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 06 25TH JUNE, 1997-



05:01 Ward Councillor's Reports
05:01.01 346 Stoney Creek Road, Kingsgrove (41/97)
2 Level Extension To Arkana College Plus Internal Refurbishment

05:01.02 Section 102 Amendment To Development Consent No. 438/94 To Delete The
Pedestrian Access To Adjoining Property Being Nos. 10-12 Woodville Street,
Hurstville

05:01.03 Multi Storey Commercial And Residential Development

05:02 Development Applications - Hurstville Ward

05:03 Development Applications - Penshurst Ward

05:03.01 13 Jersey Avenue, Mortdale (D.A. 64/97)
Dual Occupancy - Two Storey Four (4) Bedroom Dwelling At The Rear Of
The Site

05:04 Development Applications - Peakhurst Ward

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 06 25TH JUNE, 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 COUNCILLOR'S REPORTS



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.01.01 346 STONEY CREEK ROAD, KINGSGROVE (41/97)
2 LEVEL EXTENSION TO ARKANA COLLEGE PLUS INTERNAL REFURBISHMENT
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)




Applicant : Charles Glanville (Architects) Pty Ltd
Proposal : 2 Level extension to the rear of the existing Arkana College plus internal refurbishment of existing premises.
Zoning : Zone No 2 - Residential
Residential Development
Control Plan 1994 : Development Area 'B'
Owners : Arkana College Ltd
Existing Development : Single storey primary school
Cost of Development : $350,000

PRECIS OF REPORT

1. The proposal is to construct a 2 level extension to the existing single storey primary school, known as Arkana College and to carry out internal refurbishment of the existing premises.

2. Although the proposal does not constitute residential development, an assessment of the application in respect to the provisions of Council's IRDC is considered relevant due to its situation amongst existing residential development.

3. The proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of Council's IRDC with respect to the 2 levels proposed for the rear of the site, side boundary setbacks and building envelopes.

4. No objections have been raised to the development by either the Manager, Building Services or Manager, Development Advice.

5. Four objections to the development were received during the notification period.

6. It is recommended that the Development Application be approved subject to appropriate conditions.

Council, at its Meeting held on 11 June, 1997 considered the application and resolved that the matter be referred for an inspection and report by the Hurstville Ward Councillors.

To reacquaint Members with the various aspects of the application the Divisional Manager's report to the Meeting is reproduced below :

Existing and Surrounding Development.

The existing site accommodates a single storey building containing 5 classrooms. In
addition 2 demountable buildings are located in the rear yard which provide
additional classroom accommodation. The existing school building is set back a
substantial distance from Stoney Creek Road and is somewhat screened by existing
vegetation. The area between the school building and the front boundary is
presently used as recreation area, as is the area to the rear of the school building
which is now proposed for development. No parking exists on the site.

Adjoining and adjacent development is residential in nature consisting of a mixture
of single storey detached dwellings, villas and townhouses.

Section 90 Heads of Consideration.

The site has been inspected and the proposal examined in accordance with the
Heads of Consideration in Section 90 of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979, and the following comments are made.

Statutory Requirements.

The subject site is zoned No 2 Residential under Hurstville Local Environmental
Plan 1994. The activity being carried out on the site is defined as an "educational
establishment" which is permissible with Council consent. It is considered
appropriate that the proposal be assessed in respect to relevant provisions of
Council's IRDC taking into account its proximity to existing residential
development. This consideration is provided in a later section of the report.

Application History

DATE
ACTION
13/3/97Application lodged with Council
26-27/3/97Preliminary assessment of application
15/4-6/5/97Notification undertaken
4 letters of objection received, 3 from adjoining residents
20/5/97Meeting held with applicant to discuss issues raised during assessment and notification
26/5/97Shadow diagrams and additional written justification for areas of non-compliance submitted

Proposed Development

The development now proposed for Arkana College incorporates the following:-

* Removal of the demountable buildings at the rear of the site

* Construction of a new building adjoining the rear of the existing school
building. The new building is to be constructed as a second storey, with the
area underneath at ground level being retained for under cover recreation
activities.

* Refurbishment of the existing school building to provide two classrooms
and upgraded toilet facilities.

Compliance with IRDC

Although the proposed development is not residential in nature, it is considered
appropriate to assess the proposal in respect of certain provisions of Council's IRDC for the reason that the site is located in the midst of residential development.


IRDC Requirement
Proposed
Compliance
Density
Not Applicable
Landscaped Open Space
50%
58.5%
Yes
Private Open Space
Not Applicable
Front Site Height Maximum
9m
5.27m
Yes
Rear Site Height Maximum
6m
9.0m
No
Front Site Maximum Storeys
2
1
Yes
Rear Site Maximum Storeys
1
2
No
Front Boundary Setback
4.5m
18.5m
Yes
Side Boundary Setback
-Front Site
-Rear Site
1.35m
1.3m for Single Storey
1.3m
1.3m - (Two Storey)
No
No
Minimum Site Frontage
15m
15m
Yes
Building Envelopes
3.5m/
45o
No

AREAS OF NON-COMPLIANCE

Height and Number of Storeys

Council's IRDC requires that residential development at the rear of an Area 'B'
site be single storey with a maximum height of 6.0 metres. The proposed development, although not residential in nature, does not comply with this restriction in proposing an upper floor with a height of 9.0 metres.

Boundary Setbacks

The development fails to meet the provisions of Council's IRDC with respect to
boundary setbacks along the western boundary, where the upper floor is proposed.
Even if the site were located within Area 'C' where two storey development is
permitted in the rear, the proposed boundary setback would still be substantially
less than that required.

Building Envelopes.

Due to the fact that the development comprises two levels at the rear of an Area
B' site, building envelopes also exceed those normally considered acceptable by
Council.

While it may be argued that the subject development is not formally required to meet the provisions of the IRDC, the cumulative effect of the above-listed departures will result in some adverse impact on adjoining properties, which is reflected in the objections received, as discussed later in this report. In addition the fact that the development currently provides no on-site parking and makes no provision for parking in association with the proposed extensions is of concern.

Division Referrals

* Manager Building Services - No objections to the proposed extensions, however the openings facing the western boundary will be required to
be fire rated.

* Manager Development Advice - No objections to the proposed development. Standard Conditions regarding stormwater disposal and on-site detention
to be imposed if the development is approved.

Public Notification and Comment

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and a notice was placed in the newspaper, advising of a notification period of 21 days from 15 April to 6 May, 1997. Four objections were received in response to the notification. Concerns raised are summarised as follows:-

* Impact on sunlight and ventilation
* Impact on privacy
* Increased noise
* Site not appropriate for a school as insufficient play area is provided
* Two storey development should not be permitted in the rear yard
* Traffic and impact on street parking
* Inadequate emergency access for students
* Potential increase in number of students
* Inadequate setback from western boundary
* Unsafe pedestrian access from on street parking to the school
* Extension should be located at the front of the site

Discussion of Issues

Before discussing the issues of concern to both Council and adjoining residents, it is considered relevant that the submission presented by the applicant be reproduced for Council's information:-

"1. LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED EXTENSION

There were a number of considerations considered prior to the conclusion that the most suitable place to provide the extension was at the rear of the property and not at the front. After balancing all considerations affecting the location of the new classrooms on this site, it was concluded that the proposal as submitted represents the minimal impact in that precinct.

The following considerations were made with respect to the front of the property:

* It is recognised that conceptually it would generally be preferred for two-storey extensions to be located at the front of properties and not at the rear. In this instance due to the nature of awkward site factors, the 'bulk' of the proposed extension would be of a different scale to the residential scale of the neighbourhood and significantly alter the streetscape.

* Recognising that the nature of the facilities to be provided are classroom spaces which require openable windows for ventilation, in this instance classrooms on the Stoney Creek frontage would be acoustically untenable.

* After allowing for Council's statutory setbacks, there were severe physical restrictions to building at the front.

* An examination of the existing planning reveals that the school still has very limited administrative space which can only reasonably be provided at the front of the property. Therefore in master planning, consideration had to be given for a possible future extension at the front for appropriate administrative facilities.

In examining the pros and cons of a two-storey extension at the rear of the property the following points were considered:

* Activities within classroom spaces are not noise producing and first floor classrooms at the rear would not have any acoustic impact on adjoining properties.

* It is considered that by building over the existing rear yard, which is currently used as a playground facility by students, the acoustic interference on adjoining properties from the playground would actually be reduced by building over the rear yard as an undercroft.

* As opposed to residential extensions which require a number of windows which can be looked out of, the nature of the teaching spaces as designed can have highlight windows on the northern and western elevations so that there will be no visual connection between the proposed extension and affected neighbours to the north and the west. In this regard, we would accept a condition of approval which requires window sills to the first floor on the northern and western sides of the proposed extension to have a minimum sill height of 1500mm above floor level.

* The overshadowing effect of the proposed extension to the existing properties to the west was considered. Attached drawings show existing and future shadows at winter and summer Solstices. In the worst instance, at the winter solstice, the overshadowing of adjoining properties to the west during the early morning period will not be worsened by the proposed extension. By midday during the winter solstice there is a slight increase in the impact on the adjoining courtyards, after which the shadowing impact on the adjoining properties is nil due to the positioning of the sun. It is considered that the impact during the winter solstice does not have any detrimental effect on the use of the courtyards. It should also be noted that the winter solstice is the worst circumstance during the year and that at other times, the shadowing impact is minimal again without detrimentally effecting the amenity and use of the courtyards. Another point to be considered is that within the adjoining courtyards there are two relatively high trees which cast their own significant shadows within the courtyards and which will occur whether or not any building takes place on the adjoining property.

2. STUDENT NUMBERS

Arkana College is registered by the Commonwealth Government as a Primary School from Kindergarten to Year 6, Single Stream (one room per year group). The student population cannot exceed 120 students. It was noted in the application to Council that this proposal will not result in any increase in the current use of the site. This point is reinforced by the fact that the school cannot operate without Commonwealth assistance. In approving student numbers, the Commonwealth Government also approves the payment of recurrent funding per student each year. Without that recurrent funding it is impossible for non-Government schools to operate. Therefore, the school cannot increase its student numbers without an increase in recurrent funding from the Commonwealth.

It is recognised by everyone that this school operates on a tight site. However, it has been established on this site for a very long time. Therefore, Commonwealth Authorities in approving the upgrade for the classroom facilities, have emphasised that the facilities are only approved for current student numbers and that an increase in the educational capacity of this site cannot be contemplated."

