Exhibition: Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (eplanning) Regulation 2017 Date submission received: 24/03/2017 Name: Inner West Council Location: LeichhardtNSW2040 Submission form content: Hi Michael Thankyou forthe additional time to review the eplanning Regulation update. Please find attached Council's submission. Any questions, please let me know. Rachel Josey Team Leader Assessments Inner West Council Attachment/s: EPIanninQ Requlation update, pdf Letter re eplanninq.pdf r Page?
INNER WEST COUNCIL Contact: Rachel Josey Phone: 9367 9230 22 March 2017 Michael Lucchitti Department of Planning and Environment Via email: michael.lucchitti( plannina.nsw.aov.au RE: eplanning Regulation 2017 Thank you for allowing Inner West Council a further week to consider the proposed changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. Council officers have had the opportunity to review the documentation available on the Department's web site in regards to the proposed eplanning Regulation. In general, the opportunity for lodgement of applications online is supported and it would be beneficial to applicants for this to be available through one avenue such as the Department's Planning Portal. Furthermore, the standardisation of forms and the level of information required with applications will also benefit applicants and will remove disparity between the Councils that currently exists. These are all positive concepts to simplifying the planning system and assist in improving determination times. The review of the documentation by a number of senior staff found that in general the Secretary's Requirements for the Lodgement of Applications for Development was very confusing and unnecessarily lengthy (at 182 pages). The officers found document difficult to navigate through and found a number of areas that contained information that was contradictory or confusing. Council generally considers that the process and documentation has been over-complicated. A number of suggestions that may assist in simplifying the process to achieve the desired outcome is attached. Should you wish to discuss the comments or the project in detail, please do not hesitate to contact Rachel Josey on 9367 9231. Council officers hope to provide assistance where possible to work towards a simpler planning system in New South Wales. Yours sincerely <^vin^-^ Elizabeth Richardson Group Manager Development Assessment & Regulatory Services Customer Service Centres Petersham I P (02) 9335 2222 I Ecouncil@mamckville.nsw.gov.au I 2-14 Fisher Street, Petersham NSW 2049 Leichhardt I P (02) 3367 9Z22 I Eleichhardtfa'lmc.nsw.gov.au I 7-16 Welherill Street Leichhardt NSW 2U40 Ashfield I P (02) 97161800 I EinfoCo'ashf ield.nsw.gov.au I 260 Liverpool Road AshfieldNSW 2131
eplanning Regulation 2017 Comments, questions and suggestions prepared in response to the review of the following documentation: Draft Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (eplanning) Regulation 2017 Secretary's Requirements for the submission and lodgement of applications for development Regulations Clause 50 - refers to an application being 'lodged' only when an email or other electronic communication is sent to the applicant that acknowledges it is lodged - is this the acknowledgment from Council once all the plans have been reviewed and found to be satisfactory? Or is this an automated response from planning portal? When does the clock start? How many days will Council have to review applications prior to it being lodged? Concern is raised that if there is no check as to the quality of the information or that the required information is actually provided that it will result in a large number of inferior applications being lodged and considerably increase the amount of applications Council needs to reject. This is likely to have significant impacts on workload and in turn service provided in assessment of complete applications. At present Council officer's review the adequacy of plans over the counter enabling them to be rejected without preparing a formal letter. Clause 256 - enables fees to be paid 14 days after the application is lodged. How does this clause relate to the requirements of Clause 50 which requires the fees to be paid at lodgement and how does it effect when the clock starts? Is this an opportunity to ask for additional fees which were not identified initially? Does this limit Council asking for additional fees during the course of the assessment outside of the 14 day period? This would have implications on situations when amended plans are lodged which require notification and assessment. In these circumstances Council is currently able to charge notification and amended plan assessment fees in line with the provision of this additional service. The removal of this option for applicants, to lodge amended plans, is likely to result in additional costs to Applicants having to lodge a new application. Furthermore, this may have implications on identifying inspection fees relating to security bonds and any other fees that may be appropriately conditioned as they would not be determined within 14 days after the application is lodged. 256(1) If applications can be lodged without all the fees this would in essence require Council to start the assessment with no certainty that fees will be paid resulting in costs to Council. Alternatively this could substantially delay the determination of the application ie waiting for fees to be paid. Additionally this may result in the rejection of applications within the 14 days with the fees not paid to Council. This would not enable Council to decide on
