16 May 2019 - HLPP

Good afternoon, everybody. Firstly, my apologies for the delay.

We had a fairly extensive amount of travel to do today to look at the items that we are addressing at this meeting. I'd like to welcome you. This is a meeting of the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel. The panel today consists of, to my far right, Mr. Paul Rogers, community member.

Good morning.

Miss Helen Mulcahy, who is an expert member. Mr. Michael Harrison, who is an expert member. My name is Steve Kennedy, and I am the chair. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land, the Darug people, the elders past and present. Members of the public attending the meeting are advised that in the event of an emergency, you will be asked to proceed in an orderly manner to the nearest exit, following the guidance of our warden. I'd also like to advise members of the public that the Hawkesbury Local Planning Panel meetings are recorded. In the terms of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, this may involve the recording of personal information provided at the meeting.

The recordings are made to assist staff in compiling the minutes of the meeting. The provision of any information that is recorded is voluntary. If any person does not wish to be recorded, they should not address or request to address the meeting. The recordings may be made available to other persons where such access is in accordance with relevant regulations. The recordings are stored on Council's record management system.

For the benefit of those persons who will be addressing the HLPP, it is expected that you will refrain from making any insult, allegation or personal reflection against any person present or not at this meeting. This request relates to both your address to the meeting and any answers given in response to questions from the panel. Finally, it is requested that if any person in the council chambers has a mobile phone, could you please either turn it off or turn it to silent, which I just remembered to do for my own. Before we begin, I'd like to then say that there are two matters before the panel today. The panel members have all been provided with conflict of interest forms, which they have all signed, and nobody has indicated a conflict of interest of any sort with regard to these matters, and I will hand those forms up now.

As I said, there are two matters with respect to this panel. The first being the development

Application for Richmond Preschool and Senior Citizens Centre at 114 March Street, Richmond. For this item, I have three people here to speak, registered to speak on the matter, all of whom I understand are speaking in support of the recommendation. Is there anybody else in the, who would like to speak?

Councillor John Ross, elected councillor, member of the council audit committee. I wish to make a submission, and I think it might be in the committee's best to make a submission prior to

The consideration of that.

Okay. Anybody else? Nope. Just to be clear, the panel this morning have visited both sites that are subject to this panel and had a careful look at the issues associated with them. All right. Councillor Ross, if you would like to come down, maybe that would be, if everybody's okay with that. Just come here to one of these seats directly in front of us.

Good morning, Chair and panel. As I said, I am Councillor Ross. As I understand it, the development application before you is one of a prospective nature, and I would like to clarify that with you, in that the works proposed are forthcoming.

Would that be a correct understanding of the situation?

This is a development application for works to be approved, to be undertaken. Fine.

Thank you. I thought I should clarify that with you. As you will note from the business paper, the development application is pitched in two stages, a stage one and a stage two.

I conducted a personal visitation, informal, this morning unannounced, and was kindly guided through the centre by the site manager and signed the relevant documents in and out of the property between 10 and 10.30 a.m. roughly. I draw it to your attention that stage one works were completed through the course of 2018, and I put it to you that as a result of that, the development application as submitted is therefore

Containing both a retrospective and a prospective element. I do not believe that is, with your guidance, in conformity with matters that would be appropriate to consider at any stage, and I believe that that was the situation also pertaining in December 2018, and the basis of making that statement are oral information that has been provided by council officers upon recollection. But also, this particular occupant of the property is a registered charity, and they are required to submit annual reports to the charity registry, which is the Commonwealth Government. Regulated body. Now I refer to the Committee report of the Richmond Preschool Kindergarten Association Incorporated for the financial year December 31, 2017.

Within that is contained the following paragraph , if I may quote to you. The association — and this is, as you will be aware, December 2017 — the association will be undertaking building extensions in the 2018 financial year. The cost of these extensions will be funded jointly by Hawksbury City Council and the association. The above proposal has resulted in a substantial increase of $110,000 to $140,000 in the provision for equipment upgrade and leasehold improvement. Now that is validated in their accounts. That was the element in their report which raised initial concern with me, and then subsequently oral information passed to me as the councillor by staff, I believe, and then subsequently by today's visitation.

I can only put that before you and leave it to your good judgment focus as to how you wish to proceed. I am reporting that.

