Committee of the Whole - City of Ryde · 05/10/2010 · Dual Occupancy DCP 2010 (Part 3.3 DCP...

Committee of the Whole

AGENDA NO. 15/10

Meeting Date: Tuesday 5 October 2010 Location: Committee Room 2, Level 5, Civic Centre, 1 Devlin Street, Ryde Time: 7.30pm Note: This meeting will be recorded on audio tape for minute-taking purposes

as authorised by the Local Government Act 1993.

NOTICE OF BUSINESS Item Page 1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ...................................................................... 2 2 MOTIONS PUT WITHOUT DEBATE ............................................................... 8 3 166 PRINCES STREET, PUTNEY. Lot 239 DP 8902. - Local

Development Application for erection of new two storey dwelling with semi basement carparking and pool. LDA2010/0002....................................... 9

4 7 ANTHONY ROAD, WEST RYDE. Lot 71 in DP 4051. - Local Development Application for Demolition of a Dwelling House. LDA2010/0266. .............................................................................................. 48

5 2 SHACKEL AVE GLADESVILLE. LOT 21 DP 10340. - Local Development Application for demolition of existing dwelling, construction of two-storey dwelling, alterations to existing pool and erect new fence. Section 82A Review of Determination. APL2010/0001. ............... 65

6 REQUEST FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST - MANAGEMENT & OPERATION OF RYDE COMMUNITY SPORTS CENTRE (ELS HALL PARK) ............................................................................................................ 94

7 RYDE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE - Minutes of Meeting held 16 September 2010 ............................................................................................................. 121

8 MACQUARIE PARK FLOODPLAIN RISK MANAGEMENT STUDY & PLAN - Exhibition of Draft Report................................................................. 132

9 HOUSING FOR KEY WORKERS (AFFORDABLE HOUSING) ................... 138 10 CITY WIDE EVENTS AND PROMOTIONS COMMITTEE........................... 145 11 GRANNY SMITH FESTIVAL PROTOCOLS ................................................ 150 12 NSROC TENDER 10/10 - Supply, Supply and Delivery, and Supply

Delivery and Laying of Asphaltic Concrete................................................... 153

Committee of the Whole Page 2

Agenda of the Committee of the Whole Report No. 15/10, dated Tuesday 5 October 2010.

1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

RECOMMENDATION: That the Minutes of the Committee of the Whole Meeting 14/10, held on Tuesday 21 September 2010, be confirmed. ATTACHMENTS 1 Minutes - Committee of the Whole - 21 September 2010

Committee of the Whole Page 3 ITEM 1 (continued) ATTACHMENT 1


Committee of the Whole

MINUTES OF MEETING NO. 14/10

Meeting Date: Tuesday 21 September 2010 Location: Committee Room 2, Level 5, Civic Centre, 1 Devlin Street, Ryde Time: 7.31pm Councillors Present: The Mayor, Councillor Etmekdjian and Councillors Butterworth, Li, Maggio, O’Donnell, Petch, Perram, Pickering, Tagg and Yedelian OAM. Apologies: Councillors Campbell and Salvestro-Martin Staff Present: General Manager, Group Manager – Community Life, Group Manager – Corporate Services, Group Manager – Environment & Planning, Acting Group Manager – Public Works, Manager – Access, Manager – Regulatory Services, Media & Community Relations Officer and Councillor Support Coordinator DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST There were no disclosures of interest. MAYORAL MINUTES 8/10 FORMER COUNCILLOR MICHAEL LARDELLI RESOLUTION: (Moved by The Mayor, Councillor Etmekdjian and Councillor Yedelian OAM) (a) That Council acknowledge former Councillor, Michael Lardelli’s contribution to

the City of Ryde and that Council observe a one minute silence for the passing of Mr Lardelli.

(b) That the General Manager provide a report back to Council on a suitable legacy

to acknowledge the contribution to the City of Ryde by the former Alderman, Councillor and Mayor, Michael Lardelli AM.

A one minute silence was then observed by the Committee. Record of Voting:



For the Motion: Unanimous 1 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES – Meeting held on 07 September 2010 RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillors Pickering and Maggio) That the Minutes of the Committee of the Whole Meeting 13/10, held on Tuesday 07 September 2010, be confirmed. Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous 2 MOTIONS PUT WITHOUT DEBATE RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillors Petch and Pickering) That the items be dealt with in seriatim. Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous 3 REQUEST FOR SUPPORT FOR REMEMBRANCE SUNDAY RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillors Petch and Li) (a) That Council support the request from the Combined Remembrance Sunday

Service Committee to provide the Civic Hall, catering and staffing for Sunday 8 November 2010 to the values of approximately $3,000.

(b) That Council provides catering as requested from the Combined Remembrance

Sunday Service Committee for an afternoon tea for patrons attending the event. (c) That the Mayor of the day host a small function after the event for the Guest of

Honour, Remembrance Day Committee members and guests of the Mayor. Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous 4 REQUEST FROM GLADESVILLE RSL YOUTH CLUB FOR SUPPORT TO

CONDUCT PERFORMANCE FOR SENIORS RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillors Yedelian OAM and Petch) That Council provide the dry court area at the Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre to Gladesville RSL Youth Club valued at $536 at no charge for the staging of a free gymnastics performance.



Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous 5 CRIME PREVENTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE – Minutes 19 August 2010 RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillors Petch and Maggio) (a) That the actions presented at the committee be endorsed for collaborative

engagement with partners and costing. (b) That Council note that three resignations have been received.

(c) That Council note that Mr Geoff Brenan is a representative of the Rotary Club

and not the Lions Club, and that the Minutes of the Crime Prevention Advisory Committee dated 19 August 2010 be amended accordingly.

Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous 6 COMPANION ANIMAL MANAGEMENT PLAN- Review RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillors Petch and Maggio) a) That the attached Companion Animals Management Plan 2010-2014 be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days. b) That a further report be provided to Council, which includes any submissions received and identifies any corresponding changes made to the plan. Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous 7 CYCLEWAY CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM 2010/2011 - Review of List of

Priorities Note: A revised version of this report was tabled at the meeting. RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillors Petch and Perram) (a) That Council accepts the RTA Cycleway Project Grant funding, comprising the

100% funded project of Wicks Rd and the 50:50 funded projects of Blaxland Rd, Epping Rd and Lane Cove rd as listed in the report.

(b) That Council defer the following Capital Cycleway Projects for 2010/2011 as

tabulated below, to allow the funds to be reallocated:



(i) Bike Locker Structure – Eastwood Station ($50K); and (iii) Bike Route – RR05 Pittwater Road ($100K).

(c) That Council reallocate the available funds in (b) to facilitate the construction of the following cycleway projects:

(i) Cycleways/Blaxland Road at Anzac Avenue – Mid Block Traffic Control Signals (initially $10K for design); (ii) Epping Road, North Ryde – Shared User Path (Stage 1); (iii) Epping Road, North Ryde – Shared User Path (Stage 2); (iv) Epping Road, North Ryde – Shared User Path (Stage 3).

(d) That the remaining shortfall of funds ($55K) be made available from the

September 2010 Quarterly Review subject to approval by Council. (e) That Council apply for RTA grant funding for the Vimiera Road project for

2011/12. Record of Voting For the Motion: The Mayor, Councillor Etmekdjian and Councillors Li, Maggio, O’Donnell, Perram, Petch, Pickering and Yedelian OAM Against the Motion: Councillors Butterworth and Tagg 8 GENDER EQUITY AWARDS RESOLUTION: (Moved by Councillors Petch and O’Donnell) (a) That Council adopt the Statement for Gender Equity as follows: “We will work towards increasing the representation of women in local

government, both as elected members and senior managers and professionals. We will undertake ongoing reviews of policies and practices to remove barriers

to women’s participation and to engender safe, supportive working and decision-making environments that encourage and value a wide range of views”

(b) That the City of Ryde works towards increasing the representation of women in

local government, both as elected members and senior managers and professionals.

(c) That the City of Ryde continue to undertake reviews of policies and practices to

remove barriers to women’s participation and to engender safe, supportive working and decision-making environments that encourage and value a wide range of views.

Record of Voting: For the Motion: Unanimous



The meeting closed at 8.56pm.

CONFIRMED THIS 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2010.

Chairperson



2 MOTIONS PUT WITHOUT DEBATE

File Number: GRP/10/3/001/3 - BP10/589

In accordance with Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, Council can determine those matters on the agenda that can be adopted without the need for any discussion. RECOMMENDATION: That the recommendations in respect of items 3 to 12 inclusive, as submitted to Committee of the Whole Meeting No.15/10, be adopted with the exception of items as determined by the Council.



3 166 PRINCES STREET, PUTNEY. Lot 239 DP 8902. - Local Development Application for erection of new two storey dwelling with semi basement carparking and pool. LDA2010/0002.

Report prepared by: Manager - Governance Report dated: 27/09/2010 File No.: GRP/10/3/001/3 - BP10/592

Report Summary At its meeting on 28 September 2010, Council considered the report - 166 PRINCES STREET, PUTNEY. Lot 239 DP 8902. - Local Development Application for erection of new two storey dwelling with semi basement car parking and pool. LDA2010/0002, dated 7 September 2010 (ATTACHED) and resolved as follows:- “That this matter be deferred to be considered at the Committee of the Whole Meeting to be held 5 October 2010.” RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Local Development Application No. LDA 2010/2 at 166 Princes Street,

Putney being Lot 239 in DP 8902 be approved subject to the ATTACHED conditions (Attachment 1 to the Original report);

(b) That the persons who made submissions be advised of Council's decision. ATTACHMENTS 1 166 PRINCES STREET, PUTNEY. Lot 239 DP 8902. - Local Development

Application for erection of new two storey dwelling with semi basement carparking and pool. LDA2010/0002.



4 166 PRINCES STREET, PUTNEY. Lot 239 DP 8902. - Local Development Application for erection of new two storey dwelling with semi basement carparking and pool. LDA2010/0002.

INSPECTION: 4.15PM INTERVIEW: 4.50PM

Report prepared by: Senior Town Planner Report approved by: Manager Assessment; Group Manager Environment &

Planning Report dated: 3 September 2010 File Number: GRP/10/4/001/4 -

BP10/536

1. Report Summary

Applicant: Moderinn Group P/L. Owner: H Sutanto, R Junus. Date lodged: 4 January 2010.

This report considers a proposal to construct a new two storey dwelling with semi basement car parking and swimming pool and front fence. The proposal has been assessed in accordance with Council’s Dwelling Houses and Dual Occupancy DCP 2010 (Part 3.3 DCP 2010), and there are some areas of non compliance with the DCP in regard to excavation (amount of cut and fill) and the impact on the adjoining Eucalypt tree, height of swimming pool, front setback, landscaping, BASIX commitments, 3 storey component within the building footprint and view sharing. Amended plans were received which reduced the extent of cut and fill both within and outside the building footprint, turning bay reduced in size thereby reducing extent of excavation, relocation of pool plant room (now only 2 storey), relocation of swimming pool and BASIX commitments shown on architectural plans. The other issue of non-compliance with DCP 2010 – front setback is not in itself considered to be fatal to the application, as the dwelling would (if approved) be similar to neighbouring/nearby dwellings in terms of built form (height, materials etc). The DA was notified to adjoining owners in accordance with Council’s Neighbour Notification DCP (Part 2.1 DCP 2010) and three submissions were received. Amended plans were received on 29 April 2010 addressing some of the non compliances and adjoining properties owners were renotified and 2 submissions were received. The loss of water views across the side boundary of the adjoining dwelling at 164 Princes Street has been assessed against the four step procedure established by the Land and Environment Court on view sharing. Given the complying nature of the development (in terms of the controls that impact views, such as bulk and scale and height) and the difficult and unreasonable expectation of protecting views across side



boundaries and the view itself, it is considered that the view loss is acceptable and the proposal can be supported by Council. Reason for Referral to Planning and Environment Committee: Called up to Planning and Environment Committee by Councillor Campbell. Public Submissions: In response to the first notification period 3 submissions were received raising concerns about the development. In response to the second notification period a total of 2 submissions were received objecting to the development. SEPP1 Objection received? No. Value of works? $400,000. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Local Development Application No. LDA 2010/2 at 166 Princes Street,

Putney being Lot 239 in DP 8902 be approved subject to the ATTACHED UNDER SEPARATE COVER conditions (Attachment 1);

(b) That the persons who made submissions be advised of Council's decision. ATTACHMENTS – UNDER SEPARATE COVER 1 Recommended Conditions of Consent2 Map 3 Plans Report Prepared By: Sandra McCarry Senior Town Planner Report Approved By: Liz Coad Manager Assessment Dominic Johnson Group Manager Environment & Planning



2. Site (Refer to attached map.)

Address : 166 Princes Street, Putney Site Area : 1065m2

Frontage: 15.2metres Depth: 70.09m along the north & 69.7m along the southern boundary.

Topography And Vegetation : The site is regular in shape and falls from RL 33.5 at the

front north-west corner to RL 31 at the front south boundary within the front setback, forming a natural depression. The land then has a gradual rise to the rear with a RL 34.5 at the north–east corner of the site. There is a cross fall from north to south of approximately 1m along the rear section of the site. Vegetation on site comprises of one large Eucalyptus amplifolia (Cabbage Gum) tree in the rear yard. A large Eucalyptus scoparia (Wallangarra White Gum) and a Eucalyptus hamemastoma (Scribbly Gum) are located adjacent to the northern boundary on the adjoining property’s (164a Princes Street) driveway.

Existing Buildings : Single storey brick dwelling with an attached carport. An

outbuilding and 2 metal sheds are located in the rear yard.

Planning Controls Zoning : R2 Low Density Residential

Subject site



Other : Ryde LEP 2010 SEPP 55 BASIX SEPP

Development Control Plan 2010 – - Section 3.3 – Dwelling Houses and Dual Occupancy - Section 7.2 – Waste Minimisation and Management - Section 8.2 – Stormwater Management - Section 9.4 – Fencing - Section 9.6 – Tree Preservation

3. Councillor Representations Name of Councillor: Councillor Campbell. Nature of the representation: Call up to previous Development Committee, now Planning and Environment Committee, and request for issue of loss of view and removal of a tree to be considered. Date: 29/01/10. Form of the representation (e.g. via email, meeting, phone call): Email to Group Manager – Environment & Planning. On behalf of applicant or objectors? On behalf of the residents of 164 Princes Street. Any other persons (e.g. consultants) involved in or part of the representation: No. 4. Political Donations or Gifts Any political donations or gifts disclosed? No. 5. Proposal Construct a new 2 storey dwelling comprising:

• Double garage, pool plant room and sub floor area on the lower ground level; • Living area, family area, kitchen, guest room, study, dining area and swimming

pool on the ground floor and • 5 bedroom, media room and reading room on the 1st floor level.

6. Background

• The DA was lodged 4 January 2010. Shortly afterwards it underwent a preliminary check, referral to other Council officers, neighbour notification (closing date for submissions – 9 February 2010).

• On 2 March 2010, Council wrote to the applicant to advise of a number of

issues of concern, and to request these to be addressed in amended plans/additional information:



1. Extent of cut and fill – proposed cut of 1.57m in the front turning bay area, 1.6m for the plant room and fill of 1.2 southwest front corner. The extend of cut within the turning bay area will adversely impact on the adjoining Eucalypt tree at 164a Princes Street and no approval obtained from the owner of the tree to remove the tree;

2. Location of the swimming pool – swimming pool location and southern side terrace area are substantially above natural ground level and will adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining southern property;

3. Landscaping plan does not show BASIX Certificate commitment; 4. Section of the plant room is 3 storeys 5. Departure to the front setback and 6. View sharing with the adjoining southern property

• Amended plans were received on 28 April 2010 amending the following:

1. Extent of cut and fill reduced to no greater than 1200mm and 900mm, respectively; with turning bay reduced and plant room relocated.

2. Revised pool and terrace relocated away from adjoining southern property with a further 1500mm wide landscaping provided adjacent to the boundary. Swimming pool fence indicated on the ground floor plan.

3. Amended Landscaping Plan with BASIX Commitments. Additional information regarding view sharing, an Arboricultural Impact Assessment for the trees on the site and the owner’s consent for the removal of the Eucalypt tree on 164a Princes Street were also submitted.

• The amended plans were re-notified with the submission period closing on 19 May 2010. Two submissions were received objecting to the proposal.

• Council’s Development Engineer on 27 May 2010 advised that the

development proposes to discharge into an existing pipe system which transverse through the front yard of the subject site and runs downstream to the kerb and gutter on Phillip Road. Investigation of this pipe system revealed that it is not a Council pipe and that there is no easement over this pipe. Council, via email dated 27 May 2010, requested the applicant to research this informal pipe and seek legal advice as to whether 166 Princes can connect into this pipeline. It was requested that documentary evidence be provided demonstrating that the subject property has legal rights to tap into this pipeline or alternative provide a different design to discharge to the kerb and gutter.

• The applicant on 11 June 2010 sent through a letter from Watson Buchan P/L

(Consulting Surveyors) advising that “the subject property does not appear to have any rights over the adjoining lots to the south”. Council on 15 June 2010 emailed the applicant advising that the letter from Watson Buchan P/L was not legal advice and no legal evidence have been submitted demonstrating that the subject site has a right to connect/discharge into the existing pipe system. If this cannot be provided then it would be necessary to consider other drainage options and it was advised that a meeting be set up with Council’s Development Engineer to discuss alternatives design. Council also suggested



that a meeting be set up between the adjoining southern property owners (164 Princes Street) to discuss concerns about loss of views to 164 Princes Street.

• Meeting was held on 22 June 2010 with Council’s Team Leader – Engineer,

the applicant, applicant’s engineer and assessing officer. It was agreed that amended drainage plans be submitted. Amended stormwater plans submitted via email on 6 July 2010.

• Council wrote to the applicant on 24 June 2010 suggesting a meeting with the

residents of 164 Princes Street to discuss the matter of view sharing. The applicant (Mr Haris Sutanto) advised via a telephone conversation that he has already tried to discuss the issue with the residents of 164 Princes Street and will not come to any agreement, as such would like Council to assess the application as is.

7. Submissions The proposal was notified in accordance with Development Control Plan 2006 - Part 2.1, Notification of Development Applications. Notification of the proposal was from 11 January 2010 until 9 February 2010. Original Proposal: 3 submissions were received from the residents of 164 Princes Street, 164A Princes Street and 9 Boulton Street. The resident of 164 Princes Street has also engaged a Planning Consultant who also made a submission of their behalf.

Red dots denote submissions made to original proposal. Blue dots denote submission made after amendments. The issues raised in the 1st round of submissions were: 9 Boulton Street:

• Concern for the preservation of the large gum tree in the backyard. This tree is beautiful and brings in lots of local birdlife. The tree provides privacy between my house and 166 Princes Street.



Comment: The tree in the rear yard is to be retained and protected during construction. Conditions 24-39 have been imposed to ensure protection and minimal impact to the tree. 164 Princes Street:

• The current setback and scale will take away all views from our 1st floor living room and second floor master bedroom and adjoining balcony. Setback & scale: Does not allow for view sharing with our property and will completely block all views.

Comment: 164 Princes Street adjoins the subject site at the northern boundary and is a front allotment of a 1994 dual occupancy subdivision. The dwelling at 164 Princes Street is set back approximately 4.5m from the front veranda to front boundary and approximately 8m to the dwelling with the front veranda wrapping around to the side southern elevation. The 2 storey dwelling currently enjoys distance views of Parramatta River to the south from their 1st floor balcony which is off the main bedroom (glass door) and landscape views from their ground floor veranda. Clause 2.13.4 – View sharing, of DCP 2010 states that view sharing is where development is designed so as to retain the private views enjoyed from existing dwellings on neighbouring sites. However the equitable sharing of views is desired & existing dwellings will not always be able to retain existing views across neighbouring allotments. Objectives 1. To ensure new dwellings endeavour to respect important views from living areas

within neighbouring dwellings. Controls a. The siting of development is to provide for view sharing.

The Land and Environment Court have established “planning principles” in relation to impacts on views from neighbouring properties. In Tenacity Consulting P/L v Warringah Council (2004) NSWLEC 140 Roseth SC, states that “the notion of view sharing is involved when a property enjoys existing views and a proposed development would share that view by taking some of it way for its own enjoyment. (Taking it all away cannot be called view sharing, although it may, in some circumstances, be quite reasonable). In deciding whether or not view sharing is reasonable, Commissioner Roseth set out a 4 step assessment in regards to ‘reasonable sharing of view’. The steps are as follows:- 1. Description of views enjoyed by adjoining property. 2. Consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. Ascertain whether

view expectations are realistic.



3. Assess the extent of the impact for the whole property. The impact should be qualified on a scale from negligible to devastating.

4. Consider the reasonableness of the proposed view loss taking into account any non-compliance that is causing the view loss. (A development that complies with all planning controls would be more reasonable than one that breaches them).

In this instance, the views currently enjoyed by 164 Princes Street can be assessed as follows: Step 1 The view currently enjoyed by 164 Princes Street is towards the south east towards Parramatta River, located approximately over 550m away from the subject site and some 570m away from 164 Princes Street (see Map 1). There are two areas where views are obtained from - one from the ground floor southern veranda and can be described as views of the adjoining property’s trees with no water view. The other view area is from the 1st floor main bedroom area, off a balcony and is partial water views to Parramatta, partly obscured by trees and building. This is the main view the residents of 164 Princes Street are objecting to the loss of.

