development application monitoring advisory committee business paper

development application monitoring advisory committee business paper date of meeting: 28 May 2015 location: council chambers time: 5 :00pm

Table of Contents AGENDA - WELCOME - APOLOGIES - DECLARATION OF INTERESTS - SECTION 1 - Confirmation of Minutes - SECTION 2 - Notices of Motion - SECTION 3 - Reports for Determination - SECTION 4 - Reports for Information - SECTION 5 - General Business DAMAC - 28 MAY 2015

Table of Contents DAMAC - 28 MAY 2015

Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM SUBJECT PAGE SECTION 1 - Confirmation of Minutes 3 ROC Development Application Monitoring Advisory Committee Minutes - 26 March 2015 - (95496, 91369) 3 SECTION 4 - Reports for Information 7 Item: 1 Development Application Statistics - 1 January 2015-31 March 2015 7 Item: 2 Development Application (DA) Riverfront Land/Properties - October - December 2014 18 SECTION 5 - General Business 23 DAMAC - 28 MAY 2015

DAMAC - 28 MAY 2015

1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION MONITORING ADVISORY COMMITTEE development application monitoring advisory committee section confirmation of minutes DAMAC SECTION 1 Page 1

DAMAC SECTION 1 Page 2

SECTION 1 - Confirmation of Minutes ROC Development Application Monitoring Advisory Committee Minutes - 26 March 2015 - (95496, 91369) Minutes of the Meeting of the Development Application Monitoring Advisory Committee held in Council Chambers, Windsor on Thursday, 26 March 2015. The meeting commenced at 5pm. Present: Apologies: In Attendance: Councillor Kim Ford, Chairperson Councillor Warwick Mackay OAM Councillor Bob Porter Councillor Mike Creed, Deputy Chairperson Councill Paul Rasmussen Mr Peter Jackson, Hawkesbury City Council Mr Matthew Owens, Hawkesbury City Council Ms Cristie Evenhuis, Hawkesbury City Council REPORT: RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Bob Porter and seconded by Councillor Warwick Mackay that the apologies be accepted. Member 6/11/14 26/3/15 Councillor Kim Ford Councillor Bob Porter Councillor Mike Creed A A Councillor (Dr) Warwick Mackay Councillor Paul Rasmussen A A Mr Peter Jackson (GM) Mr Matt Owens (DCP) Ms Cristie Evenhuis (MDS) Attendance Register Key: A = Formal Apology = Present X = Absent - no apology CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Bob Porter and seconded by Councillor Warwick Mackay that the Minutes of the Development Application Monitoring Advisory Committee held on the Thursday, 6 November 2014, be confirmed. DAMAC SECTION 1 Page 3

SECTION 4 - Reports for Information Item: 1 Development Application Statistics - 1 October 2014-31 December 2014 RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: That the information regarding the Development Application Statistics for the period 1 September 2014 31 December 2014 be received and noted. MOTION: RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Warwick Mackay, seconded by Councillor Bob Porter. Refer to COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That the information regarding the Development Application Statistics for the period 1 September 2014 31 December 2014 be received and noted. Item: 2 Development Application (DA) Riverfront Land/Properties - October - December 2014 RECOMMENDATION TO COMMITTEE: That the information regarding the development application processing and requirements for riverfront land/properties October 2014 December 2014 be received and noted. MOTION: RESOLVED on the motion of Councillor Warwick Mackay, seconded by Councillor Bob Porter. Refer to COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That the information regarding the development application processing and requirements for riverfront land/properties October 2014 December 2014 be received and noted. SECTION 5 - General Business Following a question by the Mayor, Councillor Kim Ford, discussion took place regarding the potential processing time for a development application (DA) submitted with all documentation in order and where there were no objections or subsequent issues. The discussion also referred to matters that arise during the processing of a DA that were likely to delay its finalisation. The meeting terminated at 5:40pm. Submitted to and confirmed at the meeting of the Development Application Monitoring Advisory Committee to be scheduled. oooo END OF REPORT Oooo DAMAC SECTION 1 Page 4

4 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION MONITORING ADVISORY COMMITTEE development application monitoring advisory committee section reports for information DAMAC SECTION 4 Page 5

