Proposal Consultation Planning or Policy Implications · The scale of development in the planning...

COUNCIL 27 JULY 2010

207

Centre LEP, and input from workshops with Councillors. These key directions are used as the basis for the assessment of the planning proposal for 12 Coronation Parade, Enfield. The report on the draft Comprehensive LEP proposes to apply a B2 Local Centre zone to all the BPSO business zones along Liverpool Road and Coronation Parade, Enfield. This Local Centre zone will have a broadly consistent character and function of providing some local retailing together with service activities such as restaurants and pubs that have a larger catchment, as well as housing on top of street-front businesses. The development standards envisaged for the Local Centre zone in this locality are:

A height limit of 20m, consistent with the 6 storeys limit adopted in the Vision Document. Currently the BPSO imposes height limits of 4 or 5 storeys (equivalent to 15m-18m).

A maximum FSR of 2.25:1. While the Vision Document did not indicate an FSR for the area, 2.25:1 works consistently with the height limit, having regard to achievement of adequate building setbacks and separations, and the desired character of the area. The BPSO imposes a 1.5:1 maximum FSR.

A Building Height Plane (BHP) on the southern side of land in the Local Centre zone, where adjoining low density residential development may be impacted;

A maximum residential floor space control to ensure an appropriate balance between commercial/retail development and residential development.

Proposal This report assesses the planning proposal for 12 Coronation Parade, Enfield in the context of the draft Comprehensive LEP and recommends that Council resolve not to proceed with it due to major inconsistencies with the key planning directions for the locality in which it is located. It further recommends that the applicant be advised to amend the planning proposal in line with the key directions of the draft Comprehensive LEP for the locality and provide a full assessment of the proposal before further consideration is given by Council. Consultation The submitted planning proposal suggests that 14 days exhibition would be adequate community consultation under the Department of Plannings (DOP) Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals as it is of a relatively minor nature with minimal direct impacts. The nature and duration of community consultation would be determined by the DOP as part of the gateway determination process. The applicant will also be afforded an opportunity to comment or lodge a submission to Council regarding the proposed zoning of the subject land and associated development standards as part of the public exhibition of the draft Comprehensive LEP when that stage is reached. Planning or Policy Implications The submitted planning proposal asserts that it is justified by:

Consistency with the 2004 Vision Document and previous land use planning for the area including the Broadway Masterplan;

The precedent set by approval of the development at Nos. 320a 338 Liverpool Road, which has the same zoning as the subject land;

The increased opportunities for commercial and residential development including more housing choice, improved pedestrian safety and amenity;

Consistency with Metropolitan Strategy objectives to boost development in areas with good public transport;


208

No inconsistency with State policies or s.117 Directions, or adverse environmental impacts;

Positive social and economic impacts including job creation;

Adequate public infrastructure for the proposed development;

Rezoning should not await Councils Comprehensive LEP as the State Government wants councils to expedite proposals that encourage development and employment in NSW.

Comment on the proposal The scale of development in the planning proposal for 12 Coronation Parade, involving a maximum FSR of 3.5:1 and a height of 7 storeys, is well in excess of the development standards currently applying in the BPSO, and to the planning parameters for the locality envisaged in the draft Comprehensive LEP. The development standards of a 20m height limit and 2.25:1 maximum FSR in the draft Comprehensive LEP reflect Councils intentions for the future of the locality adopted in the Vision Document, and will still allow for increased development capability, more housing and employment growth compared to the BPSO controls, while ensuring improvements to the character of the area, and to pedestrian and vehicular safety. In addition, the planning proposals maximum FSR of 3.5:1 is excessive in the context of the centres hierarchy in Burwood LGA, which gives primacy to Burwood Major Centre and to a lesser extent Strathfield Town Centre, that are located close to key transport nodes. The proposed maximum FSR for 12 Coronation Parade will exceed the maximum FSRs already applying in the Burwood Town Centre LEPs Perimeter and Transition Areas, and envisaged in the draft Comprehensive LEP to apply in Strathfield Town Centre. Development standards in the draft Comprehensive LEP are predicated on an appropriate relationship between Burwoods centres. The planning proposal seeks to reproduce the scale of the existing mixed commercial and residential development at Nos. 320a-338 Liverpool Road, Enfield, which comprises 6 storeys fronting Liverpool Road having a 7th floor setback from the street, and 5 storeys having a 6th floor setback from the building alignment to Cervetto Lane, with an overall FSR up to 3.5:1. This development was approved under LEP 57, gazetted on 6 September 2002, which added Clause 78R to the BPSO, in a process facilitated by the involvement of the DOPs then Urban Design Advisory Service (UDAS). The development at Nos. 320a-338 Liverpool Road, Enfield, was a one-off approval that is regarded by Council staff as an overdevelopment of the site. Dating from 2002, prior to the Vision Document, it does not set a precedent for the area, and should not serve as the standard for future development. If this development is accepted as a precedent, then potentially it could extended to all business zones along Liverpool Road and Coronation Parade. The Broadway Masterplan cited by the applicant also does not provide a precedent or justification for the planning proposal. This document may have provided some planning framework for the rezoning of Nos. 320a-338 Liverpool Road at the time. However it has been superseded by Councils adoption of the Vision Document and has no formal status. The development standards envisaged for the locality in the draft Comprehensive LEP are considered to adequately support State Government policies and Metropolitan Strategy objectives for Burwood LGA in respect of capability for housing and employment growth, without the need to adopt the excessive development scale involved in the planning proposal. There are several other planning matters that are insufficiently considered in the submitted planning proposal.

It does not address vehicle access and traffic impacts. There is no opportunity for rear access to the site, necessitating ingress and egress being provided by Coronation Parade. This is a classified road and a bus stop is located outside the site.


209

It does not consider that the development of 12 Coronation Parade may result in the creation of an isolated site on part of No. 19 Byer Street. This is an L-shaped allotment the bulk of which abuts the rear of subject property and is zoned General Business 3(a). The rest of 19 Byer St is zoned Residential 2(b2). The applicant should demonstrate that orderly and economic use and development of the adjoining property also included in the BPSO 3(a) zone can be achieved.

Site remediation arising from the previous petrol station use will be required.

Concurrence from the Roads & Traffic Authority (RTA) under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and compliance of Section 101 of SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007, including any implications regarding traffic generating development, may be required.

The planning proposal states that issues such as contamination, open space, parking and streetscape improvements will be dealt with at DA stage. However, approval of the planning proposal would result in a spot rezoning of a single site with specific maximum development standards well in excess of those in the BPSO, and without a supporting DCP. The spot rezoning would amount to an in-principle approval of the proposed development scale and accordingly it is appropriate that these planning issues be considered at the planning proposal stage rather than at the DA stage. Financial Implications There are no financial implications for Council. Options Council may endorse the planning proposal to allow development of 12 Coronation Parade, Enfield as proposed. This option is not recommended as it will be inconsistent with the key planning principles adopted for the locality in the Vision Document and incorporated in the draft Comprehensive LEP. It will also set an undesirable precedent which may have to be extended to all business-zoned land in the locality. Council may resolve to progress the matter as part of the draft Comprehensive LEP for the whole LGA. This option may cause considerable delay for the applicant and property owner for the development of the land and is accordingly not recommended. The applicant can be advised that Council would be prepared to consider a planning proposal that complies with the development standards envisaged for the area in the draft Comprehensive LEP. This option is recommended. Conclusion The planning proposal as submitted should not be supported as it does not provide a complete assessment and due to its substantial departures from both current development standards and those prepared for the locality in the draft Comprehensive LEP. As Council may consider support of the development in principle, the applicant should be advised to submit a revised planning proposal that complies with the planning parameters for the area as set out in the draft Comprehensive LEP.

Recommendations 1. That Council not support the planning proposal for 12 Coronation Parade, Enfield as

submitted, due to its substantial departures from current development standards and those envisaged for the site and locality in the draft Comprehensive LEP.

2. That the applicant be advised that Council would be prepared to give further consideration to a planning proposal that fully addresses all necessary matters set out in the DOPs guidelines and that complies with the key development standards and planning principles


210

for the site and locality in the draft Comprehensive LEP.