Planning Comments

1) Parking

The existing development provides no on-site parking and the proposed extensions include no parking provision as part of the proposal. Taking into account the school is licensed to operate with up to 120 students, this total lack of parking is of some concern. It is considered however that Council may accept a continuation of the existing situation on the following basis:

* the existing Arkana College has operated for 32 years without previously being required to provide parking,

* no vehicular access presently exists to the site and the provision of vehicular access to Stoney Creek Road may not be favoured due to the potential traffic and safety concerns,

* the applicant's advice that the existing school is licensed for 120 students and that the extension will not permit an increase in this number means that the demand for parking and traffic impact of the operation will not change.

2) Location of the Extension at the Rear of the Site

In general the objections received relate to the impact on neighbours which is created by the extension being situated at the rear of the property. The applicant's submission deals in detail with the reasons why the extension was not located at the front of the existing school. It is agreed with the applicant that, were the extension to be built at the front of the property, there would be an adverse impact on the streetscape. The existing single storey building is set well back from the street and is generally screened by the existing vegetation. Erection of a 2 level building in this location would project this 2 level bulk onto the street and potentially require the removal of the screen trees.

3) Non-Compliance with IRDC

Objectors have argued that the proposed extensions will adversely affect their privacy and sunshine and the level of noise will be increased. In terms of the impact on privacy, the proposed second level building will create the potential for overlooking of courtyards and backyards. The applicant's offer to accept a condition of consent which ensures the sill height of windows in not below 1500 mm will effectively limit this potential.

In respect to overshadowing, the applicant has provided shadow diagrams which indicate that although the adjoining property to the west will suffer from some degree of shadow, it is already impacted upon due to the location of existing trees and the demountable buildings to be removed. On this basis it is considered that the shadow impact will not be to a degree that it is unacceptable.

In terms of noise, it would expected that a primary school would generate some level of noise and possibly nuisance. However, it is considered unlikely that the proposed development will increase noise levels as no additional students are proposed and the noisy activities would be expected to occur within the playground (which is existing) rather than within the classrooms.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .01.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 346 STONEY CREEK ROAD, KINGSGROVE (41/97)
2 LEVEL EXTENSION TO ARKANA COLLEGE PLUS INTERNAL REFURBISHMENT
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)


. Recommendation 346 STONEY CREEK ROAD, KINGSGROVE (41/97)
2 LEVEL EXTENSION TO ARKANA COLLEGE PLUS INTERNAL REFURBISHMENT
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)



RECOMMENDATION


THAT Council as the consent authority approve Development Application DA 41/97 for a two level extension and refurbishment of the existing school building at Arkana College, situated at No 346 Stoney Creek Road, Kingsgrove, subject to the following conditions:-GENERAL

1. Compliance generally with Drawing No 94.13-01/02/03/04 - Issue B; prepared by Charles Glanville, Architects dated 6 March, 1997 and submitted with DA41/97 , except where amended by the conditions of consent.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

2. 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.

4. All stormwater must drain by gravity to the kerb and gutter in Stoney Creek Road.

5. 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 durations 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 childproof safety fencing around the facility must be provided where the OSD facility is open or above ground when the design peak storage depth is greater than 300mm.

BUILDING REQUIREMENTS

5. 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.

6. Details of all existing and proposed essential services, such as exit and directional signs, fire extinguishers and emergency lighting, must be submitted to Council with the Building Application.

7. The openings to the western boundary must be fire rated in accordance with Part C of the Building Code of Australia. In this regard the developer should note that the Sprinkler Code AS2118 does not permit the fire protection of openable windows with drenchers or sprinklers.

8. 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.

9. 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.

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

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

12. Arrangements are to be made for the collection, storage and disposal of all waste materials in an approved container, to the satisfaction of the Divisional Manager, Development and Health.

13. The development shall be constructed to a standard of construction which will result in noise levels within habitable rooms from external noise sources not exceeding 55 dB(A) with the windows and doors shut. A report from a qualified and practising Acoustical Engineer and the recommended construction details to comply with the above shall be submitted with the Building Application.

TREE PROTECTION

14. The existing trees on the site must be retained and be protected during the period of demolition, excavation, site preparation and construction, by the erection of a suitable barrier around the perimeter of each tree. The barrier must be such to prevent damage to the trees and their root system by the movement of vehicles, handling or storage of building materials, excavation, filling or the like. Details of the means of protection must be submitted to Council with the Building Application, and be erected prior to any works commencing on-site.

15. No excavation, filling or compaction, no buildings or structures, and no services may be placed within the area defined by the canopy of each tree.

RESTRICTIONS ON USE

16. The approved use being conducted only between the normal shool hours of Monday to Friday.

17. 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 made by Council and a Certificate of Classification has been issued.

18. Windows to the first floor on the northern and western sides of the extension must have a minimum sill height of 1500mm above the floor level.

19. In accordance with the registration of Arkana College from the Commonwealth Government, maximum student numbers must not exceed 120.


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.01.02 23-27 MACMAHON STREET, HURSTVILLE
SECTION 102 AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONSENT NO. 438/94 TO DELETE THE
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO ADJOINING PROPERTY BEING NOS. 10-12 WOODVILLE STREET, HURSTVILLE
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)




Applicant : Benchmark Developments
Proposal : SECTION 102 AMENDMENTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONSENT
DA 438/94 TO DELETE PEDESTRIAN
ACCESS TO ADJOINING PROPERTY
BEING NOS. 10-12 WOODVILLE
STREET, HURSTVILLE
Zoning : Zone 3 (b) City Centre Business
Owners : Benchmark Developments
Existing Development : Development presently under construction.

PRECIS OF REPORT

1. Development Application DA 438/94 was approved by Council in October 1994.

2. The application consisted of a mixed commercial, residential and restaurant development of 13 levels over basement parking.

3. The development plans incorporated a pedestrian link from MacMahon Street through to Woodville Street as was required in the existing Development Control Plan No. 4.

4. In response to an objection submitted by the adjoining property, Nos 10-12 Woodville Street, a condition of Development Consent was that the pedestrian link between the subject land and the adjoining property, Nos 10-12 Woodville Street be maintained.

5. The developer has now lodged a request for an amendment to the Development Consent, that the requirement for a pedestrian link to the adjoining property be deleted. The pedestrian link from MacMahon Street through to Woodville Street will remain.

6. It is recommended that Council approve the Section 102 amendment as requested.


Council, at its Meeting held on 11 June, 1997 considered the application and resolved that the matter be referred for an inspection and report by the Hurstville Ward Councillors.

To reacquaint Members with the various aspects of the application the Divisional Manager's report to the Meeting is reproduced below :

Background

Council's Development Control Plan No. 4 required that a pedestrian link be provided to facilitate access from MacMahon Street through to Woodville Street. At the time of consideration of the development of Nos 10-12 Woodville Street, Council required the proposal make provision for pedestrian access through to the rear of the property which could eventually join up with a future pedestrian access via an adjacent development in MacMahon Street. In 1994 Council approved Development Application DA438/94 which consisted of a major commercial/residential building on land encompassing 14-16 Woodville Street and 23-27 MacMahon Street. In accordance with Development Control Plan No. 4, the plans incorporated a pedestrian arcade through from MacMahon Street to Woodville Street. Public notification of the Development Application resulted in the submission of an objection from 10-12 Woodville Street, which argued that the new development should incorporate a pedestrian link which would join up with the rear of their building to form an additional through link. Council's response to this objection was the inclusion of the following condition on the Development Consent for 23-27 MacMahon Street.

"The proposed walkway link between MacMahon Street and Woodville Street and the adjoining property, 10-12 Woodville Street is to be maintained and have regard to disabled access and any approved use of the Fire Station. Details and levels are to be submitted with the Building Application."

Proposal

The Building Application for the development now known as MacMahon Plaza has been submitted in three stages as follows:

1. Demolition, Site works and excavation
2. Basement, Construction up to ground level
3. Construction of remainder of the development

When submitted, building plans for Stage 3 of the development indicated the pedestrian arcade from MacMahon Street to Woodville Street but showed that the pedestrian link required to join Nos. 10-12 Woodville Street had been deleted. Discussions with the developer led to the submission of the Section 102 amendment presently before Council. A submission lodged by the developer arguing for the deletion of the requirement to provide this link is reproduced for Council's information:-

"1. We believe that the right of way was originally created over the adjoining property 10-12 Woodville Street in order to comply with Hurstville City Council's Development Control Plan No. 4 and furthermore, that the proposed major pedestrian arcade linking MacMahon and Woodville Streets currently detailed on the development at 23-27 MacMahon Street and 14-16 Woodville Streets now satisfies these requirements for a through site link and therefore supersedes any previous requirements. We believe the proposed arcade will provide sufficient pedestrian access between MacMahon and Woodville Streets without needing to link to the adjoining right-of-way as well.

2. The combined factors of the existing level difference between the two properties at this point (approx 1m) and Council's requirement that this link be designed having regard to disabled access, would result in a ramp in excess of 15m in length being provided. We note that with the currently designed building levels that have been approved in the Stage 1 Building Application, it would not be possible to incorporate this ramp within the above mentioned property (14-16 Woodville Street). This would therefore mean the incorporation of the ramp within the right of way to the adjoining property (10-12 Woodville Street), which upon very preliminary investigations, would appear very difficult.

3. The provision of an additional minor link from the main arcade to the adjoining right of way will have a detrimental effect on the amenity of the main arcade and will create additional security risks.

4. We believe that the provision of this additional minor link will have no civic, commercial or social benefit.

The current form and layout of the existing arcade has been designed to encourage not only easy but uninterrupted pedestrian access from MacMahon Street through to Woodville Street. It has provided a significant opportunity to create both a quick and strong direct visual link between MacMahon & Woodville Streets.

The deletion of an additional minor deviation from this main pedestrian thoroughfare will help to emphasise the main directional flow of pedestrian traffic and prevent any pedestrian confusion, as well as emphasising the strong visual link. Security surveillance of the public arcade will also be made more manageable with the deletion of the additional corridor connection perpendicular to the main arcade.

By creating one single, wide and uninterrupted space a lively and easily identifiable public thoroughfare can be created to link these two important public streets.

We therefore further request that Council modify Condition 13 of the Development Consent of 28 November, 1994 to delete the walkway link to the adjoining property 10-12 Woodville Street."

Divisional Comment

Divisional Manager - Policy, Planning and Environment

No objection to requested amendment.

Manager Building Services

No objection to requested amendment.

Public Notification and Comment

A substantial number of adjoining properties were notified by letter of the request for amended consent and given twenty one (21) days in which to respond. One objection was received from one of the proprietors of a unit within Nos. 10-12 Woodville Street. The substance of the objection is reproduced here for Council's information:-

"We understand that the legal access now on the title from MacMahon Street through to Woodville Street via Nos. 10-12, our property is under consideration by Council to discontinue such easement.

At the time of the original approval, this was the only point of value benefiting our property, after all the sun has been removed from our courtyards.