DAMAC SECTION 4 Page 6

SECTION 4 - Reports for Information Item:1 Development Application Statistics - 1 January 2015-31 March 2015 REPORT: Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to provide a summation of development applications (DA) received and determined for the period from 1 January 2015 31 March 2015. This report also considers an analysis of the previous three quarters (June, September and December) of 2014 for comparative purposes. Information on other building and development related matters assessed by Development Services staff are also detailed in this report. This report recommends that the information be noted. Development Application (DA) Processing and Time Taken (Source: MasterView DA Tracker) Applications Submitted 180 Applications Determined 166 Median Time to Determine (days) 59 Mean (Average) Time to Determine (days) 82 Applications Determined < 40 days 37.35 % Applications Determined < 80 days 59.64 % Table 1 - DA Processing Figures for the Period 1/01/2015-31/03/2015 For comparison the previous quarters are provided below in Tables 2, 3 and 4. Applications Submitted 201 Applications Determined 218 Median Time to Determine (days) 74 Mean (Average) Time to Determine (days) 99 Applications Determined < 40 days 26.61% Applications Determined < 80 days 56.42% Table 2 - DA Processing Figures for the Period 1/10/2014-31/12/2014 Applications Submitted 218 Applications Determined 235 Median Time to Determine (days) 55 Mean (Average) Time to Determine (days) 80 Applications Determined < 40 days 36.60 % Applications Determined < 80 days 68.94 % Table 3 - DA - Processing Figures for the Period 1/7/2014-30/9/2014 DAMAC SECTION 4 Page 7

Applications Submitted 251 Applications Determined 214 Median Time to Determine (days) 52 Mean (Average) Time to Determine (days) 87 Applications Determined < 40 Daus Table 4 - DA Processing Figures for the Period 1/02/2014-30/06/2014 Comparing the figures of the March quarter to the December quarter it is noted the median time to determine applications and the average time to determine has fallen. This suggests that applications were processed faster than the previous quarter. It is also noted that the percentage of applications determined that were less than 40 days old and also less than 80 days old has risen. These figures can be attributed to the processing of a higher number of relatively newer DA s in the March quarter. The reason for the discrepancy between the above Table 1 from the MasterView DA Tracker on Council s website and the graph figures below (Figure 1) for the numbers of DA s received and determined is that the DA Tracker includes applications lodged in error or applications that were cancelled. The numbers quoted below in Figures 1 9 are the actual numbers of received and determined applications. Comparison of six month period between consecutive years Tables 5 and 6 below show the KPI statistics over a 6 month period compared with the same time period the previous year. Applications Submitted 381 Applications Determined 384 Median Time to Determine (days) 69 Mean (Average) Time to Determine (days) 93 Applications Determined < 40 days 31.25 % Applications Determined < 80 days 57.81 % Table 5 - DA Processing Figures for the Period 1/10/2014-31/03/2015 Applications Submitted 350 Applications Determined 336 Median Time to Determine (days) 72 Mean (Average) Time to Determine (days) 92 Applications Determined < 40 days 28.57 % Applications Determined < 80 days 54.46 % Table 6 - DA Processing Figures for the Period 1/10/2013-31/03/2014 It is noted that for the most recent 6 month period the number of development applications determined was greater than those received and also the number of development applications submitted was greater than those received during the same period 12 months ago. Whilst the mean and average figures and the percentages (from Table 5) appear to be comparable with the previous period (Table 6) it can be demonstrated the number of applications determined has increased (by 48) and the slightly higher percentages in the most recent period suggest the applications are being determined faster than the same period last year. DAMAC SECTION 4 Page 8

Staff Resources to Process Development Related Applications During the review period, Council had one town planning consultant and one consultant Development Engineer to assist with the backlog of applications. One member of staff returned to work from maternity leave however another Town Planning member of staff was seconded to the Strategic Planning Branch to assist their operations. Following the review of the City Planning Directorate and in consideration of the significant work required to improve systems and processes, the General Manager agreed to extend the secondment of the Town Planning Coordinator to undertake this work. The Town Planning Coordinator has been undertaking this secondment work for approximately 18 months. In addition Council s Senior Town Planners were involved with 6 new Land and Environment Court Appeals. In the previous quarter there were also 6 appeals and those appeals had been concluded. These matters have dominated significant resources in the Town Planning Branch. Statistic Representation of Performance over the reporting period The following figures represent the performance of the Development Services Division in relation to applications. 300 Development Applications 250 200 150 100 242 195 217 233 198 215 170 158 Received Determined 50 0 June Qtr 2014 Sept. Qtr 2014 Dec.Qtr 2014 March Qtr 2015 Figure 1 - Development Applications (Received and Determined) 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 S96 Modifications 45 36 34 32 33 26 25 26 June Qtr 2014 Sept. Qtr 2014 Dec.Qtr 2014 March Qtr 2015 Received Determined Figure 2 - Modifications of Consent (Received and Determined) DAMAC SECTION 4 Page 9