3. That subject to receipt of the information required above, the matter be reported back to Council.

4. That the applicant be advised in writing of Councils resolution.

Attachments 1 Planning Proposal for 12 Coronation Parade, Enfield 9

Pages

2 Sketch of proposed mixed use commercial and residential development at 12 Coronation Parade, Enfield.

1 Page

ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 64/10 Planning Proposal for land at 12 Coronat ion Parade, Enfield Planning Proposal for 12 Coronation Parade, Enfield

211


212


213


214


215


216


217


218


219

ATTACHMENT 2 ITEM 64/10 Planning Proposal for land at 12 Coronat ion Parade, Enfield Sketch of proposed mixed use commercial and residen tial development at 12 Coronation Parade, Enfield.

220


221

(ITEM 65/10) MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE BURWOOD TOWN CENTRE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN UNDER SECTION 73A

File No: F08/3302 REPORT BY DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT Summary This report seeks Councils endorsement of a minor amendment to the Burwood Local Environmental Plan (Burwood Town Centre) 2010 in relation to the numbering of heritage items on the Heritage Map. Section 73A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 provides for expedited amendments of environmental planning instruments in circumstances such as these.

Proposal The Burwood Local Environmental Plan (Burwood Town Centre) 2010 (the LEP) and its accompanying maps were notified and became effective on 10 May 2010. However, a minor required change has been identified upon the notified Heritage Map. The numbering system used to identify heritage items on the Heritage Map needs to correspond with the numbers in Schedule 5 of the written instrument. Accordingly, the numbers upon the Heritage Map require alteration. The required change does not affect the protection of the heritage items, but alteration of the numbering system would avoid potential confusion by the community when comparing the schedule of heritage items with the Heritage Map. Alteration of the map numbering is sought in the interests of clarity. Section 73A of the EP&A Act allows specific types of minor amendments to be made to environmental planning instruments without the requirement of public exhibition of an amending LEP. The provision covers specific amendments, including description, numbering and spelling etc. The Department of Plannings (DOP) Planning Circular PS 06-014 provides further information on the Section 73A provisions and guidance on the process to be followed (refer Attachment 1). In making an application to the DOP for a Section 73A amendment, the Council is required to make a resolution in respect to the matter and submit to the DOP a completed pro-forma submission. A submission has been prepared at Attachment 2, which sets out the justification for the proposed minor amendment. The submission is also in accordance with the procedure outlined in the DOPs Guide to Preparing Local Environmental Plans for circumstances where the DOP may dispense with all or part of the usual plan making process, such as community consultation. This report seeks the Councils endorsement of the submission to the DOP for a minor amendment to the LEP under Section 73A. Consultation A minor amendment under Section 73A does not require public exhibition or consultation with property owners because the change is of an administrative nature and it would not have any material effect on-the-ground. Consultation with the DOP has indicated that the matter may be addressed as a minor amendment under Section 73A and requires a resolution to make the minor amendment from Council, instead of the Burwood Town Centre Planning Panel, who has finished its role when the LEP came into force. Planning or Policy Implications The application under Section 73A would seek to make a minor amendment in the Heritage Map. The amendment would ensure that the LEP instrument and maps remain accurate and user-friendly.


222

The affect of the amendment is set out in the table below:

Property Address Item Number as Shown in Schedule

5 of the LEP

Item Number as Shown Incorrectly upon the Heritage

Map 134A Burwood Road, Burwood 9 15 135-139 Burwood Road, Burwood 10 9 157-159 Burwood Road, Burwood 11 10 166 Burwood Road, Burwood 12 11 168A Burwood Road, Burwood 13 16 170-174 Burwood Road, Burwood 14 12 171-171C, 185D, 185E and 187 Burwood Road 15 13 185-185A Burwood Road, Burwood 16 14 Note: The DOP numbering protocol involves an I prefix for each number, which should not be confused with the number 1.

Versions of the notified and updated Heritage Map are shown at Attachment 3 and Attachment 4 respectively. Financial Implications There are no direct financial implications for Council as a result of this report. Options An option is to not progress the minor amendment. This may cause confusion upon comparing the schedule of heritage items with the Heritage Map. The recommended option is that the minor amendment be sought such that the required change be made. Conclusion Councils endorsement is sought for a minor amendment to the LEP to rectify the numbering of heritage items on the Heritage Map under the provisions of Section 73A of the EP&A Act. It is recommended that a submission be forwarded to the Department of Planning to progress this matter.

Recommendation(s) 1. That Council note the contents of the report.

2. That Council endorse the submission to the Department of Planning for a minor amendment to Burwood Local Environmental Plan (Burwood Town Centre) 2010 involving the numbering upon the Heritage Map under Section 73A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Attachments 1 Planning Circular PS 06-014 - Minor amendments to local environmental plans

using section 73A 3 Pages

2 Section 73A Pro-Forma Submission 2 Pages

3 Heritage Map as Notified 1 Page 4 Heritage Map with Amendments 1 Page

ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 65/10 Minor Amendment to the Burwood Town Cent re Local Environmental Plan under Section 73A Planning Circular PS 06-014 - Minor amendments to l ocal environmental plans using section 73A

223


224


225

ATTACHMENT 2 ITEM 65/10 Minor Amendment to the Burwood Town Cent re Local Environmental Plan under Section 73A Section 73A Pro-Forma Submission

226

Part A. Council to complete

Subject : LEP Amendment No. 1 - Amendment of Item Numbering Upon Heritage Map Report requesting the making of amending local environmental plan under section 70 and section 73A.

Background :

Burwood Council resolved on 27 July 2010, to amend Burwood Local Environmental Plan (Burwood Town

Centre) 2010 (the LEP) and to request that the Minister for Planning make the plan under section 70 and

section 73A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The draft amending plan is attached. (Attach copy of resolution.)

The land to which this amendment applies is: Heritage items numbered 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 in Schedule 5 of the LEP, being 134A Burwood Road; 135-139 Burwood Road; 157-159 Burwood Road; 166 Burwood Road; 168A Burwood Road; 170-174 Burwood Road; 171-171C, 185D, 185E and 187 Burwood Road; and 185-185A Burwood Road respectively.

Why there is a need for the amendment : The numbering used to identify heritage items in Schedule 5 of the LEP needs to correspond with the numbering of those same items upon the Heritage Map. Accordingly, the Heritage Map requires amendment.

What the amendment does : The amendment would amend the numbering of heritage items upon the Heritage Map such that the numbers correspond to Schedule 5.

Why the amending plan is suitable to be made in acc ordance with section 73A : Planning Circular PS 06-014 states that a minor discrepancy between the map and the written instrument would be an example of a misdescription under Section 73A of the Act. The proposed amendment is consistent with the aforementioned example given within the Circular. Amendment of the map numbering is of an administrative nature and would not have any material effect on-the-ground.

The council requests that the Minister agree to make draft LEP Amendment No. 1 Signed: Date: .... Name: Ian Dencker Position: Director Planning and Environment On behalf of: Burwood Council

ATTACHMENT 2 ITEM 65/10 Minor Amendment to the Burwood Town Cent re Local Environmental Plan under Section 73A Section 73A Pro-Forma Submission

227

Part B. Department of Planning use only

Date of referral to LEP Review Panel : ...... (Insert date) Department position : The draft LEP amendment has been considered by the Department and it is satisfied that the amendment can be considered as a minor amendment under section 73A (see advice tagged A). Parliamentary Counsel opinion : The Parliamentary Counsel has provided an opinion indicating that the plan may legally be made (tagged B). Recommendation : It is recommended that the Minister:

(a) under sections 70(1)(a) and (8) and section 73A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 make ......tagged B)

(Name of LEP) (b) authorise the Department to advise council of the Ministers decision. Date: Signed: Name: ... Position:

for Director-General

ATTACHMENT 3 ITEM 65/10 Minor Amendment to the Burwood Town Cent re Local Environmental Plan under Section 73A Heritage Map as Notified

228

ATTACHMENT 4 ITEM 65/10 Minor Amendment to the Burwood Town Cent re Local Environmental Plan under Section 73A Heritage Map with Amendments

229


230

(ITEM 66/10) REPEAL OF OBSOLETE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN PARTS AND COUNCIL GUIDELINES

File No: F08/140412 REPORT BY DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT Summary In accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, this report seeks Councils endorsement to repeal Development Control Plan (DCP) Part 2 Marmaduke Street, DCP Part 7 Post-Supported Verandahs in the Burwood Town Centre and DCP Part 8 General Residential Development which have been superseded as a result of DCP Part 36 - Burwood Town Centre which came into effect on 10 May 2010. The report also seeks Councils endorsement to repeal seven (7) obsolete Council guidelines which are inconsistent with current Council policy documents.