Map 1 – Location of subject site and distance from the view

Distance of approx. 570m from the water.



View from the ground floor veranda area – this outlook/view will be retained as the new dwelling will be located further back.

View from 1st floor balcony – partial water view with no icons. This is the main view loss the adjoining property is objecting to. Step 2 The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. Commissioner Roseth states that: “protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition,



whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.” The area of concern is the view from the side 1st floor balcony off the main bedroom of 164 Princes Street and is mostly obtained from the balcony of the 2 storey dwelling in a standing position. The partial water views are obtained from the side of the dwelling looking across the side boundary of 166 Princes Street. Existing standing views are obtained from the first floor upstairs side balcony off the main bedroom. These views are detailed in photographs below:

View from the 1st floor balcony looking across the side boundary to the south. The balcony is off the main bedroom area which also contains a lounge area with a sofa and television.



View from the 1st floor balcony looking across to the front boundary to the west, across Princes Street. No water view, partial obscured by trees. Step 3 The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating. The extent of the impact is quite significant to 164 Princes Street as the view from their 1st floor balcony which is off the main bedroom, which has been designed to take advantage (glass door) of the view. Full discussion of the impact is detailed below. Step 4 In Tenacity P/L v Warringah Council, it states, “where an impact on view arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable. The proposal complies with all numerical requirements of Council's DCP 2010, except for the front setback which has been set further back due to existing site constraints and to preserve the views from 164 Princes Street side ground floor veranda. In relation to the height of the development, it is noted that both the maximum wall plate height ceiling height (8m max) and the overall ridge height (9.1m max) are well within the maximum height of the DCP of 8m (parapet) and 9.5m (ridge). With regards to whether a “more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours”. It is possible to amend the floor plan on the 1st floor by pushing back the 1st floor front bedroom and balcony by a few metres (utilise the mid balcony area), resulting in no loss in floor space however reducing the extent of view loss to 164 Princes Street. This proposal was suggested to the applicant and several requests were made (emails dated 25 May, 15 June, 12 July and letter to applicant on 24 June 2010) to meet to discuss possible redesign. The applicant declined to amend the proposal citing that the proposal satisfies Council’s requirements and sufficient view sharing has been provided.



Conclusion: Whilst it is acknowledged that attribution of values to views is a subjective matter, the 4 steps planning principles established by the Land & Environment Court helps Council to establish what is reasonable in regards to view impact. Step 1: The view to Parramatta River cannot be considered as “highly valuable”. The view is some distance away (over 500m), does not contain any iconic views and is partly obscured by trees and buildings. Step 2: The view is across the side boundary and is mainly from a standing position. As stated in the second step of the Land and Environment Court Assessment, the expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic. Therefore as the view is obtained from the side boundary and the development is already set further back due to site constraints, (front setback of 17m to front elevation) - it is “unrealistic” to expect any development to be located even further back so that the side balcony view (which is located 17m from the front boundary) will not be impacted on. Step 3: The 3rd step is to assess the extent of the impact across the whole of the property. The loss of view is from the main bedroom and the impact on views from living areas are more significant than from bedrooms or service area (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them)”. This again is subjective, the residents of 164 Princes Street argue that this is the main bedroom, is a relatively large room with an area for a sofa and large screen television and accordingly spend more time in the bedroom area. Nevertheless it is still a bedroom area only, generally limited to the occupants of the bedroom and is separated from the main living and eating areas of the house where people tend to spend most of the time and where visitors and guests are entertained. The loss of view from 164 Princes Street’s 1st floor balcony area will be considered as “severe” however the impact from the ground floor living areas being minimal. Step 4: Step 4 is to assess the “reasonableness” of the proposal and as discussed above, given that the proposal generally complies with Council’s requirements and as acknowledged by the Court, protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries, and is often unrealistic. In this instance, the proposal is already located further back than what is required by the DCP (generally 6m) with the objector’s water views are all obtained across the side boundary. In response to the ongoing view sharing issue raised by the objector, any further increase to the front setback by pushing the whole dwelling further down the site would adversely impact on the existing Eucalypt tree in the rear yard or by amending the house design is not a consideration for the applicant, who has already designed the dwelling to provide for view sharing i.e. from the ground floor veranda and there is potential for 164 Princes to extend their 1st floor area at the front to maximise on the side view. By applying the four steps assessment set by the Land and Environment Court’s planning principles on view loss, it is concluded that the views is from the 1st floor



bedroom area, is off a side boundary, is partial water view, located approximately 570m away, obscure by trees, and is not for the whole of the dwelling. As such the view could not be rated as “highly valuable” and if lost would not be considered devastating. Therefore, given that the proposal generally complies with Council’s requirements, albeit the front setback, which is due to the overland flow path and which inadvertently provide the objector a better outlook from the ground floor veranda. Furthermore, the view itself, after applying the 4 steps principles is not weighted as being “highly valuable” (see discussion above), therefore it is unreasonable to mandate the applicant to amend the plan, as such the loss of view is considered acceptable.

• Object to the removal of the gum tree adjacent to the northern property – this tree has a significant impact on the living environment of our house, provides key internal and external living area with strong protection from the western sun.

Comment: The applicant has submitted an Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report dated 23 March 2010 and reviewed 21 April 2010. The report listed the tree to be removed as a Scribbly Gum tree located on 164a Princes Street and adjacent to the northern boundary. The owner of 164a Princes Street has provided owners consent to remove the tree. The tree is listed as “Fair” with good form and insect damage evident at the branch collar. The tree is rated as “low” in terms of retention value with the report stating: Tree 2 is positioned between 2 concrete driveways, repeatedly lopped to the north for clearance of the neighbouring roofline creating a majority distorted crown, continually damaging the driveway and existing residence, removal is recommended and replaced with a super advanced specimen.” Whilst it is acknowledged that another arborist report was submitted which supported the retention of the tree, Council’s Landscape Architect has reviewed both reports and supports the removal of the tree (see Referral - Landscape Architect). Condition 5 has been imposed requiring a replacement tree of the same species to be planted.

• Proposed to construct a substantial retaining wall as part of their driveway excavation – we ask Council to ensure that it is of an engineering standard to ensure no risk of landslip. Insufficient drainage and retaining wall solution in the new development would result in landslip and potentially impact the foundation of our house.

Comment: The proposed retaining wall along the driveway is a result of fill. Due to the cross fall of the land, resulting in a gully near the front southern section of the garden, it is proposed to fill part of the front garden to provide a level garden area. No excavation is proposed. The proposed retaining walls are required to be constructed in accordance with the Building Code of Australia and there is no cut or fill proposed adjacent to any of the side boundaries. Furthermore, Council’s Development Engineer has advised that the site stormwater runoff is now piped to Princes Street as such stormwater runoff being piped to the existing overland flow path is



substantially less than that occur prior to development. Council is satisfied with the proposed drainage for the site.

164A Princes Street:

• The side elevation (northern) – please look at some screen planting along the

boundary which will soften this view.

Comment: Along the northern boundary it is propose to provide rows of either Murraya paniculata (mature height of 3m), “Pinnacle” Lilly Pilly (3m), Spartan juniper (2m) or Grevillea adjacent to the dwelling at 164A Princes Street. The proposed landscaping is considered sufficient to help soften and screen the development from the adjoining properties.

• Concern about the location of the air conditioning unit located in close proximity to bedroom.

The applicant has amended the plans to delete the air conditioning unit from the roof area to the ground floor and away from the bedroom windows. Condition 71 has been imposed to ensure that the emission of noise does not exceed the background noise level by more than 5dBA.

• There is a log wall along the boundary of the 2 properties – …. I have reservations about its long term structural integrity. I am concerned that construction in close proximity to the wall … may prove to be an immediate mechanism for its failure..

Comment: The survey plan submitted with the application and prepared by Watson Buchan Consulting Surveyors dated 13 December 2006 show the retaining wall is wholly within 164A Princes Street’s property. The retaining wall is setback approximately 300mm off the boundary and the applicant has amended the plans so that all works are within the subject site with no level changes adjacent to side boundaries.

• Like to clarify what planting is proposed along the common boundary – would like to consider that planting species do not grow to a height greater than 2m.

Comment: The proposed planting along the northern boundary varies in height, with some of the species capable of mature height of 3m. The 3m mature height planting will not impact on 164A Princes Street’s outlook as the subject site is lower than 164A Princes (along the side boundary, the existing level of RL 34 will be retained.) 3m high plants will be lower or approximately the same level as the FFL of 164A Princes street.



Amended plans received 29 April 2010 which:

• Reduce cut and fill within the building footprint; • Turning bay area reduced in size; • Plant room relocated to behind garage so no longer any 3 storey elements; • No cut or fill along side or rear boundaries; • Swimming pool FFL reduced to be no more than 500mm above natural ground

and relocated away from southern boundary; • BASIX commitments shown and in accordance with certificate and • Front fencing details.

The amended plans were re-notified and 2 submissions were received. One new submission from the residents of 168 Princes Street and one submission from Chapman Planning P/L on behalf of 164 Princes Street. 168 Princes Street:

• Noise coming from the swimming pool directly to our bedrooms – windows will be directly adjacent to the proposed swimming pool location – there is minimal screening planting shown on the application.

Comment: It is proposed to construct an undercover swimming pool down the side of house, adjacent to the southern boundary and 168 Princes Street’s dwelling house. The swimming pool has been relocated from the original location of 1m off the side south boundary, and will now have a 4.2m setback. Due to the relocation of the pool, the height of the swimming pool has been lowered from between 1.3m to 2.6m above natural ground level to maximum 500mm above ground level, thereby complying with the maximum pool height requirement. The new location of the swimming pool is now 4.2m away from the southern boundary with a 2.4m wide side terrace area and 1.5m wide landscaping strip in



between. The amended landscaping plan shows a row of red cordyline (mature height of 1.5m) and murraya paniculata (mature height of 3m) adjacent to the side boundary to screen and mitigate noise. However it is considered that the proposed cordyline, whilst attractive in colour, will not form a dense hedge to screen the side boundary. It is considered that the row of cordyline be substituted for a continuous row of murraya along the side boundary. Condition 5 has been imposed requiring this. As the swimming pool now complies with Council’s requirement, is setback 4.2m from the side boundary with a 1.5m wide landscaping strip in between and the separation between the pool/terrace area and the 1st floor windows at 168 Princes Street is approximately 7.8m and 5.4m, respectively, together with Condition 5 to provide a continuous dense row of landscaping, capable of mature height of 2m, the proposed swimming pool is not considered to have an adverse impact in terms of noise or overlooking to 168 Princes Street.

• The window heights on the southern elevation of the proposed house. These would be looking directly into our property.

Comment: The windows along the southern elevation are off the family and dining rooms which are main living areas however to minimise overlooking from these windows, the applicant has made them high light windows, having a window sill height is 1.54m from the FFL, however the standard FFL to window sill height under AMCORD (A National Resource Document for Residential Development) states that to maintain a suitable level of privacy, windows in habitable room are to have will height of 1.7m or more above floor level or translucent glazing to any part of a window less than 1.7 m above floor level from the FFL. Condition 4 has been imposed requiring the window sill height to be 1.7m from the FFL. Therefore overlooking from these windows are minimised and are not considered to pose any overlooking concern.

• The window heights on the back section, second floor on the southern side and the deck area which would be looking over into our back yard.

Comment: The rear 1st floor southern window is off the reading/library room however this window is also a highlight window, having a window sill height of 1.54m from the FFL, as such over looking from this window is not considered to be an issue. A 1st floor rear balcony is proposed off the reading/library room, however this balcony is only 1.4m wide and adjacent to 168 Princes Street’s rear yard shade structure. Therefore the 1st floor deck will overlook onto the shade structure and will not pose any overlooking concerns.

• Stormwater from the whole of the land area and roof area would be running into our 300mm stormwater water pipe in our front yard. This is a pipe which we put in, and is not the property of the water board nor of the Council.

The stormwater from the roof area of the proposed residence could mostly be run onto the street on the northern side of the property.



Comment: Council’s Development Engineer investigated the matter of the pipe line and confirmed that the pipe system is not a Council’s pipe nor is there any easement over the pipe. The applicant has amended the drainage proposal so that the site impervious area is now collected and pipe to Princes Street via an OSD system and a BASIX compliant rainwater tank. The design has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer and is considered an improvement to the current design in relation to reduction of runoff impacts to downstream properties as such the stormwater proposal is satisfactory and in accordance with Council’s policy.

• Overshadowing on ground floor level bedrooms and back yard. We would

lose almost all winter sun on our northern side. Comment: Due to the east-west orientation of the site, overshadowing to the adjoining southern property is unavoidable. The adjoining southern property – 168 Princes Street side northern ground floor area is currently shaded by a side awning and shade structure, therefore the ground floor windows are already in shade. The applicant has submitted elevation shadow diagrams to demonstrate how the 1st floor windows will be impacted. The diagrams show that from 12 noon onwards the 1st floor windows will receive solar access, thereby complying with Council’s requirements. Chapman Planning P/L on behalf of 164 Princes Street

• Loss of view – the view loss resulting from the proposed dwelling is contrary to the view sharing planning principles applied by the Land & Environment Court. “a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours”. There are a number of design alternatives available which do not reduce the number of rooms of the proposed dwelling and ensure the view is retained.

Comment: The loss of water views across the side boundary has been assessed against the four step procedure established by the Land and Environment Court on view sharing. After careful consideration of each of the factors - the type of view, the distance away, where the view is obtained from and the general complying nature of the development, the view loss was considered acceptable. Whilst an alternative design was possible which will reduce the extent of view loss this was posed to the applicant for consideration. The applicant declined to amend the plans citing that the proposal complies with Council’s requirements and consideration has been given for view sharing by way of the increased front setback. By applying the four steps assessment set by the Land and Environment Court’s planning principles on view loss, it is concluded that the view is from the 1st floor bedroom area, is off a side boundary, is partial water view, located approximately 570m away, obscured by trees, and is not for the whole of the dwelling. As such, based on the above factors the view could not be rated as “highly valuable”. Therefore it is considered unreasonable to mandate the applicant to amend the plan, as such the loss of view is considered acceptable.



• Removal of the Scribbly Gum is contrary to the objectives of the DCP – to retain important landscape features.

Comment: Council’s Landscape Architect has reviewed both arborist reports (one from the applicant and one from the objector) and supports the removal of the tree. The following landscape comments were made: Both arborists agree that a setback in the order of 6m would be required to safely preserve the tree, however in the context of a site that already has significant design constraints (particularly with regard to setback), it is felt that an additional requirement to have a 6m setback from the trunk of the tree to any construction would severely limit the legitimate redevelopment of the site. The objector cites the DCP stating the tree should be retained as an important landscape feature, however other considerations including the safety of the tree in the new development context have to be reasonably considered. In this regard:

• The tree is not a significant remnant bushland tree or habitat tree. • The tree has a lean towards the development site and the majority of the

canopy overhangs #166. • The tree contains a lesion with some associated trunk flaring (swelling) around

the lesion which could be a point of structural weakness. • The tree would require a significant setback to guarantee the possibility of its

survival. Given that Council’s Landscape Architect has no objection to the removal of the tree and there is a large White Gum is to be retained at the front of the adjoining property and a replacement tree to be provided (Condition 5 to replace tree with another native tree on site), the removal of the tree can be supported in this instance. 8. SEPP1 Objection received? No. 9. Policy Implications Relevant Provisions of Environmental Planning Instruments etc: (a) Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance

Zoning

The subject site is zoned Residential 2(a) under the provisions of the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance. The proposed works are permissible with the consent of Council. Ryde LEP 2010 Ryde LEP 2010 was gazetted on 30 June 2010 as the new environmental planning instrument applicable to the City of Ryde. This instrument contains a Savings Provision (clause 1.8A) which states:



If a development application has been made before the commencement of this Plan in relation to land to which this Plan applies and the application has not been finally determined before that commencement, the application must be determined as if this Plan had not commenced. The DA was made (lodged) on 4 January 2010, before the commencement of this Plan and so it may be determined as if Ryde LEP 2010 had not commenced. Under Ryde LEP 2010, the zoning of the property is R2 Low Density Residential. The proposed development is permissible with consent within this zoning under the LEP, and it is considered that the proposal is not contrary to the objectives of the LEP or those of the proposed zoning.

Mandatory Requirements

RPSO Proposal Compliance Allotment Size

Min size - 580m2 1065m2 Yes Min frontage - 10m 15.245m Yes Min width - 15m at 7.5m from alignment of public road.

15.24m Yes

(b) Relevant SEPPs SEPP 55 Remediation of Land:

The objectives of the SEPP are to provide a state wide planning approach to the remediation of contaminated land. Since the site has been a residential allotment it is not anticipated that the site would require remediation. Consent conditions will require safe work practices for the demolition of the dwelling. BASIX SEPP:

BASIX BASIX Cert 281561S_03 dated 24 December 2009 ABSA Cert 20470

• 180sqm of indigenous/low water landscaping

• RWT 5400L • SWT 16000L • Swimming Pool

1. <95kL 2. outdoors

• Thermal Comfort

- Proposed Plant Schedule does

not include any trees listed as indigenous/low water use species for Ryde. Condition 5 for planting schedule to be low water planting indigenous to Ryde.

- RWT 1-3 proposed to NE side of dwelling with 1800L capacity

Yes

Yes



Commitments – Floor Construction.

• Solar Gas Boosted HWS w/36-40 RECS+

• Natural Lighting 1. kitchen 2. bathrooms (1)

• Alternative Energy- Photovoltaic system with capacity to generate a minimum of 1 peak kilowatts of electricity.

each = 5400L. - 16000L OSD tank. To front of

dwelling. - There is a note on the Site Plan

which indicates that the pool volume is 95KL. Pool is outdoors.

- Floor Construction as per BASIX.

- HWS details not located on plans.

- Natural lighting as per BASIX. - Alternative Energy details are

reflected on Site Plan.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Water Target 40 Energy Target 40

Water: 44 Energy: 40

Yes Yes

(c) Any draft LEPs N/A (d) Any DCP

DCP 2010

Proposed

Compliance

Part 3.3 - Dwelling Houses and Dual Occupancy Desired Future Character Development is to be consistent with the desired future character of the low density residential areas.

The proposed development is consistent with the desired future character of the low density residential area as detailed further in this table.

Yes

Dwelling Houses - To have a

landscaped setting which includes significant deep soil areas at front and rear.

- Maximum 2 storeys.

- Dwellings to address street

- Garage/carports not visually prominent features.

Front and rear gardens proposed. Two storeys. Dwelling presents to Princes St. Garage not prominent feature as setback in front elevation of building.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Public Domain Amenity Streetscape



DCP 2010

Proposed

Compliance

- Front doors and windows are to face the street. Side entries to be clearly apparent.

- Single storey entrance porticos.

- Articulated street facades.

Front doors and windows face street. Single entrance portico. Articulated street façade.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Public Views and Vistas

- A view corridor is to be provided along at least one side allotment boundary where there is an existing or potential view to the water from the street. Landscaping is not to restrict views. Garages/carports and outbuildings are not to be located within view corridor if they obstruct view. Fence 70% open where height is >900mm.

There is no public view corridor

N/A

Pedestrian & Vehicle Safety

- Car parking located to

accommodate sightlines to footpath & road in accordance with relevant Australian Standard.

- Fencing that blocks sight lines is to be splayed.

Vehicles able to exit out in a forward direction Vehicles able to exit out in a forward direction

Yes

Site Configuration Deep Soil Areas

- 35% of site area min.

- Min 8x8m deep soil area in

Permeable (deep soil) area: 476.71m2 approx (44.76% of site area).

Yes



DCP 2010

Proposed

Compliance

backyard. - Front yard to have

deep soil area (only hard paved area to be driveway, pedestrian path and garden walls).

Rear DSA dimensions: 8m x 8m provided. Front DSA: 100% permeable area in front yard= 151.08m2. Hard surface areas have been kept to a minimum in the front yard.

Yes

Yes

Topography & Excavation Within building footprint:

- Max cut: 1.2m - Max fill: 900mm

Outside building footprint:

- Max cut: 900mm - Max fill: 500mm - No fill between

side of building and boundary or close to rear boundary

- Max ht retaining wall 900mm

Within BF Max cut: • 1m Max fill: • Max 900mm (along north west

section of living area Outside BF No cut outside building footprint Max fill: maximum fill of 2m to 500mm within the front setback area. Proposed fill not consistent with level changes shown on engineering plans Retaining along internal driveway max 2.1m

Yes

Yes

No

No

Floor Space Ratio Ground floor 229.9m² First floor 113.3 & 79.7m² Total (Gross Floor Area) 422.9m²

Site Area 1065m2 FSR (max 0.5:1) Note: Excludes wall thicknesses; lifts/stairs; basement storage/vehicle access/garbage area; terraces/ balconies with walls <1.4m; void areas.

0.4:1 Yes

Height



DCP 2010

Proposed

Compliance

- 2 storeys maximum (storey incl basement elevated greater than 1.2m above EGL).