what fees would be refunded as part of the rejection as suggested (clause 51 (4)). This has the potential to cause additional administration work and cost implications for Council. 256(3) If additional fees are determined within the 14 days after the application is lodged, these fees should be payable at such time or shortly after to ensure that relevant fees are paid to Council. Leaving the payment of such fees to after the notice of determination is given to the Applicant has the potential of creating debt recovery implications for Council. Fees How long does Council have to provide the fee quotation? Third party database that will calculate fees on geographical area - concerns that this will be based on regions and not detailed enough to capture cost of works for individual areas ie Birchgrove with limited access and high end finishes. The risk is that Council will receive reduced fees due to inappropriate standardisation. Reduced fees could reduce service and staff and may compromise determination times. DA Workflow This is a handy tool but would be even more helpful if the days or period of days when particular things need to occur is also provided on the workflow diagram and additionally when the clock starts etc. Standard forms and requirements Council Officers found it considerably difficult to navigate this document, particularly in the electronic version as pages refer to you to numerous different sections. Given the large size of the document this took considerable time. It may be appropriate to split the document into development types (ie Residential / Non Residential / Mixed) to reduce the size of the documentation. Additionally, bookmark links should be provided in any future document to enable easy navigation. Party Walls Inner West Council has a number of properties that have party walls. How will party wall requirements consent be addressed? This does not appear to be within the Regulations or requirements. It is often the case that property owners are not aware of the existence of a shared wall and the ownership of such. Owners consent - How will owners consent for Strata developments be captured on the form. The discussion paper indicates that the strata secretary's signature and a strata seal are required but this is not outlined in the application forms.
It is likely that once Council's write to the owner advising them of the application (in the case that they are not the Applicant). In the interest of consistency, what will be the process be if Council receive advice from the owner that they did not provide authorisation for the lodgement? Whilst there will be a requirement via the Planning Portal for users to verify their identity, what measures will be available to applications that are lodged over the counter using the same form? An area for a signature (on applications not lodged on the planning portal) of at least the Applicant would assist in minimising the risk of applications being lodged without the correct authority. DA, S96 and other forms Some language is confusing and not commonly used eg 'refurbished. Recommended amendment as follows: Current phrase Refurbish Recommended Proposed 2) b) on the form 'Nature of works' is unnecessary and confusing given that there is a requirement to identify development type (a) and description of development (c). Recommend that there be a section getting clarification if the development entails the removal of trees. The note under box 2) c) is very confusing. Under what circumstances would this be relevant? The information required in 1.5 should be in the SEE. 2)e) will the planning portal be automated to require the calculator or other options ie the QA requirement. Why is there a statement 'please be as accurate as possible'. Surely this should just be accurate and limited to the options available (QA/calculator/Building quote). Will the this section of the form be linked to the calculator? 2)g) the requirement to provide a copy of the advice to Council is unnecessary as Council should already have a copy. Only the reference number is necessary. 4. Integrated development a) The notes appear to indicate that works within the water body relating to single dwellings would not be integrated and require referral to Fisheries which is incorrect. The questions should be separated (ie Fisheries Act / Water Management Act) to ensure all referrals are captured. b) This is likely to lead people to believe that if they are doing drainage works that they need a referral to the NSW Office of Water. g) The questioning is likely to lead people to incorrectly identify this as a requirement, particularly where they may not understand what a classified road is. Where is the listing of classified roads?