Background Following the notification of the Burwood Town Centre Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and supporting Development Control Plan (DCP) Part 36 Burwood Town Centre which both came into effect on 10 May 2010, there are three existing DCP Parts and several guidelines which are no longer current and/or contain obsolete and inconsistent information. This report seeks Councils endorsement to repeal these documents. Proposal In accordance with Clause 22 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Regulation 2000, it is proposed to repeal the following three (3) DCP Parts, as a result of DCP Part 36 Burwood Town Centre becoming effective recently:

DCP Part 2 Marmaduke Street DCP Part 7 Post Supported Verandahs in the Burwood Town Centre DCP Part 8 General Residential Development

It is also proposed to repeal the following seven (7) Council guidelines, as the information contained within them has been covered in other DCP Parts or other available documents, e.g. State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs).

Locality/Streetscape Analysis: Commercial Buildings guidelines Locality/Streetscape Analysis: Residential Flat Buildings guidelines Locality/Streetscape Analysis: Single House Residential Areas guidelines Guidelines to the Subdivision of Land for Single Dwelling Residential Development Swimming Pool Safety Fencing and Pool Drownings guidelines Guidelines for the Use of Mechanical Parking Systems Rainwater Tanks in Heritage Conservation Areas or Heritage Listed Properties

guidelines Consultation Internal consultation with the Building and Development team was undertaken in preparing this report. Should Council resolve to adopt the recommendations of this report, public notices will be placed in the local newspaper in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Regulation.


231

Planning or Policy Implications Repealing the obsolete policy documents will reduce the likelihood of confusion and misinterpretation of Council information. The main provisions of the documents to be repealed and the reasons for repeal are explained below. (1) DCP Part 2 Marmaduke Street This DCP Part was initially adopted by Council on 10 March 1981. It applies to the land bounded by Shaftesbury Road, George Street, Marmaduke Street and Deane Street which is known as the Marmaduke Street precinct. The DCP Part sets out the residential densities, site area provisions and transport planning for the precinct. The DCP Part is inconsistent with the recently notified Burwood Town Centre LEP and subordinate DCP Part 36 Burwood Town Centre, which envisages high-density mixed use development in the Burwood Town Centre. Thus, the DCP Part should be repealed as it has been superseded by DCP Part 36 Burwood Town Centre. (2) DCP Part 7 Post Supported Verandahs in the Burwood Town Centre This DCP Part was initially adopted by Council on 25 May 1999. It encourages the reconstruction of post-supported verandahs and balconies on buildings to their original design in the Burwood Town Centre and where appropriate, encourages the development of post-supported verandahs on new buildings in the Burwood Town Centre. The DCP Part is inconsistent with the recently notified Burwood Town Centre LEP and subordinate DCP Part 36 Burwood Town Centre, which envisages high-density modern commercial development with cantilevered awnings within the Burwood Town Centre. Thus, the DCP Part should be repealed as it has been superseded by DCP Part 36 Burwood Town Centre. (3) DCP Part 8 General Residential Development This DCP Part was initially adopted by Council on 25 January 2000. It supplements LEP 35 and provides development standards for the assessment of residential development that may be classified as low, medium or high density. It refers to the superseded Single Dwelling Houses Code as well as the Local/Streetscape Analysis guidelines which are also recommended to be repealed as part of this report. It also contains development controls for dual occupancy development of heritage listed properties. DCP Part 8 is inconsistent with several recent Council planning documents including DCP Part 38 Single Dwelling Houses and Ancillary Structures. Medium and high density developments are addressed in DCP Part 18 Residential Flat Buildings and DCP Part 36 Burwood Town Centre. The appropriate management of heritage listed properties is also addressed in the aforementioned DCP Parts. Thus, DCP Part 8 should be repealed as it has become obsolete. (4) Locality/Streetscape Analysis: Commercial Buildings Adopted by Council on 7 December 1999, this document aims to guide the design of commercial buildings in areas including the Burwood Town Centre. According to these guidelines, the design of commercial development should include: identification of the dominant style and materials of buildings in the street, design of rear of buildings including parking and loading bays, landscaping of rear areas, rear and side streets as buffer zones, opportunities for good design and amenity, heritage considerations and that commercial buildings should fit sympathetically into the existing built environment.


232

These guidelines are superseded with DCP Part 36 Burwood Town Centre, which contains detailed development controls on building design, transport and parking, heritage conservation, communal and private open space that characterise the future commercial development within the Burwood Town Centre. Accordingly, the Locality/Streetscape Analysis should be repealed. (5) Locality/Streetscape Analysis: Residential Flat Buildings (RFBs) Adopted by Council on 5 October 1999, this document aims to guide the development of RFBs throughout the local government area (LGA). The guidelines contain a range of matters for consideration including how RFBs should fit sympathetically into the existing built environment. These guidelines are generally inconsistent with DCP Part 36 Burwood Town Centre, which contains detailed development controls for commercial/retail and/or residential development, including that of RFBs within the Burwood Town Centre. DCP Part 36 contains specific controls on the design of residential development and refers to State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 65 Design Quality of Residential Flat Development and the supporting Residential Flat Design Code. In order to ensure that there is no inconsistency between these policy documents, it is recommended that the Locality/Streetscape Analysis be repealed. (6) Locality/Streetscape Analysis: Single House Residential Areas Adopted by Council on 16 March 1999 and amended 21 November 2006, this document establishes controls for single dwelling houses that are located throughout the LGA. The guidelines consider a range of matters including streetscape analyses criteria and the identification of the key design features of a dwelling house within the context of its street. It also refers to the Shaftesbury East Study Area. The guidelines are inconsistent with DCP Part 38 Single Dwelling Houses and Ancillary Structures, which came into effect on 15 December 2009. DCP Part 38 includes a detailed LGA wide identification of high quality streetscapes (illustrated on a map) requiring additional building appearance and streetscape considerations. Further, the Shaftesbury East Study Area has been progressed via the Planning Proposal for expansion of the existing Wallace and Brady Streets Conservation Area, which is currently with the Department of Planning for finalisation. Accordingly, this guideline should be repealed. (7) Guidelines to the Subdivision of Land for Single Dwelling Residential Development This document supplements LEP 8 that sets out a development standard for the minimum allotment size for dwelling houses on hatchet shaped allotments. In addition to LEP 8, LEP 56 sets out the current development standards for the subdivision of land, thus making these guidelines obsolete. Accordingly, it is recommended that the guidelines be repealed. (8) Swimming Pool Safety Fencing and Pool Drownings guidelines This document comprises questions and answers (Q&A) regarding toddler drownings and swimming pool safety fencing requirements. These guidelines have been superseded by current Australian Standards, AS 1926.1-2007, 2-2007, 3-2003 which support the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and Swimming Pools Regulation 2008, and which establish the requirements for swimming pool fencing. Further, the NSW Government has developed a recent water safety initiative, Q&A guidelines. Accordingly, this document should be repealed.