The original approval did show such access and we still demand it to be retained, because our development was restricted in the past in its design as it had to give clear passageway under law.

By removing or not demanding the easement be implemented, you penalise us, not the builder nor the project under construction.

You, the Council have already penalised us by removing the parking facilities in front of our property and making it a Construction zone, we have lost customers who were unable to find parking as before, and, the builder by discharging mud and water into our gutters has done nothing to improve the street-scape.

The B class hoarding in front of the construction site in Woodville Street does not comply to the strict regulations under Workcover, the advertising sign on same hoarding does not seem structurally adequate, and does not comply with your own regulations. All seem to indicate that you bend the rules for certain developers and are hard with others.

We therefore recommend to the Council that the status-quo be retained and what was approved initially must be kept, and not deleted to the whim of the developer."

Planning Comments

It is apparent that the original requirement by Council for the MacMahon Plaza development to provide pedestrian access joining up with the neighbouring development, 10 - 12 Woodville Street, was a response to the objection received, and a concern to enable completion of the originally envisaged through link. However, as argued by the applicant, the reason for the requirement to provide access, as outlined in DCP No.4 is to facilitate and encourage pedestrian access from MacMahon Street to Woodville Street and vice versa. The MacMahon Plaza development as now proposed satisfies this requirement, and although the provision of an additional link through 10 - 12 Woodville Street would be advantageous, it is not a necessity, by virtue of the fact that DCP No. 4 only requires provision of a single pedestrian link. On the basis that a link to 10 - 12 Woodville Street may be physically difficult to construct taking into account the requirement of the existing condition of consent to provide disabled access, it is considered that Council should approve the requested Section 102 amendment.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .01.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation SECTION 102 AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONSENT NO. 438/94 TO DELETE THE
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO ADJOINING PROPERTY BEING NOS. 10-12 WOODVILLE STREET, HURSTVILLE
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)


. Recommendation SECTION 102 AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONSENT NO. 438/94 TO DELETE THE
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO ADJOINING PROPERTY BEING NOS. 10-12 WOODVILLE STREET, HURSTVILLE
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)



RECOMMENDATION


THAT Council as consent authority approve the Section 102 modification to DA 438/94 for No's. 23 - 27 MacMahon Street and 14 - 16 Woodville Street, Hurstville, subject to the following conditions:

1. Compliance in all respects with Drawing No 94066/A/01/DA-09/DA, Statement of Environment Effects and supporting tables prepared by Phillip Cox, Richardson, Taylor and Partners, Architects and Planners dated August, 1994 and Amended Drawing Nos 94066/A/05/DA/B, 94066/A/06/DA/B, 94066/A/07/DA/B and 94066/A/08/DA/B dated October 1994 and submitted with DA 438/94 , 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 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 durations 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 childproof safety fencing around the facility must be provided where the OSD facility is open or above ground when the design peak storage depth is greater than 300mm.

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 $260,224 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 $29,025 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 traffic management facilities within the Hurstville CBD.

The contribution is based on the following criteria as a direct consequence of the proposed development.

* The increased traffic volume, raise the potentiality of conditions accelerating the deterioration of road pavement and/or traffic system operational conditions.

* Where provision of the scheduled facilities is essential to the traffic system operation due to the proposed development.

* Where the provision of a facility is a direct requirement as a result of the proposed development.

The contribution rate for Residential/Retail is $1.40/$22.80 per square metre respectively of nett increase in floor space. The amount is $34,201 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

7. Payment to Council for the full cost of reconstruction/ construction of the footpath, kerb and gutter, the implementation of street tree planting and grates, at the front of the subject site where deemed necessary by Council. Should the applicant elect to construct the work, it is to be carried out in accordance with Council's conditions and specifications together with a payment of Council's administration fee. The amount is to be paid prior to the issue of Certificate of Classification. The materials of construction shall be determined by the Divisional Manager, Engineering.

8. A separate development application will be required for any advertising signs and/or structures including temporary advertisements within the Hurstville Town Centre, that are proposed to be erected or placed on any property.

9. All building materials shall be compatible in colour and texture throughout the whole project as indicated by the Artist's impression and the external finishes board dated August, 1994.

10. The applicant is to retain the character of the Fire Station and ensure protection of the building during construction. The external bi-fold doors, all original internal fixtures and fittings to the Fire Station including pressed metal ceilings and timber joinery are to retained.

11. The applicant is to have regard to and implement the "Conservation and Re-use Plan" for the Hurstville Fire Station proposed by Schwager Brooks and Partners Pty. Ltd.

12. The applicant is to comply with and implement the recommendations produced by Vipac (Report No. 24356 Rev.1) dated September, 1994. Details of those recommendations within the plans will be submitted with the building application.

13. The proposed walkway link between MacMahon Street and Woodville Street is to be maintained and have regard to disabled access any approved use of the Fire Station. Details and levels are to be submitted with the building application.

14. The finished height of any building structure on the subject site, inclusive of all vents, chimneys, aerials, TV antennae and construction cranes etc., will not exceed a height of 104 metres above Australian Height Datum (AHD). Any amendments in height greater than 104 metres are to be directed to the Federal Airports Corporation for approval.

15. The applicant is to redesign the garbage disposal area and to permit appropriate vehicles to service this area. Details and levels are to be submitted with the building application to comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia and satisfy Council of the availability of vehicular access.

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

17. Maximum noise level from plant and equipment used on the site shall not exceed the background noise level by more than 5dB(A) for the approved hours of the use, when measured at the boundary of the nearest residential premises.

18. The applicant is to make provision for future connection to underground power supply in any building/rebuilding or alterations to the front elevation of the building on the subject property. The applicant shall confer with Sydney Electricity to ensure that tits requirements have been met in this regard. Such written advice is to be submitted to Council prior to the issue of a Certificate of Classification.

19. The dwelling to be demolished, No. 23 MacMahon Street, is currently identified in the City of Hurstville Heritage Study, 1988. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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 made by Council and a Certificate of Classification has been issued.

22. Compliance with the requirements of Sydney Electricity in relation to the provision of a site within the subject land for the establishment of an electricity kiosk type substation, if required for the locality. Prior to submission of building plans, the developer shall present details of the development in writing to Sydney Electricity and obtain confirmation of that authority's requirements. The kiosk site shall be dedicated at the applicant's expense for use of Sydney Electricity.

23. The submission of a detailed report prepared by a suitably qualified authority establishing the reflectivity value and impact of glazing proposed to be used on all elevations of the building. The report will be at the developer's expense.

24. The provision of one hundred and fifty-three (153) car spaces in accordance with the submitted plans. Such spaces, manoeuvring areas, driveways and vehicular crossings are to be suitably constructed, sealed to provide a surface of concrete or bitumen, signposted, clearly linemarked, and drained to Council's specifications. Footpath and crossing levels are to be obtained from the Engineer's Department at a fee set by Council.

25. The car spaces will be allocated as such:

Residential: 1 space min. each unit - total No. 78 spaces.
Visitors: 14 spaces
Commercial: 1 space per 50 square metres gross floor area of each unit.

26. That all carparking spaces designated on the approved plans as being reserved for the use of the residents of the development shall not be used for any purpose other than for the carparking of the motor vehicles of the residents of the residential units in the development.

27. That all carparking spaces designated on the approved plans as being reserved for the use of the tenants of the commercial units in the development shall not be used for any purpose other than for the parking of the motor vehicles of the tenants of the units and/or their employees and/or their customers.

28. That all carparking spaces designated on the approved plans as being reserved for the use of visitors to the development shall not be used for any purpose other than visitor parking.

29. All entry and exit points and one or two way circulation movements are to be clearly signposted to the satisfaction of Council.

30. 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.

31. For one-way/two-way straight and circular ramps the minimum dimensions shall be in accordance with the Traffic Authority of NSW "Policies, Guidelines and Procedures for Traffic Generating Developments" Part A - Section 3 - Design Guidelines.
32. Applicant to pay Council to construct a new 150mm thick reinforced concrete vehicular crossing in Woodville Street. 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.

33. All stormwater is to drain to the kerb and gutter in Woodville Street.


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.01.03 13-19 MACMAHON STREET, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 430/96)
MULTI STOREY COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)




Applicant : Caporale Designs Ltd
Proposal : MULTI STOREY COMMERCIAL
AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Zoning : Zone No. 3(b) - City Centre Business
Owners :
Existing Development : Friendly Society Pharmacy Building,
Residence and Doctors' Surgery
Cost of Development : $6.5 million

PRECIS OF REPORT

1. In October 1995 Caporale Designs lodged a Development Application DA 495/95 for the erection of a multi storey commercial/residential development over three (3) allotments of land in MacMahon Street, Hurstville

2. The application was considered unacceptable in several respects in particular height and floor space.

3. Revised plans were submitted in February, 1996.

4. In June 1996 Council formally considered the Development Application and refused the proposal on the basis of inadequate information submitted and the non-compliance of the proposal with Development Control Plan No. 4.

5. Intrinsic to Council's refusal was its concern to protect the heritage integrity of the Friendly Societies Dispensary.

6. In December, 1996 a new Development application was submitted, DA 430/96.

7. The applicant's revised the development proposal in April, 1997 requesting Council consider a staged development whereby Stage 1 would achieve approval of the basic parameters of the development, including building envelope, height and floor space.

8. On 15 April, 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal to the Land and Environment Court on the basis of Council's deemed refusal of the application.

9. It is recommended that Council grant approval to the staged development of the site in accordance with Council's preferred building envelope.



Council, at its Meeting held on 11 June, 1997 considered the application and resolved that the matter be referred for an inspection and report by the Hurstville and all interested Ward Councillors.

To reacquaint Members with the various aspects of the application the Divisional Manager's report to the Meeting is reproduced below :

Background

In October, 1995, Corporate Designs submitted a Development Application for a multi-storey commercial/residential development over three allotments of land in MacMahon Street, Hurstville. The proposal entailed construction of a twelve (12) storey tower, with a floor space ratio of 3.58:1. Only the facade of the Friendly Societies Dispensary was to be retained. Council commenced negotiations with the applicant with a view to achieving a development more sympathetic to the significant MacMahon Street site. The major issues of concern to Council were as follows :

1) Treatment and conservation of the Friendly Society Dispensary.

2) Compliance with DCP No. 4 in fact and intent.

3) Submission of adequate supporting information including model, wind study, traffic study, reflectivity study.

4) Concern that the development be appropriate in its civic, city-centre context.

Following extensive consultation between Council officers, the applicant and the applicant's consultants, revised plans were submitted in February, 1996. These plans consisted of the erection of three buildings and retention of part of the Friendly Societies Dispensary. Two (2) four storey buildings were proposed to front MacMahon Street on either side of the dispensary. A twelve (12) storey building was proposed for the rear of the site. It was intended the development comprise a mixture of uses incorporating commercial, residential, restaurant and serviced apartments.