Thank you. From what you have just said, I think the relevant part for this panel is whether this is an application seeking approval for works that have already been undertaken, or whether it's seeking approval for works that are to be undertaken, and we will get clarification on that. The matters relating to funding and so on are of no particular…

Yeah.

Thank you. I'm sure that is already being looked at right now. I think, in the interests of the fact that we're already behind schedule and the rest, we will hear the other people who have come to address us, and then we will retire after that and clarify those issues, and then we will come back and advise people of our determination if they wish to wait. It will take some time. Normally the matter will be up on Council's website, but if they wish to wait, it's available for them to do so. But it may take us some time to make those decisions.

Can I ask a question if you saw? Sorry. Is it appropriate for any documentation that Councillor Ross might want to give the panel for consideration whilst we deliberate on the matter?

Is that appropriate? Certainly, if you want to hand up anything you've got where I can't see any problem with that, Councillor.

Now

If there was anything that you particularly write that you would like us to keep, but if not, we've got the gist of your principal concern.

I think, to be clear, in the original planning report for the childcare centre extension, it said stage one and stage two, and stage one was upgrading the children's bathroom. That's what you're referring to as stage one? Yeah. Thanks.

Thank you very much.

Okay, I have three people registered to speak to the application: Mr Greg Tesoriero, Lachlan McClure and Naomi Daly. Are they here? Yeah. If you'd like to, do you want to come forward individually or as a group? No problem.

What, what,

What

What? Turn on microphone.

Apologies.

Start again, Naomi. Trying

To project my voice, I think. Yeah.

It was

Just the introductions. Yeah, Naomi Planning. We came into the application a little bit later on, doing an amended SEE. Lachlan, who's been involved from the beginning in terms of building manager for Hawkesbury, and Greg Tesoriero—pardon me—Arborist, who's obviously looked at the recommendations of the panel last time in terms of the tree removal.

So I'm going to interrupt you for one second and say this was an application that came before the panel previously. Correct. One of the members of the panel today were on that panel before, being my colleague to my left. We understand that the principal issue was that the previous panel identified that there were— Some quite significant trees, and that the previous application sought to remove those, and that you have amended the design to retain those trees, and that we are basically being asked to review that application, particularly with respect to those trees.

Yes, and that's correct. Yeah, so it was formerly, I guess, a western edition. Now it's a northern edition to move away from those trees that were the subject of discussions in December. So they have been retained.

And I'll just say this panel concurred with the decision of the previous panel,

And probably our arborist did as well. Yeah, so obviously we've also looked at, I guess, the TPZs and any incursions that might occur there.

So I think that's what's relevant for you to talk to us to make sure that we are comfortable that the determination of the previous panel has been addressed in a manner that those trees will be retained in the long term.

Just to give you a bit of background. Yeah, so I'm the consulting arborist who was engaged as part of the second design phase of the project. Initially, we were engaged to review, you know, the proposed alterations and additions in their original format and provide advice as to whether there was any potential to construct that in a way which the trees could be retained and unaffected. Our review basically concluded that the additions in their original format couldn't be constructed, that it would result in tree removal of those trees to the west of the site, the group closest to the car park. On the back of this, we sort of suggested a revised design be pursued and provided guidance to the architects in terms of minimum setbacks and building footprints, which should be maintained in order to keep the trees in a healthy and viable condition following construction.

So the design under consideration today is a result of extensive consultation between myself and the architects, and has been sort of carefully cited to ensure the impacts to those existing significant trees are of a sustainable level. As Naomi mentioned, the bulk of the building footprint has now been shifted towards the north instead of the west into the play space area, and what this does is just basically reduce those incursions to the tree protection zones to within a sustainable threshold that they're now capable of retention. So there are minor incursions to the tree protection zones, but they're of a limit which would be acceptable, generally provided appropriate tree protection measures were taken during construction, of which we provided detailed tree specification, which goes through how to protect those trees and arborist supervision during the construction.

I guess the other thing to note would be— The relocation of the building footprint to the north has resulted in the removal of two trees, only two now, within the play space area. However, these were assessed as being minor and low retention value and easily capable of replacement, one of which should probably be removed irrespective of the development due to safety concerns being within the play space. So that's, yeah.