233

(9) Guidelines for the Use of Mechanical Parking Systems This document promotes the use of mechanical parking systems as a mechanism on development sites with site constraints. Included in the guidelines are the matters for consideration for applicants who propose to use this form of parking system. Mechanical parking systems have proven to be an unsuccessful parking system within the Burwood LGA. Over the past 15 years, since the guidelines were developed, mechanical parking systems have only been taken up in one development application and the applicant did not proceed to develop the system as it was proven to be too difficult. Such parking system may be impractical in Burwood and the guidelines are inconsistent with DCP Part 36 Burwood Town Centre. Accordingly, these guidelines should be repealed. (10) Rainwater Tanks in Heritage Conservation Areas or Heritage Listed Properties Guidelines These guidelines provide information on rainwater tanks for properties located in Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs) or Heritage Items. The document provides guidance on the most appropriate locations for rainwater tanks. SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 commenced on 27 July 2009 and sets out the circumstances where rainwater tanks can be progressed as exempt development. Tanks must be located in the rear yard of Heritage Items, and the provisions for rainwater tanks in HCAs are the same as that for non-heritage properties. Accordingly, the guidelines should be repealed. Financial Implications There are no financial implications for Council as a result of this report. Options One option is to keep the status quo, and not repeal these documents. This option is not recommended as it would result in conflicting policies and documents in the public domain. Another option is to take no action now and consider the matter as part of the Comprehensive LEP/DCP project for the whole LGA. This option is also not recommended as the timing of completion of the Comprehensive LEP and DCP is not imminent, which could leave the matter of the obsolete DCP Parts and guidelines unresolved for a substantial time. Conclusion Three (3) DCP Parts and seven (7) guidelines have been identified as being obsolete and should be repealed. DCP Part 2 Marmaduke Street, DCP Part 7 Post-Supported Verandahs in the Burwood Town Centre and DCP Part 8 General Residential Development should be repealed as they have been superseded by DCP Part 36 Burwood Town Centre, while the guidelines have been superseded by various DCP Parts and other public documents, e.g. SEPPs.

Recommendations 1. That the following DCP Parts and guidelines be repealed:

DCP Part 2 Marmaduke Street DCP Part 7 Post-Supported Verandahs in the Burwood Town Centre DCP Part 8 General Residential Development Locality/Streetscape Analysis: Commercial Buildings guidelines Locality/Streetscape Analysis: Residential Flat Buildings guidelines Locality/Streetscape Analysis: Single House Residential Areas guidelines


234

Guidelines to the Subdivision of Land for Single Dwelling Residential Development Swimming Pool Safety Fencing and Pool Drownings guidelines Guidelines for the Use of Mechanical Parking Systems Rainwater Tanks in Heritage Conservation Areas or Heritage Listed Properties

guidelines 2. That public notices be placed in the local newspaper in accordance with the relevant

requirements of the EP&A Regulation.

3. That Councils Corporate Plans be updated accordingly.

Attachments There are no attachments for this report.


235

(ITEM 67/10) INVESTMENT REPORT - 30 JUNE, 2010

REPORT BY DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE SERVICES Summary In accordance with Clause 16(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1993, this report details all money that Council has invested under Section 625 of the Local Government Act 1993.

Background As provided for in Regulation 212 of the Local Government (General) Regulation, a report listing Councils investments must be presented to Council. Councils investments are made of a number of direct investments, some of which are managed or advised by external agencies. As noted in previous reports since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in the US, Council has encountered difficulties obtaining regular updated market valuations. Council has recently received revised valuation advice, from FIIG Securities in relation to its investment in a capital guaranteed investment. Council has appointed CPG (formerly Grove Research and Advisory) as its investment advisers and is currently seeking to transfer all of the investments previously managed by Lehman Brothers into the Grove Online Portfolio system. However due to minimum volume requirements to enable the investments to transfer, a number of Council investments have not yet been transferred over to the Grove System. This process is still ongoing and further requests for this matter to be finalised have been forwarded to CPG. Investment Portfolio Councils investment portfolio consists of the following types of investment: 1. Cash and Deposits at Call Cash and Deposits at Call accounts are a flexible savings facility

providing a competitive rate of interest for funds which are at call (available within 24hours). These accounts enable us to control Councils cashflows along with councils General Fund Bank account. Interest rates are updated in accordance with movements in market rates.

The following investments are classified as Cash and Deposits at Call:

Westpac Bank At Call account AA Macquarie Treasury At Call account AA ANZ Bank At Call High Yield account AA

2. Floating Rate Notes (FRN) - FRNs are a contractual obligation whereby the issuer has an

obligation to pay the investor an interest coupon payment which is based on a margin above bank bill. The risk to the investor is the ability of the issuer to meet the obligation. The following investments are classified as FRNs:

Adelaide Bank sub-debt BBB+ at par ANZ Bank sub-debt AA- at par HSBC Ltd sub-debt AA- at par HSBC Finance Corp sub-debt A at par Elders Rural Bank sub-debt BBB- at par


236

These FRNs are all sub-debt or senior-debt which means that they are guaranteed by the bank that issues them with sub-debt notes rated a notch lower than the bank itself. The reason for this is that the hierarchy for payments of debt in event of default is:

1. Term Deposits 2. Senior Debt 3. Subordinated Debt 4. Hybrids 5. Preference shares 6. Equity holders

In the case of default, the purchaser of subordinated debt is not paid until the senior debt holders are paid in full. Subordinated debt is therefore more risky than senior debt. 3. Collateralised Debt Obligations (CDO) A CDO is a structured financial product whose returns

are linked to the performance of a portfolio of debt obligations. It is split into tranches, whereby the riskiest or lowest tranche, the equity tranche, receives the highest returns. Higher rated tranches offer protection against the risk of capital loss, but at proportionately diminishing returns.

The following investments are classified as CDOs:

Lehman Brothers (Treasury BV) D (Default) Magnolia Finance Ltd (Flinders AA) No Rating Zircon Finance Ltd (Merimbula) D (Default) Corsair (Cayman Islands) (Kakadu AA) CCC at par Helium Capital Ltd (Scarbrough AA) CCC- at par Zircon Finance Ltd (Miami) D (Default)

4. Growth Investments - Investments that have been purchased on the basis of an anticipated

growth in asset value rather than returns being based on an interest coupon have been classified as Growth Investments. The following investments are included in this category:

Dresdner Bank (Octagon Ltd EMU) AAA at par

These investments are valued at fair value where the capital gain is credited to the Income Statement and a capital loss is debited to the Income Statement. This investment is principal guaranteed. The value shown in the monthly investment report is based on the redeemable Net Asset Value (NAV). The NAV is the total current market value of all securities plus interest or dividends received to date. This is the price or value of the investment at the time of preparing the report. Although the investments are principal guaranteed, reports are based on the NAV even when it falls below the par value. The principal is guaranteed by the investment issuer monitoring the net asset value and selling the investments if the NAV falls below the level where a risk free investment will return the principal at the maturity date. Thus the worst case scenario, provided that the issuer remains solvent, for these investments is that overall return will be returns received to date plus return of principal at maturity date and no further interest payments for the remaining period. The Emu investments basket of underlying instruments has now reached a trigger event as the NAV of these instruments have reached the point where the value plus future revenue stream from a no risk investment will enable principal value to be returned at maturity date. If the investment returns the principal value before maturity, Council will receive surplus funds as a dividend (interest).