Combined DA & CC form A Combined DA & CC form is not preferred as it results in CC applications sitting with Council for long periods of time. What happens if the DA is refused? Results in additional unnecessary admin work. Please delete. It also makes the 182 page document of standard forms unnecessarily long. Complying Development Certificate form User terminology not consistent with current legislation ie 'Appointor' - should list all those who have the benefit of the cost Needs to have an option for N/A (ie d through to H) which are not applicable (ie for residential) Need area to capture ABS data. Other forms 1.3-3) Fees for Section 96(1) should remain given the fees in the act and often deals with errors by the Applicant. This gives Council an opportunity to waive these fees where appropriate. 1.4 -There is no mention of fees on this application form? There should be a note relating to the time limitations for a review (ie 6 months after determination of the application to be lodged and determined) 1.5 - Additional form pages - This is overly onerous for change of use applications Section 96AB Applications - There does not appear to be a form for this type of application. Recommend that it be included with the Section 82A review form. General notes: Sections for streets, suburbs, email addresses and names appears to be restrictive in size and should be increased to allow for long names, addresses and emails etc. Documentation Requirements 82A - is there any documentation requirements for an 82A review? There should be minimum of a supporting statement. Additionally, if the Applicant seeks to rely on amended plans there should be the requirement for a statement identifying the changes and how they address the determination of the application under review. 2.1 Development Types and Submission Requirement Categories The description of Development column adds confusion and appears to be unnecessary - please delete. Overall we found this section confusing and unnecessarily long. It should be simplified. We recommend a simple one page matrix checklist (http://www.leichhardt.nsw.gov.au/articledocuments/700/da-lodgement-checklist.pdf.aspx)
identify what is required for each development and a specification in a separate document. Electronically scrolling through this document is time consuming given the large size of the document. There should be no need to separate alterations and additions 'external only' and to the residential building' given that they both refer to Chapter 2.2. At the beginning of Chapter 2.2 it Refers people to Appendix A to identify what is required, however this is contrary to the mandatory requirements listed in 2.2. Ie A1 of Appendix A states that elevations are only required for CDC's? It would be difficult to assess a DA additions to a dwelling without elevations. Is this meant to identify that the requirements in Appendix A in A1 only relate to CDC's? Notes on Chapter 2.2 identified by > and» require crosses or ticks for the same reason. Identification of post submission documentation is confusing and does not add value. It is likely to raise issue if other documents are conditioned that are not listed here. This section also unnecessarily adds length to a very long and confusing document. There appears to be a large amount of duplication. For example the only difference in mandatory requirements between 2.7 & 2.8 is the requirement for a social impact statement. It seems unnecessary for this to take up two pages. Surely this could be captured in a matrix style checklist. The checklist categories have overlaps ie shop top, retail, commercial - these three terms are interchangeable. If Shop top is referring to residential, it should be in the residential section. Or is it relating to a business above a shop? Appendix A There appears to be two A1's in the Appendix. The first is confusing and conflicts with mandatory requirements under the chapters for each development type and should be deleted. It appears to attempt to identify when information 'may' be required however is confusing. For example when it lists 'Elevations (CDC only) it suggests that elevations are not required for residential alterations and additions. If it is a DA and does not entail demolition but additions it suggests elevations are not required. The second A1 outlines requirements for plans which is of great assistance and should be maintained. A1 - General Requirements This section should also require (where applicable) a Legend indicating the existing or proposed identified by colour, hatching etc. Support the requirement that any heights should be to AHD
A2 - Elevations The requirement for 'four' elevations should be deleted as a development may have more than four elevations. The requirement for 'all' is sufficient Elevations of relevant existing buildings should also reference the immediate adjoining properties Details of windows should also indicate the opening type and glazing type (ie obscure) The requirement to provide retaining walls and changes to Ground levels should be included. Details of materials should be required on elevations A3 - Floor and Roof Plans Delete the reference to "all typical" Level of floors, terraces and other similar elements should reference the requirement for these heights to be to AMD to be consistent with the requirement for elevations. Add the requirement for dimensions for both internal rooms and externally Location of windows and doors should also indicate the opening area (ie door opening inward or outward) A5 - Photomontage This section should require that the photomontage be prepared by a suitably qualified person and be accompanied by a statement as to the accuracy of the montage. It should be noted that additional vegetation imposed must not be incorporated. A6 - Sections Should also include requirements for proposed or existing retaining walls Representation of 'existing and proposed' ground level Heights and finished floor levels to be provided to AHD to ensure consistency with elevations. If the development includes on site car parking sections should be provided through the proposed parking space to the street boundary indicating compliance with AS2890.1 A7 - Shadow Diagrams Additionally should require that the outlines of adjoining affected sites including windows and doors be indicated on the plans. Show both existing and proposed shadows cast from the subject site. Additionally show shadows that are cast from surrounding properties that currently impact the affected neighbouring sites. A8 - Site Analysis This should be mandatory for each application that requires drawings as this is the first step in the planning process to ensure the designer takes into consideration and understands the surrounding environment. A9 - Site Plan Add the requirement to show immediately adjoining buildings A10. - Subdivision Plan
In lieu of North Arrow state that a North Point to True North is required A11. -Survey The requirements for a survey are imperative to ensure that the plans provided to Council's are accurate and as such specific requirements should be listed here. There are numerous references to AMD in other documents but AHD is not listed as a requirement for the survey. It is therefore recommended: That the reference to 'A north point' be amended to reference a North Point to True North Require that the survey be prepared by a Registered Surveyor and include location of boundaries (including dimension), encroachments and location of immediately adjoining buildings including ridge heights. To Australian Height Datum (AMD) Appendix B W Acoustic Report - Impact of a Development Should include reports for Air conditioning units in particular for Residential Flat Buildings or elevated in high density that is likely to have acoustic impacts. B1 Acoustic Report- External Noise Sources This section is likely to require acoustic reports unnecessarily ie swimming pool for a residential property or minor alterations to a heritage item which does not increase the number of people in an ANEF area B1 Arborist Report Should also reference where a development is likely to impact a tree on a neighbouring property B1 Heritage Impact Statements Such documents can be costly and are often unnecessary for development within a conservation area or to minor development to a heritage item. Recommend further criteria be provided as to when these are required to avoid unnecessary costs to Applicants. B1 Traffic and Transport Assessment Recommend further criteria be provided to require such reports when there is likely to be traffic generation or that seek development which do not comply with Council's controls in regards to parking.