S82A Review of Determination 2.5 2 2 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 Received Determined 0.5 0 0 0 0 June Qtr 2014 Sept. Qtr 2014 Dec.Qtr 2014 March Qtr 2015 Figure 3 - Reviews of Determination (Received and Determined) Construction Certificates 90 80 70 60 85 67 76 64 83 76 61 60 50 40 30 Received Issued 20 10 0 June Qtr 2014 Sept. Qtr 2014 Dec.Qtr 2014 March Qtr 2015 Figure 4 - Building Construction Certificates (Received and Issued) DAMAC SECTION 4 Page 10

Engineering Design Compliance Certificates 18 16 17 17 14 12 10 8 8 8 9 8 9 Received Issued 6 5 4 2 0 June Qtr 2014 Sept. Qtr 2014 Dec.Qtr 2014 March Qtr 2015 Figure 5 Engineering Design Compliance Certificates (Received and Issued) Complying Development Certificates 14 12 10 12 10 9 9 11 10 10 10 8 6 Received Issued 4 2 0 June Qtr 2014 Sept. Qtr 2014 Dec.Qtr 2014 March Qtr 2015 Figure 6 Complying Development Certificates (Received and Issued) DAMAC SECTION 4 Page 11

S149D Building Certificates 25 21 21 20 15 14 16 15 12 12 Received 10 9 Issued 5 0 June Qtr 2014 Sept. Qtr 2014 Dec.Qtr 2014 March Qtr 2015 Figure 7 Building Certificates (Received and Issued) S149 Planning Certificates Issued 670 664 660 650 646 640 640 630 630 620 610 June Qtr 2014 Sept. Qtr 2014 Dec.Qtr 2014 March Qtr 2015 Figure 8 Planning Certificates (Issued) DAMAC SECTION 4 Page 12

Subdivision Certificates 16 14 13 14 13 12 10 9 10 8 6 5 7 7 Received Issued 4 2 0 June Qtr 2014 Sept. Qtr 2014 Dec.Qtr 2014 March Qtr 2015 Development Applications in Progress Figure 9 Subdivision Certificates (Received and Issued) Figure 10 below shows that there were 222 DA s in total in progress (as at 31 March 2015) and that 144 (64%) of all DAs have been in progress for > 40 calendar days. In the previous quarter there were 209 DAs in progress and 62% of DA s older than 40 days. The higher figure for this quarter may be attributable to Annual Leave taken within the Development Services Branch. This is in addition to the secondment of the Town Planning Coordinator and six Land and Environment Court Appeals as mentioned earlier in this report. Figure 10 - Current DAs in Progress (as at 31 March 2015) DAMAC SECTION 4 Page 13

Figure 11 - DAs in Progress (as at 31 December 2014) Of the 144 DAs currently in progress for more than 40 days these can be further divided as shown in Table 7 below. Pre-2012 2012 2013 > 40 days 2014 > 40 days 2 1 10 131* Table 7 Development Applications in Progress (as at 31 December 2014) Table 8 below provides a breakdown of the development applications submitted last year into the relevant quarter they were lodged. Jan - Mar Apr - Jun July - Sep Oct - Dec 10 (7%) 11 (8%) 32 (24.5%) 62 (60.5%) *Table 8 Analysis of DAs in Progress for 2014 As shown in Table 8 above, approximately 60% of DAs outstanding that were submitted in 2014 were submitted in the last quarter. There are a range of factors that prevent a DA from being determined within 40 days. It should be noted that the statutory timeframe for the assessment of Integrated DA s is 60 days. Aside from limited staff resources at various times, the following factors contributed to delays: Determination Delay % of applications under assessment Additional information requested 59 (45.5%) Retrospective applications 41 (31%) Integrated Development 24 (18%) Crown Consent 1 (1%) Land and Environment Court Appeals 6 (4.5%) Table 9 Reasons DAs are still in progress DAMAC SECTION 4 Page 14