237

The market values of the investments are based on the mid point valuations of the underlying assets and are subject to market conditions that occur over the month Councils investment balances as at reporting date and for the previous two months are detailed in the attachment. Investment Performance and Market Commentary Councils investment valuations continue to be impacted by the ongoing global credit crisis in the financial markets. Council has received the initial review of the investment portfolio previously managed by Lehman Brothers, which includes an assessment of the investments included in the portfolio. It highlights that Councils investment portfolio contains a number of at risk instruments, in particular CDOs and acknowledges that Council has little alternative but to hold these investments to maturity if they are not called due to the Lehman Brothers Chapter 11 bankruptcy status, which is considered to be a call default trigger event. At the present time Lehman Brothers are disputing this call event in the US courts and are subject to counter claims for the payment of the coupons on investments and settlement of the coupons that have not been paid since September 2008. Further to the above issue with Chapter 11 status, the call (maturity) date of the Lehman Brothers Global Property Note investment has passed and thus councils position as to the investment lies with the outcome of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy action. This action may take several years to finalise. Council had been previously advised that this investment was capital guaranteed; however as at the time of writing, it had not been advised of the estimated amount due. As advised in the September investment report our investment advisory CPG (Grove) is continuing to have difficulties providing fair value assessments of our investment portfolio so we will continue to use Structured Credit Research & Advisory Pty Ltd to supply the mid market valuation assessment on our portfolio for the time being and use CPG (Grove) as an advisory service. The attached investment portfolio shows the updated market valuations based on the information supplied by both CPG and Structured Credit. Throughout the month we have received notification from several financial institutions informing us that there are some investments that are beginning to receive some purchase bids, although these are at heavily discounted prices. It appears that it is the first signs of activity returning to the secondary financial markets. The Reserve Bank of Australia at its July meeting decided again to leave the official cash rate unchanged at 4.5%. Governor Stevens said that since the board met last financial markets have been cautious about several European sovereigns and banks creditworthiness which has placed uncertainty about the pace of future global growth. As a result, equity resources have been more volatile and have fallen along with long term government bond rates. Further tightness in funding markets has been evident but not to the scale seen in late 2008. In Australia, with high level of trade expected output growth over the year ahead is likely to be about trend, even though the effects of earlier expansionary policy measures will be diminishing. Therefore, it is appropriate for interest rates to be closer to average levels of the past decade. Governor Stevens also stated that the board will continue to assess prospects for demand and inflation, and set monetary policy as needed to achieve an average inflation rate of 2-3 per cent over time. Economists are still thinking interest rates will rise to 5% by years end. The Australian dollar over the month of June has seen a stabilisation where the dollar has been around the US84 to US85 cents. Councils investments are made in accordance with its investment policies and the investment guidelines issued by the Minister for Local Government at the time of their placement. The previous investments are covered by the Grandfather clauses of the new investment guidelines issued by the Minister.


238

Recommendation(s) That the investment report for 30 June 2010 be received and endorsed.

Attachments 1 Investment Report July 2010

ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 67/10 Investment Report - 30 June, 2010 Investment Report July 2010

239

Inve

stm

en

t A

dvi

se

rIs

su

er

Inve

stm

en

t N

am

eT

ype

Inve

ste

d

Ratin

g

Inve

ste

d

Am

ou

nt

Mar

ke

t V

alu

e as

at

30t

h A

pri

l

Mar

ke

t V

alu

e as

at

31s

t M

ay

Mark

et

Val

ue

at

Re

po

rtin

g

Date

% o

f T

ota

l In

ves

ted

AD

I o

r N

-AD

I

Ca

sh &

D

epo

sits

at

Ca

llC

ouncil

Westp

ac

Cash #

At C

all

AA

4,8

13,7

03

3,2

81,7

59

2,7

22,5

32

4,8

13,7

03

55.0

1

AD

I

Gro

ve R

esearc

hM

acquarie T

reasury

Cash #

At C

all

AA

513,6

35

510,5

41

510,5

41

513,6

35

5.8

7

AD

I

Gro

ve R

esearc

hA

NZ

Bank

AN

Z H

igh Y

ield

Cash #

At C

all

AA

161,5

32

135,8

94

142,0

80

161,5

32

1.8

5

AD

I

Sor

t - M

edi

um

Te

rm (

1-2

Y

ea

rsG

rove R

esearc

h *

Lehm

an B

roth

ers

Tre

asury

BV

#C

DO

Glo

bal P

ropert

y N

ote

N/R

250,0

00

72,5

00

72,5

00

65,0

00

0.7

4

N-A

DI

Me

dium

Te

rm

(2-5

Ye

ars

)G

rove R

esearc

h *

Magnolia

Fin

ance L

tdM

agnolia

(Flin

ders

AA

)C

DO

Flo

atin

g R

ate

(B

BS

W +

1.5

%)

BB

+355,0

00

312,4

00

315,9

50

298,2

00

3.4

1

N-A

DI

Gro

ve R

esearc

h *

Adela

ide B

ank

Adela

ide B

ank

FR

N #

FR

N (

BB

SW

+ 0

.35%

)B

BB

+500,0

00

485,0

00

490,0

00

490,0

00

5.6

0

AD

I

Gro

ve R

esearc

h *

Zircon F

inance L

td A

AZ

ircon (

Merim

bula

) #

CD

O F

loatin

g R

ate

(B

BS

W +

1.0

5%

)B

B-

500,0

00

390,0

00

385,0

00

415,0

00

4.7

4

N-A

DI

Gro

ve R

esearc

h *

Cors

air (

Caym

an Is

lands)

Cors

air (

Kaka

du A

A)

CD

O F

loatin

g R

ate

(B

BS

W +

1.0

0%

) C

CC

250,0

00

87,5

00

85,0

00

75,0

00

0.8

6

N-A

DI

Gro

ve R

esearc

h *

Heliu

m C

apita

l Ltd

Heliu

m (

Scarb

rough

AA

) #

CD

O F

loatin

g R

ate

(B

BS

W +

1.3

%)

CC

C-

450,0

00

22,5

00

31,5

00

40,5

00

0.4

6

N-A

DI

Long

Te

rm (

5+

Y

ea

rs)

FIIG

Securitie

sD

resdner

Bank

Octa

gon L

td -

EM

UC

apita

l Guata

nte

ed N

ote

AA

500,0

00

350,0

00

350,0

00

379,1

00

4.3

3

N-A

DI

Gro

ve R

esearc

h *

AN

Z B

ank

AN

Z F

RN

Sub-D

ebt

FR

N (

BB

SW

+ 0

.29%

)A

A-

500,0

00

500,0

00

500,0

00

500,0

00

5.7

1

AD

I

Gro

ve R

esearc

h *

HS

BC

Ltd

HS

BC

FR

N S

ub-D

ebt

FR

N (

BB

SW

+ 0

.23%

)A

A-

300,0

00

288,0

00

294,0

00

291,0

00

3.3

3

AD

I

Gro

ve R

esearc

h *

HS

BC

Fin

ance C

orp

HS

BC

FR

N S

enio

r-D

ebt

FR

N (

BB

SW

+ 0

.28%

)A

A-

200,0

00

196,0

00

196,0

00

196,0

00

2.2

4

AD

I

Gro

ve R

esearc

h *

Eld

ers

Rura

l Bank

Eld

ers

FR

N S

ub-D

ebt

FR

N (

BB

SW

+ 0

.59%

)B

BB

500,0

00

440,0

00

465,0

00

470,0

00

5.3

7

AD

I

Gro

ve R

esearc

h *

Zircon F

inance L

td A

AZ

ircon (

Mia

mi)

CD

O F

loatin

g R

ate

(B

BS

W +

1.5

%)

BB

-50,0

00

37,5

00

36,5

00

41,5

00

0.4

7

N-A

DI

9,843

,870

7,109

,594

6,5

96,

603

8,7

50,

170

100

NB

: F

or

cas

h ty

pe

inve

stm

ents

the

amou

nt in

vest

ed

is s

et

to t

he r

epo

rtin

g p

erio

d va

lue.

BU

RW

OO

D C

OU

NC

ILIN

VE

ST

ME

NT

PO

RT

FO

LIO

as

at 30

th J

une

201

0


240

(ITEM 68/10) FEES & CHARGES 2010/2011 - ALTERATION TO DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NOTIFICATION FEE

File No: F10/141 REPORT BY DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT Summary This report recommends that Council endorse the alteration to the Development Application Notification fee currently contained in the 2010/11 Fees and Charges and that the new fee schedule be placed on exhibition for 28 days.