2 storeys Terrace above garage Yes

- 1 storey maximum above attached garage incl semi-basement or at-grade garages.

1 storey maximum above garage.

Yes

Wall plate (Ceiling Height)

- 7.5m max above FGL or

- 8m max to top of parapet

NB: TOW = Top of Wall EGL = Existing Ground Level FGL = Finished

Ground Level

TOW RL: 41.0 (front bed two storey wall) FGL below (lowest point): RL: 33.5 TOW Height (max)= 7.5m TOW RL: 41.35 (Reading/library two storey wall) FGL below (lowest point): RL: 34 TOW Height (max)= 7.35m

Yes

Yes

9.5m Overall Height

NB: EGL = Existing Ground Level

Max point of dwelling RL: 42.5 (Ridge over front part of first floor) EGL below ridge (lowest point): RL: 33.4 approx Overall Height (max)= 9.1 to 9.2m RL: 42.3 (Roof access walling) EGL below ridge (lowest point): RL: 33.8 approx Overall Height (max)= 8.5m

Yes

Yes

Habitable rooms to have 2.4m floor to ceiling height (min).

2.85m min room height. Yes

Setbacks



DCP 2010

Proposed

Compliance

SIDE Two storey dwelling

- 1500mm to wall - Includes balconies etc

To wall min: 1.5m Yes

Front - 6m to façade

(generally) - Garage setback

1m from the dwelling façade

- Wall above is to align with outside face of garage below.

- Front setback free of ancillary elements e.g. RWT, A/C

- 12.4m to front elevated

ground floor terrace, 17m to front elevation

- Garage is setback greater than 1m. - Wall above garage does not align with garage wall. - Front free of ancillary elements.

No

Yes

No

Yes

Rear - 8m to rear of

dwelling OR 25% of the length of the site, whichever is greater.

Note: 17.4m is 25% of site length (average).

17.725m Yes

Car Parking & Access General

- Dwelling: 2 spaces max, 1 space min.

- Max 6m wide or 50% of frontage, whichever is less.

- Behind building façade.

Number/location of car spaces: 2 car garage behind building line. External width: 5.2m

Yes

Yes

Garages - Garages setback

1m from façade. - Total width of

garage doors visible from public space must not

Setback from façade: 5.68m back from ground terrace; 1m back from Lounge front wall. Width of opening: 4.95m approx.

Yes

Yes



DCP 2010

Proposed

Compliance

exceed 5.7m and be setback not more than 300mm behind the outside face of the building element immediately above.

Door setback: Up to 6m behind Ground floor elevated terrace.

No

Parking Space Sizes (AS)

o Double garage 5.4m wide (min)

o Internal length: 5.4m (min)

Internal measurements: 5.4m (wide) x 5.5m (long)

Yes

Driveways Extent of driveways minimised

Driveway Yes

Semi-basement Car Parking

- Ramps must start 2m from the boundary (not on public land).

- Walls are not to extend beyond walls of dwelling above.

- See Development Engineer regarding driveway ramp. - Wall does not extend beyond living

front elevation

Yes

Yes

Swimming Pools & Spas - Must comply with

all relevant Acts, Regulations and Australian Standards.

- Must at all times be surrounded by a child resistant barrier and located to separate pool from any residential

building and/or outbuildings (excl

cabanas) and from adjoining land.

No details to demonstrate that the family room and dining room windows are fixed/non openable windows however the swimming pool condition requires the pool fence is to be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Act, 1992 and Swimming Pools Regulation 2008, except as amended by Council’s requirements to not have openable windows or doors through which access to the pool area can be gained, forming part of the pool fence.

Yes

Yes



DCP 2010

Proposed

Compliance

- No openable windows, doors or other openings in a wall that forms part of barrier.

- Spa to have lockable lid.

- Pools not to be in front setback. Pool coping height

- 500mm maximum above existing ground level

(only if no impact on

privacy)

Pool coping RL: 33.85 EGL (lowest point below coping): RL: 33.35 approx EGL (highest point below coping): RL: 33.85 approx Coping Height (max)= 500mm

Yes

Pool Setback - 900mm min from

outside edge of pool coping, deck or surrounds to allow sufficient space for amenity screen planting

- Screen planting required for pools located within 1500mm, min bed width of 900mm for the length of the pool. Min ht 2m, min spacing 1m

- Pool setback 3m+ from tree >5m height on subject or adjacent property

- Pool filter located away from neighbouring dwellings, and in an acoustic enclosure

Setback (min): 4.4m from southern boundary Landscaping proposed: 3m shrub for length of pool in 1.0m garden bed. Not near any trees Pool plant room at lower level of dwelling.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Landscaping Trees &



DCP 2010

Proposed

Compliance

Landscaping - Major trees

retained where practicable

- Physical connection to be provided between dwelling and outdoor spaces where the ground floor is elevated above NGL e.g. stairs, terraces.

- Obstruction-free pathway on one side of dwelling (excl cnr allotments or rear lane access)

- Front yard to have at least 1 tree with mature ht of 10m min and a spreading canopy.

- Back yard to have at least 1 tree with mature ht of 15m min and a spreading canopy.

- Hedging or screen planting on boundary mature plants reaching no more than 2.7m.

- OSD generally not to be located in front setback unless under driveway.

- 2 trees on adjoining property & one

tree at rear of site. The Scribby Gum adjoining property to be removed with the other 2 trees to be retain. Impracticable to retain the Scribby Gum.

- Physical connection provided - Obstruction free pathway - Proposed tree in front yard, condition 5 for the tree to be native

- Backyard existing large tree to be retained

- Hedge & screen planting 3m – no

impact - OSD under ground

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

- Landscaped front garden, with max 40% hard paving

Hard Paving: 37.6%

Yes

Landscaping for lots with Overland Flow constraints

- No fill allowed in overland flow

Note: The proposed fill shown on the architectural plans are no consistent with proposed fill shown on engineering plan. Condition 18 has been imposed to ensure that the fill is in accordance with the engineering

No



DCP 2010

Proposed

Compliance

areas. - Fences in

Overland Flow areas must be of open construction so it doesn’t impede the flow of water.

plans. It is proposed to provide some fill within the front garden area to level up a section of the front yard. No fill is provided adjacent to any side boundaries. Council’s Catchments & Asset Officer and Development Engineer have no objection to the proposed landscaping work advising that the proposed fill will not have any adverse impact to any adjoining properties. The proposed fence is outside the overland flow path.

Yes

Dwelling Amenity Daylight and Sunlight Access

- Living areas to face north where orientation makes this possible.

- 4m side setback for side living areas where north is to the side allotment boundary.

Subject Dwelling:

- Subject dwelling north facing windows are to receive at least 3hrs of sunlight to a portion of their surface between 9am and 3pm on June 21.

- Private Open space of subject dwelling is to receive at least 2 hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm on June 21. Neighbouring

Living areas face – north & south 1.5m setback, not possible to have larger setback to the width of the allotment. N facing windows: North facing windows will receive the required solar access POS: Side north terrace area & front terrace area will receive 2 hours of solar access, however a large portion of the rear yard will be in shade due to the existing tree Minimal impact to 164 & 164a Princes Street (northern properties) Hours of sunlight to adjoining principal open space: 168 Princes Street: Large portion of their rear yard will

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes



DCP 2010

Proposed

Compliance

properties are to receive:

- 2 hours sunlight to at least 50% of adjoining principal ground level open space between 9am and 3pm on June 21.

- At least 3 hours sunlight to a portion of the surface of north facing adjoining living area windows between 9am and 3pm on June 21.

receive solar access from 9am to 12 noon. By 3pm own dwelling cast shadow over rear yard Hours of sunlight to adjoining living area windows: 168 Princes Street: Due to the orientation of the land – east to west overshadowing to the adjoining southern property by new 2 storey dwelling is unavoidable. 168 Princes Street is setback approx 3.4m off the common boundary with a shade structure and awning along the side boundary for the length of the dwelling. Therefore the ground floor windows along the north facing elevation are already in shade. The 1st floor windows are bedroom windows, however by 12 noon, the length of the shadow will not hit the 1st floor side windows.

12 noon – ground floor windows already in shade by the awning and shade structure.

1pm – 1st floor north facing windows receives the required solar access.

Yes

Yes

Visual Privacy - Orientate windows

of living areas, balconies and outdoor living areas to the front and rear of dwelling.

- Several living room windows of the

dwelling including terraces are orientated to the sides of the dwelling. Note: Sill heights at 1.54m, screen landscaping proposed. Side windows could provide close views of adjoining dwellings. Note:

Yes – proposed



DCP 2010

Proposed

Compliance

- Windows of living, dining, family etc placed so there are no close or direct views to adjoining dwelling or open space.

- Side windows offset from adjoining windows.

- Terraces, balconies etc are not to overlook neighbouring dwellings/private open space.

Sill heights at 1.54m, screen landscaping proposed.

- Family & Lounge side windows are directly opposite neighbouring windows. Note: Setbacks

between neighbouring windows are generous; window sills are at 1.54m and landscaping is proposed to the side of the family room.

high light windows –condition 4 to have window sill

height of 1.7m from FFL

View Sharing - The siting of

development is to provide for view sharing.

See full discussion

above under “Submission”

Cross Ventilation - Plan layout is to

optimise access to prevailing breezes and to provide for cross ventilation.

Yes

External Building Elements Roof

- Articulated. - 450mm eaves

overhang minimum.

- Not to be

trafficable terrace. - Attic to be within

roof space. - Skylights to be

minimised and placed symmetrically.

- Front roof plane is not to have both dormer windows and skylights.

- Articulated - No overhangs - Rear roof area accessible for

maintenance to hot water solar panels and photovoltaic panels, not a terrace area

- No attic - No skylights - No dormer window or skylight

Yes

No – however complies with

BASIX requirement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Fencing



DCP 2010

Proposed

Compliance

Front/return: - To reflect design

of dwelling. - To reflect

character & height of neighbouring fences.

- Max 900mm high for solid (picket can be 1m).

- Max 1.8m high if 50% open (any solid base max 900mm).

Front fence Description: Piers with solid walling and infill panels in between. Return fence Description: South Elevation & Site Plan shows solid return fencing.

Yes

Side/rear fencing: - 1.8m max o/a

height.

No details on plans

N/A

Part 7.2- Waste Minimisation & Management Submission of a Waste Management Plan in accordance with Part 7.2 of DCP 2010.

The applicant has submitted a Waste Management Plan in accordance with Part 7.2 of DCP 2006. Yes

Part 8.2 Stormwater Drainage is to be piped in accordance with Part 8.2 - Stormwater Management.

Yes

Part 9.2- Access for People with Disabilities

Accessible path required from the street to the front door, where the level of land permits.

Side ramp to front terrace Yes

Part 9.6 – Tree Preservation

Where the removal of tree(s) is associated with the redevelopment of a site, or a neighbouring site, the applicant is required to demonstrate that an alternative design(s) is not feasible and

Are trees (including neighbouring trees) addressed in SEE or in a report prepared by a suitably qualified person (where necessary)? Two separate arborist reports were submitted in regards to the trees on site and on the adjoining property (164 Princes). Both report state that to retain the Scribbly Gum (Eucalyptus haemastoma) tree on 164 Princes

Yes

Yes



DCP 2010

Proposed

Compliance

retaining the tree(s) is not possible in order to provide adequate clearance between the tree(s) and the proposed building and the driveway.

Street, a radius of 6m setback is required to safely preserve the tree. Council’s Landscape Architect has assessed the proposal and has advised that: • The tree is not a significant remnant

bushland tree or habitat tree. • The tree has a lean towards the

development site and the majority of the canopy overhangs #166.

• The tree contains a lesion with some associated trunk flaring (swelling) around the lesion (refer to the detail photo above) which could be a point of structural weakness.

• The tree would require a significant setback to guarantee the possibility of its survival.

and supports the removal of the tree. Council has previously granted permission to remove the tree back in 2007 but the approval has since lapsed.

NON COMPLIANCES: Extent of cut and fill

Clause 2.5.2 of Section 3.3 of DCP 2010 aims to retain the natural ground levels and existing landform with the building form and siting to relate to the original topography of the land and streetscape. The DCP states: The area under the dwelling footprint may be excavated or filled so long as:

- the topography of the site requires cut and/or fill in order to reasonably accommodate a dwelling;

- the maximum height of fill is 900mm; - the maximum cut is 1200mm.

The compliance check has identified that the amount of cut within the building envelope will be maximum of 1.4m for a small section for the sub floor level. The front section of the subject site has a natural depression (valley) within the front garden area falling from the northern boundary to the south with the rest of the site levelling out. The site slopes down from the rear to the front south west corner. Within the proposed building platform, the site falls 2.9m. The front section is “elevated” with a subfloor of a maximum of 1.4m (200mm above the maximum allowed) along the southern side of the ground living area for an inaccessible sub-



floor area. The proposed variation is relatively minor and only for a small section. The proposal complies with the overall height and number of storey requirements with wall plate of 7.5m and overall height of 7.9m (to parapet) along this front section. The construction will be of drop edge beam with no fill between the sides of the building. As the proposal complies with Council’s height control and due to the topography of the site the proposed “fill” and suspended slab is not considered to adversely impact the amenity of the adjoining properties, the proposed variation can be supported by Council.

Amount of Fill Outside Building Envelope: The compliance check has identified that there could be up to 2m of fill in the front garden area to level the sloping site. The front of the site falls from the north west corner to the south forming a “valley” in the front setback. Within this area the site falls 2m over a distance of 12m, gradient of 1:6 and it is proposed to fill a section of the front garden area to form a level garden area. The proposed finished levels within the front garden area on the architectural plans are different to the proposed levels on the engineer plans. The architectural plans show fill of up to 2m whilst the engineering plan shows fill between approximately 900mm to 720mm. As the engineering plans are based on flood study and are satisfactory to Council’s Catchment & Asset Team and Development Engineer, Condition 18 has been imposed to ensure that the architectural and landscaping plans are consistent with the levels shown on the drainage plan. The DCP states that there should be no fill between the dwelling and the boundary and in this instance, no fill is proposed along the side boundaries. The proposed fill of maximum 900mm would not have any adverse impact to any of the adjoining properties as the fill is in the middle of the site and the retaining wall has been terraced to reduce the visual impact of the wall adjacent to the proposed driveway. Council’s Development Engineer and Catchment & Assets Officer have no objections to the proposed fill within the front setback area.

Area of fill – where the land slopes down and away from the side boundaries Front Setback:



The objectives of the front setback control are to: 1. To create a transition between public and private space. 2. To provide consistent building setbacks along streets. 3. To provide for a front garden. 4. To ensure garages and carports are not prominent elements in the streetscape. The DCP stipulates that “Dwellings are generally to be setback 6 metres from the street front boundary”. From the aerial photographs the dwellings on 168 and 170 Princes Street and the existing dwelling on the subject site currently have large front setback due to the overland flow path that runs down through properties in Princes Street. 168 & 170 Princes Street are setback approx 26m & 20m respectively. The existing dwelling on the subject site is currently setback 23m. The dwelling to the north of the subject site, 164 Princes Street, is setback 4.5m from the front veranda and 8m from the building with the rest of the dwellings along Princes Street generally setback between 6m to 8m. Generally Council would require full compliance with the 6m requirement given that the adjoining property to the north is setback a minimum of 4.5m with the majority of the street having a front setback of between 6 to 8m however it is not possible to comply with the 6m requirement due to existing site constraints. Furthermore, the adjoining 2 southern properties also have large front setback (between 20 to 26m due to overland flow path constraints) and the applicant has provided a larger front setback to allow for some view sharing to 164 Princes Street. Due to the site constraint of an overland flow path within the front setback area, the proposed development does not comply with the 6m front setback requirement, having a much larger setback of 12.4m from the boundary to the front terrace and 17m to the façade of the building. However to try to achieve point 2 of the objectives, to provide a consistent building setbacks along the street, the proposed front setback is in between the setback on either side of the site, providing some transition between the adjoining southern property which is setback approximately 26m from the front boundary.



Given that the adjoining southern property is setback so far back and to lessen the visual impact and allow for some view sharing to 164 Princes Street, the applicant has set back the proposal to 12m to 17m for the building. This setback is between the setbacks on either side of the subject site and allows for some staggering of dwellings rather than a sudden large front setback at 168 Princes Street. In this particular instance, as the impact to the streetscape is minimised by the staggering of the dwellings across the 3 allotments and the increase setback will have a lesser impact to 164 Princes and it is not possible to comply with the 6m setback due to site constraints, no objection is raised to the proposed front setback. Wall above does not align with outside face of garage below and garage door not recessed more than 300mm behind face of building: Clause 2.8.1, (f), Section 3.3 of DCP 2010 states that the outside of wall above a garage, which faces the street, is to align with the outside face of the garage wall below. The objectives of the above requirements are to ensure articulation in the front elevation and to prevent the garage from extending forward so as not to be a prominent feature. The proposed double garage is integrated with the design of the dwelling with the wall above indented to provide a terrace area. However, the site slopes down from with the garage located further back on the site (18m), as such the objectives are achieved because of the large setback to the garage and landscaped front yard which helps limits visibility of the garage. The proposed garage complies with the objectives of the DCP and is considered satisfactory. 10. Likely impacts of the Development (a) Built Environment

Subject site

Subject site & 2 southern properties have large front setback of approx 20 to 26m.

Rest of the street have front setback of between 4.5m to 6m.



The proposed dwelling house is for a residential use which is of a type considered consistent and compatible with the character of the surrounding development. (b) Natural Environment The development will not have any adverse impact on the natural environmental character of the area given the long history of residential development in the area. The issue of the removal of the tree has been assessed and is considered acceptable. 11. Suitability of the site for the development The site is considered suitable for a development of this nature. 12. The Public Interest The development is in the public interest as it maintains the use of the site for a residential purpose. The proposed dwelling is considered to be compatible with other recent residential developments. 13. Consultation – Internal and External Internal Referrals: Development Engineer: 18 August 2010: Council’s Development Engineer has made the following comment: The proposed development is located on a site currently mapped as being affected by overland flow from a small upstream catchment. The application has been referred to the Drainage Team on overland flow aspect to which they have assessed and considered as being satisfactory. The site currently has a natural depressed low area located forward of the existing building alignment. This area is where overland flows would currently concentrates and also the location where the existing building would discharge its stormwater to. The development now proposed to collect and pipe the site impervious areas runoff to Princes Street via an OSD system and a BASIX compliant rainwater tank. The design has been assessed and is considered to be satisfactory and in accordance with Council’s policy. It should be noted that as the site stormwater runoff is now piped to Princes Street, stormwater runoff being piped to the existing overland flow path is substantially less than that occur prior to development. Accordingly the proposal is considered as an improvement to the current in relation to reduction of runoff impacts to downstream properties. Access to the site is proposed via a new 3m wide driveway at moderate grades with garage door opening and internal dimensions are considered t o be satisfactory and in accordance with AS 2890.1-2004. No objections are raised to the proposal, subject to the following engineering conditions.



Landscape Architect: 2 August 2010: Site Photo:

The subject tree is a Scribbly Gum (Eucalyptus haemastoma).

A trunk lesion approximately 2.5m up the trunk is shown right.

Comment: I have inspected the site and reviewed the condition of the subject tree, in relation to the plans currently lodged for a new dwelling at 166 Princes St. In addition I have reviewed both arborist’s reports submitted in relation to the application. One on behalf of the objector at 164 Princes St (prepared by Guy Paroissien from Landscape Matrix), and the other on behalf of the applicant (prepared by Neville Shields from Redgum Horticultural). The tree is growing on the grounds of the access handle for 164A Princes St who is the owner of the tree. I would estimate from ground survey and aerial photos that approximately two thirds of the canopy over-hang the development site, and as can be seen from the above photos the tree leans considerably in this direction. Permission for removal of the tree has been previously granted by Council’s Tree Preservation Officer, however the permission has since lapsed as the application was back in early 2007. Both arborists agree that a setback in the order of 6m would be required to safely preserve the tree, however in the context of a site that already has significant design constraints (particularly with regard to setback), it is felt that an additional requirement to have a 6m setback from the trunk of the tree to any construction would severely limit the legitimate redevelopment of the site. The objector cites the DCP stating the tree should be retained as an important landscape feature, however other considerations including the safety of the tree in the new development context have to be reasonably considered. In this regard:

• The tree is not a significant remnant bushland tree or habitat tree. • The tree has a lean towards the development site and the majority of the

canopy overhangs #166. • The tree contains a lesion with some associated trunk flaring (swelling) around

the lesion (refer to the detail photo above) which could be a point of structural weakness.