With regard to the reasons for determination delays, the following information may be of assistance: Additional Information Requested In 1998 an analysis of application delays here at Hawkesbury City Council found that 61% of delays were attributable to insufficient information being provided by the applicant. It is apparent from the above table the statistic is still much the same today. Over this time the legislation governing the development assessment process has increased in complexity and each amendment to the legislation adds further assessment requirements and the subsequent need for additional information. All applications are considered on their individual merits and additional information required may vary from application to application. Council staff are required to assess applications against existing provisions and make value judgements on behalf of the community. The site characteristics and attributes will dictate what information is required. Examples of the types of site attributes include flood liability, bush-fire prone land, heritage significance and conservation areas, threatened species, endangered ecological community, aircraft noise, acid sulphate soils, land-slip, road widening, easements and restrictions. The nature of the development proposed may also dictate what information is required. Examples of this might include the permissibility of the development under the LEP, inconsistency with the objectives of the zone, non-compliances with the DCP provisions, issues with the design, appearance or impact upon the streetscape, excessive vegetation removal, excessive earthworks, appropriateness and/or lack of detail for drainage designs, inadequate vehicle access and manoeuvring on site, or impacts upon infrastructure such as Councils sewer (Minor works Applications) or the trunk drainage system resulting in On-site Detention being required. Issues like those listed above will prompt Council staff to request further information from the applicant. That additional information may be in the form of documentation (to further explain, justify or clarify the nature of the development), additional reports (to demonstrate the development is acceptable i.e. it does not adversely impact upon koala habitat, or the occupants will not be unduly exposed to aircraft noise ). Where applications are placed on public exhibition and submissions are received, Council staff highlight the relevant issues with the applicant with a view of addressing the issues raised. Additional information may also be requested in the form of amendments to the plans so that the development may be carried out in a more appropriate fashion e.g. to reduce a six unit, two storey townhouse development to a five unit development with a mix of single and two storey buildings to give better amenity, private open space and vehicle access and parking for the occupants of the development and also to reduce the overlooking and overshadowing impacts of the development upon adjoining residents. Delays are attributable to carrying out the initial assessment, arriving at a position on the development as proposed, advising the applicant of the issues to be addressed, the applicant then addressing those issues or providing reasons for not addressing the issues, re-notification of the amended design, review of the amended proposal and completion of the assessment. On 25 November 2014 Council resolved, in part, the following: The following procedures be adopted in relation to incomplete applications: a) The initial letter to an applicant for additional information or amendments will request a response within 14 days. (Note: a response may result in an agreement between assessment staff and the applicant of a timeframe for the submission of that information and not necessarily resolution of the matter). DAMAC SECTION 4 Page 15

b) If no response is received after 14 days, a follow up letter will be sent requesting the information within seven days. This letter to also suggest withdrawal of the application where appropriate, or the application will be determined based on the information submitted, which may result in a refusal. c) Applications be refused after 40 days if no response is received or the information submitted is insufficient to enable those matters to be satisfactorily addressed. d) Where applications are withdrawn the applicant may be entitled to a partial refund of the application fees in accordance with Council s adopted Fees and Charges. The development application process utilises the fourteen and seven day letter process detailed above, albeit in a very generous manner in relation to the timeframes. In an attempt to assist applicants, part c) of the above resolution is not usually implemented unless all other avenues have been exhausted. Retrospective Applications These types of applications are seeking development consent for works already carried out that did not receive prior approval. In these cases, the applicant is required to demonstrate the nature of the development and whether it is permitted, the impacts of the development are not unreasonable and the standard of any building work is acceptable. These types of applications are often generated as a result of a complaint by an affected party or if the property is on the market. In cases where a complaint is involved the process can be highly emotional and sometimes controversial. In cases where the property is on the market, the DA process can be used as a bargaining tool by either party. In other cases the applicant has fulfilled an obligation by the mere lodgement of an application in order to delay or prevent any pending legal action by Council against them (requiring for instance the use of a property to cease or for works to be demolished). However, in some cases the applicant fails to cooperate with staff and has no desire to progress the matter to completion or is otherwise unable to provide the information required to satisfy Council staff. Integrated Development These applications (because of the nature of the development, the nature of the land or the proximity or use of State infrastructure) require Council to advise the relevant agencies and seek comment, concurrence or General Terms of Approval (GTA s) from those agencies. Any development consent must include all the GTA s imposed by such an agency. Delays can occur where the agency requires additional information or amendments to the proposal or the GTA s are not forthcoming. If the agency informs Council they will not issue GTA s Council is obliged to refuse the application. Nothing prevents Council from determining an application where an agency has failed to respond to Council within the designated timeframe (currently 40 days after the agency receives the referral from Council or in the event the agency is required to publicly exhibit the proposal 21 days after the close of submissions). Crown Consent These are applications that rely on land owned by the Crown and the Crown must give owners consent for the use of the land. This can be a lengthy process for an applicant. In other cases, the Crown may wish to transfer the land into the control of Council. It will then become Council s responsibility to maintain the land or road. Council s Infrastructure Services Department generally does not have the resource capacity or budget to inherit an asset of this type. DAMAC SECTION 4 Page 16