Background Council places a list of Development Applications received in the local newspaper on a fortnightly basis. This was instigated by Council in 2005 following a review of Burwood Consolidated Development Control Plan No. 6 Notification of Development Applications. A list of DAs received (and of DAs approved) is placed in the Mayoral Column and also on Councils web site. The cost of placing the list of applications in the press on a regular basis increases from year to year. In 2008 a notification fee was introduced into the Schedule of Fees and Charges as a means of covering this cost and supplementing income from the DA process. In 2009/10 financial year Council received approximately $14,400 in income from notification fees however recent information has been received that the cost of actually placing the list of development applications in the Council column has increased to approximately $25,000 per annum which leaves a shortfall of over $10,000. Proposal The current schedule of Notification fees is simplistic and is based both on cost of the proposed development works and the classification of the building type i.e. whether the building is a commercial building or a dwelling. As a means of addressing this shortfall it is proposed to alter the schedule and base the fee solely on cost of the development which will mean a greater fee for the larger developments where the description of the development would require more advertisement space. The existing and proposed fee schedules are set out below: Current Fee Schedule

Works under $10,000 $28

Class 1 & 10 > $10,000 $55

Class 2-9 > $10,000 $110 Proposed Fee Schedule

Works under $10,000 $28 (No Change)

Between $10,000 50,000 $55

Between $50,001 75,000 $85

Between $75,001 100,000 $110

Between $100,001 250,000 $150

Between $250,001 500,000 $200

Between $500,001 1,000000 $250


241

Between $1, 000001 5,000000 $300

Between $5, 000001 10,000000 $350

Works Above $10M $400 Based on the number of development applications received in 2009/10 financial year the proposed fee schedule should collect sufficient funds to cover the cost of placing the development applications in the Mayoral column on a fortnightly basis. Consultation There has been no public consultation at this time and if Council adopts the recommendations of this report it will be necessary to place the amended fee schedule on public exhibition for 28 days and after this period provide a further report to Council on the results of the public exhibition where Council then has the option to adopt the new schedule. Planning or Policy Implications Once adopted by Council the amended fee schedule will be applied within the Fees & Charges. Financial Implications The revised Notification fee schedule will enable the costs incurred in providing DA information in the local press on a fortnightly basis to be recovered. Councils Chief Financial Officer has reviewed the schedule and this report and has endorsed the proposal accordingly. Options Council has the option to do nothing which will mean that the existing fee schedule remains and the increased costs incurred as a result of publishing DA information in the local news paper on a fortnightly basis are not recovered and must be funded from other areas. Council has also the option to amend the current DCP Part 6 Notification of Development Applications and remove the requirement to provide the DA information as is now current practice. This would provide a cost saving however would also remove an opportunity to provide information to residents on development applications within the local government area. Both of the above options are not recommended. Conclusion As most of the fees applicable to development applications are prescribed it is difficult for Council to recover its costs in the assessment process. With the level of information that Council provides to residents regarding the development application process the area of notification is one where Council can reasonably recover its costs without unduly penalising Mum and Dad applicants. It is considered reasonable to place the new schedule on exhibition for 28 days and seek feedback from the community.

Recommendations 1. That the Amended Notification Fee Schedule of the 2010/2011 Fees and Charges be

placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days by advertising in the Mayoral column, exhibition on Councils web site and copies placed at the Customer Service Centre and Burwood Library.

2. That following the exhibition period a further report be forwarded to Council on the results of the exhibition process.


242

Attachments There are no attachments for this report.


243

(ITEM 69/10) DRAFT MEMORIALS POLICY

REPORT BY DIRECTOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AND OPERATIONS Summary Following a request received by Council to install a memorial park bench seat in one of Councils Parks in the second half of 2009, a report was presented to Council on 20 October 2009. There a resolution was sought to produce a Policy to provide opportunity for Council to assess other similar memorial requests. The Memorials Policy has been drafted to provide guidelines to assist with memorial requests, internal procedures, installation and ongoing management, without bias.

Background The drafting of the Memorials Policy was initiated in response to a request to install a memorial in Henley Park. Council has had other similar memorial requests in the past. Most recently, Council was asked to approve the installation of a memorial bench in Monash Reserve. Council recognises that individuals of the community may wish to plant a tree or install a park seat as a memorial to their loved ones. It is proposed that in most circumstances, Council would support an unmarked tree planting or the placement of a memorial seat providing the processes and details contained in the policy are considered. Memorials may also be placed by Council to commemorate an event or an official opening of a recently completed Council project. The approval of plaques and other memorial artefacts on Council land shall be generally confined to those events or ceremonies that are conducted by the Mayor or Mayors representative on the General Managers approval. Requests for all memorials shall be made through the General Manager, who would consult with relevant staff. Proposal That the recommendations made in this report are proposed for Councils consideration. Consultation The policy has been reviewed by Middle Managers and other Council staff as applicable and presented to and approved by the Policy, Procedures and Guidelines Panel. The policy should now be placed on public exhibition. Planning or Policy Implications As this is a new policy, future amendments to, or new Plans of Management for, Councils parks and reserves shall reference this policy. Financial Implications The financial implications are detailed in the policy. In brief, there is no application fee for a memorial. The applicant/donor shall agree to pay all costs for the procurement and installation of the memorial. Council is responsible for the maintenance and insurance of the memorial. The replacement cost of a memorial, for whatever reason, shall be borne by the applicant / donor of the memorial. The only other cost to Council was Council Officers time in the preparation of this policy. Options For Council to request further revisions on this Policy and provide details.


244

Conclusion That the Memorials Policy is endorsed by Council for public exhibition and that once the exhibition period ends, the Policy be referred back to Council for adoption.

Recommendation(s) 1. That the Memorials Policy be endorsed by Council for public exhibition for a period of 28

days to allow community feedback.

2. That following the public exhibition period the Policy is referred back to Council for adoption.

Attachments 1 Draft Memorials Policy 8 Pages

ATTACHMENT 1 ITEM 69/10 Draft Memorials Policy Draft Memorials Policy

245

MEMORIALS POLICY

Burwood Council Suite 1, Level 2 1-17 Elsie Street , BURWOOD NSW 2134 PO Box 240, BURWOOD NSW 1805 Phone: 9911-9911 Fax: 9911-9900 Email: [email protected] Website: www.burwood.nsw.gov.au

Public Document Adopted by Council :

Trim: No.10/25716 Ownership: Technical Services and Operations


246

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................1

1.1. Citation............................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Purpose............................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.3. Scope............................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.4. Council contact................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.5. Land to which this policy applies.................................................................................................................... 1

2. PRELIMINARY DETAILS OF THE MEMORIALS POLICY....................................................................1

2.1. Memorial prerequisites.................................................................................................................................... 1 2.2. Memorial costs................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.3. Memorials on Councils assets register........................................................................................................... 2

3. TYPES OF MEMORIALS.............................................................................................................................2

3.1. An unmarked memorial tree............................................................................................................................ 2 3.2. Memorial tree planting details......................................................................................................................... 2 3.3. A marked memorial tree.................................................................................................................................. 3 3.4. Seat memorials................................................................................................................................................ 3 3.5. Sample plaque inscription for seat memorials................................................................................................. 3 3.6. Plaques............................................................................................................................................................. 3 3.7. Sample inscriptions for a plaque memorial..................................................................................................... 4 3.8. Statues, sculptures and other memorials.......................................................................................................... 4 3.9. Cremation ashes............................................................................................................................................... 4

4. MEMORIAL IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................................4

4.1. Memorial applications..................................................................................................................................... 4 4.2. Internal assessment procedures for all memorials........................................................................................... 4 4.3. Internal assessment procedures for memorial tree planting............................................................................. 5 4.4. Internal assessment procedures for a memorial seat installation..................................................................... 5 4.5. Internal assessment procedures for a memorial plaque.................................................................................... 5 4.6. Internal assessment procedures for statues, sculptures and other memorials...................................................5 4.7. Memorial approvals......................................................................................................................................... 6 4.8. Sample response approval letter to the applicant / donor for a memorial seat................................................. 6 4.9. Council internal administrative procedures for approved memorial works..................................................... 7 4.10. Replacement of a memorial............................................................................................................................. 7 4.11. Alteration, relocation or removal of a memorial.............................................................................................. 7 4.12. Procedure for the disposal of a memorial........................................................................................................ 7

5. PROPRIETARY SEAT STYLE FOR TOWN CENTRE AND PARKS.......................................................7

5.1. Seat style for the Burwood Town Centre......................................................................................................... 7 5.2. Seat style for Henley Park............................................................................................................................... 8 5.3. Seat style for Burwood Park............................................................................................................................ 8 5.4. Seat style for Wangal Park.............................................................................................................................. 8 5.5. Seat style for all other parks and reserves........................................................................................................ 8

6. RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING PLANNING INSTRUMENTS AND CONTROLS................................8

7. COUNCIL OFFICER RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS DOCUMENT...............................................................8

8. POLICY REVISION......................................................................................................................................8


247

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Citation This Policy shall be cited as Burwood Councils Memorials Policy.