• The tree would require a significant setback to guarantee the possibility of its survival



CONCLUSION Contingent upon the approval of the owner of the tree (#164A), therefore, I have no objection to the removal of the tree subject to the planting of a suitable replacement tree in accordance with Council’s DCP, as part of the redevelopment of the site. Drainage Team: 1 February 2010: Council’s Catchment & Assets Officer has reviewed the proposal and has advised that there are no objections to the proposal subject to the imposition of a condition. Condition 90 has been imposed as required by Catchment & Assets. 14. Critical Dates There are no critical dates or deadline to be met. 15. Financial Impact Adoption of the recommendation contained in this report will have no financial impact. 16. Other Options No alternative options have been considered in this application. 17. Conclusion: The proposal has been assessed against the heads of consideration of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and found to be satisfactory, notwithstanding some non-compliance with DCP 2010. Whilst submissions were received objecting to the proposal, the main issues of concern relate to view loss, removal of a tree, drainage, privacy and solar impact. The issues raised during the assessment have been addressed by design changes or via consent conditions. The issue of view loss across the side boundary of the adjoining dwelling at 164 Princes Street has been assessed against the four step procedure established by the Land and Environment Court. The view is across the side boundary and the front setback has been increased (resulting in a non compliance) to try to provide some equitable sharing of views, as such to expect to retain a partial water view located over 500m away and only from the 1st floor main bedroom is unrealistic, especially given the complying nature of the development (in terms of the controls that can impact views as such as bulk and scale and height) and given the Court principles that the retention of views across side boundaries is unreasonable and difficult. On balanced consideration, the application is considered appropriate in the context of the residential nature of the area and is considered appropriate for approval.



4 7 ANTHONY ROAD, WEST RYDE. Lot 71 in DP 4051. - Local Development Application for Demolition of a Dwelling House. LDA2010/0266.

Report prepared by: Consultant Town Planner Report approved by: Manager Assessment; Group Manager Environment &

Planning Report dated: 16/09/2010 File Number: GRP/10/4/001/3 - BP10/572

1. Report Summary

Applicant: City of Ryde Owner: City of Ryde Date lodged: 1 June 2010

This report considers a proposal to demolish the dwelling house on the site. Five objections were received following public notification, mainly relating to the possible heritage significance of the building and the future use of the site, possibly for car parking. The building has been assessed and is considered to not have any heritage significance. While not part of this application, it is noted that Council has previously agreed to the lease of this land to Coles for public parking purposes and a residential display suite during redevelopment of land on the opposite side of Anthony Road. The demolition of the dwelling does not cause any unsatisfactory environmental impacts nor does it involve the removal of any trees. Conditions have been included requiring protection of existing trees on the site during demolition. The application has been assessed by an independent planning consultant and is recommended for approval subject to conditions. Reason for Referral to Development Committee: Council owned land and issues raised by objectors. Public Submissions: 5 submissions were received objecting to the proposed

demolition of the dwelling. SEPP1 Objection received. Not required Value of works? $15,000.00. RECOMMENDATION:

(a) That LDA 266/2010 to demolish the dwelling house at 7 Anthony Road, West Ryde, being Lot 71 in DP 4051, be approved subject to the ATTACHED conditions in (Attachment 1) to this report.

(b) That all persons who made a submission be advised of the decision.

Committee of the Whole Page 49 ITEM 4 (continued)


ATTACHMENTS 1 Recommended Conditions of Consent2 Map 3 Plan Report Prepared By: Don Smith Consultant Town Planner Report Approved By: Liz Coad Manager Assessment Dominic Johnson Group Manager Environment & Planning




Address : 7 Anthony Road, West Ryde Site Area : 2800m2.

Frontage 26.8/11.69m Depth 79.7/103.3m

Topography and Vegetation : The site is relatively level and has a number of trees that are mainly situated near the boundaries of the site. Existing Buildings : Dwelling House

Planning Controls Zoning : R2 Low Density Residential in Ryde LEP 2101. Other : DCP 2010:

Part 7.2 – Waste Minimisation and Management Part 8.1 – Construction Activities

3. Councillor Representations: Nil. 4. Political Donations or Gifts Any political donations or gifts disclosed? None disclosed. 5. Proposal The applicant has submitted the following: The demolition is to consist of a brick and weatherboard house with a metal roof with fibro eaves. The size of the house is approximately 230sqm. Also to be included in this scope of works is the following, foot path leading from the roadway to the house, all concrete paths surrounding the house including any paving old footings, shrubs and bushes immediately surrounding the house and any rubbish currently stored under the free standing structure. Should any loose bush rock be discovered it will be neatly piled near the rear of the property. The demolition of the existing is not expected to have any adverse environmental affect. The proposed work will be carried out in accordance with Workcover requirements and appropriate measures will be put in place to ensure that the adjoining properties will not be adversely affected by dust, noise, traffic and any other falling objects.



Hazardous Materials Report Upon a visual inspection of the site the following areas were found to have either Asbestos or Synthetic Mineral Fibre (SMF). • There is flat asbestos cement( AC) sheeting located in the eaves • There is SMF insulation on top of the fibrous plaster ceiling within the roof space • There is flat asbestos sheeting located in the wet areas • There is several areas which where the floor coverings contain vinyl floor direct

stick to the wooden floor boards A document titled “Demolition in Progress” was submitted in support containing the following: • Demolition method – materials to be recycled or disposed to EPA tip. • Method of Demolition – manually to remove recyclable material, machine for

remainder. • Work Plan. • Site Safety measures • Photographs of house to be demolished.

Subject house at time of site inspection

6. Background The site was acquired in 2007 for drainage purposes but detailed drainage plans have not yet been implemented. On 1 June 2010 the Committee of the Whole considered, and resolved to approve, a Confidential Report relating to the proposed lease of this land to Coles during



construction of the mixed development on the opposite side of Anthony Road. The lease is to allow the land to be temporarily used as a public carpark for up to approximately 70 spaces and up to 60m² of floor space for a residential display suite (i.e. for the units in the approved mixed use development). Clause 78 of the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance provides a mechanism whereby land can be temporarily used for the public carpark and display suite as indicated above. 7. Submissions The proposal was notified in accordance with Council’s DCP 2006: Part 2.1- Notification of Development Applications for a 14 day period ending on 8/7/10. During this period 5 submissions were received raising the following issues: • Objecting to demolition as the dwelling should be considered for local heritage

listing. • Dwelling should be restored as it is an example of what a house may have looked

like as part of the West Ryde Village.

Comment

This matter is dealt with more fully in the comments by the Team Leader – Strategic Planner under the “Referrals” heading later in this report. In essence the advice is that a review of the site has been conducted, the property is considered to not meet the criteria for Heritage Significance and therefore is not recommended for heritage listing. Criteria include: • Aesthetic Significance – the building is neither representative of the Federation

style nor exceptional. Rarity is also a consideration - there are other examples in Ryde Local Government Area.

• Social Significance – having value to the community (as a meeting place for example). The building was a single dwelling until purchased by Council. It has been vacant for some time.

• Historic Significance – linked to an important event or person. Being the first house in the street is not usually enough to meet the criteria as all streets have a “first” house.

• Technical Significance – scientific advances in building techniques, archaeological resources which may contribute to our understanding of the area etc.

Two comprehensive heritage studies and a supplementary community based heritage study have been undertaken for the City of Ryde. These studies have considered all properties within the City of Ryde. 7 Anthony Road, West Ryde was considered and was not recommended for heritage listing by these comprehensive city wide heritage studies and associated planning processes. A review concludes that the site does not meet the criteria for heritage listing.



• Concern with future use of site as villas/townhouses not permissible because of the villas next door.

• Have viewed a plan of a proposed 63 spaces carpark – The submission raises many issues if this is to occur.

Comment

The land was acquired in 2007 for drainage purposes, although detailed drainage plans have yet to be implemented. In the interim Council is leasing the land to Coles for a public carpark for up to 70 spaces and for a residential display unit while land on the opposite side of Anthony Road is being developed. The public carpark will be temporary and is to replace parking that will be temporarily lost during the construction of the mixed use development that has been approved on the site. A concept plan showing the house to be demolished and a possible parking layout was inadvertently included with the demolition application documentation. The purpose of the plan was to identify the dwelling to be demolished and not any possible parking layout. The use of the site for parking does not form part of this application as it was previously agreed to by Council on 1 June 2010.

Any donations or gifts disclosed in submission? If yes, provide details. None disclosed. 8. SEPP1 Objection received? Not required. 9. Policy Implications Relevant Provisions of Environmental Planning Instruments etc: (a) Ryde LEP 2010

Ryde LEP 2010 was published on 30 June 2010 as the new environmental planning instrument applicable to the City of Ryde. This instrument contains a Savings Provision (clause 1.8A) that provides: If a development application has been made before the commencement of this Plan in relation to land to which this Plan applies and the application has not been finally determined before that commencement, the application must be determined as if this Plan had not commenced. The DA was lodged on 1 June 2010, before the commencement of this Plan and so it must be determined as if Ryde LEP 2010 had not commenced.



Under Ryde LEP 2010, the zoning of the property is R2 Low Density Residential. The proposed demolition of the dwelling is permissible with consent within this zoning under the LEP, and it is considered that the proposal is not contrary to the objectives of the LEP or those of the proposed zoning. (b) Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance

Zoning The subject site is zoned Residential A under the provisions of the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance. The proposed demolition works are permissible with the consent of Council. Mandatory Requirements There are no mandatory requirements for this site or the proposal that have not been considered elsewhere in the report. (c) Relevant SEPPs There are non applicable to this proposal. (d) Relevant REPs (now Deemed SEPPs) SREP (Sydney Region Catchment) 2005

From 1 July 2009 this plan is taken to be a State Environmental Planning Policy (see clause 120 of Schedule 6 to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

The site is located within the designated hydrological catchment of Sydney Harbour and therefore is subject to the provisions of the above SREP. However, the site is not located on the foreshore or adjacent to the waterway and therefore, with the exception of the objective of improved water quality, the objectives of the SREP are not applicable to the proposed demolition works. The objective of improved water quality is satisfied through compliance with the provisions of section 8.1 (Construction Activities) of DCP 2010 and related conditions of consent. The proposed demolition works raise no other issues and otherwise satisfies the aims and objectives of the SREP.

(e) Any draft LEPs There are non applicable to this proposal.



(f) Any DCP City of Ryde Development Control Plan 2010: • Part 7.2 – Waste Minimisation and Management. A waste plan in the format

suggested in the DCP was not submitted. However the “Demolition in Progress” report submitted with the application sets out the methodology of demolition, that recyclable material will be demolished manually and other material by machine. It indicates that about 200 tonnes of material will be involved in the demolition and that it will be disposed of to recyclers or to an EPA approved tip. It is considered that the provisions of the DCP have been addressed satisfactorily.

• Part 8.1 – Construction Activities. The DCP requires the submission of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) for construction sites where the area of disturbed land is between 250 – 2500m². While the site is technically not a construction site, sediment controls should be installed in accordance with Council’s standard conditions of consent – condition 12.

Section 2.6 of Part 8.1 sets out a number of matters relating to demolition. These are similar to matters included in Council’s standard conditions of consent – see conditions 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 17 and 27 being relevant to this type of demolition work.

10. Likely impacts of the Development (a) Built Environment The proposed demolition of the existing dwelling house will not have any adverse impacts on the existing built environment or the amenity of the surrounding area. (b) Natural Environment The proposed demolition works will have no significant impacts on the Natural Environment. While the application does not indicate any trees to be removed, it seems unlikely that any will be affected as all are located clear of the house or are not covered by the TPO. Condition 5 requires tree protection measures for existing trees and condition 22 requires approval to remove any trees covered by the TPO and that demolition material and the like not be stored or placed under the dripline of any trees. 11. Suitability of the site for the development

The site is not classified as a heritage item and is not affected by subsidence but is partially subject to flooding along the Anthony Road frontage. The removal of the dwelling house structure will remove an obstruction from the overland flow path. In this regard, the proposal is considered to be suitable for the site in terms of the impact on both the existing natural and built environments.



12. The Public Interest

There were no submissions received from any Public Authority. The proposal is considered to not adversely impact upon the interest of the public. 13. Consultation – Internal and External Internal Referrals Team Leader - Strategic Planning: Memo 20 August 2010: The following has been submitted: Background 7 Anthony Road is a single storey timber Federation style dwelling in poor condition. The building has little detailing or architectural features which might distinguish it. 7 Anthony Road, West Ryde is NOT listed as a heritage item nor is it within a Conservation Area under the provisions of Ryde Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2010. Report Two comprehensive heritage studies have been undertaken for the City of Ryde as follows: • Rodney Jensen and Jonathon Falk prepared a comprehensive heritage study in

1988, on behalf of the City of Ryde. • A comprehensive heritage review of the City was subsequently undertaken by

Jennifer Hill in 2000. Jennifer Hill is an expert on 20th century architecture. All properties in the City of Ryde were considered by the two comprehensive city wide heritage studies. As a consequence of these studies City of Ryde heritage listed approximately 160 items and 4 conservation areas. A check of the files indicates that 7 Anthony Road was not proposed to be listed by either study. In 2003 a community based supplementary heritage study was commenced with Ryde Heritage Advisory Committee. This study was reported to Council on Tuesday 17 August 2010. Council resolved that an additional 7 buildings be listed and a number of sandstone markers be included in Draft Ryde LEP 2011. At its meeting of 17 August 2011, Council also provided clear guidelines regarding future heritage listings. It was resolved:

That Council not pursue compulsory heritage listing of any property unless the land owner of the property applies for a heritage listing of the property.

Comment A review of the site has been conducted. The property is not considered to meet the criteria for Heritage Significance and therefore is not recommended for heritage listing. Criteria include:



• Aesthetic Significance – the building is neither representative of the Federation style nor exceptional. Rarity is also a consideration - there are other examples in Ryde Local Government Area.

• Social Significance – having value to the community (as a meeting place for example). The building was a single dwelling until purchased by Council. It has been vacant for some time.

• Historic Significance – linked to an important event or person. Being the first house in the street is not usually enough to meet the criteria as all streets have a “first” house.

• Technical Significance – scientific advances in building techniques, archaeological resources which may contribute to our understanding of the area etc.

Conclusion Two comprehensive heritage studies and a supplementary community based heritage study have been undertaken for the City of Ryde. These studies have considered all properties within the City of Ryde. 7 Anthony Road, West Ryde was considered and NOT recommended for heritage listing by these comprehensive city wide heritage studies and associated planning processes. A review concludes that the site does not meet the criteria for heritage listing. Consultant Landscape Architect: Email 10 September 2010: I have inspected the site 7 Anthony Rd, subject to a demolition application. The site contains a number of established trees within the curtilage of the existing dwelling including 2 Sydney Blue Gums (Eucalyptus saligna), a row of cypress pines, and some Brush Box trees. It is my understanding that no trees are to be removed as part of this application, however suitable tree protection measures should be installed prior to the commencement of demolition. With regard to the Blue Gums they are not significant habitat specimens, however they do contribute to the overall Blue Gum canopy which is characteristic of the West Ryde locality and are therefore considered important trees to be retained. Condition 5 has been included in the conditions at Attachment 1requiring tree protection measures prior to commencement of demolition External Referrals None were required. 14. Critical Dates There are no critical dates or deadlines to be met. 15. Financial Impact Adoption of the option outlined in this report will have no financial impact to Council as the demolition will be carried out by Coles under the terms of the lease. There will be no on-going costs of maintaining this site.



16. Other Options None were assessed. 17. Conclusion The proposed demolition of the dwelling house will not have any unacceptable impacts. Issues raised by objectors have been addressed in the report. The site has been assessed and does not have any heritage value. Council has previously approved the lease of this land for temporary public carparking while land opposite in Anthony Road is being redeveloped. No trees are to be removed as part of the demolition works and conditions have been imposed to protect those on the site.















5 2 SHACKEL AVE GLADESVILLE. LOT 21 DP 10340. - Local Development Application for demolition of existing dwelling, construction of two-storey dwelling, alterations to existing pool and erect new fence. Section 82A Review of Determination. APL2010/0001.

Report prepared by: Consultant Planner Report approved by: Manager Assessment; Group Manager Environment &

Planning Report dated: 21/09/2010 File Number: GRP/10/4/001/3 - BP10/577

1. Report Summary

Applicant: A Vallelonga, N Vallelonga. Owner: A Vallelonga, N Vallelonga. Date lodged: 27 May 2010.

This report considers a proposal to demolish the existing dwelling and erect a part 2/part 3 storey dwelling, make alterations to the existing swimming pool, and erect a new front fence. The application was refused by Council at its meeting on 24 November 2009. On 27 May 2010, the applicant lodged an application under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 seeking Council’s review of the decision to refuse the application. This application seeks to address the issues raised in Council’s determination and includes a legal opinion, provided by the applicant, to support the application. The submitted legal advice provided by the applicant is considered to be sound. The application does not include any alterations to the design of the proposed development, but now provides a legal advice relative to the proposed access to the dwelling over the unformed portion of Meriton Street, and whilst providing a range of options for Council to consider, recommends a deferred approval. Reason for Referral to Council: The application was originally determined by Council and refused as a result of the reasons outlined below. In accordance with Section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, if the Council determines the original application, the review must be undertaken by the Council or another delegate of the Council who is not subordinate to the delegate that made the determination. Public Submissions: No submissions were received following notification of the proposal. SEPP1 Objection received? A SEPP 1 objection was lodged in respect of the original application and was discussed in the staff report that was considered by Council at its meeting on 24 November 2009, which is CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.



Value of works? $900,000. RECOMMENDATION: That Local Development Application No. 2009/92 at 2 Shackel Ave, Gladesville, being Lot 21 DP 10340, be approved subject to the ATTACHED conditions (Attachment 1). ATTACHMENTS 1 Recommended Conditions of Consent2 Map 3 Plans Report Prepared By: Bob Tillott Consultant Planner Report Approved By: Liz Coad Manager Assessment Dominic Johnson Group Manager Environment & Planning




Address 2 Shackel Avenue, Gladesville. Site Area 804.8m²

Frontage 14.366m to Shackel Avenue. Depth 60.105m (E boundary) and 50.425m (W boundary).

Topography and Vegetation The land generally slopes down from Shackel Avenue to the Parramatta River and contains no significant vegetation. Existing Buildings Two-storey dwelling and swimming pool. Dwelling to be demolished in this DA, pool to be retained with alterations/additions.

The following aerial photograph identifies the subject site (2 Shackel Avenue) as well as the land known as Meriton Street and the existing driveway over this land.

Planning Controls Zoning: R2 - Low Density Residential



Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2010 Other: Development Control Plan 2010 SEPP (Building Sustainability Index BASIX) 2004 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour

Catchment) 2005 Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area

Development Control Plan

3. Councillor Representations: Nil. 4. Political Donations or Gifts Any political donations or gifts disclosed? Nil. 5. Proposal The proposed development involves demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a two-storey dwelling as well as alterations to the swimming pool and erection of front fence. The subject application made under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, seeks review of Council’s decision of 24 November 2009 which was to refuse the application. 6. Background On 24 November 2009, Council refused an application seeking consent to demolish the existing dwelling and to erect a two-storey dwelling as well as alterations to the existing swimming pool for the following reasons:

1. The proposed continued use of the existing vehicle access over the unformed section of Meriton Street in the context of this application is unacceptable as it places an unwanted encumbrance on a parcel of Council owned land.

2. Approval of the application in it’s current form is not in the public interest.

A copy of the staff report considered by Council on 24 November 2009 is CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER, along with A3 drawings of the proposal. On 27 May 2010 the subject Section 82A application seeking review of this decision was lodged with Council.



7. Submissions The proposal was notified in accordance with Development Control Plan 2006 - Part 2.1, Notification of Development Applications. Notification of the proposal was from 8 June 2010 until 24 June 2010. During the notification period no submissions were received. 8. SEPP1 Objection received? A SEPP 1 objection was lodged in respect of the original application and was discussed in the staff report that was considered by Council at its meeting on 24 November 2009. 9. Policy Implications Relevant Provisions of Environmental Planning Instruments etc: (a) Ryde Local Environmental Plan 2010 (RLEP)

Ryde LEP 2010 was published on 30 June 2010 as the new environmental planning instrument applicable to the City of Ryde. This instrument contains a Savings Provision (clause 1.8A) which states: If a development application has been made before the commencement of this Plan in relation to land to which this Plan applies and the application has not been finally determined before that commencement, the application must be determined as if this Plan had not commenced. The DA was made (lodged) on 28 May 2010, before the commencement of this Plan and so it must be determined as if Ryde LEP 2010 had not commenced. Under Ryde LEP 2010, the zoning of the property is R2 Low Density Residential. The proposed development is permissible with consent within this zoning under the LEP, and it is considered that the proposal is not contrary to the objectives of the LEP or those of the proposed zoning.

(b) Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance (RPSO)

Zoning

The subject site is zoned Residential ‘A’ under the provisions of the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance. The proposed works are permissible with the consent of Council. The adjoining parcel of land, although not part of the subject site, being the unformed Meriton Street, that contains the vehicular driveway is zoned Open Space 6(a) under the RPSO. The applicant’s legal advice contains a detailed existing use right submission in respect of the land used as a driveway and concludes that the applicant has a right in law to pass along the unformed part of Meriton Street to access their property.



The applicant’s legal advice has been discussed with Council’s General Counsel, who has verbally advised that the points raised in the legal advice are sound, and in view of both the decision of the Land & Environment Court decision in Goldberg v Waverley (2008) NSWLEC 49, as well as the ability of the applicant, under the provisions of the Roads Act 1993, to pass along the unformed part of Meriton Street to gain access to their property. The identified Goldberg case was based upon the lengthy use by a person to travel over land to access their site and as such have achieved “existing use rights” to continue this use. This case was very similar to the subject application. The Waverley application involved:

A development application to Waverley Council in respect of a property known as No. 362 Birrell Street, Tamarama. The proposal is to demolish an existing house on the land, to subdivide the land into two allotments, and to construct a driveway on the unmade section of Birrell Street to which the land has a frontage, to provide access to the land.