Ms. Stated, do you want to add anything to that, or either of you? I'm sorry.

No, not really. I guess just, you know, in terms of addressing the previous speaker, councillors, you know, to respond, I guess, correctly, you know, was that early works were undertaken. I guess the SEA was stated in the fact that there were two stages of works. It was, I guess, stated just as a factual exercise. We are seeking, you know, to confirm we're seeking approval for that stage two works, which is that addition of the building. All of the other upgrading and refurbishment works, the children's bathroom, new tiling, fixtures, fittings, privacy screens, all to those toilets could be undertaken as exempt works, exempt or complying. And so I haven't been party to that, but Lachlan does understand that has been undertaken.

Yeah.

So as Naomi says, it's exempt work. Basically, we re-tiled the bathroom. The bathroom also was redesigned to make available accessibility for the kids. As you may or may not be aware, there's no access code current for children's bathrooms, but we took out a hob that was obstructing access to the pans for the kids, and that was one of the main motivating factors of doing that work. We did the same with another childcare in South Windsor, where we took out the hob to allow for easy access to get special needs kids onto and off those pans, etc. Basically , the bathrooms were tidied up with tiles, basins, taps, wall coverings and painting. Another part of those works was to remove asbestos in the building , and that work, all that work could not be done during any time when the kids were in the building.

So we elected to do that during the Christmas break. Based on that work was totally independent in regard to the building works relating to the extension, but we were hoping to do it together. Unfortunately, the DA didn't get there, so we couldn't do it together. Unfortunately, there was probably a bit of cost involved because we have to get the—

If I can just interrupt, you're saying that those works were independent of the works that are being applied for in this application? Yes. Right, so I don't think you need to take us there then if it's— Okay, thanks. Okay. Before I go to the panel then, Ms. Daly, are you satisfied with the report, the conditions?

Yeah, yeah. There's no conditions of consent we wanted to object to, so seems reasonable.

It seems reasonable. All right, thank you. Okay.

Yes, thank you, Chair. Just my own clarification, the issue of the works that were done previously, are you saying that are outside the scope of the matter for our consideration today?

Yes.

Right, so those works were done completely separate to the consideration we're looking at today

So there's no inference or allegation that there's been any works done without appropriate approvals. Okay, thank you. I have a further question. My apologies, Greg, I didn't get your surname, but Greg, the arborist. You made mention of tree protection zone and there was a minor incursion. Looking at the map and reflecting on my own walkabout this morning, there's one particular tree that is quite unique, as all trees are, but that is like a cup shape that's sort of in the centre of the playground area. Looks great for a cubby house and a swing. Looking at the design, it looks like there's been the circles that are there on the map seem to indicate that could be potentially where the incursion is.

What specific protection are you looking at to looking after that very unique tree that is obviously a centrepiece within the playground area? What sort of protection are you looking at to ensure that it is cared for and loved?

Yeah, so the tree protection specification has a couple of components which would ensure that tree is protected. The first being fencing. So the area of the tree protection zone, as much as possible, being fenced off during the construction period. So no access will be available there for construction or material storage or handling or any excavation or anything like that. So that will sort of protect that sort of area. Any area outside of that that is required for access around to actually construct the building, which is still within the TPZ, would be ground protection. So they'll take the form of base plates or ply board applied over mulch to ensure the root zone is protected. Other things would include tying back of branches if they're, rather than pruning, tying them back out of the construction zone to ensure, or to minimise any pruning required for clearance.

The footprint of the tree and the footprint of the building, will that cause an intrusion in terms like the actual drip zone of the tree? Once the building is up, will the tree in itself, in its longer-term health, be affected because of the new footprint and perhaps the eaves and the water dropping onto it and all that sort of thing?

In my opinion, yes. So if we go back to—do you have the arborist report in front of you? No. Okay. So I'll just run you through. So we've got an incursion to the protection zone of 13%, as per the Australian standard. Anything over 10% is considered major. So we're just over the threshold there. But I believe that, you know, subject to those tree protection conditions, that the tree would be viable into the future and there wouldn't be any impact on long-term health. So there will be a minor loss of deep soil zone. But I guess the important thing to note is that currently that zone, if you remember the site from this morning, is quite a lot of it's covered with either existing pathways or soft fall. So that's kind of already an incursion in itself. So the removal of that and replacement with the building, it won't be to such a degree that would affect the long-term health. The

Tree itself looks unique when I saw it . In terms of any further tree plantings that are proposed, is it possible to look to the future and perhaps plant something similar to it in other places to complement it in the fullness of time when it is no longer there? Other trees of a similar nature could be ready for the enjoyment that it no doubt gives the children.