B1 Building Code of Australia report This criteria vaguely sets out that such report is required when a development is required to comply with the BCA. This would mean all applications that entail any building works would require such report resulting in unnecessary costs to Applicants. B1 Plan of Manaoement Should also require reports for Boarding Houses, Child Care Centres B2 Access Report Should also reference Access to Premises B2 Conservation ManagemenLPIan and Hejrtacje Impact Statement Should reference the guidelines available at Office of Environment & Heritage httd://www.environment.nsw.aov.au/resources/heritaaebranch/heritaae/hmstatementsofhi.dd f httd://www.environment.nsw.aov.au/resources/heritaaebranch/heritaae/hmconservationman 2002.pdf Appendix F This section appears to be unnecessary and makes the already long document even longer. The forms should be designed to be self-explanatory and if necessary provide electronic help options buttons within the form (ie right click for help). General Comments Where the document references other sources ie Managing Land Contamination Planning Guidelines or Basix a live link to that document should be provided. Forms, checklists and specifications for each application type should be separated into different documents to allow people to print out what is applicable to them. The large scale of the document and complexity of such is confusing and will take considerable time for people to navigate. Recommend that a standard template be provided for Statements of Environmental Effects (for minor development) and Clause 4.6 variations.
INNER WEST COUNCIL Contact: Rachel Josey Phone: 9367 9230 22 March 2017 Michael Lucchitti Department of Planning and Environment Via email: michael.lucchittioiplannina.nsw.aov.au RE: eplanning Regulation 2017 Thank you for allowing Inner West Council a further week to consider the proposed changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. Council officers have had the opportunity to review the documentation available on the Department's web site in regards to the proposed eplanning Regulation. In general, the opportunity for lodgement of applications online is supported and it would be beneficial to applicants for this to be available through one avenue such as the Department's Planning Portal. Furthermore, the standardisation of forms and the level of information required with applications will also benefit applicants and will remove disparity between the Councils that currently exists. These are all positive concepts to simplifying the planning system and assist in improving determination times. The review of the documentation by a number of senior staff found that in general the Secretary's Requirements for the Lodgement of Applications for Development was very confusing and unnecessarily lengthy (at 182 pages). The officers found the document difficult to navigate through and found a number of areas that contained information that was contradictory or confusing. Council generally considers that the process and documentation has been over-complicated. A number of suggestions that may assist in simplifying the process to achieve the desired outcome is attached. Should you wish to discuss the comments or the project in detail, please do not hesitate to contact Rachel Josey on 9367 9231. Council officers hope to provide assistance where possible to work towards a simpler planning system in New South Wales. Yours sincerely ^/^v^^- Elizabeth Richardson Group Manager Development Assessment & Regulatory Services Customer Service Centres Petersham I P (02) 9335 2222 I E council@mamckville.nsw.gov.au I 2-14 Fisher Street, PetershamNSW 2049 Leichhardt I P (02) 9367 QZ22 I Eleichhardtfa'lmc.nsw.gov.au I 7-16 Welherill Street Leichhardt NSW 2040 Ashfield I P (02) 97161800 I E infoc&ashfield.nsw.gov.au I 260 Liverpool Road AshfieldNSW 2131