On 3 March 2008 the Court upheld the appeal which was against Waverley Council’s refusal of the application.

A history of the use of the unformed portion of Meriton Street to permit vehicular access to the subject site, as well as relevant statutory planning comment, is as follows: (a) On 5 November 1958 Council granted consent to Building Application No.

143/58 for the erection of a brick residence on the subject site. (b) Subsequently the dwelling was erected and the vehicular access over the

unformed portion of Meriton Street was created. (c) At the time of approval, Meriton Street was zoned “Living Area” under the

County of Cumberland Planning Scheme Ordinance. (d) Council has limited records in respect of dwellings erected in the middle of

last century. However, inspection of the subject driveway indicates that it has been in existence for some time and there is no available evidence to demonstrate a break in the use of the driveway since construction.

(e) On 1 June 1979 the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance (RPSO) was gazetted. The unformed portion of Meriton Street was then zoned 6(a) Recreation Existing under the RPSO. The erection of a dwelling, or works associated with a dwelling, are prohibited within the 6(a) zone.

(f) On the 1 June 1979 the continued use of the unformed portion of Meriton Street for the provision of vehicular access to the dwelling on No. 2 Shackel Avenue became the subject of “existing use rights” under Section 107(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A).

(g) There is no evidence to suggest that the use of the driveway, over portion of the unformed Meriton Street, to provide vehicular access to the dwelling at 2 Shackel Avenue has ceased, or being interrupted.



(h) Section 107(1) of the EP & A Act permits the continuance of an existing use regardless of provisions of any other environmental planning instrument.

There is no available evidence to indicate that the driveway use of the unformed portion of Meriton Street does not enjoy “existing use rights” under the EP & A Act, accordingly, the documentation provided by the applicant demonstrating the existence of “existing use rights” is supported.

Mandatory Requirements The RPSO contains a number of mandatory requirements. These provisions were discussed in the staff report on the original application. There has been no change to the mandatory requirements since preparation of the original staff report. (c) Relevant SEPPs The original application contained an objection under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy 1 – Development Standards (SEPP 1) relevant to the minimum allotment width of 15m measured at a distance of 7.5m from a public road. The original assessment report supported the submitted SEPP 1 objection. The subject Section 82A application does not alter the proposed development and therefore the submitted SEPP 1 objection is still relevant. The previously submitted SEPP 1 objection is considered to be well founded and is supported. (d) Relevant REPs Note: From 1 July 2009 all REPs were taken as being State environmental planning policies. However, the title of the plans has not changed and for ease of understanding the following comments identify their current, unchanged title. The site is affected by Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005. An assessment of this plan, together with the associated Development Control Plan, was contained within the original staff report. The subject Section 82A application does not alter the applicability of the comments as contained in the original staff report. (e) Any draft LEPs There are no Draft LEPs applicable. (f) Any DCP (e.g. dwelling house, villa) Ryde Development Control Plan 2010 is applicable to the subject site. The original application was assessed against the provisions of Development Control Plan 2006. This DCP ceased to have any effect when Development Control Plan



2010 came into force on 30 June 2010. Nevertheless, the provisions in the 2010 DCP were in most cases a “like for like” transfer of the controls from DCP 2006. The previous assessment has been CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER and the outcome from assessment against the current DCP 2010 generally aligns with the previously detailed DCP 2006 assessment. Although there are non-compliances in respect of:

• Allotment width (SEPP 1 objection submitted); • Height in that a small component of the dwelling contains three storeys; • Wall plate height (small section exceeds 7.5m height); • Excavation up to 1.2m; • Floor space ratio being 12m² over the maximum 0.5:1. • Secondary setback to Meriton Street of 1.5m instead of 2.0m; • Garage door setback; and • Front fence style.

These areas of non-compliance, either singularly or cumulative are not considered to contain determinative weight that would justify refusal of the application. 10. Likely impacts of the Development (a) Built Environment There are no changes to the likely impacts on the built environment beyond that identified in the previous report considered by Council on 24 November 2009. (b) Natural Environment There are no changes to the likely impacts on the natural environment beyond that identified in the previous report considered by Council on 24 November 2009. 11. Suitability of the site for the development Council at its meeting on 24 November 2009 refused the original Development Application for the following reasons: 1. The proposed continued use of the existing vehicular access over the

unformed section of Meriton Street in the context of this application is unacceptable as it places an unwanted encumbrance on a parcel of Council owned land.

2. Approval of the application in its current form is not in the public interest. In support of the subject Section 82A application, the applicant has submitted a legal advice from Pikes Lawyers. The submitted legal advice has been CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.



The issue of whether the vehicular access should be permitted on the unformed portion of Meriton Street is discussed in greater detail below. The unformed portion of Meriton Street is currently being used by the applicant for other uses, beyond simply vehicular access. At present there exists a lot of landscaping within the closed portion of Meriton Street that clearly benefits the existing dwelling. This landscaping is shown on the following photograph:

Further, there is a range of items including a rotary clothes line, boat on trailer and miscellaneous domestic items. The following photograph details these items:



In addition, a grassed area adjacent to the pool has been prepared for use by the residents of 2 Shackel Avenue. This area is shown on the following aerial photograph.



Any approval would be required to address the matter of removing the plantings, clothes line, boat and the like, and the area generally cleared of any items not relating to the roadway, before a full consent will be issued. This could be addressed in the form of Deferred Commencement consent, should Council support the Section 82A application and agree to approve the application. 12. The Public Interest No adverse public interest issues have been identified. 13. Consultation – Internal and External Internal Referrals

(a) Development Engineer: The original assessment report considered by Council at its meeting held on 24 November 2009, contained comments from Council’s Development Engineer that identified access and drainage issues associated with the application. As the application was then recommended for refusal the issues detailed by the Development Engineer were not, at that time, resolved. The previous design issues have now been overcome, and Council’s Consultant Development Engineer, by memo dated 17 September 2010 states:

The applicant proposes to construct a new two storey dwelling and the location of the subject property is within close proximity of the Parramatta River and the provision of onsite stormwater detention is not required given it is within the exclusion zone as identified in the OSD Catchment Map. The applicant has submitted a stormwater drainage plan indicating that the majority of the new roof area draining via gutters and downpipes to below ground rainwater tanks having a total storage capacity of 2500 litres with the overflow and surrounding impervious and pervious surfaces being collected by grated drains and surface inlet pits and discharging into a silt arrestor pit located in the rear western corner before discharging into the foreshore. A dish drain has been designed at the property boundary on the eastern side to intercept the upstream overland flow. This has been shown on the drainage plan prepared by Michael Ell Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd. BASIX requires that a minimum roof area of 75m2 drains into a 2500 litre rainwater tank which has been designed and shown on the drainage plans submitted by the applicant. The applicant has indicated that vehicular access is to be off Meriton Street which has now been supported by Council’s Manager Access and amended long sections of the existing crossing with the new driveway has now been submitted showing compliant transitions which have been checked and found to comply with



AS2890.1:2004. From an engineering perspective, there are no objections to the approval of this application subject to the conditions attached which should be placed on any development consent issued.

(b) Manager – Buildings and Property Within the original assessment report were comments from the Manager – Buildings and Property which objected to the continued use of the unformed portion of Meriton Street as access to the dwelling at 2 Shackel Avenue. More recent consultation with the Manager – Buildings and Property has identified the Manager Access as the more relevant person to comment on the proposal, and in particular, the continued vehicular access over the unformed portion of Meriton Street. (c) Manager Access: Council’s Manager Access has advised in the following terms:

The applicant has a property on the corner of Shackel St and Meriton Rd, and as such would be entitled to driveway access off either frontage under normal circumstances. As Meriton St does not have formed pavement beyond Shackel St, this involves a longer than standard driveway, as proposed. The question has arisen as to whether Council would consider legally closing and selling the section of Meriton St from Shackel to the waterfront as a parcel of land. As Council has not constructed any works in this section, the proceeds of sale would go to the State Government if done now. If Council were to do works to entitle it to the sale proceeds, these would need to be more than token, raising the question of the purpose and scope of any such works. Once improvements works to access the waterfront were done, it would probably increase public access and then public pressure to retain the land. There would also need to be some time lag between works and sale to avoid argument of doing the works purely to gain the sale proceeds. It is worth noting there are several unformed sections of streets with similar characteristics close proximity on the peninsula, and that any dealings with one would raise the same issues with the others. Any proposals on developing and/or selling these roads should be treated collectively, and it is not guaranteed that any process to consider the issue would result in plans for closure and sale. There is also a Sydney Water facility in the road, so that if ever closed, there would still need to be an easement to this. Similarly, if the driveway proceeds as part of any LDA approval, an easement or ROW would be required to continue this access. Although impinging on the area, neither would prevent the land being built upon, only affecting the utility value of the land.



In my view, Council is not in a position to argue against approving the driveway.

External Referrals Nil. 14. Critical Dates Section 82A(2A) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 states:

(2A) A determination cannot be reviewed: (a) after the time limited for the making of an appeal under section 97 expires, if

no such appeal is made against the determination, or (b) after an appeal under section 97 against the determination is disposed of by

the Court, if such an appeal is made against the determination. The effect of the above provisions is that, provided an appeal has not been lodged in the Land & Environment Court (LEC), there is a period of 12 months from the date of the original determination of the application during which the subject Section 82A application can be determined. At time of preparation of this report, an appeal to the LEC has not been made and therefore as the original determination was made on 24 November 2009, Council has only until 24 November 2010 to determine the subject Section 82A application. 16. Other Options Options generally open to Council in dealing with this matter include:

1. Reaffirm its earlier decision to refuse the application for the same reasons that were identified in the refusal by Council on 24 November 2009, which was to refuse the application on the following grounds:

1. The proposed continued use of the existing vehicle access over the unformed section of Meriton Street in the context of this application is unacceptable as it places an unwanted encumbrance on a parcel of Council owned land. 2. Approval of the application in it’s current form is not in the public interest.

OR 2. Reaffirm its earlier decision to refuse the application, based upon additional

reasons identified by Council; OR 3. Approve the application, subject to identified conditions.



It is recommended that Council adopt Option 3. 17. Conclusion: The subject Development Application seeking consent to demolish the existing dwelling and erect a two-storey dwelling, was refused on 24 November 2009, for reasons that principally related to the unacceptable provision of vehicular access to the new dwelling, over the unformed part of Meriton Street. Council’s Manager Access has now advised that denying vehicular access to the new dwelling over the unformed portion of Meriton Street is considered to be unnecessary and unreasonable. The subject application included a legal advice obtained by the applicant, and this advice concludes that the applicant has a right in law to pass along the unformed part of Meriton Street to access their property, both under what is described as “existing use rights” as well as under the provisions of the Roads Act 1993. The applicant’s legal advice has been discussed with Council’s General Counsel, who has verbally advised that the points raised in the legal advice are sound. The assessment report prepared by Team Leader – Assessment, which was considered by Council on 24 November 2010, identified a small number of inconsequential areas of non-compliance with the then DCP 2006. It was concluded that these matters were as a result of site constraints, in particular the site slope from the street to the Parramatta River. The identified areas of non-compliance were not considered, in themselves, to be fatal to the application. Accordingly, the sole issue that needs consideration is the matter of vehicular access over the unformed portion of Meriton Avenue. In view of the comments of the Manager Access, it is clear that there is now no impediment to the granting of development consent to the erection of a dwelling-house on 2 Shackel Avenue, and to the provision of vehicular access to the dwelling by way of the unformed portion of Meriton Avenue subject to all encroachments on Council’s land, that benefit the owner, being removed. Council’s Development Engineer has raised no objections to the proposed development. Accordingly, it is recommended that the subject Section 82(A) application be approved and that a Deferred Commencement consent be issued.

































6 REQUEST FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST - MANAGEMENT & OPERATION OF RYDE COMMUNITY SPORTS CENTRE (ELS HALL PARK)

Report prepared by: Acting Manager Open Space Report dated: 22/09/2010 File No.: GRP/10/2/001/3 - BP10/582

Report Summary This report outlines the results of the consultation with ELS Hall users and the Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee regarding the Expression of Interest for the management of the Ryde Community Sports Centre and requests approval to seek Expressions of Interest for management and operations options for the Centre. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That the five (5) items identified in this report are included within the

documentation for the Expression of Interest for the management of the Ryde Community Sports Centre.

(b) That Council advertise for Expressions of Interests for the management and

operation of the Ryde Community Sports Centre ATTACHMENTS 1 ELS Hall Expression of Interest Report Prepared By: Peter Montague Acting Manager Open Space Report Approved By: Simone Schwarz Group Manager - Community Life



Background At the meeting of 27 July, Council determined: (a) That the matter be deferred until consultation has been undertaken with the ELS Hall users and the Sport & Recreation Advisory Committee. (b) That the concerns raised by the Sport & Recreation Advisory Committee be circulated to all Councillors prior to commencing the consultation process. Report All Councillors were informed of the concerns raised the Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee via the Councillor Help Desk on 31 August 2010. A meeting was convened to which all users of ELS Hall Park and members of the Sport and Recreation Advisory Committee were invited. The meeting took place on 8 September 2010 at the Argyle Centre and a total of 5 people attended the meeting representing a total of 4 sports. The concerns raised are detailed in the table below along with a response from the relevant area.

CONCERN RESPONSE 1. That irrespective of the open or

closed status, confirmation was requested that external users will have access to; External Toilets, External Change Rooms, Kiosk and Storage Areas.

Throughout the project development stage in consultation with the external users, the design of the facility was to provide external users with access to these areas regardless of the open or closed status of the main stadium. Access will be via the use of keys as has per previous arrangements. There is no implication for the EOI.

2. Confirmation on who will be responsible for the coordination / scheduling of meeting room use?

The design of the facility enables access to the meeting room via the reception area while excluding access to the main hall and the remainder of the internal facility. The EOI documents should stipulate that the operator will be responsible for coordinating access to the meeting room. Inclusion within EOI documentation.

3. Confirmation of responsibility for external security.

External security will as per current arrangements (includes night time patrols by security contractors). There is no implication for the EOI.

4. Access to waste storage area for external users.

Access to the waste storage area for external users will be via the entrance door beside the kiosk. The waste area can be accessed by external users irrespective of the opening or closure of the internal facility?



Inclusion within EOI documentation. 5. Is there a management plan for

parking and who will be responsible for this area?

Parking at ELS Hall Park will continue as approved within the Development Application. There is no implication for the EOI.

6. Confirmation re access to loading bay for bringing supplies / equipment into storage area?

The design of the facility will enable users to access the storage areas irrespective of the opening or closure of the centre. Inclusion within EOI documentation.

7. Confirmation that the kiosk is for the use of external users and not designed to service, or be limited by the presence of internal users?

Throughout the project development stage in consultation with the external users, the design of the kiosk was developed to service external users. Inclusion within EOI documentation.

8. Will netball markings be included on the stadium floor layout?

Yes – this requirement is included in the building tender. Inclusion of all courts markings within EOI documentation.

9. Confirmation of the finish on the concrete steps overlooking Field 2

The large steps over looking oval # 2 are to have timber strips fixed to the concrete emulating timber bench seating. There is no implication for the EOI.

10. Ambulance access to Field 2

Ambulance access or any other service vehicle access to Oval # 2 will be via the newly formed access service road to the west of the RCSC, past the tiered seating to the NW of Oval # 2. Access onto Oval # 2 is via the newly created double gates located between the batting pen and the pitching pen. There is no implication for the EOI.

There are no provisions in the current Management Plan or future Management Plans for the management and operating costs associated with Ryde Community Sports Facility. Accordingly, this report seeks Council approval to go to the community and seek Expressions of Interest as to various management and operating models that could be forthcoming, including independent (outsourced) management and indirect management where Council would enter into a formal agreement with a suitably experienced third party. Council needs to finalise the EOI documentation urgently in order to provide sufficient time for the EOI process to take place and assess interest in the community and market place before determining the most appropriate management model for the centre. Consultation Internal Council business units consulted included:- • Buildings and Property



• Open Space • Risk and Audit • Environment Internal Workshops held:- • Not Applicable City of Ryde Advisory Committees consulted included:- • Members of the Sports and Recreation Advisory Committee were invited to

attend the consultation meeting. External public consultation included:- • Members of the Sports and Recreation Advisory Committee and users of ELS

Hall Park were invited to attend the consultation meeting. • Other external consultation has been undertaken including possible users of the

facility as outlined in the previous report to Council. Critical Dates The following deadlines are required to be met: • The Ryde Community Sports Centre is scheduled to be completed prior to

Christmas and is planned to be fully operational by March 2011. Council needs to finalise the EOI documentation urgently in order to provide sufficient time for the EOI process to take place and assess interest in the community and market place before determining the most appropriate management model for the centre.

Financial Impact There are no provisions in the current Management Plan or future Management Plans for the management and operating costs associated with Ryde Community Sports Facility. Policy Implications The Expression of Interest process will bring forward management and operating models for Council to consider. Conclusion Officers have consulted with interested stakeholders on inclusions for the Expression of Interest documentation for the management of the Ryde Community Sports Centre. It is proposed that the identified items as a result of this process are included in the Expression of Interest documentation.



DRAFT FOR CONSIDERATION EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF THE COUNCIL FACILITY AT THE NEW ELS HALL COR-EOI-01/10 Closing 2.00pm, Tuesday XX XXXX 2010



Foreword Expression of Interest Documents The Expression of Interest documents have been structured into the following sections.

- Section A – Introduction

- Section B – Conditions governing the Expression of Interest - Section C – Returnable schedules

Section A provides a brief overview of the services required by the City Of Ryde and the background. Section B provides an outline of the Conditions of Expression of Interesting. Included in this section is the evaluation criteria that will be utilised in the evaluation of this Expression of Interest. Section C provides the returnable schedules which must be completed and returned to Council for evaluation. If any of these returnable schedules are not returned the Expression of Interest may be declared to be non-conforming.



SECTION A – INTRODUCTION



Section A – Introduction

1.1 – Background The City Of Ryde The City of Ryde is located 12 kilometres north-west of central Sydney, set in scenic surrounds between the Parramatta and Lane Cove Rivers. It is well connected to other parts of metropolitan Sydney via:

o Major road systems, including Epping Road, M2, Lane Cove Tunnel (East West), Lane Cove Road and Ryde Road (North South) and Victoria Road (East West)

o The rail system, with the existing stations at Eastwood, Denistone, West Ryde and Meadowbank to be complemented by the three new stations at Macquarie University, Macquarie Park and North Ryde on the Chatswood to Epping rail link

o The ferry service, with ferry wharves located at Meadowbank and Kissing Point providing easy access to the CBD and connections to Parramatta.

The City has more that 100,000 residents with the 25 – 54 years of age group making up the majority of the population. ELS Hall Park The City Of Ryde is developing a new multipurpose, dual indoor court facility in the grounds of ELS Hall Park area, Kent Road, North Ryde. The facility will complement existing passive and active recreational opportunities in the grounds that include playgrounds, walking, Australian Rules Football, Soccer, Rugby, Cricket as well as appreciation of the natural environment. The facility being constructed will include the following:

Entry foyer Reception First Aid Room Staff kitchenette Meeting space Cleaner’s room Garbage room Accessible (disabled) toilet facility Internal change and toilet Courts and spectator seating External Kiosk Loading and storage Change rooms and facilities for outdoor fields Referees change room Plant and equipment External toilets

A copy of the plans for the facility layout is detailed in Appendix 1. The ELS Hall facility is being constructed to meet expressed demand from the local sporting community and is seen as a high priority for a number of existing sporting associations within the local area as well as the wider community.



1.2 - Purpose of the Expression of Interest Council is seeking submissions from suitably qualified and experienced organisations, groups or individuals to operate the facility on Council’s behalf. General Operating Principles Council will require the successful Contractor to

a) manage and operate the Centre on the basis that it is commercially viable and operates at no cost to Council;

b) ensure a high level of facility management that meets the operational needs of the different user groups.

c) provide opportunities for residents of the City Of Ryde to participate in a range of quality sporting, leisure and community based activities regardless of social disadvantage or disability;

d) encourage and foster key stakeholder participation in the planning, development, and evaluation of the programs and services provided by the Contractor at the Centre;

e) actively promote and program the facility to community groups during low usage periods to maximise usage and financial viability.

f) provide services at the Centre that are complementary to programs and services provided by Council at other facilities within the City Of Ryde and to services provided by operators that are similar to the services required to be provided by the Contractor in accordance with this Specification;

g) work in close cooperation with all necessary stakeholders to enhance the health and well being of the community;

h) use innovative management and service standards and techniques to continually improve the standard of the Services provided at the Centre;

i) adhere to all necessary safety and supervision service standards and industry best practice;

j) operate the Centre in cooperation with Council to ensure that the community, Council and the Contractor achieve their goals and aims for the Centre in a professional, fair and 'best value' manner;

k) be creative, flexible and committed to continuous improvement of the Centre; and l) maintain high standards of quality in operating the Centre in a reliable and consistent

manner, particularly in the following areas:

o facility management o customer service o public safety; o occupational health and safety; o risk management; o Centre maintenance and asset management; o competency of the Contractor's staff; o financial management; o marketing; o administration and supervision; o cleanliness and tidiness.

m) The operator will be responsible for coordinating access to the meeting room n) Access to the waste storage area for external users will be via the entrance door beside

the kiosk. The operator is to ensure that the waste area can be accessed by external users irrespective of the opening or closure of the Internal facility

o) The design of the facility will enable users to access the storage areas irrespective of the opening or closure of the centre

p) It is confirmed that kiosk design was developed to service external users



q) All court markings have been included in the building tender Respondents are invited to provide operational solutions for consideration by the City of Ryde to fulfil the performance requirements listed above and include any other considerations that may enhance the respondent’s submission

A copy of the plans for the facility layout is detailed in Appendix 1.