Yeah, that can definitely form part of probably the landscape plan in this iteration. I don't believe there's been— there's been two. The recommendation was two replacement tree plantings to replace those being removed. So I guess one of those could easily be something of a similar... Species to, yeah, in case looking towards a future. What

I would encourage you to give consideration to that, and thank you for bringing that to the panel's attention. I think conditional 11

Draws reference to Sorry, condition 11 does draw reference to compensate for that

Too. Yes, I think that particular tree is unique, and if there is a risk of it being damaged, then I think we need to accommodate that in some meaningful way to have another tree or trees available into the future. So thank you for taking that on board.

Does condition 11 include that particular species?

I believe the landscape— yeah, they're cross-referenced between what the arborist report recommends in terms of species and what's provided in the condition, but it's not the same species as that tree that you're talking to.

And the name of that specific tree is what its species?

That's a callistemon, so it's a bottlebrush.

Bottlebrush callistemon

It's a very unique form. I'm not even— I believe it would have been at some stage almost pruning tightly to the ground, and that's this sort of epicormic growth coming up. You see eucalypts doing it quite often

The word that came to me, which is probably more appropriate to an arborist: bonsai. Yeah

It

Looked like it was bonsai, and then somehow it grew and then it just went in its own way, but it must be an absolutely beautiful tree for the kids to play with. Yeah, very

Climbable. But just for the relevance of this panel, Mr. Tesariro, you're saying that the species is a callistemon ? Saw that? The shape is unique, and the shape is a result of human activity rather than natural growth.

That's correct. The trees I've recommended are trees which would be suitable for a children's play space, which, you know, low risk of any limbs falling and very stable but not too large.

All right, thank you. Panel members, anybody else?

Not so much a planning question, but do you—for Lachlan, I guess—will you have to program the works to occur in the Christmas period, or can you continue to operate the centre during the construction phase?

So the proposal as stands now will have two stages in the construction. With the consent, the DA consent being received, we would plan to do, in the holiday break coming, the joining works. But the works to the north will be done as a separate stage, and then the joining work would be done when the kids are away. The critical work, where the kids couldn't be around at all, was the asbestos removal, as you can imagine, and the toilets. So there will be some break-fus. We've designed the access toilet, the new access toilet, to be broken through not into the kids' area. So the design is sort of staged that it will minimise the time, the effect to the kids. And if it proceeds, the current builder has been engaged. He has a really good record of keeping to time schedules, so I would expect it to be minimising the impact on the operation of the centre.

Thank you.

Apart from the fact we might all want that builder's name, I think that's it.

Thank you very much. We will consider this after we've heard the other matter, and then, as I said, we will spend some time making a determination, writing our report, and then if anybody's here, we can then read our determination to. But

Thank you. So we move to—

The second item on the agenda, which is DA023718 for Lot 15, DP 753766, intensive livestock agricultural poultry farm at 3787 Putty Road, Colo Heights. I have one person registered to speak, which is Mr. Greg Hall. Is there anybody else who in the chamber would like to? No? Mr. Hall, you're here. If you'd like to come forward, please.

Just mine will be very

You could just start by stating your name and who you are and so on.

My name is Greg Hall, and I'm a planner at work for Urban City Consulting, who prepared the EIS and put the documentation together.

What would you like to say?

Just mine will be very brief. I just would like to make a very minor change to one of the conditions of consent. Condition number 26,

Just changing one word in that front sentence. It says, The detailed drainage design of the site must be submitted and approved by Council prior to the release of the construction certificate. I like the word Council removed and just have a certifying authority because that's consistent with all the other conditions that are in there talking about civil design works, landscaping works. This is the only one that's got to go back to Council, and I can't see the need why it needs to go back to Council. The drainage on it is fairly straightforward. It's sort of grass swales that just lead to the dams. They're going to capture every bit of water that they need for the poultry farm. So that was my only comment that I want to make. Other than that, we are happy with the recommendation and don't need to make any other comments.