1.2. Purpose Council recognises that members of its community may wish to use community open space (parks, reserves, streets, etc) to plant tree memorials, purchase and install a park bench or seat as a memorial to their loved ones. Other memorials may be placed by Council to commemorate an event or for the official opening of a recently completed Council project. Memorials in the form of garden adornments, gazebos, benches and plaques are commonly found throughout the Sydney area, often in public parks. Memorials have been placed in Burwoods public spaces to honour notable residents. Indeed Council has placed and inscribed names in memory of soldiers lost in war. The Memorial Arch in Burwood Park is a fine example. However, the fundamental use of public parks and open space is for a variety of activities. They are not just a place of memorial so an excessive concentration of memorials in one place may change the nature of the park from a public park to a place of mourning. The addition of memorial park benches etc can contribute to the useability of the park. In most circumstances, Council would support the placement of a memorial seat or unmarked tree planting within a Council park or streetscape providing the processes and details contained in this policy are considered. The authorisation of the installation of plaques and other memorial artefacts (with the exception of memorial seats and the planting of unmarked trees) within Councils parks and reserves shall be generally confined to those events or ceremonies that are conducted by the Mayor or Mayors Representative on the General Managers approval. Requests for all memorials shall be made through the General Manager. Accordingly, this policy has been drafted to provide a basis for memorial eligibility and guidance in the type of memorials available and their installation, location, cost and maintenance. This policy will also assist with memorial requests, without bias and without initiating a Mayoral ceremony for the unveiling of each memorial.

1.3. Scope This policy will guide prospective memorial donors and Councils officers in the placement and type of memorial seats, trees and plaques in Councils parks, reserves, streetscapes and open space.

1.4. Council contact

General Manager. Suite 1, Level 2 1- 17 Elsie Street Burwood NSW 2134 PO Box 240 Burwood NSW 1805 Phone: 9911 9911

1.5. Land to which this policy applies This policy applies to all Council owned public open space in the Burwood local government area. 2. PRELIMINARY DETAILS OF THE MEMORIALS POLICY

2.1. Memorial prerequisites The following salient points shall be given consideration in the preliminary determination of an application for a memorial to the deceased in Councils open space. An application for a memorial, of the types included in this policy, can be made


248

by individuals (relatives or friends of deceased residents of Burwood) clubs, organisations, overseas delegates, Ambassadors, Councillors at the discretion of Burwood Council.

The proposed memorial shall be to a person who was a resident of the Burwood local government area. The proposed memorial shall be to a person who made a significant contribution (through sport, community

involvement, education etc) to the Burwood local government area. Council may require evidence of residence to support the memorial request. Councils open space is primarily used for public recreation and leisure activities. Open space is to be retained

in use and character, as an area for recreation, not a memorial space, unless designated and approved by Council.

The indiscriminate placing of memorials and plaques can detract from the use of the open space and may cause an unacceptable hazard or risk to users of the space and the staff who maintain it.

This policy seeks to establish consistency and to control placing of memorials and plaques This policy is discretionary in that no precedent will be set, and each application will be determined on an

individual basis. Council is under no obligation to accept the applicants memorial proposal. The insurance, hazard and risk and Occupational Health and Safety ramifications of the proposed memorial.

2.2. Memorial costs All costs including purchase, installation overheads and administrative charges shall be borne by the donor / applicant and paid to Council prior to installation. Council will itemise the full cost for the installation of the memorial to the donor prior to the works proceeding for the donors approval. Goods and Services Tax (GST) is payable consistent with current GST legislation. There is no fee for a memorial application. All routine maintenance costs and procedures, applicable to the location and type of memorial, shall be at Councils expense and responsibility. However, Council will not undertake special maintenance, for example polishing plaques or additional cleaning, beyond that required of the park, open space or street facilities, on memorials. Council will not fund the replacement of a memorial (refer section 4.10).

2.3. Memorials on Councils assets register Once a memorial has been approved and installed on Council owned open space the particular memorial shall be added to Councils assets register. However, it should be noted that the applicant /donor remains the owner of the particular memorial. Council will be liable for any public complaints, potential hazards and risks that may arise in relation to the memorial. Council will pay a yearly insurance premium for the memorial together with all other Council assets. 3. TYPES OF MEMORIALS.

3.1. An unmarked memorial tree The installation of an unmarked memorial tree can be arranged to commemorate a deceased person (refer Memorial Prerequisites 2.1 above). Proposed tree memorials shall be of a species that complies with Councils existing planting design, Street Tree Management Strategy, Tree Preservation Order and or relevant Plan of Management or by mutual agreement between the donor and Council. Weed tree species or trees that require particular maintenance or specific environmental conditions, not present on the proposed site, will not be permitted. Please refer to Councils Schedule of Fees and Charges for tree planting in the relevant location.

3.2. Memorial tree planting details Council staff will dig the tree hole and provide backfill, (stakes and guards if required) and mulch. Tree ceremonies can only be organised on normal working days when staff are available. Staff will not be available during busy maintenance times such as season changeover, or Christmas holidays. Memorial trees are best planted in early autumn. The placement of plaques under trees is generally not permitted. However, plaques under trees will only be permitted under special circumstances, such as where there is an established link between the deceased and the proposed location of the tree planting, or the deceased being of appropriate standing in the community or Council to warrant a memorial plaque at Councils discretion.


249

3.3. A marked memorial tree Should a tree memorial plaque be permitted for installation with a memorial tree the suggested size of the plaque is 150mm x 100mm mounted on a concrete or stone base plinth as near as practicable to the tree trunk. The wording shall be proposed by the donor/ applicant for Council approval. Only one plaque per tree will be approved. Plaques are to be durable, safe, correctly fixed and located so as not to cause any hazard or risk. The method of plaque fixing to a stone or concrete plinth will need to be detailed and approved prior to any fabrication, and the method of fixing the plinth to the ground also approved. Plinths shall not cause trip hazards, damage mowing machinery or be installed like gravestones to be visually intrusive in the landscape. All materials are to be complementary to the context of the surrounding site. Marked memorials are not permitted on or near street trees.

3.4. Seat memorials The installation of a memorial seat can be arranged to commemorate a deceased person (refer Memorial Prerequisites 2.1 above). Donors may request where they would like the memorial seat placed for approval by Council. A plaque for installation on the seat shall be stainless steel of maximum dimensions 100mm long x 45mm wide x 1. 5mm thick with standard laser cut wording (see below for typical plaque inscriptions on seat memorials). Text will be submitted for Council approval. Only one plaque per seat will be approved. Council reserves the right to determine the need for a memorial seat, to negotiate the precise positioning and the appropriate maintenance of the seat to ensure maximum benefit to the community. Following the approval process Council will install the approved memorial seat. Council reserves the right to remove or reposition a memorial seat if necessary for any future park and reserve improvements.

3.5. Sample plaque inscription for seat memorials

3.6. Plaques The installation of a plaque is generally reserved for official Council endorsed ceremonies, openings of a major project, the marking of a historic event or to commemorate and recognise the contribution an individual has made to Burwood. However, the installation of a memorial plaque may be considered, at the discretion of Council, to commemorate a deceased person (refer Memorial prerequisites 2.1 above). The placement of plaques may be permitted on existing park furniture, structures or utilities as appropriate and at the discretion of Council. The size, design and wording of plaques should be discrete and consistent with the character of the site into which it is being located. Plaques will be provided by the applicant / donor once the details have been approved by Council. Council will install the plaque at the donor/ applicants cost. Plaques shall have no sharp edges or corners, and be designed to allow for epoxy glue mounting with rear location spigots or for corner screw mounting with one way vandal resistant or tamper proof fixings.