The revised Development Application was formally considered by Council in June, 1996. Council resolved to refuse the application for the following reasons :

1. The proposal does not meet the urban design objectives of the DCP No. 4 (in terms of scale, enhancement of the precinct, impact on adjacent development) and an over development of the site.

2. The proposal is contrary to Development Control Plan NO. 4 - Hurstville Town Centre (amended 13/3/96) which prohibits medium and high density residential development within the core retail and core commercial areas of Hurstville CBD.

3. The application together with supporting documentation and plans is inadequate for Council to give an accurate and objective assessment against the provisions of Council's Development Control Plan NO. 4 - Hurstville Town Centre and the Building Code of Australia.

Following issue of the refusal, discussions between the applicant and Council officers continued, with Council outlining issues which would need to be addressed by any subsequent Development Application :

* the development would need to define a spatial system, rather than creating an "object" building;

* the development should ensure appropriate privacy for the dispensary and buildings to the rear;

* the design should ensure appropriate privacy for the dispensary and buildings to the rear;

* the height of the development should be reduced to a level appropriate to surrounding development.

It was stressed to the applicant that satisfying the above issues would be integral to meeting the objectives of Council's DCP No. 4.

Current Development Application

The Development Application now before Council for determination, DA 430/96 was lodged on 13 December, 1996.

When lodged, the development proposed consisted of

* retaining the dispensary

* erection of an eight storey building on the north-eastern side of the dispensary;

* the design should ensure appropriate privacy for the dispensary and buildings to the rear;

* the height of the development should be reduced to a level appropriate to surrounding development.

It was stressed to the applicant that satisfying the above issues would be integral to meeting the objectives of Council's DCP No. 4.

Current Development Application

The Development Application now before Council for determination, DA 430/96 was lodged on 13 December, 1996.

When lodged, the development proposed consisted of :

* retaining the dispensary;

* erection of an eight storey building on the north-eastern side of the dispensary;

* erection of an eleven storey building on the south-western side of the dispensary;

* provision of an open courtyard separating the dispensary from the tower buildings;

* provision of basement parking beneath the entire site (with the exception of below the dispensary).

Existing and Surrounding Development

The subject site presently houses the Friendly Societies Dispensary, a doctors' surgery and one dwelling.

To the south-east of the site there is a six storey curtain wall commercial building and a three storey brick building housing professional offices.

On the site to the south-west a development application for a twelve storey residential building has been approved behind the old fire station which is being retained.

To the west of the site across MacMahon Street is the Civic Precinct, MacMahon Galleries and the car park.

On the north-east side of the site there are dwellings.

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. 3(b) - City Centre Business 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 Development Control Plan No. 4 - Hurstville Town Centre.

The objectives of the Development Control Plan for development in the Town Centre are as follows :

Land Use Strategy

(a) To reinforce and promote the Town Centre's role and function as a major multi-functional sub-regional commercial centre, providing space for retailing, commercial offices, administrative, community services, recreation, entertainment and residential uses.

(b) To ensure that land uses are located to comply with vehicular and pedestrian access objectives and particularly to encourage a strong central office, retail and service core close to public transport facilities and with convenient pedestrian access to open space areas, parking areas and other major focal paints within the Town Centre.

(c) To encourage mixed forms of development such as ground floor retail with offices above, and including a residential component where this will assist in the achievement of the objectives of this Plan.

(d) To assist in the protection and enhancement of the central portion of Forest Road as a traditional shopping street.

(e) To assist in developing a Town Centre which continues to have life and which functions safely and attractively outside of normal business hours.

In accordance with the provisions of the DCP, the design emphasis and building form required is a built form which reinforces a human scale and produces a Hurstville character. Variety is purposely sought to avoid any appearance of a "project" look or super-block. However, continuity between each building and its neighbours is essential to provide a visual coherence to the city. The complexity and interest normally associated with older and more established urban neighbourhoods is the desired outcome particularly in Forest Road and the Civic Precinct where the nucleus of this still exists.

The built form profile is medium rise high density block edge development. For this building form to be successful, it needs to adhere to the following principles :

* The buildings are to be organised on a "block edge" principle - facing the street and near or on the front site in a manner which provides a coherent definition of the urban space along the street and relative to other buildings.

* The architecture is to draw clues from the existing buildings in terms of plans, elevations and the traditional vertical structural modulation evidence in Hurstville.

* The buildings must be appropriately modulated and articulated in their facade in order to provide well proportioned elevations and human scale, shadow lines etc when viewed along the street.

* The design must consider its street context.

13-19 MacMahon Street is a site which is confined by the following :

* it has only one street frontage;
* it has a building of heritage value;
* the buildings on the sites to the rear and to the south of the site are close to their rear and side boundaries.

Under DCP No. 4, the maximum floor space allowable is 3:1 that is providing the urban design objectives are met. These objectives are :

"To control building form to assist in the achievement of urban design, heritage and environmental objectives, particularly :

i. The retention and enhancement of a human scale and consistent character.

ii. The introduction of points of interest within the street environment which relate the building form to the pedestrian environment.

iii. The protection of pedestrians using streets and other open spaces from adverse environmental impacts, namely overshadowing, reflectivity, wind, rain, noise and traffic fumes.

iv. The protection and enhancement of items and precincts of the environmental heritage, or of landmark or landscape significance.

v. The protection of the environment of adjoining residential areas.

vi. The provision of an appropriate level of well distributed, well designed and furnished open space.

vii. To assist in the creation of a desirable image for the centre."

Despite improvements in the overall concept of the development, an assessment of the proposal in respect to the above listed objectives from DCP No. 4 revealed the proposal to still exceed Council's requirements. Council officers considered the buildings still exceeded that which was appropriate for the site in terms of height, bulk and floor space ratio. On 18 March, 1997 Council issued a formal notice to the applicant confirming the required building envelope parameters for the development as follows :

* four storeys on the northern side with a 2.0 metre setback from the street and three storeys at the street;

* on the southern side three storeys at the street and eleven storeys at the rear;

* a 4.0 metre setback for the Elm tree was required on the southern block.

Request for Staged Consent

In April, 1997, Council received a request from the applicant that consideration be given to the issue of a Staged Development Consent for the site. The applicant's submission is reproduced below as follows :

"The timing of the approval process has become critical, through no fault of Council or its staff. Our client, Caporale Designs, has had considerable discussions with Council staff resulting in the agreed position set out in the letter of 18 March 1997 of Council's Divisional Manager, Policy, Planning and Environment. The need to execute contracts has become pressing and, to meet both the client and Council concerns, we suggest a staged development consent under s91AB of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Ace would be appropriate.

For comfort in its impending transactions, our client needs to know the height, envelope and accommodation that Council would permit on the site. The design itself, though important, is not critical to the development potential of the project or the price to be paid for land. Accordingly a first stage development consent, which defines height, footprints, setbacks from MacMahon Street, relationship to the old pharmacy and accommodation (floor areas, unit sizes and numbers) would be enough for the comfort of our client at this crucial stage.

For the Council, such a consent would seal the agreement of the applicant to the heights and other controls sought by Council. For our clients, a first stage development consent would define all of the issues critical to the success of the development in financial terms. Our client would then be at leisure to complete the design of the project without undue haste and in consultation with Council's officers prior to lodging a second stage development application for the project."

Concept of Staged Consent

The concept of Staged Development permits Council to grant individual Development Consents for specific parts of a development which would generally take place as stages, in chronological order. The benefit of Staged Development lies in the area of major and complex developments where the developer usually requires Council's support for the "concept" of the proposal in order to obtain finance. The provisions of Staged Development allow Council to issue Development Consent for the first stage which may comprise a master plan in the instance of a large subdivision or a concept plan establishing floor space ratio and building envelope in the case of a major residential/commercial development. Stage 2 would take the form of a separate Development Application with detailed lot layouts or floor plans and elevations, dependent upon the type of development proposed. In each case the issue of the stage 1 consent permits a developer to obtain finance to proceed with the development and provides both Council and the developer with a degree of certainty with regard to the parameters of the project.

In respect of the current Development Application it was agreed with the applicant that Council could legally consider a staged Development Consent for the subject land and may be willing to approve the staged development of the land subject to the submission of :

* revised plans indicating a building envelope as required by Council on 18 March, 1997;

* elevations indicating height

* shadow diagrams;

* heritage assessment.

It was also agreed that Council could arrange public notification of the staged development concept, on the understanding that the above-listed information would be submitted prior to commencement of the notification period.

A series of three different building envelopes for the site have been submitted and each envelope has received a response from Council's Divisional Manager, Policy, Planning and Environment. At the time of finalising this report the information submitted by the applicant is finally correct in terms of building envelope and height, elevations and shadow diagrams and heritage study.

Earlier submissions by the applicant includes a list of the number of units proposed (52 in total) and the amount of retail/commercial floorspace (550 square metres). Council should in no way be prepared to approve a particular number of units when the applicant has yet to demonstrate that this number can be accommodated within the envelope.

Appeal to the Land and Environment Court

Despite on-going negotiations taking place between the applicant and Council officers, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Land and Environment Court on 15 April on the basis of Council's deemed refusal of the application. The appeal has been submitted in relation to the original plans lodged with Development Application 430/96 rather than the application for staged consent, now before Council. The appeal is set down to be heard on 13 June, 1997.

Public Notification

Development Application DA 430/96 has been notified twice, once in respect of the plans submitted in December, 1996 and again in April, 1997 when the initial staged development building envelope plan was lodged. This plan was not in accordance with the building envelope required by Council and advised to the applicant in March, 1997.

In response to the two periods of public notification submissions were received from the National Trust and the Presbyterian Church. Concerns outlined in the submissions were as follows :

National Trust Submission

The concerns of the National Trust related specifically to the development in its relationship to the dispensary. A portion of the Trust's letter is reproduced for Council's information :

"As previously indicated to Council, the Trust has under consideration the Classification and Listing on its Register the Hurstville an District United Friendly Society's Dispensary and this item is now on the Trust's Interim List.

While the architectural qualities of the Dispensary and its vital contribution to the MacMahon Street civic precinct are clearly evident, this building may well be unique in terms of its intact historic interiors, particularly the upstairs meeting room/hall and the dispensary at the rear of the ground floor chemist.

This building and its interiors illustrate evocatively the early years of Hurstville's twentieth century growth from a village to a major metropolitan growth centre. The Dispensary was a focal point of the Southern Sydney health system for over four decades.

The proposed development is excessive in scale in terms of the streetscape of MacMahon Street which is predominantly single storey with the notable exception of the complimentary Fire Station and Dispensary two storey Edwardian period buildings.