Panel, anybody would like to raise any matters with Mr. Hall?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Hall. I'm Paul Rogers, and community representative. Thank you. Welcome today. In our visit today, I was particularly taken to wandering down on the Putty Road to have a look at the access of trucks leaving the property, entering the property, and looking up and down the road as to the movement of traffic. We had information that the bulk of the trucks delivering the chickens would come at night time, but the issue of the road speed, line of sight, and the setback in terms of access, etc., was a particular concern in terms of just the elevation coming down the hill and then coming up the hill with the S-bend further away. We were looking at some further removal of vegetation to enable a little bit more line of sight, so increasing the possibility there.

One would like to think that the speed limit was complied with, but the reality is, sadly, many people drive above that, particularly when they think they're out in the bush, particularly at night, and it's very evident that it's a road of some concern. Would you be comfortable with a small increase in terms of the actual removal of some vegetation to improve the line of sight on basis that there will be trucks coming in and out, and obviously taking into account human error, there were trucks stalled, etc., or if by chance the trucks went out one, two, three. So, do you think on behalf of the applicant, you'd be accommodating a small increase in terms of that vegetation to give a better line of sight?

Please.

There'd be no problems with that. That'll be fine.

Yes. Can you just clarify, I was somewhat taken, and with the bus stop sign that's across the road that's supporting a letterbox, and on the inquiries it looks like there perhaps is not a formal bus stop. Can you and/or your client throw any light on that? Is it an informal sign that's been put up with a sense of humour, or is there some sort of informal gathering of children , et cetera, being picked up in a community sense to and from school? It just is a concern. It is yellow. It is an official bus stop sign. But as to whether there is any relevance of it being at the site, which is directly opposite the area where you would propose to have this construction.

I couldn't answer that because I don't know whether that is legitimate. And again, we'd have to talk to the relevant bus group that look and see whether that is an actual bus stop or whatever. The traffic report didn't identify it, I don't think, as a bus stop, and I would have thought they would have picked that up in terms of doing their assessment, especially if it was opposite where the main entry was, because that would have implications on turning movements. Absolutely

Ms. Wall. Could you perhaps ask your client, perhaps it may be simply a very informal arrangement. Our inquiries to date have indicated no actual knowledge, but we do need to, I think, pursue it for clarity. It's

Children from the, on the existing property get picked up at their driveway. It's just the school bus that actually comes to each driveway. It doesn't stop on the side of the road over there. I know the residents that live in the house now, their children get...

So can you just come down and actually say that into the...

So, my name is Matthew Johnson. Regards to the bus stop, from my knowledge, the current resident that lives in the house now, their children get picked up from the driveway, which I think is just the local school bus. It's not an actual, you know, designated bus route. And from what I know, the bus only picks up another lot of children, which are, I think, the next property up. But they get picked up and dropped off, if you notice the existing driveway to the house, they get picked up and dropped off from there. I don't think anyone gets dropped on the other side, not that we've ever seen or have any knowledge of.

Mr Johnson, do you know the times, morning, afternoon? Have you got any idea of the times and the number of children involved?

I think from the house, she only has one child, and I think they get picked up first because they're the last on the route, and that's around about 7:30. And then they don't get back till dropped off around five. Between quarter to five to 5:30 is when they get dropped back, because then they're the last on the route.

And the bus itself, is it not a traditionally big bus? Is it a small community bus?

I couldn't answer that. I haven't seen the bus. I only go from what the residents told us, how their kids get to school. Right At one stage.

And the school that they go to?

I think it was Colo High , is the school they go to, so maybe they could have a more definite answer for you. Okay.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Mr Johnson, might just stay there for a second before we go to other members of the panel. One other suggestion that has come up. From our site visit is that we will, we would look at a condition that required additional planting on the eastern boundary fence line, roughly equivalent to what's in the verge being matched on the other side to increase the density of the natural vegetation between the road and the sheds. You comfortable with that?

Yeah, we won't have a problem with that.

Thank you. You're welcome. Panel members, any other questions?

Thank you. That's it. We're done. Thank you. That was the end of the second item. I am now formally closing this meeting. As I said, we will now retire to consider the applications .

