise the Department of Gaming and Racing that it does not support 24 hour trading and considers that late trading for hotels should be limited to a 3.00 am closing time and that a 1.00 am closing time should be introduced for Registered Clubs.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.05.02 INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT - A SINGLE APPROVALS SYSTEM (File T/01273)



The State Government has released a White Paper and Draft Bill to incorporate all development, subdivision and building approvals into a single Act namely the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, and to make provision for the private certification of some types of approvals.

The NSW Government Department of Urban Affairs and Planning has forwarded a letter to Council on this matter and it states as follows :

"On 12 February 1997 the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning released a White Paper and Exposure Draft Bill which propose major changes to the development assessment system in New South Wales. I am pleased to forward three copies of the document to your council.

The draft Bill amends Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Further consequential amendments to the Local Government Act 1993 and other Acts will be required. The reforms maintain established principles of thorough environmental assessment and public participation embodied in current legislation.

Release of the White Paper and draft Bill follow the 1996 Green Paper, Towards an Integrated Land Use, Planning and Natural Resource Approvals Policy for NSW. The Green Paper identified the need for a more efficient development assessment process in NSW. It was also recognised that a remodelled assessment process would contribute to the Government's environmental protection objectives.

The White Paper and draft Bill are being publicly exhibited until Thursday 27 March 1997. To achieve maximum exposure of the documents, your co-operation is sought in exhibiting a copy of the White Paper and draft Bill in your offices for the duration of the exhibition period.

Additional copies of the White Paper and draft Bill are available free of charge from the Department. The White Paper is also available on the internet at http://www.duap.nsw.gov.au. The White Paper provides a detailed explanation of the contents of the draft Bill.

Inquiries about the White Paper and draft Bill may be directed to the Department's Regulatory Reform Unit on (02) 9391 2355 or Freecall 1800 358 886.

On the 24 February 1997, the Department will be commencing a series of information seminars about the proposed reforms. An invitation for representatives of your council to attend one of these seminars is attached. Notice of public seminars will be published in the main metropolitan, regional and local newspapers in NSW.

Your council is encouraged to make a written submission about the White Paper and Draft Bill. Please send your comments to :

The Manager
Regulatory Reform Unit
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning
Box 3927 GPO
SYDNEY NSW 2001

Alternatively, you can send your comments by fax (02) 9391 2194 or e-mail reform@duap.nsw.gov.au.

I look forward to your comments on these important and wide ranging reforms to the development assessment system in New South Wales."

A synopsis of the Bill was included with the above letter and a hard copy of this document has been forwarded to each Councillor prior to this meeting.

The White Paper will be reviewed by Council officers and a joint report will be brought forward to Council by the Division Managers, Policy, Planning and Environment and Development and Health.


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT - A SINGLE APPROVALS SYSTEM (File T/01273)

. Recommendation INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT - A SINGLE APPROVALS SYSTEM (File T/01273)


RECOMMENDATION


THAT the information be noted.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
CIVIC CENTRE, MACMAHON STREET, HURSTVILLE.
__________________________________


SUMMARY OF ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE
DIVISIONAL MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH - SECTION TWO' REPORT
TO THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
TO BE HELD ON 97 02 26TH FEBRUARY, 1997-


06:01 Ward Councillors' Reports

06:01.01 51 Lloyd Street, Oatley - Review Of Decision On Building Approval Pursuant To Section 100 Of The Local Government Act 1993 (File 001305)

06:02 Building Applications - Hurstville Ward

06:02.01 144 Gloucester Road, Hurstville - Enclosure Of Existing First Floor Terrace (Report By Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung) (File 009358)

06:03 Building Applications - Penshurst Ward

06:04 Building Applications - Peakhurst Ward

06:04.01 50 Moons Avenue, Lugarno - New Split Level Dwelling (Report By Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung)

06:04.02 70 Mi Mi Street, Oatley - New Two Storey Dwelling (Report By Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung)

06:05 Miscellaneous And Other Matters

06:05.01 Waste Education For Non English Speaking Background Residents (Report By Waste Minimisation Education Officer, Ms Melanie Halliday)

06:05.02 Southern Sydney Waste Planning Consultation Program

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH
SECTION 2


06.01 WARD COUNCILLORS' REPORTS



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.01.01 51 LLOYD STREET, OATLEY - Review of Decision on Building Approval pursuant to Section 100 of the Local Government Act 1993 (File 001305)


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .01.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 51 LLOYD STREET, OATLEY - Review of Decision on Building Approval pursuant to Section 100 of the Local Government Act 1993 (File 001305)

. Recommendation 51 LLOYD STREET, OATLEY - Review of Decision on Building Approval pursuant to Section 100 of the Local Government Act 1993 (File 001305)


RECOMMENDATION


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.02 BUILDING APPLICATIONS - HURSTVILLE WARD



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.02.01 144 GLOUCESTER ROAD, HURSTVILLE - Enclosure of Existing First Floor Terrace (Report by Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung) (File 009358)


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .02.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 144 GLOUCESTER ROAD, HURSTVILLE - Enclosure of Existing First Floor Terrace (Report by Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung) (File 009358)

. Recommendation 144 GLOUCESTER ROAD, HURSTVILLE - Enclosure of Existing First Floor Terrace (Report by Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung) (File 009358)


RECOMMENDATION


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.03 BUILDING APPLICATIONS - PENSHURST WARD

THERE ARE NO BUILDING APPLICATIONS IN RESPECT OF PENSHURST WARD FOR THIS MEETING.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.04 BUILDING APPLICATIONS - PEAKHURST WARD



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.04.01 50 MOONS AVENUE, LUGARNO - New Split Level Dwelling (Report by Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung)


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .04.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 50 MOONS AVENUE, LUGARNO - New Split Level Dwelling (Report by Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung)

. Recommendation 50 MOONS AVENUE, LUGARNO - New Split Level Dwelling (Report by Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung)


RECOMMENDATION


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.04.02 70 MI MI STREET, OATLEY - New Two Storey Dwelling (Report by Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung)


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .04.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 70 MI MI STREET, OATLEY - New Two Storey Dwelling (Report by Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung)

. Recommendation 70 MI MI STREET, OATLEY - New Two Storey Dwelling (Report by Environmental Building Surveyor, Mr M Yeung)


RECOMMENDATION


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.05 MISCELLANEOUS AND OTHER MATTERS



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.05.01 WASTE EDUCATION FOR NON ENGLISH SPEAKING BACKGROUND RESIDENTS (Report by Waste Minimisation Education Officer, Ms Melanie Halliday)



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation WASTE EDUCATION FOR NON ENGLISH SPEAKING BACKGROUND RESIDENTS (Report by Waste Minimisation Education Officer, Ms Melanie Halliday)

. Recommendation WASTE EDUCATION FOR NON ENGLISH SPEAKING BACKGROUND RESIDENTS (Report by Waste Minimisation Education Officer, Ms Melanie Halliday)


RECOMMENDATION



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.05.02 SOUTHERN SYDNEY WASTE PLANNING CONSULTATION PROGRAM


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation SOUTHERN SYDNEY WASTE PLANNING CONSULTATION PROGRAM

. Recommendation SOUTHERN SYDNEY WASTE PLANNING CONSULTATION PROGRAM


RECOMMENDATION