Examination of the Development Application indicates that the developers of this site are seeking maximum development with minimal retention of heritage fabric. With the loss of the Hurstville Mecca/Savoy Theatre and a number of other key heritage buildings in recent years, the opportunities to conserve key components of the City's heritage within the Central Business District are now becoming rare."

Submission from the Presbyterian Church

A summary of the issues raised by the Church include :

* impact on wind effects within MacMahon Street;

* Reflectivity onto Park Road and danger for motorists;

* Traffic impact and implications, combined with the inadequacy and inaccuracy of the traffic study.

Conclusion

Consideration of the Development Application for 13-19 MacMahon Street has involved extensive assessment, consultation and negotiation during the past three years. The proposal now before Council, for approval of a staged development appears to finally present the basis for a development in accordance with the objectives of DCP No. 4. In addition, approval of a staged development provides certainty to both Council and the applicant with respect to the form, bulk, height and extent of the buildings and will ensure the development, when completed will be appropriate within the civic precinct.

HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .01.03
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation MULTI STOREY COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)


. Recommendation MULTI STOREY COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)



RECOMMENDATION


THAT Council as the consent authority grant approval to a staged multi-storey commercial/residential development at Nos. 13-19 MacMahon Street, Hurstville, subject to the following conditions :

Stage 1 of Development

1. The building envelope must be satisfactory to Council as follows :

i) four storeys on the northern side with a 2.0 metre setback from the street and three storeys at the street;

ii) on the southern side three storeys at the street and eleven storeys at the rear.

2. The building envelope must show a minimum setback of 4.0 metres from MacMqhon Street to accommodate the envelope.

3. The maximum floor space ratio for the entire envelope must be no greater than 3.0:1.

Stage 2 of Development

4. The Stage 2 Development must be in accordance with the building envelopes approved in Stage 1.

5. A separate Development Application must be submitted for Stage 2, incorporating

* floor plans of each level showing levels of floors and carparking ramps;

* elevations and use;

* materials;

* landscape plan;

* shadow diagrams;

* wind and reflectivity studies;

* traffic impact study;

* response to the heritage requirements.

6. The information submitted with the Stage 2 Development Application must be to a detail to enable Council's full assessment of the proposal under the Heads of Consideration in Section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.02 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - HURSTVILLE WARD



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.03 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - PENSHURST WARD



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.03.01 13 JERSEY AVENUE, MORTDALE (D.A. 64/97)
DUAL OCCUPANCY - TWO STOREY FOUR (4) BEDROOM DWELLING AT THE REAR OF THE SITE
(Report by Town Planner, Ms. W. Wong)




Applicant : Winston Construction Pty. Ltd.
Proposal : DUAL OCCUPANCY -
TWO STOREY FOUR (4) BEDROOM
DWELLING AT THE REAR OF THE SITE
Zoning : Zone No. 2 - Residential
Residential Development
Control Plan 1994 : Development Area "B"
Owners : Winston Construction Pty. Ltd.
Existing Development : A Three Bedroom Single Storey Dwelling
Cost of Development : $95,000

PRECIS OF REPORT

1. The proposal is to add a new two storey, four bedroom dwelling at the rear of the existing single storey dwelling.

2. The proposal falls short of the open space requirement.

3. Four (4) objections have been received for the proposed development.

4. Recommendation - Approval with conditions.

Existing and Surrounding Development

The subject site has an area of approximately 691 square metres and a frontage to both Jersey Avenue and Milsop Place. The frontage to Milsop Place is approximately 14.63 metres. The land is not level and it slopes down toward Milsop Place with higher levels facing Jersey Avenue.

The existing dwelling which fronts onto Jersey Avenue is a single storey three bedroom dwelling. There are a number of trees on site including one Melaleuca which is in poor health and allowed to be removed.

The site is located in Jersey Avenue which runs off Forest Road. The surrounding development is predominantly residential with one/two storey homes. A number of new two storey developments have already occurred along Milsop Place having taken advantage of the frontage to Milsop Place.

History

4/4/97Development Application submitted to Council.
1/5/97Preliminary assessment was completed. The applicant was informed by letter that the proposal should provide details of the site area, frontage, landscaping components, statement of environmental effects, survey plan, shadow diagram and the existing dwelling.
9/5/97The applicant submitted supplementary plans.
19/5/97 - 2/6/97Notification to the adjoining owners - four (4) objections were received.
16/6/97The applicant submitted amended plan showing the landscaped open space.

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 Interim Residential Development Code (IRDC) and its relevant amendments for Development Area "B".

Proposed Development

The applicant proposes to add a new two storey four bedroom dwelling at the rear of the existing single storey dwelling. The new dwelling will front Milsop Place which was widened to allow two-way traffic. The new dwelling provides a double garage, family, meals, dining, kitchen and lounge at the ground floor and four bedrooms on the first floor.

A new driveway of 5.0 metres in width is proposed to serve the new dwelling with vehicular access to Milsop Place. The rest of the area will be mostly landscaped and the existing Melaleuca tree can be removed due to its poor health.

The applicant also proposes to relocate the existing carport for the existing dwelling at the boundary of the lot facing Jersey Avenue.

Tabled Information

IRDC
PROPOSED
COMPLIANCE
Site Area
315 m2/dwelling
691 m2
Yes
Density
2.19 dwellings
2 dwellings
Yes
Development Area "B"
Building Height - Front Dwelling
9.0 m
7.0 m
Yes
Number of Storeys - Front Dwelling
2
2
Yes
Landscaped Open Space
- Existing Dwelling
- Proposed Dwelling
TOTAL
345.5 m2
217 m2
165 m2
382 m2
Yes
Private Open Space
- Existing Dwelling
- Proposed Dwelling
60 m2
60 m2
86.14 m2
86.3 m2
Yes
Yes
Building Setbacks: Front Boundary
Side Boundary - proposed dwelling at G/F
- proposed dwelling at 1/F
- proposed carport
4.5 m

1.35 m
2.0 m
4.5 m
4.5 m

1.35 m
2.0 m
0.0 m
Yes

Yes
Yes
No
Carparking Provision
1.25 spaces per 3 bedroom dwelling
ie, 2.5 spaces
2 spaces for the proposed dwelling and 1 carport for the existing dwelling
Building Envelope - Side
Yes
Street Frontage on Milsop Place
15.0 m
14.63 m
No

Comment :

Minimum Frontage : The subject site is located in Development Area "B" and as such requires a minimum street frontage and general width of 15.0 metres. The property has a frontage of only 14.63 metres which is 37 cm short of the requirement. The applicant has put forward an objection to the minimum frontage of the allotment under SEPP No. 1. The reason given being that the street frontage at 14.63 metres is only marginally below the minimum frontage and will not have any detrimental effect in urban design terms.

Carport on Boundary : The applicant proposes to relocate the existing carport at the boundary facing Jersey Avenue. However, condition can be imposed to require the setback of the carport in accordance with the code.

Manager, Building Services

The proposal was referred to the appropriate Building Surveyor who raised no objection. However, concern was mentioned as to the removal of the tree from the rear of the lot and a drainage easement is to be provided.

Manager, Development Advice

All stormwater to flow by gravity to the kerb and gutter in Milsop Place. Since the existing fibro garage on the rear lot is to be demolished, a new garage or carport is to be constructed on the front lot to serve the existing dwelling to Council approved plans. Moreover, the application is to pay Council to cover road construction, drainage costs and to repay the property acquisition cost of widening Milsop Place.

The standard conditions regarding drainage amplification is required.

Public Notification and Comment

Adjoining residents were notified by letter and given fourteen (14) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. Four (4) submissions were registered and their concerns are outlined below :

i) Overdevelopment of the proposal

The proposed five bedroom, two storey dwelling is considered an overdevelopment for such a small block of land and the standard of living will be diminished by our lovely green private outlook being turned into a glaring brick wall with noise levels sure to rise.

Comment : The size of the land (including the existing dwelling) which is 691.0 square metres will allow two dwellings to be built on site under the requirement of the IRDC which is 315.0 square metres per dwelling. As such, the density development does not exceed the intention for Development Area "B".

ii) Removal of the existing tree on site

The large Melaleuca (Paper Bark) at least fifty years old that should be preserved under the Council's Tree Preservation Order.

Comment : The Tree Preservation Officer considered that the tree is in poor health and permission is granted to remove the Melaleuca species and Cotoneaster species on site.

iii) The reduction of privacy to the existing dwelling at No. 13 Jersey Avenue

The proposal would greatly reduce the privacy and the actual price of the property will be considerably reduced.

Comment : The privacy of the existing dwelling would be reduced however, screen planting along the common boundary can be suggested to reduce the impact of reduction of privacy.

iv) The overshadowing of the proposal to the existing dwelling at No. 13 Jersey Avenue

The sunlight/daylight would be greatly reduced due to the proposal and the actual price of the property will be considerably reduced.

Comment : There may be overshadowing to the adjoining lot at No. 11 Jersey Avenue in the afternoon. However, there would not be overshadowing on the property north of the proposed dwelling.

Applicant's Submission

The following was submitted by the applicant in support of his application :

"The proposed development for a dual occupancy fronting Milsop Place will have no detrimental effect with respect to the surrounding neighbourhood amenity and urban plan.

Many similar situations occur along the length of Milsop Place with the main advantage being direct motor vehicle access.

Proposed landscaped areas, private open space area and dimensions, total floor space and building setbacks are all in compliance with Councils residential development code. There is negligible impact on surrounding residences with respect to residential privacy and overshadowing of adjacent buildings.

We believe the proposal will generally be an improvement to the existing residential amenity."

Moreover, the applicant submitted an objection pursuant to SEPP No. 1 in relation to the minimum frontage of an allotment. He commented that the street frontage at 14.63 metres is only marginally below the minimum frontage and will not have any detrimental effect in urban design terms.

Summary

Approval is recommended and further points to be considered in favour of Council varying the Code requirement on frontage are as follows :

* Although the frontage of the lot does not satisfy the IRDC requirement which is 15.0 metres, it is only approximately 37cm short and the proposal in general complies with all other requirements under the IRDC.

* The proposed carport at the boundary facing Jersey Avenue is not in accordance with the code. Therefore, the applicant will be required to set back the carport to accord with the code.