A copy of a standard lease/license agreement is attached in Appendix 2 for the general information of respondents. This however will be customised to suit requirements once the EOI process has been undertaken and Council has decided whether to move into the second procurement phase. 1.3 The Expression of Interest process This is a request for an Expression of Interest (EOI). The EOI is the first stage of a two-stage process. Following the close of the EOI the Principal may proceed to the calling of a restricted Request for Tender (RFT). The issuing of an EOI does not commit the Principal to proceeding with an RFT. Invitations to participate in the RFT will be restricted to Applicants who have submitted a response to the EOI and who are accepted by the Principal to be placed on a shortlist. The lodgement of a Submission does not commit the Principal to include any Applicant on the shortlist in the event that the Principal proceeds to call tenders or quotations. Your Submission will be evaluated using information provided in your EOI and on your response to the Selection Criteria. The following evaluation methodology will be used in respect of this Expression of Interest:

(a) submissions are checked for completeness and compliance. Submissions that do not contain all information requested (eg completed Submission Form and Attachments) may be excluded from evaluation;

(b) submissions are assessed against the Selection Criteria; (c) taking into account the experience of a Applicant in fulfilling the requirements of similar

contracts and the capacity of the Applicant to fulfil the requirements of the proposed contract.

2. Mandatory Requirements of the Expression of Interest In order for a respondent to qualify for consideration under this Expression of interest, the respondent must satisfy the following:

a. It must hold the insurances required by the Contract b. It must provide all information as specified in the returnable schedules



SECTION B – CONDITIONS OF EXPRESSION OF INTEREST



Section B – Conditions of Expression of Interest

1.0 INTERPRETATION In these Conditions and elsewhere, except where the context requires otherwise:

Applicant: A person who has or intends to submit a Submission in response to an Expression of Interest.

Attachments: The documents you attach as part of your Submission; Contact Officer: Means the person identified under paragraph 4.3

Deadline: The deadline for lodgement of your Submission; Expression of

Interest or EOI: This document;

Information Means the information contained in this Expression of Interest or sent with it or which has been or will be made available to the Applicant in connection with any further enquiries in relation to its subject matter.

Principal: City Of Ryde Requirements: To operate the Council facility at ELS Hall

Submission: Completed Response Form, response to the Selection Criteria and Attachments; Selection Criteria: The criteria used by the Principal in evaluating your Submission;

Special Conditions: The additional contractual terms (if any); Specification: The statement of Requirements for the Principal may request you to provide if invited to

tender for the proposed contract and then accepted as the successful tender. . In this Expression of Interest: (a) unless the context otherwise requires, the singular includes the plural and vice versa and words importing

persons shall include partnerships and corporations and vice versa; (b) a reference to an Act includes all regulations, proclamations, instruments, policies and codes made under

that Act. 2.0 General 2.1 Summary These Conditions of Expression of Interest relate to the engagement of an appropriately experienced and qualified entity to operate Council’s newly constructed facility at the ELS Hall site. All the works are to be carried out in accordance with the Specifications and standards and as directed by the Council’s nominated officer from time to time. 2.2 Legal Relationship during the Respondent Selection Process These Conditions of Expression of Interesting will not form part of any Contract entered into between the Council and the Respondent. The Council does not intend these conditions to have any contractual or other legal significance under which the Council has any obligation to the Respondent to administer the Expression of Interest/quotation process, evaluate the Expression of Interest/quotes, and select Respondents and award contracts in any particular manner. There is no intention or offer to create a legal relationship with the Respondent prior to entering into a contract. 2.3 Departure from Conditions The Council may depart from these Conditions in the interest of efficient contract management practice. Respondents shall be advised of such departures and may adjust their responses accordingly. 2.4 Process may be cancelled The Council may, in its absolute discretion, choose to cancel the Expression of Interest process and shall not be liable to the Respondent on any basis if it does so.



2.5 Collusive practices Any participation in or condoning of a collusive activity by the Respondent shall lead to the immediate disqualification of the Respondents involved. Any Respondent involved may be barred from participating in Tender/EOI/Quotation for any further contracts with Council. A collusive activity includes but is not limited to: (a) any agreement as to who should be the successful respondent; (b) any meeting of the Respondents to discuss their Expression of Interest prior to the submission

to Council, unless Council is present at that meeting(s); (c) any exchange of information between Respondents about their Expression of Interest; (d) any agreement for the payment of money or a reward or benefit for unsuccessful Respondents

by the successful Respondent; (e) any agreement or collaboration of Respondents to fix prices, rates of payment of industry

association fees or conditions of contract; (f) the submission of a “cover Expression of Interest/”, being a Expression of Interest submitted

as genuine but which has been deliberately priced in order not to win the contract. 2.6 Canvassing Support Respondents shall not directly, or indirectly, canvass support from an elected member, or employee, of Council at any time. Any Respondents involved in such activity will result in their Expression of Interest being rejected. 2.7 Levies & Taxes A Respondent shall: (a) where applicable, make allowance for the payment of payroll tax. (b) if the project is building and construction related, make no allowance for any long service levy

payable to the Long Service Payments Corporation. (c) provide the Respondent’s ABN and documented evidence of its registration for GST. 2.8 Confidentiality Any information disclosed or obtained from either Council or the Respondent about this Expression of Interest/quote must be kept strictly confidential except in the situations where disclosure is: (a) necessary in the process of assessing Expression of Interests, or (b) where Council discloses all or part to any of its advisers and consultants or where Council publishes in its business papers, quoted prices and other details of the quote as may be required and permitted by law. (c) under compulsion of law or it is already public knowledge, or (d) with the written consent of Council 3.0 INFORMATION FOR RESPONDENTS 3.1 Respondents The Council contracts only with recognised and acceptable legal entities having appropriate financial assets. Expression of Interests submitted by an unincorporated business such as a sole trader or partnership must identify the legal entity, which proposes to enter the Contract. The Council does not contract with companies under any form of external administration. The Respondent may be required to provide evidence of its legal entity either by a copy of an official document such as company registration and names of office bearers issued by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission or a statement confirming the legal entity signed



by a practicing Solicitor. If so requested, the Respondent shall submit the information within three working days after receipt of such request. The Council reserves the right in its absolute discretion to reject any Expression of Interest submitted by a trust or company trading under trust arrangements having less than five years experience trading under those arrangements. Before accepting a Expression of Interest submitted by a trust or company trading under trust arrangements, the Council may require that trust or company to give an undertaking that it will not change its financial structure without the knowledge of the Council. If the Respondent is a Trust or a Trustee of a Trust, then a full copy of the trust deed must be submitted with the service provider. It is also Council’s practice to deal with entities that have an Australian Business Number (ABN) and are registered for GST. 3.2 Respondent to Inform Itself The Respondent shall bear all costs or expenses incurred by it in preparing and lodging a Expression of Interest. In addition, no extras allowances, or additional or supplementary payments will be paid to the respondent as a result of neglect to have examined:

a) all parts of this Expression of Interest document. b) all information made available and/or all information obtainable by the making of

reasonable enquiries. c) the site and its surroundings including the location of all existing public utility

services and the availability of services (where relevant to the project). d) satisfied itself as to the correctness and sufficiency of its Expression of Interest.

3.3 Offer The lodgement of a Expression of Interest in accordance with these “Conditions” will constitute an offer to enter into and be bound by a contract. The offer will remain open for acceptance by Council until the earlier of:

(a) Receipt by the Respondent of a written notice from Council or (b) 90 business days from the Closing Date.

3.4 Acknowledgment by Respondent The Respondent acknowledges and agrees that: a) no variations or extras will be permitted to its submitted Expression of Interest other than

those provided for in the General Conditions; b) it does not rely upon any verbal agreement or other conduct whatsoever by or on behalf of

Council amending these “Conditions”; c) Council will not be liable for any cost whatsoever incurred in preparing and submitting the

Expression of Interest; d) none of these “Conditions” will be waived, discharged, varied, amended, modified or

released except by written notification by Council; e) the Respondent shall be responsible for any interpretation, deduction and conclusion made

from the information made available and accepts full responsibility for any such interpretation, deduction and conclusions.

4.0 SOLICITATION OF EXPRESSION OF INTERESTS 4.1 Lodgement and Closing Date Council will be utilising the e-Tendering portal provided through Tenderlink for this Expression of Interest.



Expression of Interest documents can be obtained by registering on the e-Tendering at www.Tenderlink.com/ryde If you experience difficulties accessing this website please contact the Tenderlink helpdesk on 1800 233 533. Contract enquiries should be directed to Paul Hartmann (Manager Ryde Aqautic and Leisure Centre) via the online forum accessed on the portal. Requests for additional information may be made via the online forum at www.tenderlink.com/ryde Completed submissions should be lodged in the Electronic Tender Box at www.tenderlink.com/ryde (preferred) by the time and date nominated using the attached word version of the returnable Schedules. Respondents will receive a Successful Submission Receipt timed and dated upon completion. Should assistance be required please use the online manual on the portal under Support/Online Manuals/Making a Submission or contact Expression of Interestlink Customer Support on 1800 233 533 or email [email protected]. Alternatively, responses can be submitted in a sealed envelope and endorsed with the Expression of Interest title; number and closing date, and placed in the Tender Box located at the following address by the nominated time.

The Tender Box Ground Floor, Civic Centre 1 Devlin Street Ryde NSW 2112

It shall be posted in sufficient time to be received before the closing date and time. The nominated closing time and date is 2pm, Tuesday XX XXXX 2010

An Expression of Interest received by facsimile will not be accepted. Failure to comply with these conditions may lead to the Expression of Interest not being considered 4.2 Late Submissions A submission lodged after the stipulated closing time shall be deemed late. A late submission shall be excluded from consideration unless it can be clearly established to the satisfaction of City of Ryde that it was dispatched in sufficient time to be lodged in the Tender Box before the time and date named in the advertisement or other invitation for submission of Expression of Interests. Late submissions will generally not be considered for acceptance if they are:

- Hand delivered, including courier delivered; or - Received through Australia Post unless the envelope is clearly postmarked or stamped

prior to the time and date of Expression of Interest closing 4.3 Enquiries All correspondence and queries regarding this invitation document are to be directed to the Tenderlink online forum. Contact details are provided below: The On-line forum can be accessed at www.Tenderlink.com/ryde Paul Hartmann, Manager – Ryde Aquatic Leisure Centre, may be contacted on 8878 5101 for clarification if necessary 4.4 Number Of Copies (Hard Copy Submissions) If submitting a hard copy into the Expression of Interest box, respondents must submit an original along with one copy of the Expression of Interest submission (total 2 copies to be submitted). They must be marked “original” and “copy” respectively. The Respondent must also lodge a copy of their



submission (scanned in PDF format). The Respondent must ensure that the copy is a true copy in all respects. In the event of any discrepancy, the original will prevail. 4.5 Expression of Interest Box Lodgement by Facsimile Machine Lodgement of submissions by facsimile is NOT acceptable and will be rejected in this case. 4.6 Opening of Expression of Interests Council will only open the submissions after the closing time. The submissions will be opened by a minimum of two designated Council Officers. Any member of the public may attend this opening of the submissions. 4.7 Acceptance, Clarification and Evaluation of submissions Once submitted, an Expression of Interest may only be varied to provide further information by way of explanation or clarification or to correct a mistake or anomaly. Such variations shall not substantially alter the original Expression of Interest. The Council at its own discretion may accept submissions, which do not conform strictly to all requirements of the Expression of Interest documents. The Council shall not be bound to accept the lowest or any offer nor shall the Council be responsible for the time or expense involved in the preparation of any Expression of Interest. This is a request for an Expression of Interest (EOI). The EOI is the first stage of a two-stage process. Following the close of the EOI the Principal may proceed to the calling of a restricted Request for Tender (RFT). The issuing of an EOI does not commit the Principal to proceeding with an RFT. Invitations to participate in the RFT will be restricted to Applicants who have submitted a response to the EOI and who are accepted by the Principal to be placed on a shortlist. The lodgement of a Submission does not commit the Principal to include any Applicant on the shortlist in the event that the Principal proceeds to call tenders or quotations. Your Submission will be evaluated using information provided in your EOI and on your response to the Selection Criteria. The following evaluation methodology will be used in respect of this Expression of Interest:

(a) submissions are checked for completeness and compliance. Submissions that do not contain all information requested (eg completed Submission Form and Attachments) may be excluded from evaluation;

(b) submissions are assessed against the Selection Criteria; (c) taking into account the experience of a Applicant in fulfilling the requirements of similar

contracts and the capacity of the Applicant to fulfil the requirements of the proposed contract.

4.8 Clarification of Expression of Interests The Council reserves the right to amend any document forming part of this invitation to Expression of Interest/ quote at any time during the submission period. Any such amendments will be issued in the form of Notices to Respondent or Addenda.



A Respondent, who wishes to have any aspect of the documents issued for Expression of Interest, or the evaluation process clarified, should direct the inquiry in writing to the Contact Officer nominated in these Conditions of Expression of Interest. The Respondent must not rely on any information provided by any other officer of the Council. Any additional relevant information provided in response to such inquiries will also be communicated by means of Addenda or Notices to Respondent. The Council may request the Respondent to clarify Expression of Interests, after close of Expression of Interests, during the evaluation process. 5.0 ALTERNATIVE EXPRESSION OF INTERESTS Alternative Expression of Interests may be assessed providing that a conforming Expression of Interest is also submitted. 6.0 INFORMAL EXPRESSION OF INTERESTS The respondent MUST submit a conforming quote. Respondents which do not comply with any requirements of, or which contain certain conditions or qualifications not required or not allowed by the Expression of Interest documents may be passed over by the Council. 7.0 PROPERTY IN EXPRESSION OF INTEREST DOCUMENTS All documents submitted by the Respondent, as part of the Expression of Interest, will become the property of the Council upon receipt of them. 8.0 EVALUATION OF SUBMISSIONS Expression of Interests will be evaluated on the basis of the criteria specified in these Conditions of Expression of Interesting and the information provided by the Respondent in the Expression of Interest Schedules. A Respondent should not place any significance on the order in which the criteria are listed nor should it be assumed the criteria have equal weight or significance. Council will compile a short-list of candidates following evaluation of the submissions and, if required invite each short-listed Respondent to attend an interview with Council. However there is no obligation on Council, legal or otherwise, to invite the Respondent to attend an interview. Following evaluation of the submissions, and any interviews held, Council will make its decision. The Council may treat any required detail in the Expression of Interest that is left out, illegible or unintelligible as failing to fulfil the relevant requirement. Council is not bound to accept the lowest Expression of Interest or any Expression of Interests submitted. Council, in its discretion, will accept one or more Expression of Interest that it determines provide the most advantageous result. Expression of Interests will be assessed on “conformity to the documentation” and “value for money” (the most cost effective offer determined by considering all price and non-price factors relevant to the proposed contract) and the following assessment criteria ( in no particular order or restricted to). The evaluation criteria may attract a weighting and/or be determined as being a mandatory requirement: Criteria 1. Nominated return to Council

2. Experience of the entity in the operation of similar facilities. In particular experience in the following:

o Achievement of Community Outcomes

o Ability to maximise Commercial returns of the facility



Mandatory Criteria 3. Experience in the operation of similar facilities with referees

4. Insurances

5. Occupational Health and Safety systems

6. Response to Sustainability questionnaire

7. Conforming Expression of Interest 9.0 FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT By Expression of Interesting the Respondent agrees that the Council may engage private sector consultants to financially assess the Respondents. Financial details of the Respondent may be obtained by an external Financial Assessor for assessment. 10.0 NO PREFERRED RESPONDENTS Following clarification and evaluation of Expression of Interests, the Council may determine none of the Expression of Interests submitted are satisfactory. In these circumstances, the Council may: a) Enter negotiations with one or more Respondents with the aim of achieving a suitable basis

for contracting; b) Cancel the Expression of Interest process altogether; or c) Begin a new process calling Expression of Interests from the same Respondent or others. 11.0 ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT As required under the Local Government Act 1993, Council is committed to Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) which aims at purchasing goods and services with the most beneficial environmental impact and through the use of Respondents and suppliers who have a demonstrable commitment to ESD. A Expression of Interest may be rejected if a Respondent is involved, or was at any time in the preceding 12 months involved in an activity in such a manner which is contrary to the principles of ESD and the potential cost of rejecting the quote is considered by Council to be acceptable having regard to the wider public interest in balancing value for money against promoting the principles of ESD. 12.0 RELEASE OF RESPONDENTS DETAILS: Respondents should note that the name of each respondent will be presented in Council records and may be made public. This will include the apparent order of respondents on the basis of tendered price but without the specific amounts tendered. The names of respondents will also be publicly posted in accordance with tendering requirements under the Local Government Act 1993 (the “Act”) and in accordance with the requirements of the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (the “GIPA Act”) the details of any Contract as a result of the EOI process may be made publicly available in accordance with the terms of the GIPA Act. 13.0 CONTACT BY PROSPECTIVE RESPONDENTS With regard to matters concerning this Expression of Interest, there shall be no Respondent initiated contact with Council after the Expression of Interest has closed and prior to the announcement of the successful Respondent. The only communication shall be at the initiation of Council for the purposes of clarification. The only exception to this is where the Respondent contacts Council (and with Councils consent) provides further clarifying information or corrects a mistake or anomaly. Any Respondent not complying with this clause will have their Expression of Interest rejected. 14.0 NOMINATED DEPARTURES FROM CONTRACT CONDITIONS



Respondents are invited to nominate (in order of relevant clauses) departures from the Conditions of Contract on Returnable Schedule 3. The departure should be nominated in sufficient detail to enable a full evaluation of the nominated departure. If it has a financial impact the value of the financial impact should also be nominated to allow for evaluation. If there are no departures from the Conditions of Contract, this schedule should clearly state: “There are no departures”.

SECTION C - RETURNABLE SCHEDULES



SCHEDULE 1: - RESPONSE FORM The General Manager CITY OF RYDE 1 Devlin St, Ryde I/We (BLOCK LETTERS) of (ADDRESS) ABN/GST Status ________________________________ ACN (if any)

Telephone No: __________________________________ Facsimile No:

E-mail (if any):

In response to EOI, COR-EOI-01/10 “Management and Operation of the Council Facility at the new Els Hall”: I/We agree that I am/We are bound by, and will comply with this Expression of Interest, including without limitation, its associated schedules, attachments and the Conditions of Responding. I/We agree that there shall be no cost payable by the Principal towards the preparation or submission of this Submission irrespective of its outcome. The submitted consideration in the price schedule (if any) is indicative only. Dated this: __________ day of ______________________20___

Signature of authorised signatory of Applicant:

Name of authorised signatory (BLOCK LETTERS):

Position:

Address:

Witness Signature:

Name of witness: (BLOCK LETTERS):

Position:

Address:



SCHEDULE 2: - Applicant’s Response The following checklist has been provided to assist you with your Submission. Where it is necessary to provide additional information please ensure that all documents are clearly marked with the relevant attachment title to assist the evaluation panel with their assessment. (NOTE: All pages within Part C are to be completed and returned to the Principal as they form part of your Submission).

Organisational profile

Attach a copy of your organisation structure and provide background information on your company and label it “Organisation Structure”.

“Organisation Structure”

Tick if attached

If companies are involved, attach their current ASIC company extracts search including latest annual return and label it “ASIC Company Extracts”.

“ASIC Company Extracts”

Tick if attached

Referees

Attach the names and contact details of your referees, and label it “Referees”. You should give examples of work provided for your referees where possible.

“Referees” Tick if

attached

Agents Are you acting as an agent for another party? Yes / No

If Yes, attach details (including name and address) of your principal and label it “Agents”.

“Agents” Tick if attache

d

Trusts Are you acting as a trustee of a trust? Yes / No

If Yes, in an attachment labelled “Trusts”: (a) give the name of the trust and include a copy of the trust deed (and any

related documents);and (b) if there is no trust deed, provide the names and addresses of beneficiaries.

“Trusts”

Tick if attache

d

Subcontractors Do you intend to subcontract any of the Requirements? Yes / No

If Yes, in an attachment labelled “Subcontractors” provide details of the subcontractor(s) including: (a) the name, address and the number of people employed; and (b) the Requirements that will be subcontracted.

“Subcontractors”

Tick if attache

d



Conflicts of interest Will any actual or potential conflict of interest in the performance of your obligations under the Contract exist if you are awarded the Contract, or are any such conflicts of interest likely to arise during the Contract?

Yes / No

If Yes, please supply in an attachment details of any actual or potential conflict of interest and the way in which any conflict will be dealt with and label it “Conflicts of Interest”.