RICHARD (RICK) CITIZEN 24.05.44 31.08.07

PLACED HERE IN HIS HONOUR BY RICHARDS FAMILY FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF SPORT.

FOR MANY YEARS HE GAVE GENEROUSLY OF HIS TIME AND TALENTS TO THE COMMUNITY


250

3.7. Sample inscriptions for a plaque memorial

3.8. Statues, sculptures and other memorials A formal written request for the installation of a statue, sculpture or other memorial, not contained within the details of this policy, shall be required by the applicant / donor for formal Council resolution and approval. Details of the type of statue, sculpture or memorial proposed and a suggested location on Council open space will be required and further information shall be required as applicable on request. Council will consider the application on its merits and under special circumstances only.

3.9. Cremation ashes The scattering or placement of ashes of the cremated deceased will not be approved on Council property. This service is available at Northern Suburbs Crematorium and Macquarie Park Cemetery. 4. MEMORIAL IMPLEMENTATION

4.1. Memorial applications A formal written request for a memorial is required by the applicant / donor. All requests for memorials shall be formally lodged in writing by the donor / applicant to: The General Manager Burwood Council PO Box 240 Burwood NSW 1805 The applicant / donor should include the following information to support the memorial request.

Advice on the deceased persons link with the site and or Burwood (for example the deceased persons address in Burwood and their length of residency).

The type of memorial proposed and a suggested location in Councils open space. The proposed text for any plaque that may be included on the proposed memorial.

Following Councils internal assessment procedures a response letter will be forwarded to the applicant (refer sample response letter 4.8).

4.2. Internal assessment procedures for all memoria ls Council staff will use the following criteria to assess the suitability of the proposed memorial and location.

The proposed memorial is to a resident or a person who made a significant contribution to Burwood. Ease of access to the proposed location provided by a grassed area or an existing pedestrian path.

In loving memory of Pamela (Pam) Citizen

28.11.1940 3.11.2004

Beloved Wife of John and Loving Mother

Sadly missed but never forgotten We love you


251

Potential views in and out of the location. Limited potential for misuse of the location. Current and future usage of the location. Proximity to other existing park equipment, street furniture or traffic facilities. Proximity to other existing services (underground and overhead) driveways and constraints. Proximity to existing trees. Ground conditions, watertable, aspect and slope. Existing and proposed lighting and signage. Nature strip width (if applicable). Soil profile and type. Drainage issues. Future maintenance. Cumulative impact of multiple memorials. Any content which may cause offence to members of the community.

4.3. Internal assessment procedures for memorial tr ee planting Council staff will use the following criteria, in addition to the criteria listed in 4.2 above, to assess the suitability of the proposed marked and unmarked memorial tree planting and location.

Suitability of the proposed location for the memorial base plinth (if applicable). Potential to provide day long shade in summer or solar access in winter. Proposed tree species shall be compliant with Councils Tree Preservation Order and Street Tree Management

Strategy

4.4. Internal assessment procedures for a memorial seat installation Council staff will use the following criteria, in addition to the criteria listed in 4.2 above, to assess the suitability of the memorial seat installation and location.

Ambient temperature and solar exposure of the proposed location. Potential misuse of the location (buttons may need to be included on the seat leading edge for skateboard

prone areas). Age group of potential users (e.g. for elderly users, or blind people). Mounting suitability (to be surface mounted on concrete slab or subsurface mounted). Potential of the location for bird droppings. Proximity to other existing seating. Expected demand and usage of seat. Ground conditions (whether the location is flat and firm or does it require preliminary earthworks remediation). The seat type shall be suitable to the proposed location (Council has preselected various seat types for specific

locations).

4.5. Internal assessment procedures for a memorial plaque Council staff will use the following criteria, in addition to the criteria listed in 4.2 above, to assess the suitability of the memorial plaque installation and location.

Mounting suitability. Proximity of the proposed location to other existing park equipment utilities, traffic, pedestrians etc.

4.6. Internal assessment procedures for statues, sc ulptures and other memorials Council staff will consider the application to install a statue, sculpture or other memorial on a case specific basis as applicable to the proposed installation location and report findings and recommendations to the General Manager as appropriate. The above mentioned internal assessment procedures and criteria relating to all proposed memorials will form a basis for assessment.


252

4.7. Memorial approvals Approvals for unmarked trees, marked trees and seat memorials shall be at the discretion of the General Manager. All other memorials will require formal approval and adoption by Council. Memorial approvals shall be advised to the applicant in writing.

4.8. Sample response approval letter to the applica nt / donor for a memorial seat The following letter shall serve as a template to generate approval and applicant / donor acceptance for all memorial requests. Dear (name of applicant). MEMORIAL SEAT REQUEST Thank you for your letter of . requesting the installation of a memorial seat in memory of your late ... who was a resident of Burwood. Council is pleased to advise that your request has been considered and is conditionally approved. Council prefers that any memorial items are kept discrete and subtle in its public open spaces. Accordingly, memorial park seats shall be fitted with small, discrete plaques. The following specifications are itemised to determine your memorial seat installation.

Council representatives will arrange to met with you to locate the seat in a mutually agreed position in Park / Reserve / Streetscape.

Your chosen park seat is a .. with 63 x 30mm hardwood slats, a ..coloured powder coated aluminium frame and sub-surface mounting on a concrete slab.

The seat is supplied by, .address.. valued at, $............ (inc GST) including the fitting of the plaque and delivery. The seat will be installed on a concrete slab for $.......... (Council labour and materials). The memorial will be identified by a small engraved plaque of standard specifications, as detailed below, to be provided by you,

delivered to and installed by the seat supplier (above).

Please provide Council with the proposed plaque wording for approval prior to purchasing. The plaque will be installed on the second top slat of the seat back with one way screws or flush mounted with epoxy resin. The plaque shall be of maximum dimensions 100mm long x 45mm wide x 1.5 mm thick. The total cost to you will be $......... inclusive of GST (plus the purchase and supply of the plaque by you). It is hoped the memorial seat will have a usable life span of 10 to 15 years. However, please note that replacement of the seat or plaque, if vandalised or stolen, shall be at your cost. All care has been taken to determine the location for the seat installation in view of future park development and operations. However, Council reserves the right to remove or reposition the memorial seat if necessary for any future park and reserve improvements. Should you wish to proceed with this proposal, please indicate your acceptance by signing and returning this letter to Council. On receipt of your signed acceptance an invoice for $........... inclusive of GST will be sent to you payable to Burwood Council. On receipt of your payment Council will order the seat and commence installation. The supplier will take approximately 6 weeks to manufacture and deliver the seat. The seat will be installed as soon as practicable by Council. Please contact Councils Senior Landscape Architect on 9911 9911 if you have any further queries. Burwood Council endeavours to deliver its services and policies with the highest regard for its residents and ratepayers whilst maintaining a diligent and efficient service. Yours faithfully General Manager I, ., hereby give Burwood Council approval to purchase and install, on my behalf, the memorial seat to .. I understand that I will be invoiced $......... for this service. I have included my preferred plaque wording for Councils approval.

Name of applicant / donor Date:

4.9. Council internal administrative procedures for approved memorial works On receipt of the applicant/donors signed approval letter (refer 4.8 above) the following internal Council administrative procedures shall be followed for approved memorial works:


253

All the installation costs are to be charged against job number / work order set up called Memorial Policy. Council will invoice the applicant /donor to the nominated work order / income number. Cashiers receipt to be sent to applicant/donor. Appropriate memorial ordered and landscape construction staff advised of location and due dates for

programming of installation or planting. For a seat memorial, the plaque is to be forwarded to Council, or the seat manufacturer, by the applicant for

fixing to the seat by either Council or the seat manufacturer (as determined by Council). For a tree memorial, the Council staff will dig the hole and provide and plant the tree and backfill, install stakes

(if required) and mulch. Tree ceremonies can only be organised on working days when staff are available. Memorial seat installed and applicant advised of completed project (this may initiate a discrete family dedication

ceremony in the park at the seat) Seat

Date post:	25-May-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ngodiep
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Proposal Consultation Planning or Policy Implications · The scale of development in the planning...

Documents