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .03.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 13 JERSEY AVENUE, MORTDALE (D.A. 64/97)
TWO STOREY FOUR (4) BEDROOM DWELLING AT THE REAR OF THE SITE
(Report by Town Planner, Ms. W. Wong)


. Recommendation 13 JERSEY AVENUE, MORTDALE (D.A. 64/97)
TWO STOREY FOUR (4) BEDROOM DWELLING AT THE REAR OF THE SITE
(Report by Town Planner, Ms. W. Wong)



RECOMMENDATION


THAT Council as the consent authority grant development consent for the erection of one, two storey dwelling on Lot 530 DP 772067, No. 13 Jersey Avenue, Mortdale, subject to the following conditions:

GENERAL

1. Compliance generally with Drawing No 419-DA1 and 419-DA2 documentation prepared by McFadyen Anlezark Pty. Ltd. dated 4 April, 9 May and 16 June, 1997and submitted with DA 64/97, except where amended by the conditions of consent.

BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA

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. 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 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.

5. 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 pay for the construction of the fence and to ascertain which type of fence is preferred by the adjoining property owners.

6. 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.

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

RESTRICTIONS ON USE

8. 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.

9. 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 made by Council and a Certificate of Classification has been issued.

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

11. 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.

12. There being not more than two (2) dwellings and/or occupancies on the subject land.

13. In accordance with the survey plan and levels submitted by McFadyen Anelzark, the proposed dwelling shall not exceed RL 14.677 at the main ridge line as measured vertically from any nominated point from natural ground level to the roof line directly above that point.

14. Should the approved attached dual dwelling be Torrens Titled, the dividing wall between dwellings shall be of brick cavity construction and extend to the underside of the roof covering, and not be crossed by combustible roof battens. Further, to any easements for access, services and projecting eaves and gutters the said common wall will have an easement for support over each allotment.

DRAINAGE

15. Applicant to pay Council to construct a new 100mm thick concrete crossing in Milsop Place to serve the new dwelling.
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.

16. 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.

17. All stormwater from both lots to flow by gravity to the kerb and gutter in Milsop Place.

CAR PARKING

18. The proposed double garage shall have a minimum clear door jamb width of 5.4 metres. Details shall be submitted with the building application.

19. The vehicular driveway and 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.

20. The existing fibro garage on the rear lot to be demolished and a new garage or carport to be constructed on the front lot to serve the existing dwelling all to Council approved plans. A minimum setback of 4.5 metres must be allowed for the proposed carport. Revised plans showing the carport and appropriate setback must be submitted with the Building Application.

PUBLIC UTILITY

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

22. 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, Telstra and Sydney Water.

SECTION 94 CONTRIBUTIONS

23. 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 $2,967 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

24. 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.

25. 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 $1,223 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.

LANDSCAPING

26. The submission of a detailed landscape plan with at least 50% of the site to be landscaped 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.

27. Perimeter planting along boundaries in particular the common boundary between the existing and proposed dwelling shall be such as to provide a dense-foliaged plant screen of trees and shrubs to be of a quick growing advanced nature 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.

ROAD WIDENING

28. The applicant to pay Council $13,768 to cover road construction, drainage costs and property acquisition costs for the widening and construction of Milsop Place.

29. The applicant to refund to Council $7,780 which Council paid to originally acquire the "Road Widening" to Milsop Place. This amount comprised of :

a) $980.00 to K.M. Harkness (solicitors for Mrs. Hollis)

b) $6,500 to Mrs Hollis (valuation figure)

c) $300.00 to McDonell Moffitt Dowling Taylor (solicitors for Council)



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


05.04 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - PEAKHURST WARD



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 06 25TH JUNE, 1997-


06:01 Ward Councillors' Report

06:01.01 87 Woodlands Avenue, Lugarno - Three Storey Dwelling
(Report By Manager - Building Services, Mr G Young)

06:02 Building Applications - Hurstville Ward

06:02.01 44 Weston Road, Hurstville - Review Of Determination Of Building Application
(Report By Manager - Building Services, Mr G Young)

06:02.02 29 Annie Street, Hurstville - Attached Sunroom, Pergola And Garage Additions
(Report By Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr L Josifov)

06:03 Building Applications - Penshurst Ward

06:04 Building Applications - Peakhurst Ward

06:05 Miscellaneous And Other Matters

06:05.01 Southern Sydney Waste Planning And Management Board - Minutes Of Meeting
27th May, 1997 (Report By Manager - Environmental Services, Mr P Chrystal) (File
W/00028)

06:05.02A Southern Sydney Regional Waste Board - Regional Waste Management Plan
(File No W/00028)

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


06.01 WARD COUNCILLORS' REPORT



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.01.01 87 WOODLANDS AVENUE, LUGARNO - Three Storey Dwelling (Report by Manager - Building Services, Mr G Young)


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .01.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 87 WOODLANDS AVENUE, LUGARNO - Three Storey Dwelling (Report by Manager - Building Services, Mr G Young)

. Recommendation 87 WOODLANDS AVENUE, LUGARNO - Three Storey Dwelling (Report by Manager - Building Services, Mr G Young)


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 44 WESTON ROAD, HURSTVILLE - Review of determination of building application (Report by Manager - Building Services, Mr G Young)


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .02.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 44 WESTON ROAD, HURSTVILLE - Review of determination of building application (Report by Manager - Building Services, Mr G Young)

. Recommendation 44 WESTON ROAD, HURSTVILLE - Review of determination of building application (Report by Manager - Building Services, Mr G Young)


RECOMMENDATION


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.02.02 29 ANNIE STREET, HURSTVILLE - Attached sunroom, pergola and garage additions (Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr L Josifov)


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .02.02
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation 29 ANNIE STREET, HURSTVILLE - Attached sunroom, pergola and garage additions (Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr L Josifov)

. Recommendation 29 ANNIE STREET, HURSTVILLE - Attached sunroom, pergola and garage additions (Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr L Josifov)


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

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

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 SOUTHERN SYDNEY WASTE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT BOARD - Minutes of Meeting 27th May, 1997 (Report by Manager - Environmental Services, Mr P Chrystal) (File W/00028)


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.01
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation SOUTHERN SYDNEY WASTE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT BOARD - Minutes of Meeting 27th May, 1997 (Report by Manager - Environmental Services, Mr P Chrystal) (File W/00028)

. Recommendation SOUTHERN SYDNEY WASTE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT BOARD - Minutes of Meeting 27th May, 1997 (Report by Manager - Environmental Services, Mr P Chrystal) (File W/00028)


RECOMMENDATION



HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT ITEM NO: .
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH


06.05.02A SOUTHERN SYDNEY REGIONAL WASTE BOARD - REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN (FILE NO W/00028)


ADDENDUM

Purpose

This report was prepared to provide Councillors with an overview of the Southern Sydney Waste Board Draft Regional Waste Plan, in relation to:

* the background to the Plan;
* the likely effect of the Plan on Hurstville City Council in general; and
* the likely effect of the Plan on the waste collection services provided by Hurstville City Council.

Background

Hurstville is a member Council of the Southern Sydney Waste Planning and Management Board. The Southern Sydney Waste board (SSWB) was established under the NSW Government's Waste Minimisation and Management Act, 1995. The SSWB comprises Botany, Canterbury, Hurstville, Kogarah, Marrickville, Randwick, Rockdale, South Sydney, Sutherland, Waverley and Woollahra Councils.

The major objective of the legislation is to reduce waste to landfill in 2000 by 60% based on 1990 per capita disposal rates. The legislation is clear that this should be achieved via strategies based on the hierarchy of:

* avoidance;
* re-use;
* recycling and reprocessing; and
* disposal.

As the Executive Summary of the Draft Plan notes:

As indicated, the Government's legislation is based on the hierarchy of avoidance, re-use, recycle. While this Plan comments on that hierarchy the only strategy proposed for avoidance is based on fiscal measures. This follows the German model, although there is a clear difference between the NSW Government's intention and that of the German government facing increasing imports from the EU.

The Draft Plan, which is several hundred pages long, and is on public exhibition until 8 July 1997 presents a Regional Waste Profile of waste generation within the region. The waste volumes include Municipal waste and wastes produced in the Commercial and Industrial sectors (C&I) and the Construction and Demolition sectors (C&D). According to the figures presented in the Draft the total waste produced across the Region is 1.15mt in 1990 with an estimated production of 940,138T in 1995 - this equates to a 19.4% reduction in waste since 1990. This equates to a 472kg/capita/year waste generation across the Region, whilst Hurstville generates 333kg/capita/year.

Comments

The Draft Waste Plan

The Regional Waste Plan (RWP) aims to provide the Southern Sydney Waste Region (of which Hurstville is part) with both a statement of strategic intent for waste reduction and also a detailed action plan for implementation. This is done by looking at the current state of waste management within the region, identifying and reviewing the options available to reduce waste disposal and by providing three views of what is proposed to be achieved. These are:

* Short Term : 1 Year Operating Plan
* Medium Term : 4 Year Implementation Plan
* Long Term : 15 Year Strategic Planning Horizon

The Plan seeks to outline the proposed strategies by which the Board will assist local communities to achieve the required 60% reduction target. The Plan itself is broken into nine (9) separate parts.

It is important for Council to note that the Government's legislation is noticeably quiet in the strategy direction the Boards should take. It is not indicated that Waste Boards should be involved in service delivery, although provision is made in the legislation that would provide for this alternative.

Nonetheless it would appear to contravene the notion of flexibility that the market place requires to deliver efficiencies if the Waste Boards were to deliver a prescriptive strategy response to the local communities. This Waste Plan delivers a prescriptive response and in many ways could be criticised for ignoring realities of the market. This will become clearer throughout this report.

Key Components of the Draft Waste Plan

The Key components of the Southern Sydney Waste Board (SSWB) Regional Waste Plan (RWP) are seen as:

(A) Domestic Waste

(B) Markets for Recyclables and Green Waste

(C) Commercial Waste
(D) Construction and Demolition

(E) Public Place Waste

The Waste Service in Hurstville City Council

Hurstville currently provides its residents with a market tested, very competitive and efficient domestic waste collection service. The garbage rate charged to residents (1997/8 - $138 @ $0.85 per service) remains the lowest in the Sydney metropolitan region.

Each resident is provided with a weekly 240L mobile garbage bin collection together with a 55L black kerbside recycling crate collected weekly. In addition residents are provided with a Green waste collection service every 17 weeks and a household clean-up service every 17 weeks. These loads are not mixed and provide Council with an opportunity to remove recyclable products from the waste stream and at the same time encourage residents to better manage this portion of their waste production.

The RWP states that current Council waste collection services are inefficient (page 8.2). This is rejected out of hand. This rejection is supported by the above information and the current level of customer satisfaction with the service provided.

It is acknowledged that the commercial and industrial sectors and the construction and demolition industries are not well catered for in any part of Sydney and the proposals to improve waste services for these sectors is recognised as long overdue. Irrespective all these waste streams are relevant to Hurstville as the RWP provides for local Councils to take responsibility for all waste streams in the area. This additional responsibility will likely result in significant additional resources requirements.