“Conflicts of Interest”

Tick if attache

d

Financial position Are you presently able to pay all your debts in full as and when they fall due? Yes / No

Are you currently engaged in litigation as a result of which you may be liable for $50,000 or more? Yes / No

If you are awarded the Contract, will you be able to fulfil the Requirements from your own resources or from resources readily available to you and remain able to pay all of your debts in full as and when they fall due?

Yes / No

In order to demonstrate your financial ability to undertake this contract, in an attachment labelled “Financial Position” include a profit and loss statement and the latest financial return for you and each of the other proposed contracting entities, together with a list of financial referees from your bank and/or accountant.

“Financial Position”

Tick if attache

d

Selection criteria

Compliance Criteria Please select with a yes or no whether you have complied with the following compliance criteria:

Description of Compliance Criteria

(a) Compliance with the Specification contained in this Expression of Interest. Yes / No

(b) Compliance with the Conditions of Responding contained in this Expression of Interest. Yes / No

Qualitative Criteria Before responding to the following qualitative criteria, Applicants must note the following: - All information relevant to your answers to each criterion are to be contained within your Submission; - Applicants are to assume that the Evaluation Panel has no previous knowledge of your organisation, its

activities or experience; - Applicants are to provide full details for any claims, statements or examples used to address the

qualitative criteria; and - Applicants are to address each issue outlined within a qualitative criterion.

A) Relevant Experience Describe your experience in completing /supplying similar Requirements.



Applicants must, as a minimum, address the following information in an attachment and label it “Relevant Experience”: (a) Provide details of similar work; (b) Provide scope of the Applicant’s involvement including details of outcomes; (c) Provide details of issues that arose during the project and how these were

managed; (d) Demonstrate sound judgement and discretion; and (e) Demonstrate competency and proven track record of achieving outcomes.

“Relevant Experience”

Tick if attached

B) Key Personnel skills and experience

Applicants should provide as a minimum information of proposed personnel to be allocated to this contract, such as: (a) Their role in the performance of the Contract; (b) Curriculum vitae; (c) Membership of any professional or business association; (d) Qualifications, with particular emphasis on experience of personnel in

projects of a similar requirement; and (e) Any additional information.

y details in an attachment and label it “Key Personnel”.

“Key Personnel”

Tick if attached

C) Demonstrated Understanding Applicants should detail the process they intend to use to achieve the Requirements of the Specification. Areas that you may wish to cover include: (a) A contract schedule/timeline (where applicable); (b) The process for the delivery or performance of the goods/services/works; (c) Training processes (if required); and (d) A demonstrated understanding of the scope of work Supply details and provide an outline of your proposed methodology in an attachment labelled “Demonstrated Understanding”.

“Demonstrated Understanding”

Tick if attached

D) Indicative Return to Council/Business plan Applicants should attach details of the Indicative return to Council. This is to include the following; - Basis of calculation - Methodology for calculation - Underlying assumptions - Identification of costs that Council will be responsible for - Identification of costs that the operator will be responsible for

"Return to Council"

Tick if attached



SCHEDULE – 4: INSURANCES The following insurances will be required and shall state details of current policies for these insurances.

WORKERS COMPENSATION OR PERSONAL ACCIDENT AND ILLNESS INSURANCE:

Insurance against any death of or injury to persons employed by the Service Provider as required by the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

ALTERNATIVELY: Where the Service Provider has no employees and in lieu of Workers Compensation Insurance, insurance for personal accident and illness under a policy.

Insurance Company: Amount of coverage: As detailed above

Policy Number: Expiry Date: PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE

Insurance against the death or injury to any third party or parties or loss of or damage to any property including loss of use of property whether it is damaged or not whatsoever caused during the course of the contract. The policy shall have a limit of indemnity of not less than the amount indicated for any one occurrence, but shall be unlimited in the aggregate.

Insurance Company: Amount of coverage: $20 million

Policy Number:

Expiry Date:

PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE

Professional Indemnity insurance. The policy must be in effect for a period of not less than 2 years after the completion of the work.

Insurance Company: Amount of coverage:

Policy Number:

Expiry Date:



SCHEDULE – 5: OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SAFETY & REHABILITATION Demonstrate commitment to OHS&R and understanding and acceptance of the principles of OHS&R.

Note: Further information may be required to be submitted as substantiation.

SUBJECT YES

NO X

1. Does the organisation have an OHS&R Management Plan as part of its overall management system? (If yes give details)

Is the OHS&R Management Plan accredited by a NSW Government agency or an accredited third party? (If yes give details)

2. Has WorkCover NSW issued the organisation with any Prohibition Notices, Improvement Notices or fines in the past 12 months?

(If yes give details)

3. Is the organisation able to provide documented evidence that within its organisation, there are people or resources nominated to:

• Define OHS&R management policies and objectives, priorities and targets;

• Define the responsibilities of personnel for OHS&R matters;

• Identify system verification requirements and allocating human, technical and financial resources adequate to meet those requirements;

• Ensure compliance with OHS&R legislation and regulations;

• Keep abreast of changes in legislation and regulations;

• Acquire and disseminate OHS&R management information;

• Plan and conduct training in OHS&R management, including inducting new employees;

• Oversee the development and implementation of OHS&R procedures;

• Assess subcontractors' and suppliers' abilities to comply with OHS&R requirements;

• Ensure compliance with safe work practices and procedures.



SCHEDULE – 6: RESPONDENTS SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE At City of Ryde, we are committed to Environmental protection and Ecologically Sustainable Development. As a potential supplier, your environmental performance could have an influence on our impact on the environment. Therefore, we have included this specific questionnaire in order to assess your performance in terms of environmental sustainability and biodiversity protection. The Environmental Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire will form part of the evaluation process. It is composed of two parts: Part A – Organisation’s Environmental Management Part C – Supply of Services All information is confidential and will only be used by City of Ryde for evaluating its suppliers. PART A Potential Supplier/provider Questionnaire - General Environmental Management Considerations

No. Question Yes No 1 Does your organisation have access to and an understanding of all environmental

legislation relevant to your organisation’s operations?

2 Does your organisation have, or is in the process of implementing, an Environmental Management system?

If Yes, Is it implemented and certified?

3

If yes please specify certification body

4 Does your organisation have or regularly carry out any of the followings:

4 (a) Environmental policy

4 (b) Specific Revegetation policies

4 (c) Environmental risk management plan

4 (d) Environmental correction actions

5 Does your organisation undertake monitoring programs to minimise environmental impacts?

6

Does your organisation conduct waste audits, environmental audits or monitoring programs to minimise environmental impacts? If yes please specify:

7 Does your organisation evaluate its supplier’s or sub-contractors environmental performance?

8 Does your organisation have a clean record with the EPA and other regulators - that is, no convictions or violations of EPA or other environmental regulations or licensing conditions during the past 3 years? (If No, please provide explanation on the answer sheet at the end of the questionnaire.)



PART C – Sample Specific Supplier Questionnaire – Supply of Services Service Provider: Nature of Services to be provided:

No.

Question

Yes

No

General

1 Does your company have current and documented procedures to be followed in the event of an environmental accident/incident? If yes, please provide details of these procedures

2 Are all staff trained in the application of the environmental management plan and environmental accident/incident procedures? If yes, please provide dates of the most recent training sessions and the frequency of training

“I declare that all information submitted on this form is true and correct” Signed: ______________________________ Dated:_________________



7 RYDE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE - Minutes of Meeting held 16 September 2010

Report prepared by: Senior Traffic Engineer Report dated: 15/09/2010 File No.: GRP/09/7/1/3 - BP10/562

The Ryde Traffic Committee (RTC) is a technical advisory committee which advises on and approves matters referred to it by Council. The Minutes, containing recommendations, of the Ryde Traffic Committee Meeting held on 16 September 2010 are ATTACHED for Council’s consideration. Council refers traffic related matters to the RTC prior to exercising its delegated functions, in accordance with the current RTA’s “A Guide to the Delegation to Councils for the Regulation of Traffic – including the operation of Traffic Committees”. Matters relating to classified State roads or functions are referred directly to the RTA, and are not dealt with by Council. RECOMMENDATION: That recommendations No. 1 to No. 12 inclusive, contained in the Minutes of the Ryde Traffic Committee Meeting held on 16 September 2010, be endorsed and adopted as resolutions of Council. ATTACHMENTS 1 MINUTES - RYDE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE - 16 September 2010 Report Prepared By: Harry Muker Senior Traffic Engineer Report Approved By: Anthony Ogle Manager Access Barry Hodge Acting Group Manager - Public Works



Background The individual Reports relate to specific parking, traffic and road safety issues relevant to members of the community. Report The details relating to each situation are included in each of the individual Reports. Consultation Internal Council business units consulted included:- • Council’s Business Units, as required. Internal Workshops held:- • Not applicable. City of Ryde Advisory Committees consulted included as required:- • Bicycle Advisory Committee. External public consultation included:- • NSW Police, RTA, STA, relevant Local Members of Parliament and community

organisations. • Community Surveys on specific items, as indicated. Critical Dates There are no critical dates or deadlines to be met, excepting the arrangements for the Granny Smith festival (essentially the same as previous years) which require approval to allow the Festival to proceed as organised. Financial Impact All items will be covered under the operating budget for traffic facilities and signage. Policy Implications There are no policy implications through the adoption of the recommendation. Other Options Other options have been considered and listed where appropriate in each Report. Conclusion The ATTACHED Minutes be tabled at Council for consideration and endorsement.





















8 MACQUARIE PARK FLOODPLAIN RISK MANAGEMENT STUDY & PLAN - Exhibition of Draft Report

Report prepared by: Manager Stormwater and Park Assets Report dated: 22/09/2010 File No.: GRP/10/1/001 - BP10/581

Report Summary To advise Council of the outcomes of the most recent meeting of the Macquarie Park Floodplain Risk Management Committee (FRMC) held on 19 September 2010, and to seek Council’s endorsement to publicly exhibit the draft Macquarie Park Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Council endorses the public exhibition of the draft Macquarie Park

Floodplain Risk Management Study & Plan for a period of three (3) weeks commencing in October 2010 as outlined in the report.

(b) That the outcomes of the public exhibition be the subject of a further report to

Council. ATTACHMENTS – PROVIDED UNDER SEPERATE COVER Report Prepared By: Austin Morris Manager Stormwater and Park Assets Report Approved By: Barry Hodge Acting Group Manager - Public Works



Background The floodplain risk management program is being undertaken by the City of Ryde in accordance with the process outlined in the NSW Government’s Floodplain Development Manual. The floodplain risk management process is comprised of a number of stages, including the formation of a Floodplain Risk Management Committee (FRMC), the collection of flood modelling data, the establishment of a flood model and the identification and assessment of potential flood mitigation options. The FRMC comprises Councillors, council staff, community representatives, representatives of relevant industry and commercial properties, Department of Environment, Climate Change & Water (DECCW) representatives and representatives from the State Emergency Services (SES). The focus of this project is the Macquarie Park area. This area consists of Mars Creek, Shrimptons Creek, Industrial Creek, Porters creek and Lane Cove catchments, as well as the floodplain of the Lane Cove River downstream from Fullers Bridge adjacent to River Avenue. These catchments have a combined area of approximately 1,520 hectares. Parts of these catchments have a history of flooding, with the most recent large flood events being in 1984 and 1990. The 1984 flood was approximately a 1 in 20 year flood. More than 187 houses and businesses were affected in this event. The FRMC and the appointed consultants have overseen the preparation of a flood model which has been calibrated using available data from known floods. The FRMC has also determined a preferred list of potential flood mitigation options for detailed assessment, following the results of the preliminary assessment of various options. This information was presented at the Committee of the Whole meeting on 15 June 2010. At the meeting Council resolved: “That Council endorse the list of identified flood mitigation options provided in the attached Minutes, for detailed assessment and that the outcomes of the detailed assessment be the subject of a separate report.” At the FRMC meeting of 16 September 2010 the Draft Macquarie Park Floodplain Risk Management Study & Plan was presented to the FRMC. The results of the detailed assessment of the preferred options were discussed and draft proposals finalised. This report details the material presented and recommends public exhibition of the study documents. Report The results of the detailed assessment of the preferred list of potential flood mitigation options for Macquarie Park was reviewed at the FRMC meeting of 16 September 2010. The minutes of the meeting have been circulated UNDER SEPARATE COVER.



Detailed Assessment of Preferred Structural Flood Mitigation Options The detailed assessment of the preferred list of options has now been finalised. The flood mitigation measures have been divided into High, Medium and Low Priority. The following list summarises the proposed options, divided by catchment: 1. Mars Creek Catchments

• Earthworks in Waterloo Park (Retarding Basin) to reduce the risk of flooding in the downstream properties.

• Modify Waterloo Road and Waterloo Park in order to reduce the ponding of water on the Waterloo Road.

• Improve drainage on Epping Road (Mars Ck) by lowering median strip and downslope verge to reduce the ponding of water.

• Improve Talavera Road drainage (Mars Ck) to reduce the risk of flooding to the road users.

• Drainage improvement on Epping Road (University Ck) by lowering the median strip to reduce ponding of water.

• Scoping study to assess feasibility of enlarging detention basin in Macquarie University.

2. Shrimptons Creek Catchments

• Overland flow works in Rocca Street including Voluntary Purchase (VP) of one property.

• Overland flow works in Danbury Close/Herring Road area including VP of one property.

• Overland flow works through Santa Rosa Park. • Minor works at Brendon Street sag point. • Detention basin in North Ryde Golf Club. • Overland flow works at rear of Peach Tree Road units • Creek rehabilitation along Shrimptons Creek between Kent and Epping

Roads. • Install debris control structure upstream of Shrimptons Creek culvert at

Waterloo Road.

3. Industrial Creek Catchments • VP five properties upslope of Epping Road flyover embankment and

redevelop. • Formalise Industrial Creek overland flow paths during redevelopment. • Study to address micro-scale influences on inundation regime at Rogal

Place/Fontenoy Road/Tuckwell Place, Macquarie Park. 4. Porters Creek Catchments

• Remove shrubs from entrance to ‘Officeworks’ culvert inlet • VP at least four properties upslope of Epping Road at Porters Creek and

redevelop. • Formalise Porters Creek overland flow paths during redevelopment. • Arrange MOU between SES, Council and Hills Motorway to ensure

emergency access to SES, LHQ via Porters Creek Depot.



5. Mars Creek Catchments

• Earthworks in Waterloo Park (Retarding Basin) to reduce the risk of flooding in the downstream properties.

• Modify Waterloo Road and Waterloo Park in order to reduce the ponding of water on the Waterloo Road.

• Improve drainage on Epping Road (Mars Ck) by lowering median strip and downslope verge to reduce the ponding of water.

• Improve Talavera Road drainage (Mars Ck) to reduce the risk of flooding to the road users.

• Drainage improvement on Epping Road (University Ck) by lowering the median strip to reduce ponding of water.

• Scoping study to assess feasibility of enlarging detention basin in Macquarie University.

6. Shrimptons Creek Catchments

• Overland flow works in Rocca Street including VP of one property. • Overland flow works in Danbury Close/Herring Road area including VP of

one property. • Overland flow works through Santa Rosa Park. • Minor works at Brendon Street sag point. • Detention basin in North Ryde Golf Club. • Overland flow works at rear of Peach Tree Road units • Creek rehabilitation along Shrimptons Creek between Kent and Epping

Roads. • Install debris control structure upstream of Shrimptons Creek culvert at

Waterloo Road.

7. Industrial Creek Catchments • VP five properties upslope of Epping Road flyover embankment and

redevelop. • Formalise Industrial Creek overland flow paths during redevelopment. • Study to address micro-scale influences on inundation regime at Rogal

Place/Fontenoy Road/Tuckwell Place, Macquarie Park.

8. Porters Creek Catchments • Remove shrubs from entrance to ‘Officeworks’ culvert inlet • VP at least four properties upslope of Epping Road at Porters Creek and

redevelop. • Formalise Porters Creek overland flow paths during redevelopment. • Arrange MOU between SES, Council and Hills Motorway to ensure

emergency access to SES, LHQ via Porters Creek Depot. 9. Lane Cove River Catchments

• Continue and promote the River Avenue VP scheme. • Improve Pittwater Road drainage by lowering downslope ground levels.



• Arrange MOU between SES and Northern Suburbs Crematorium to ensure emergency access to River Avenue via Quebec Road.

10. Other Measures

• Invite owners of two properties to redevelop in flood-compatible manner with Government Subsidy

• Prepare a brochure summarising potential flood-proofing techniques and distribute

• Add planning matrix for Macquarie Park to draft floodplain management DCP provisions

• Prepare City of Ryde Local Flood Plan • Prepare Macquarie University Flood Emergency Plan • Prepare Macquarie Shopping Centre Flood Emergency Plan • Consolidate Flood data into Council's GIS • Provide flood certificates at regular intervals • Prepare Flood Safe brochure for Macquarie Park.

The recommended options identified in the above table have been included in the draft Floodplain Risk Management Study & Plan. The Executive Summary of the draft Floodplain Risk Management Study and the recommended options have been circulated UNDER SEPARATE COVER. The Consultant’s PowerPoint Presentation, including the map of recommendations have been circulated UNDER SEPARATE COVER. Proposed Public Exhibition The next stage of the project involves public exhibition of the project documents, including a three (3) week period at the Ryde Civic Centre and North Ryde Library. Residents within the floodplain risk area will be notified by letter, and staff will be available for two separate nights during the exhibition period to answer questions. A notice will also be published in the local newspapers. Comments received during the exhibition phase will be incorporated into the final study and plan reports, which will be presented to the FRMC and then Council. Consultation Internal Council business units consulted included:- • Urban Planning • Assessments Internal Workshops held:- • Not Applicable City of Ryde Advisory Committees consulted included:- • Macquarie Park Floodplain Risk Management Committee External public consultation included:- • Members of the Macquarie Park FRMC.



Comments The minutes of the FRMC are listed in UNDER SEPARATE COVER. Critical Dates There are no critical dates or deadlines to be met. Financial Impact This proposal is provided for in the current budget 2010/11 Capital Budget for the Stormwater & Park Assets Unit. Policy Implications There are no policy implications through adoption of the recommendation. Other Options The Council may: • Endorse the recommendations of this report without change; • Endorse the recommendations of this report with amendments; or • Reject the recommendations of this report. It is considered, however, that the core recommendation of this report seeking endorsement to publicly exhibit the draft Macquarie Park Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan is the appropriate course of action for the City. Conclusion This report recommends public exhibition of the draft Macquarie Park Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan, for a period of three (3) weeks, starting in October. Council staff and the consultants will be available during the exhibition period to respond to any questions raised, with residents within the flood risk area being notified by letter. Submissions received as a result of the exhibition will be assessed and reported on in the final stages of the project.



9 HOUSING FOR KEY WORKERS (AFFORDABLE HOUSING)

Report prepared by: City Landscape Architect Report dated: 17/09/2010 File No.: GRP/10/4/001/3 - BP10/573

Report Summary The purpose of this report is to outline the possibility of providing affordable housing for key workers in the City of Ryde. The provision of housing for key workers, which are considered to be occupations such as police, postal workers, council workers, teachers and nurses is important for the community to ensure these sectors are living in close proximity to their workplaces. This report discusses State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (the SEPP), and the issues and recommendations from 2 reports prepared by specialist consultant, Judith Stubbs and Associates. The report recommends that Council monitor the provision of new affordable housing within the City of Ryde delivered by the SEPP and a project be undertaken to determine the feasibility of developing Council owned land with the aim of providing a range of outcomes – including affordable housing for key workers. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That a feasibility study be undertaken by the Manager Buildings and Property

on the development of a selected parcel of Council owned land that could include affordable housing for key workers within the parameters established within this report.

(b) That the impact of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 on the delivery

of new affordable housing within the City of Ryde is monitored and further reporting be provided to Council when the Department of Planning review of the SEPP is complete.

ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report. Report Prepared By: Nadine Croker City Landscape Architect Report Approved By: Meryl Bishop Manager - Urban Planning Dominic Johnson Group Manager Environment & Planning



Background Council resolved on 15 May 2007 that:

Consideration of options for affordable housing provision in Ryde be included as a consideration in the preparation of a housing strategy as part of the preparation of a Local Strategy for Ryde.

Judith Stubbs and Associates, affordable housing specialist consultants, were engaged in 2008 to prepare an affordable housing policy for the City of Ryde for incorporation into the City of Ryde Local Planning Strategy. The Stage 1 Background Report identified the key issues for affordable housing in the City of Ryde as being:

• Lack of affordable housing for rental by low to moderate income households. • Lack of affordable housing for purchase for low to moderate income

households, particularly families. • Ensuring a supply of adaptable and accessible smaller dwellings for an aging

population in new developments. • Proving affordable housing which allows people to age in place rather than

having to move away from an area where they may have support and community connections.

• Affordable housing for key workers. Options proposed by the Stage 1 report to address the need for affordable housing were:

• Awareness raising and advocacy in the need for affordable housing in the City. • Facilitate affordable housing through planning and regulatory functions. • Direct provision or management of housing by Council.