An example of this may be where access to a site is via a Crown road and upgrade work is required to the road to comply with NSW Rural Fire Service requirements for access. The Crown road is unformed and is merely a paper road. If Council were to approve the application relying on the Crown road and requiring work to be carried out to that road in order to service the development, the Crown Lands Department will require Council to take control of the road (and all the associated upgrading and maintenance work). Council in these cases attempts to negotiate an alternative access to the site with the applicant (such as a Right of Way over private property or similar). Land and Environment Court Appeals Applications where an appeal to the Land and Environment Court (LEC) has been lodged are resource intensive and practically dominate the case officer s time in preparing statements for the court, briefing Council s solicitors and attending to any other matter required by Councils solicitor. In most appeals, the case officer is the original assessment officer. Whilst an appeal is in process there is limited attention being given by the officer to other applications as the Court matter must take priority. Applications may be redistributed amongst other assessment staff however this can sometimes result in inefficiencies such as a re-assessment of the application. Appeals also demand the time and attention of senior management thereby taking away from time that would otherwise be devoted to other tasks. RECOMMENDATION: That the information regarding the Development Application Statistics for the period 1 January 2015 to 31 March 2015 be received and noted. ATTACHMENTS: There are no supporting documents for this report. oooo END OF REPORT Oooo DAMAC SECTION 4 Page 17

Item:2 Development Application (DA) Riverfront Land/Properties - October - December 2014 REPORT: Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to provide statistics about development applications (DA) for riverfront land/properties currently in progress or determined within the last quarter i.e. January March 2015 and DAs currently in progress. This report recommends that the information be received and noted. Background The relevant objectives of the DAMAC to this report are to: Review and monitor the assessment process and processing times in respect of development applications relating to works proposed on riverfront land/properties The relevant role of the DAMAC to this report are to consider: Legislative processes and requirements associated with the consideration of development applications relating to works proposed on river front land/properties Statistics relating to the current and past performance in respect of the processing of development applications as related works proposed on river front land/properties Statistics for Riverfront Land/Properties DAs The following tables show applications determined and current as at the last quarter date range. Applications may have been determined, withdrawn or lodged since that quarter. Under Section 107 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, neither the day on which a development application is lodged, nor the following day, are counted in calculating the number of days for an assessment period. DA0756/14 - Integrated Water Recreation Structure Construction of a pontoon, boat shed and ramp 233 Cattai Road, Pitt Town Date application received 28.11.14 Date application determined (Approved) 8.05.15 No of calendar days with Council 131 No of clock days 62 No of days waiting for additional information from Applicant 98 (total) No of days with external agency (total) 24 Table 1 - DAs for riverfront land/properties determined January - March 2015 DAMAC SECTION 4 Page 18

DA0262/15 - Integrated Sealing and minor regrading of Punt Road, Construction of a boat and trailer car park, boat ramp and associated drainage and infrastructure services 1 Hall Street, Pitt Town Conclusion Date application received 8.05.2015 No of calendar days with Council 11 No of clock days 11 No of days waiting for additional information from Applicant (total) No of days with external agency (total) Table 2 - Current DAs for riverfront land/properties As discussed in previous reports to DAMAC, DAs involving riverine environments can be complex due to the potential impacts on the sensitive environmental location and the legislated assessment processes which often involve multiple local and state government organisations. RECOMMENDATION: That the information regarding the development application processing and requirements for riverfront land/properties January 2015 March 2015 be received and noted. ATTACHMENTS: There are no supporting documents for this report. oooo END OF REPORT Oooo DAMAC SECTION 4 Page 19

DAMAC SECTION 4 Page 20

5 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION MONITORING ADVISORY COMMITTEE development application monitoring advisory committee section general business DAMAC SECTION 5 Page 21

DAMAC SECTION 5 Page 22

SECTION 5 - General Business DAMAC SECTION 5 Page 23

development application monitoring advisory committee end of business paper This business paper has been produced electronically to reduce costs, improve efficiency and reduce the use of paper. Internal control systems ensure it is an accurate reproduction of Council's official copy of the business paper.