Components of Draft RWP Program from Hurstville's Perspective

In specific terms how the Draft RWP Program relate to the Hurstville situation includes:

* The Home Composting Education Program which assumes 25% of households will enthusiastically compost is questionable. With 6.8% of the population in Hurstville, this program represents a cost of over $200,000 over 10 years to the City of Hurstville.Based on previous three year sales of compost bins following spring composting promotions and cost price compost bins Council has sold compost bins to the equivalent of 2% of the total population. To expect that a free compost bin will immediately convert 12 times the numbers already composting is optimistic.

* Household hazardous waste drop off once per year within Hurstville. Each Council will have one.

* Volume based charging based on case study which assumes transfer station costs resulting in an annual waste charge of $146.00. The assumption of 50% reduction in volume results in $25.00 per annum drop in cost is questionable. The cost savings to Hurstville of having a smaller bin are more likely to be around $5.00 - $8.00.

Research indicates that the average weight of a 240L bin is 15kg and the average weight of a 120L bin is 12kg. This is a 20% reduction not 50% as assumed by the RWP. Costings based on the 50% reduction are therefore flawed and will need to be increased to reflect the above data.

* The home composting assumption suggests 25% compost. Only 75% of Hurstville's population are in detached dwellings. The RWP assumes 300 kg of waste is composted based on 70% of garden waste and 50% of kitchen waste. The RWP later identifies one home's green waste as 220 kg and 245 kg of kitchen waste. This relationship gives 154 + 122 = 276 kg. The estimate of extra cost at $205.00 per tonne charted is accurate.

* The consideration in option 2 (page 5 - 48) assumes that the increased yield of recyclables yields greater income and allows less garbage vehicles on the road. Both these assumptions are flawed.

* Bio waste processing cost of $30.00 - $70.00 per tonne is debatable. A more realistic figure based on projections from overseas and NSW Waste Services advice is $60.00 - $80.00.

* The assumption that with a bio waste bin, a fortnightly garbage service is acceptable is not valid. The decision for weekly garbage is not only due to biological degradation of food but also the life of the blow fly. Fortnightly garbage in Sydney will have adverse public health implications.

* Whilst the Nolan ITU model (the principal authors of the RWP) recommends what they consider the best collection system, the RWP goes on to say that at least 30% of the Region cannot use it due to street width and on-street parking. Also these calculations may be flawed for Hurstville due to our lower disposal costs. Given this admission why is one collection system recommended as appropriate to all.

* The Review Of Options has not justified the outcomes by not considering divided garbage/recycling bins or co-mingled bins. This is despite the RWP stating that the preferred recycling collection method was kerbside. The RWP concludes by directing Councils to provide 240L bins collected by single-operator trucks. These statements on pages 5 - 53 are in conflict. It further goes on to recommend mechanical collection for occupational health and public safety but then state that the SSWB prefers kerbside sorting.

The RWP refers to the waste industry preference for mechanical collection of recyclables. It is reasonably expected that most large waste companies want mechanical collection to augment their garbage collection business. This fact is clearly demonstrated by waste company Collex’s contract with Ryde City Council where they receive no income for the mixed recyclables in the market place. Their profit is in providing a highly efficient collection service.

Unfortunately, a highly efficient mechanical collection system often collects recyclables but by mishandling them, turns them into garbage.

* Commercial and industrial source analysis - The analysis of this sector relies on 1991 data. It is understood, and widely reported, that industry has been decimated since 1991 particularly in eastern, inner Sydney, St George and the Canterbury and Bankstown areas..

In support of this it is noted that a recent survey of companies that existed in the Inner Sydney Waste Region in 1990/1991 reveals that employee numbers have fallen significantly and that 25% of the companies no longer exist.

The data in the RWP should have been checked using the updated small business register available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. With such inaccurate data the financial implications need to be reconsidered. There will be clear increased cost implications to Hurstville where the data overstates waste reduction possibilities.

* While the concept of a waste exchange is fine the RWP does not provide any information as to the viability or efficacy about the Environment Protection Authority's waste exchange. This Waste Exchange has been operating for about 15 years. Perhaps sponsorship of “Reverse Garbage” may also be appropriate.

The Australian Centre for Cleaner Production is Melbourne based and an analysis of industry in both cities would reveal that the waste streams in both cities are very different due to the differing manufacturing processes. A lot of this work was commenced at the Waste Service (then Waste Management Authority) before the Centre for Cleaner Production existed.

Commercial and industrial glass recycling in the SSWB region has been well established for decades. Quality paper is new but most cardboard has been recycled for years.

* The strategic horizon key points, contained in Part 8 of the RWP, are both offensive and wrong.

Where does the consultant's report advise that the municipal waste stream is currently inefficiently managed with respect to waste minimisation. The waste figures are relatively static since 1993 when weekly recycling had settled in.

Whoever wrote this must be unaware that our economy has been in recession since 1990 and as waste is directly linked to economic activity, it is not surprising that the C&I waste stream has dropped. Since there is no justification of figures, it is hard to know whether the C&I waste stream has fallen that much or as the report points out, data is insufficient.

The C&D waste stream figures in the report show a 60% rise in quantity. Although these figures are believed to be incorrect in terms of trend analysis, it is hard to use this as a basis to justify a statement that the C&D industry has achieved significant reduction.

RWP Recommendation for the Formation of a St George Sub-Region

The most significant issue in the very short-term is Action Recommendation listed on page 6.7. That Action recommendation reads:

Randwick and Woollahra Councils are required to do the same. It is questioned why the five Councils that have external market contractors are being asked to ‘test the efficiency’ when the remaining Councils operating waste collection by day labour are not required to market test their services.

General Comments

With respect to garbage collection, the critical mass for efficient collection is about four (4) or five (5) trucks and one (1) spare vehicle. Old garbage trucks that are good enough to use as spares are not worth much (ie about $20,000 for a reasonable spare) compared to the $250,000 - $270,000 for a new truck. The only recent cost efficiency 'hiccup' has been that with the conversion over to one (1) man trucks from three (3) man crewed rear loaders, there were not any old one (1) man vehicles as spares so if the one (1) man vehicle failed, you needed two (2) more men as well as the spare truck.

The Effect on Hurstville of this Recommendation

(a) Garbage Collection

Generally, with 68,000 residents and approximately 27,000 residences of which 75% are single dwellings, this is likely to be a five (5) vehicle collection area depending upon the impact haulage to Lucas Heights has on the collection time available. In terms of supervision, this is all one (1) supervisor can adequately look after. Another issue is depot size. Should the fleet be too small, it is expensive and if it were too big, the land area requirements become more difficult.

The current Hurstville contract with Cleanaway has five (5) collection vehicles and a spare rear loader used for Clean-up/GreenWaste Collections.

(b) Recycling Collection

There is no opportunity to improve collection efficiency for kerbside sorting of recyclables at Hurstville. To provide a fortnightly, divided MGB based recycling service, three (3) additional trucks would be required in Hurstville. Information provided by industry experts suggests that a spare vehicle would be likely to be a non specialised vehicle to assist for a short time in the event of breakdown. Little, if any, economies of scale is available here.

(c) Green Waste

Assuming the RWP data is accurate, and this has been questioned earlier, three (3) green waste collection vehicles would be needed to collect from the estimated 70% of properties that place out their green waste bin for collection each fortnight. This 70% is of the 75% single dwelling houses and therefore represents approximately half the premises in the City of Hurstville being provided with a service each fortnight.

Since these vehicles are not specialised vehicles (ie they are either rear loaders for manual collection of greens or either rear loaders or one (1) man vehicles for collection of MGB greens), then this adds to the size of the total garbage/green waste fleet.

On the basis of the RWP recommendations for service collection method there would need to be a minimum of eight (8) garbage/green waste vehicles in the Hurstville City Local Government area. This well exceeded the critical mass needed for optimum economies of scale.

* Green waste services suffers from seasonal and, more unpredictably, local weather/events variation. As an example, if after three (3) weeks of wet weather, there is a dry sunny spell which concludes with a long weekend that is dull yet dry, then the recipe is set for huge tonnages of green waste to come out in the bins or kerbside over the next fortnight. A standard contract , as proposed within the RWP, over all three (3) Councils will not help overcome this. If the Hurstville fleet is working overtime, then Kogarah and Rockdale will be doing the same and so no Council can provide any relief to the other Council.

(d) Clean Up Service

The plan recommends no "clean up" collections except on a fee for service basis. The clean up service in most Council areas has traditionally been undertaken by old rear loading compactors with relatively indestructible bodies that are not likely to be damaged by compacting fridges, etc. This remains the case at Hurstville.

For the purposes of waste disposal, this was once acceptable but it no longer acceptable for today's waste management. Traditionally the clean up service is about 8 - 10% by volume of the domestic waste stream, depending upon how much is directly disposed of by residents . If this private clean up material is added into the garbage bins, this is likely to reach 12 - 15% increase for Hurstville which is a substantial volume.

The Federal Ozone Protection Act makes it an offence enforceable under the NSW Environmental Offences and Penalties Act to wilfully or negligently release CFC refrigerants into the atmosphere. Councils are aware of this legislation and need to address the collection of refrigerators issue. In simple terms, they should not be collected in compactors where they will be smashed but should be collected in tray or similar trucks with rear lifting platforms or hiab cranes.

* Two (2) materials can be reasonably recovered from the clean up stream - scrap metals and wood. Whilst the general scrap metal and wood can be recovered from mixed compacted material, whitegoods are better collected separately. The former of these two (2) collection systems necessitates the use of a waste depot that is able to recover the recyclable materials from the mixed load. This cannot be done at Rockdale Transfer Station and is not currently done at Lucas Heights. This issue of future waste receiving facilities will be addressed in the next section.

* The specialisation of equipment needed for whitegoods may or may not suit an across St George collection because a flat bed truck with gates and a rear lifting platform would only cost about 30 - 40% of the cost of one (1) garbage truck and so could be readily utilised in Hurstville alone with spare capacity to deal with the fluctuations in this waste stream.

(e) Truck Depot

The collection vehicles need to be garaged and serviced at a truck depot. It is illegal to park a garbage truck on a residential street overnight and unacceptable to have vehicles garaged on drivers’ property.

This means that all of the current and future collection fleet at Hurstville would need to be at a depot with daily vehicle wash down facilities and suitably approved service bay. With the current fleet of six (6) trucks, a standard sized depot may be under utilised while a fleet of 10 or 12 would seem the economy of scale size for a suburban area like Hurstville.

Should the green waste collection and the recycling and garbage go to one (1) contractor, then this preferred size of 12 - 14 vehicle depot has been reached.Waste Receival and Waste Processing Facilities

It is in the waste receival and processing facilities that economies of scale can be considered and, from the detail in the RWP, threats to future competition policy are also present.