Council resolved on 2 December 2008:

That the report ‘City of Ryde Council Affordable Housing Strategy: Stage 1 Final Background Report’ prepared by Judith Stubbs and Associates and dated 31 October 2008 be endorsed. That the affordable housing project proceeds to Stage 2 – Investigation of Options for Affordable Housing. That the options for affordable housing have a particular focus on key workers, seniors and people with special needs.

Council’s Executive Team, on 16 February 2009, determined the options for the provision of affordable housing to investigate in Stage 2 of the Affordable Housing study were to be:



• The inclusion of objectives in the comprehensive LEP regarding the provision

of affordable housing; • The inclusion of height and FSR incentives in the comprehensive LEP which

allow increased development potential if affordable housing is provided; • The creation of new affordable housing through specific purpose

developments undertaken by Council in partnership with others (such as community housing providers);

• The requirements for planners, when assessing applications, to review whether or not the application would result in significant loss of affordable housing; and

• The use of Voluntary Planning Agreements to provide new affordable dwellings which would become the property of Council.

The draft Affordable Housing Strategy: Stage 2 Report prepared by Judith Stubbs and Associates was completed in July 2009. It addresses the options for the provision of affordable housing and makes the following recommendations:

• include within the comprehensive LEP a general aim, zone objectives and local clause which specifically address affordable housing;

• include within the comprehensive LEP height and FSR incentives for town centres, the purpose of these incentives being the provision of affordable housing;

• Council to undertake affordable housing developments; • assessment of the impact of the loss of affordable housing as part of the

development assessment process; and • the use of voluntary planning agreements to deliver affordable housing.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 came into effect in August 2009. It aims to encourage home owners, social housing providers and developers to invest and create new affordable rental housing to meet the needs of both a growing population and existing residents. The Department of Planning has stated that the new SEPP, in particular:

• encourages partnerships between private developers and community not-for-profit housing providers

• assists with the provision of housing close to major employment areas • mitigates against the loss of any existing affordable housing • supports innovative housing styles, including granny flats and new generation

boarding houses; and • delivers good urban design outcomes.

The SEPP is in three parts:

Part 1 - Preliminary provisions (including what is affordable housing and who it can accommodate).

Part 2 - Incentives to encourage development of various types of new



affordable rental housing. Part 3 - Encourages retention and mitigation of loss of existing affordable

rental housing. The SEPP and the Stage 2 affordable housing study were reported to Council on 17 November 2009 and Council resolved that:

The report of the Senior Strategic Planner, dated 9/11/2009 on AFFORDABLE HOUSING, be received and noted.

Report Housing for Key Workers The term key workers is usually defined as comprising the occupations of teachers, police, nurses, postal workers and council workers. The provision of affordable housing stock for these sectors, which often fall in the low-moderate income bracket, is considered necessary to ensure that these workers are living in close vicinity to their work places. The State Government defines affordable housing as housing for very low income households, low income households or moderate income households, being such households as are prescribed by the Environment and Planning Regulations or as are provided for in an environmental planning instrument. A household is taken to be a very low income household, low income household or moderate income household if the household has a gross income that is less than 120 per cent of the median household income and pays no more than 30 per cent of that gross income in rent. The median household weekly income in the City of Ryde LGA is $1,158; 120% of this amount is $1,390 (about $72,260 per annum). In total, there were 3,443 and 878 low-income households experiencing rental and mortgage stress in the Ryde LGA in 2006 (City of Ryde Affordable Housing Strategy Stage 1, Stubbs 2008). Affordable housing is also considered to be any residential development undertaken on land owned by the Land and Housing Corporation. Social housing is affordable rental housing provided by Housing NSW, the Aboriginal Housing Office, community housing organisations and housing co–operatives to low income persons who meet certain criteria. Housing need in Ryde The Affordable Housing Strategy Stage 1 report by Judith Stubbs and Associates (2008) states that:



• The housing stress analysis indicates an insufficient supply of affordable private rental properties available to all types of low-income households in Ryde LGA, especially for students, younger working singles and couples, and families with children.

• A high proportion of the Ryde LGA is aged 70 and older, with 9.4% of the population in receipt of the Aged Pension.

• Although there is currently an oversupply of Independent Living Units, a shortfall is predicted by 2021. There is a current shortfall in low and high care places in residential aged care facilities, which we forecast to be significant by 2031. The development of more high and low care facilities and an adequate amount of higher density development close to services and transport that is adaptable and accessible per relevant Australian standards, are likely to be planning priorities in the near future.

• A large proportion of in-migration to Ryde LGA is from overseas. 45% of these in-migrants from overseas are aged 20-29, approximately 20% earn below $250 a week, and this group is also much more likely than in-migrants from elsewhere in Australia to reside in group households. Overseas migrants including low-income students, workers and their dependents would be a key target group for new affordable housing.

• There are strong indications that Ryde LGA has been one of the lower cost areas in which to rent or purchase a home in the Lower North Shore, but this is changing.

- The needs of those who historically would have lived in public or community housing (such as long-term residents who are older and do not own a home, sole parents, migrants and those with a disability) have increased amid decreasing stocks of social housing, longer waiting times and increasing need. - Increasingly, those on low to moderate incomes who are employed in essential services (‘key workers’) are also in need of affordable housing, and may be a particular target for Council’s affordable housing strategy.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 As the SEPP was only relatively recently introduced, the full impact of it has not yet become evident. Since January 2010 Council has received development applications for 12 granny flats and 1 boarding house. This includes development applications approved by private certifiers. There have also been over 100 developments constructed in the City under the Department of Housing’s ‘Nation Building Economic Stimulus’ program. These developments bypass Council’s planning process. Given that the supply of new affordable housing provided under the SEPP in Ryde by the private sector is minimal, it is suggested that Council monitor the delivery of affordable housing over a 3 year time period to ascertain if additional local planning provisions are required to increase the supply of this housing stock. A review of the SEPP is currently being undertaken by the Department of Planning and a discussion paper will be available by the end of 2010.



Options for providing Affordable Housing for key workers If Council was to pursue affordable housing for key workers, the recommended options are:

a) Undertake affordable housing developments. b) Introduce development incentives for the provisions of a affordable housing

within Council’s planning controls. c) Use Voluntary Planning Agreements to deliver affordable housing.

If Council is to pursue option a) it is suggested that such be initially confined to provision of housing for key workers. The viability of such an approach could be assessed by a feasibility study over the development of a selected parcel of Council owned land to deliver a range of outcomes to Council, including affordable housing for key workers. It is envisaged that the feasibility and modelling would need to explore the elements among others such as alternative approaches to undertaking the development (including joint ventures and partnerships), risks, financial and economic viability, sustainability and the most apporiate development mix. This work would be undertaken as part of the key deliverable of Optimal Use forming part of the Buildings and Property Unit’s service unit plan for 2010/2011. The intention would be to explore the appropriateness of such a development for inclusion in the proposed Property Fund, which will be the subject of a further report to Council in 2011. The provision of new affordable housing within the City of Ryde can be delivered in a number of ways:

• through the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009; • Council participating in afforadable housing developments, particularly through

joint ventures or partnerships with other; and • through new developments using planning incentives and planning

agreements. Consultation Internal Council business units consulted included:- Buildings and Property. Internal Workshops held:- Not applicable. Critical Dates There are no critical dates or deadlines to be met. Financial Impact Adoption of the option(s) outlined in this report will have no financial impact. Policy Implications



There are no policy implications through adoption of the recommendation. Conclusion The provision of new affordable housing within City of Ryde can be delivered in a number of ways:

• through the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009; • Council undertaking its own affordable housing developments; and • through new development using planning incentives and planning agreements.



10 CITY WIDE EVENTS AND PROMOTIONS COMMITTEE

Report prepared by: Manager - Community Relations and Events Report dated: 2/08/2010 File No.: GRP/10/2/001/3 - BP10/439

Report Summary This report outlines the role of the existing Eastwood Events and Promotions Advisory Committee and considers other town centre specific Events and Promotions Committees and/or a City Wide Events and Promotions Committee as requested by Council. RECOMMENDATION: That Council continue with the Eastwood Events and Promotions Committee to conduct activities in Eastwood town centre and Council to continue to manage and support other events. ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report. Report Prepared By: Derek McCarthy Manager - Community Relations and Events Report Approved By: Simone Schwarz Group Manager - Community Life



Background Currently the City of Ryde administers the Eastwood Events and Promotions Committee which is responsible for:

• organising entertainment and events in the Eastwood Town Centre;

• fund or co-funding any capital and maintenance improvements, within agreed budgets and delegations of staff, in the Eastwood Town Centre which may be seen to be over and above the levels of service expected of Council.

• managing and monitoring the presentation of merchandise on display within Eastwood Plaza.

• considering and making recommendation on any matters which Council may refer to it.

In addition to this committee there are two sub-committees being the Granny Smith Festival Committee and the Lunar New Year Committee both which report back to the Eastwood Events and Promotions Committee. This committee was established as Council is directly responsible for the Eastwood Plaza area. Report Currently there are a range of events staged throughout the City of Ryde which are either managed by the Council, supported by Council through funding and support or events conducted by third parties. The table below outlines some of the key events that Council has an involvement in. Event Schedule Event Location Managed By Australia Day Family Concert and Fireworks

North Ryde Common, North Ryde

CoR

Cinema in the Park Various CoR Harmony Day Ryde Park, Ryde CoR – Advisory

Committee Lunar New Year Eastwood CoR – Advisory

Committee Community Prayer Breakfast

Civic Centre, Ryde CoR – Taskforce

Granny Smith Festival Eastwood CoR – Advisory Committee

Community Christmas Celebration

Ryde Park, Ryde CoR

Carols in the Plaza Eastwood CoR – Advisory Committee

Ryde Eisteddfod Various Ryde Eisteddfod



Committee – supported by CoR

Ryde Rivers Festival Kissing Point Park, Putney Gladesville Rotary – supported by CoR

Ryde Art Show North Ryde Ryde Arts Society – supported by CoR

Community Christmas Carols

North Ryde Common, North Ryde

Rotary Club of North Ryde – supported by CoR

West Ryde Easter Fair West Ryde West Ryde Chamber of Commerce – supported by CoR

The events listed above are either managed or supported by Council through the Community Relations and Events area of Council in addition to these events other events/activities are co-ordinated for specific projects i.e. Youth Week, Seniors Week, park openings etc. The current mix of events and how they are managed works very well with the resources available, the support Council gives to organisations ensures a wider range of events without Council having to take a lead role in their management. Eastwood Events and Promotions Committee The current Eastwood Events and Promotions Committee’s role is for:

• organising entertainment and events in the Eastwood Town Centre;

• fund or co-funding any capital and maintenance improvements, within agreed budgets and delegations of staff, in the Eastwood Town Centre which may be seen to be over and above the levels of service expected of Council.

• managing and monitoring the presentation of merchandise on display within Eastwood Plaza.

• considering and making recommendation on any matters which Council may refer to it.

This committee was established as Council has the responsibility to manage the Eastwood Plaza, currently there are no other retail locations where Council has this role, however this may change after the completion of the West Ryde development.

Options to manage events throughout the City of Ryde

Option 1.

Establish a City Wide Events and Promotions Committee to oversee all events conducted throughout the City.



This option may see Council taking on additional responsibility from Community groups who are currently managing events that Council currently supports. The current arrangement Council has with community organisations has those groups responsible for the management of the event however they are supported by Council with funding, infrastructure and advice.

The implementation of additional committees and events would require additional resources currently not budgeted for in the 2010/11 budget, these include staff resources and budget for the conduct of additional events.

Option 2.

Establish Town Centre specific Events and Promotions Committee’s.

There does not appear to currently be a demand to establish numerous committees to administer events in other areas i.e. West Ryde, Gladesville, Top Ryde. As outlined in the event schedule above, the events in these town centres are managed by agencies and supported by Council, this current arrangement works efficiently with the resources available.

If there was a demand for additional committees to be established at other town centres resources would need to be made available for staffing and managing and conducting events.

Option 3.

Continue with the Eastwood Events and Promotions Committee to conduct activities in Eastwood town centre and Council to continue to manage and support other events.

The Eastwood Events and promotions Committee works well as there are a number of annual events and regular activities managed by Council conducted in the Plaza and surrounds.

Report continued.

In addition the management of Council events throughout the City and the support given to community organisations ensures a great variety of activities and locations are achieved. This option also shares the responsibility of conducting events between Council and the community.

Currently the Community Relations and Events service Unit area have 1.5 staff managing events, which include citizenship ceremonies, Granny Smith Festival, Australia Day, Cinema in the Park, Awards evenings, prayer breakfast, Christmas Carols and Celebrations in addition these staff assist the community organisations with events that Council support.



In comparison, Parramatta Council who conduct a similar events program to the City of Ryde have 6 equivalent staff,

Consultation Internal Council business units consulted included:- • Not Applicable Internal Workshops held:- • Not Applicable City of Ryde Advisory Committees consulted included:- • Eastwood Events & Promotions Committee External public consultation included:- • Not Applicable Critical Dates There are no critical dates or deadlines to be met. Financial Impact It is estimated that the total cost of Option 1 or 2 as outlined above would be approximately $200,000 p.a. for staff resources and funds to establish additional events. This proposal is not provided for in the current budget 2010/11 and could be funded from revenue allocation in the next Management Plan 2011/12. The on-going cost of maintaining this proposal is $200,000 and could be included in future operation budgets. This includes resources for an additional staff and resources to establish and conduct events. Policy Implications There are no policy implications through adoption of the recommendation. Other Options Council may select to either establish an alternate method to administer the management of events throughout the City. Conclusion The current method Council undertakes to manage events throughout the City gives Council ownership of its own events and empowers community organisations to meet the needs of the community.



11 GRANNY SMITH FESTIVAL PROTOCOLS

Report prepared by: Manager - Community Relations and Events Report dated: 23/09/2010 File No.: GRP/10/2/001/3 - BP10/586

Report Summary At its meeting on 7 September 2010 it was raised at the Granny Smith Festival organising committee meeting to allow for all entries in The Weekly Times Granny Smith Festival Queen to be allowed on stage for the official opening. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt either Option 1 or 2 for the involvement of The Weekly Times Granny Smith Festival Queens in the Granny Smith Festival official opening. ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report. Report Prepared By: Derek McCarthy Manager - Community Relations and Events Report Approved By: Simone Schwarz Group Manager - Community Life



Background As part of the Granny Smith Festival, The Weekly Times conduct the Granny Smith Festival Queen as an independent promotion. For a number of years at the direction of Council the committee had allowed for the winner and runner up of the contest to be present on the main stage during the official opening ceremony. The decision to only allow 2 of the entrants on to the stage was to allow a more streamlined ceremony as the entrants need to be escorted from a vehicle onto the stage, in addition the Weekly Times conduct the activity as their own promotion and do not contribute to the festival as a sponsor. Report At the Granny Smith organising committee meeting it was raised to change the number of The Weekly Times Festival Queens from two (winner and runner up) to all entrants. For a number of years only two entrants have joined the VIP’s which includes Councillors, local MP’s, sponsors and Granny Smith descendants on stage for the official opening ceremony. The staging of the street parade and official opening is an integral part of the festival and has become more complex due to the participation levels. Council staff have worked with police and the SES to minimise the impacts of the parade to festival patrons and ensure that it is entertaining, minimal stoppages and an opportunity for the community to be involved. The whole parade is required to stop for each person participating in the parade that has to alight a vehicle to go on stage. The presence of a large unknown number of participants from one promotional activity on the Official stage over represents the festival queen competition to other participants in the parade. Importantly it also diminishes sponsors input and Councils role as the festival organisers. This year the focus is on the 25th Anniversary of the festival and the 100th birthday of Edna Spurway, Great Grand-daughter of Granny Smith. Edna Spurway and family will be present on the day as special guests. Consultation Internal Council business units consulted included:- • Not applicable Internal Workshops held:- • Not Applicable City of Ryde Advisory Committees consulted included:- • Not Applicable The matter was raised at the Granny Smith Festival organising committee. External public consultation included:- • Not Applicable



Critical Dates The following deadlines are required to be met: The next meeting for the Granny Smith Festival organising committee will be Wednesday 6 October 2010 with the festival being held on Saturday 16 October 2010. Financial Impact Adoption of the option(s) outlined in this report will have no financial impact. Policy Implications *There are no policy implications through adoption of the recommendation. Other Options Council may consider one of the options as outlined below:

1. That Council approve the Weekly Times to have two entrants, winner and runner up of the Granny Smith Festival Queen competition to participate on stage for the official opening.

2. That Council approve the Weekly Times to have all entrants of the Granny

Smith Festival Queen competition to participate on stage for the official opening.

Conclusion The Granny Smith Festival is the premier event for City of Ryde and Council as the organiser should be recognised by the community.



12 NSROC TENDER 10/10 - Supply, Supply and Delivery, and Supply Delivery and Laying of Asphaltic Concrete

Report prepared by: Senior Roads Engineer - Assets Report dated: 15/09/2010 File No.: COR2010/726 - BP10/564

Report Summary This report is to advise Council of the outcomes of the NSROC Request for Tender 10/10 and recommends acceptance of Schedule of Rates relating to the Supply; Supply and Delivery; and Supply Delivery and Laying of Asphaltic Concrete and Associated Works up until 30 June 2011. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Council accepts the tenders from the Companies in the following

categories:

Category 1: For Supply, Delivery and Laying of Asphaltic Concrete, and Profiling of Road Pavement works:

• Boral Asphalt as the preferred contractor. • Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd as the alternative contractor.

Category 2: For Heavy Patching works: • Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd as the preferred contractor. • OzPave Pty Ltd, and • AJ Paving Pty Ltd as the alternative contractors.

Category 3: For Crack Sealing: • National Road Sealing Pty Ltd as preferred contractor. • D & M Excavations and Asphalting Pty Ltd as the alternative

contractor.

Category 4: For the Supply Only of Asphaltic Concrete Products including Cold Mix:

• Boral Asphalt as the preferred contractor. • Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd, and • SRS Roads Pty Ltd as the alternative contractors.

Category 5: For Supply and Delivery of Asphaltic Concrete Products including Cold Mix:

• Boral Asphalt as the preferred contractor. • Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd as the alternative contractor.

(b) That the unsuccessful tenderers be advised accordingly.



ATTACHMENTS Provided under separate cover. Report Prepared By: Kumar Satkumaran Senior Roads Engineer - Assets Report Approved By: Anthony Ogle Manager Access Barry Hodge Acting Group Manager - Public Works



Background Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (NSROC) calls annual tenders for asphalting and associated works on behalf of six (6) of the seven (7) NSROC Councils and has done so for the past eleven (12) years. Rates are sought for each individual Council in the NSROC Schedule of Rates tender document and it is then up to each Council to determine the most cost effective tender. Works are undertaken on an “as and when required” basis and paid by the unit rates tendered. Council spends approximately $2.3 million on asphalt works covered under this annual tender out of the total allocation of $3.3 million for the road works program. Due to the extensive restoration works required to be undertaken where Energy Australia laid cables, it is anticipated another $500,000 will be spent under this contract. Report The Request for Tender was publicly advertised on 13 July 2010 and closed on 4 August 2010. Tender submissions were received from the following respondents in alphabetical order:

o A J Paving o Boral Asphalt o D & M Excavations & Asphalting Pty Ltd o Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd o J & M Schembri Pty Ltd o KK Civil Engineering o National Road Sealing o Ozpave (Aust) Pty Ltd o Roadworx Surfacing Pty Ltd o Sharpe Brothers Pty Ltd o SRS Roads Pty Ltd o Stateline Asphalt Pty Ltd.

The following tender was received after the nominated closing time and has been excluded from further consideration:

o State Asphalt Services Pty Ltd. A tender evaluation panel consisting of three (3) Council staff was established to assess the responses: The Tender Evaluation Report has been forwarded UNDER SEPARATE COVER for Councillors and is ON FILE – CONFIDENTIAL. The tender rates are only ON FILE – CONFIDENTIAL. Pursuant to Section 10A(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1993, these document are listed as confidential as that contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed, prejudice the commercial position of the persons who supplied it.



The assessment was based on the following criteria as outlined in the Request for Tender document:

o Price o Plant and Equipment o Labour Resources o Previous Experience o Quality Systems.

A significant proportion of the works under this contract will be Supply, Delivery and Laying of Asphaltic Concrete; Profiling of Road Pavements and Heavy Patching. Profiling of Road Pavements and Supply Delivery and Laying of Asphaltic Concrete works go hand in hand, hence the assessment was combined for the selection of contractor. The recommended tenderers were assessed to be the best value for Council for the relevant category. Consultation Internal Council business units consulted included:- • Operations. Internal Workshops held:- • Not Applicable. City of Ryde Advisory Committees consulted included:- • Not Applicable. External public consultation included:- • Not Applicable. Critical Dates There are no critical dates or deadlines to be met. Financial Impact Adoption of the options outlined in this report will have no financial impact other than enable expenditure against the approved capital works program. Various projects utilise this contract are provided for in the current budget (2010/11 Capital Works and Operating Budgets) Policy Implications There are no policy implications through adoption of the recommendation. Other Options Not Applicable.



Conclusion All tender submissions have been effectively assessed in compliance with Council’s procurement policy. Following the assessment process, it was determined that recommended tenderers provided the most cost-effective and value for money tenders to the Council, and thus, are recommended for acceptance.

Date post:	17-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times