Okay, thank you for waiting. I note that the members of the public have re-entered the room are only here for the second item, so we will address that item. I'll state that both items that have come before the panel today have been approved. The second item, which is

DA 0237/18 for Lot 15, DP 753766, 3787 Putty Road, Colo Heights,

Is approved, and I will read the key portion of the approval. I won't go and read the entire document.

The application, DA 0237/18 for 3787 Putty Road, Colo Heights, is for the establishment of a poultry farm for the raising of chickens for meat. Panel visited the site, inspected the context, and received a briefing from council officers on the application. The panel was addressed by Mr Greg Hall and Mr Matthew Johnson. It was requested that condition 26 be amended to replace the words approved. Counc, approved by Council, with to the satisfaction of the principal certifying authority. Council officers did not have any objection to this change. The applicant was asked if the following amendments to the conditions of consent were acceptable to them. Condition 18 to be amended to require that tree and vegetation removal along the Putty Road road reserve

To provide

I think we've missed a word there, to provide a minimum sight distance for vehicles of not less than 153 metres in either direction. The reason: to address prevailing sight conditions on Putty Road. The second amendment was that condition 43 be amended to include the provision of screen planting along the eastern perimeter boundary, that is the Putty Road frontage, to a minimum depth of 10 metres of a density and species consistent with the existing planting within the immediately adjacent road reserve. The reason: to increase visual screening and preservation of natural habitat. There was the panel determination approved the application subject to the conditions and the amendments listed above.

If we go to the very end of the, there was an additional recommendation that the panel has made. The panel recommends that Council seek the necessary approvals for the placement of appropriate signage within Putty Road road reserve, identifying the location of the driveway and that trucks will be entering and leaving from it, and on receipt of such approval that signage be installed . All right. With that then, the application is approved subject to those changes.

Thank you.

We will amend the wording of that condition. I don't know if we can.

You understand? Okay, we're done. All right, thank you.

I'm sorry, I don't actually think I'm allowed to receive that now

I understand, but I think you would have to now send that. I don't think once we've had a meeting and we've closed the meeting, the late submission is acceptable under the terms of the panel. I'm sorry.

We will go back now, thank you. Okay, Councillor Ross has... Re-enter the room, in which case we will go back to the first item,

And we will read the key portion of the determination for the first item.

This application, DA 0225/18, 114 March Street, Richmond, is for the establishment of a preschool and senior citizen centre. The panel visited the site, inspected the context, and received a briefing from council officers on the application. The panel was addressed by Mr Greg Tesarivo, Mr Lachlan McClure, Ms Naomi Daly, and Councillor John Ross. A concern was raised that works had already been undertaken on the site that were subject to this application, and a question was raised as to whether, because of that, the application was still valid. The panel was advised that the works undertaken were minor and were permissible under exempt development, and it was clarified that this application did not seek approval for them. The panel

Determination is that the development application DA 0225/18, for lot 2 DP 575929 , lot 2 DP 560898, lot 4 DP 561147, lot 6 DP 560… 899 Richmond Preschool and Senior Citizens Centre, 1144 March Street, Richmond, New South Wales 2753. 4. Centre-based child care facility

Alterations, additions, increase capacity of facility by eight children and tree removal is approved, subject to the following. Condition 11. Condition 11 is to be amended to include in the list of species considered for replacement a tree similar to the existing Callistemon in the outdoor space. The remainder of the determination are the general conditions attached to it, and the reasons for.

The reasons for the decision. The panel considers the proposal is acceptable and is recommended for the proposed development and is acceptable

Based on the following grounds. The proposal is acceptable having regard to the statutory requirements applying to the development

The proposal adequately satisfies the objectives and provisions of Hawkesbury Local Environment Plan 2012. The amended proposal has adequately addressed the resolution made by the local planning panel on 20 December 2018. The proposal was notified in accordance with Hawkesbury Development Control Plan 2002. Submissions received raised concerns in respect of traffic safety, noise, stormwater, and loss of vegetation, which have been considered as part of the assessment of the proposal. It is considered that the proposal will not result in any adverse impacts in terms of noise, stormwater, traffic, or tree removal. The proposal will provide improved child care facilities for the community. And that is the decision of this panel.

Thank you.

With that, I actually, I close this meeting at 2:27 p.m.