Should each Council, individually, decide to call contracts for an MGB based collection of recyclables, then the only Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in the Region is the Sydney Recycling Centre owned by Collex. Whilst the NSW Waste Service MRF at Chullora is not too distant, it is substantially further away and would be more costly for any other Tenderer who was competing with Collex.

Local Government expressed great concern regarding the ownership of landfills or other infrastructure by the private sector at the Parliamentary Committee Inquiry into Waste Management held in 1993 in response to the green paper on waste.

In 1993 there was strong feeling that should the private sector own the infrastructure, then Councils would in future be held to ransom. The major risk in the St George area is that the short term decisions lead to long term control by someone other than Councils or the Board. The monopoly situation can occur more because of the high cost of establishing another facility in the region and the public resistance to the establishment of new facilities.

Ideally public land or waste industry owned land would be zoned for appropriate waste infrastructure use in the same way land is zoned as RTA affected. If MRF based resource recovery is forced on Councils in the SSWB region, then it is essential that two (2) competitive situations exist:

The RWP is based on the principle that waste generated within the Region should be processed or disposed of inside the region. While this is a valuable principle it fails to state that this Region has the only major remaining landfill disposal facility in Sydney, and it neglects the opportunities for efficiencies and cost savings that might exist by disposal outside the region. This opportunity for cost savings, subject to environmental considerations should not be dismissed out of hand as is the case with the RWP.

If the new system comes in as is proposed by the RWP, then only the company that currently owns a MRF in the region could realistically compete to provide the service. Should the contract for St George be offered for recycling only, as is an outcome of
the RWP, then this is still likely to be less competitive.

Each Council would need to be convinced that they are part of a competitive tendering process. The demand for bonds, legal clauses, etc that would prevent the Councils being held to ransom would need to be strongly included in the contract.

Perhaps in an attempt to overcome this competitive concern the SSWB proposes to construct, provide or ensure that new waste handling and processing facilities include:

The establishment of these new facilities will require significant capital outlays. It is unclear whether any facilities will be constructed in Hurstville. In any event these facilities would require appropriate development applications with supporting environmental impact reports and broad community consultation.

It is noted in the RWP that the SSWB has adopted a policy position of providing services and/or facilities through a partnership model, either by use of a Private Operator model or Joint venture model with public sector or private sector operators or a combination of both. This position is supported.

Current St George Councils Service Providers

Cleanaway holds the domestic waste collection contracts for Hurstville and Kogarah. The combination of Hurstville and Kogarah under Cleanaway as it currently exists exceeds optimum economies of scale.

The current recycling service provider, Progressive Recycling holds contracts for both Hurstville and Kogarah. The Cleanaway and Progressive double Council contract is clearly above critical mass for economies of scale to apply.

Rockdale has all its waste services provided by Coleman Waste Services Pty Ltd. Similarly economies of scale would be exceeded by combining contracts due to Rockdale's higher population (ie 35,000 houses).

Council Contract Management

It is not believed that there would be any real savings to the Councils by having the contract or service quality monitored by a single body. Collection service complaints are received by an employee of each council and they forward these on to the contractor for remedying. A long term solution may require discussions between the contracts person and the contractor.

There is little to be gained by having one person for all three (3) Councils handle this and in fact some disadvantages in terms of personalised feedback and quality customer service.

Another approach may be to have complaints go direct to the contractor with the “hot line” actually recorded and monitored by Council to ensure them that the service is satisfactory and that the residents are being properly dealt with. The cost savings of this approach are not considered to be substantial.

The contract management task including data gathering is also likely to be better managed by integrating certain tasks and responsibilities into the contract. This places responsibility and accountability directly with those who are undertaking the task.

This does not require a sole St George service provider, merely a revision of existing contracts to deliver the same end result.

Contractor Operational Supervision

Adequate collection system supervision is not believed to be achievable by one (1) supervisor managing any more than one (1) of these Council systems. Less supervision than this is likely to result in a decline in service performance and quality.

Educational Activity

From a public perspective, there is good reason for consistency of educational activity within both the St George and perhaps the Sutherland Shire which its members often have strong links with. Newspapers such as the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader could readily carry a consistent message. Earthworks programs could also most effectively be managed at a St George region level as could TAFE component courses on waste management at St George TAFE. School programs could also be operated on a St George basis although the Department of Education no longer has a St George sub grouping within its Metropolitan East Region.

Display materials at Rockdale, Kogarah and Hurstville shopping centres and railway stations could most readily be standardised in a co-operative fashion.

Contact with Chambers of Commerce, Master Builders Association, Rotary, etc could readily be best achieved on a St George basis. This was clearly recognised by Councils some years back when they appointed an education officer for the St George Council.

The RWP indicates that each Council is to have at least one person involved in waste education and the SSWB will provide financial support (sic) worth $25,000 per council per annum for three (3) years for a higher level of waste education activity. The implication that the current level of waste education provided by Hurstville, and the other St George councils is rejected, although additional funding support is welcome - despite this funding support coming indirectly from local councils.

Council's waste education budget will need to substantially increase to cater for the additional education responsibilities under the RWP. These activities cannot be sustained by current personnel only.

Other Related Waste Issues

Bin Supply

The purchase quantities for new bins is sufficient for any Tenderer to obtain as good a price for one of these Councils as they could get for supply to the three (3) Councils. Competition is currently quite fierce between bin suppliers so price would vary little for a three (3) Council contract. In fact the production run would require greater lead time if a bigger order was placed at one time than if the three (3) Councils’ contracts necessitated the bins at different times.

Purchase and Marketing of Compost Bins and Worm Farms

Some economies of scale could be achieved by a consistent purchasing and marketing strategy across the St George area. Recent surveys show that there is community interest in worm farms and that a concerted marketing approach could be productive. This change in culture component belongs with a St George educational activity or program.

Litter Bins

Litter bins need to be collected manually so a range of vehicles are often used. Some economies could be gained by having one service provider empty litter bins although the distribution of tipping fees could be open to some debate. This activity can and is in some Councils integrated into their domestic waste collection services.

Street Cleansing

Depending upon current methods of cleansing, and the advantages of mechanised systems, there is some potential for street cleansing to be contracted out on a St George basis. Street sweeping trucks need to sweep major roads such as the Princes Highway, Forest Road, Rocky Point Road, Stoney Creek Road and The Grand Parade to minimise litter in the stormwater system.

In addition, shopping centre areas need to be more frequently swept due to heavier litter loads. Some of these roads may be best swept by mechanical devices doing the St George area while Council’s own devices and people do the smaller areas. There is some advantage in having local Council ensure the lanes, pavement, etc around the business areas are kept clean. It also enables Council personnel to be aware of waste issues at local level.

Commercial Waste

Like most suburban style Council areas, the Hurstville, Kogarah and Rockdale Local Government areas essentially have a mixture of large concentrations of waste (Hurstville and Kogarah centres) while most others are small concentrations along strip arcades. Factories in the industrial areas of Arncliffe, Rockdale, Kogarah, Peakhurst and South Hurstville are other single well separated sources of waste.

Council based services are most suitable for provision of garbage, recycling and wet waste collection while the factory areas may best suit a St George or bigger collection zone. A St George based contract for private sector collection from the areas that are not well suited to integration within the Council domestic collection infrastructure may provide cost savings for the future collection services that will be needed. It is clearly much more cost effective to collect all the waste (garbage, dry recyclables) in Boundary Road, for example, than have four (4) different service providers.

It is clearly debatable whether it is more competitive to call tenders for this type of service or merely allow free competition in the market place to provide a cost effective service within the rules and guidelines provided by the Regional Waste Board. The preference is for the latter option - which generally reflects the current position.

Funding

The SSWB receives some funding from the EPA in the short term. The RWP indicates that this funding is insufficient to achieve the waste minimisation and management goals. The RWP indicates that projected expenditure over the first four (4) year Action Plan is approximately $40M. Based on the information provided in the RWP there is a funding shortfall of $29.5M.

Assuming that each Council contributes a $20.00 per resident levy, this funding shortfall is reduced to approximately $18M. The RWP recommends that, initially, Councils be charged a $10.00 levy per resident effective from the next financial year. This has been provided for in the Development and Health Divisions budget estimates.

There are a number of other significant funding issues to be further considered. The RWP provides a number of model financial projections and each of these indicate a waste service charge increase of two, three and four times the current charge to Hurstville residents. Together with a number of assumptions considered to be understated or overstated these financial projections need closer analysis.

In any event the RWP indicates that residents can expect at least a 39% increase in the garbage charges immediately. It should be remembered that when the State Government introduced this legislation the industry experts indicated that the changes needed to effect a 60% waste reduction should not add significantly to the cost of waste services in NSW. This remains to be seen.

Conclusion

A St George level approach to waste management is not appropriate for domestic waste and recycling collection services as there are no tangible financial or service efficiency benefits. Such a regional approach is considered more appropriate for waste education and waste reprocessing and re-use marketing.

Litter bin collection could be done either by individual local Councils or a St George Region Service and make little economic difference. Street cleansing may be a suitable activity for division between Councils in the form of a specialised contract for the mechanised component in main roads, with Councils maintaining a smaller localised fleet for the suburban roads network.

Commercial waste and construction/demolition collection services are potentially suitable for St George area sized management although to some extent the collections from strip arcades suits the Council sized management and bulk collections suit collection areas bigger than St George.

A St George based office paper collection would be appropriate for the large commercial complexes such as Westfields, whilst the collection of glass from hotels/restaurants and paper/cardboard from smaller premises would be more efficiently undertaken by the domestic recycling service provider as an extension to any existing contract.

The management tasks are either better at council level or the whole of the waste region reporting level, not via another level of management at St George area level. Any savings that can be made by having a St George level approach can be best achieved by a close liaison and co-operation between the three (3) Councils not via the introduction of an additional level of management. Should this happen then there would be four (4) levels: NSW Government, SSWB, St George Management and Local Councils.

The future task for local Councils requires more in field role than the past waste disposal system and to create a St George sub region would be unwise. It needs to be seen how suitable the newly created waste regions are to the task of overall management of waste.

Essentially the Sydney system from 1970 - 1992 was a one region approach under the Metropolitan Waste Disposal Authority. Now it has gone to following the Melbourne approach of regions. Time will demonstrate how well this works and it seems inappropriate to create sub regions. The most obvious thing that will come out of all the Regional Waste Plans is that they each have to do the same things and in most cases need facilities or waste supplies from other regions.


HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.02A
DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH

HEADING: Recommendation SOUTHERN SYDNEY REGIONAL WASTE BOARD - REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN (FILE NO W/00028)

. Recommendation SOUTHERN SYDNEY REGIONAL WASTE BOARD - REGIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN (FILE NO W/00028)


RECOMMENDATION