Agenda of Shire Strategic Planning Committee - 4 00 2019€¦ · Shire Strategic Planning Committee 4 November 2019 Page 7 8-19 PLN038-19 INDEPENDENT PRICING AND REGULATORY TRIBUNAL

Business Paper

Shire Strategic Planning Committee

Monday, 4 November 2019

6:30pm

Council Chambers,

Level 2, Administration Building,

4-20 Eton Street, Sutherland

Shire Strategic Planning Committee 4 November 2019

Page 2

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

2. APOLOGIES

3. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS

5. PRESENTATIONS

6. REPORTS FROM OFFICERS

PLN037-19 Permissibility of Boarding Houses in the R2 Low Density Zone

Residential Zone, E3 Environmental Management Zone and E4

Environmental Living Zone

PLN038-19 Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) - Submission on

local government reporting, regulation and enforcement responsibilities

7. QUESTIONS

8. CONSIDERATION OF BUSINESS IN CLOSED SESSION

9. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS FROM OFFICERS


Page 3

PL

N0

37

-19

PLN037-19 PERMISSIBILITY OF BOARDING HOUSES IN THE R2 LOW DENSITY

ZONE RESIDENTIAL ZONE, E3 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

ZONE AND E4 ENVIRONMENTAL LIVING ZONE

Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Boarding houses are a permissible use in the R2 Low Density Residential zone under both the

Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 and the State Environmental Planning Policy

(Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

A boarding house development in the R2 zone under SSLEP2015 is subject to the development

controls applicable to other forms of development in the zone e.g. landscaped area, floor space

ratio, and building height.

Boarding houses are permissible in the R2 zone under ARHSEPP, but is limited in size to 12

boarding rooms. The AHRSEPP contains standards that ‘cannot be used to refuse consent,’

including standards for density, building height, front setback landscaping, solar access, private

open space, parking, and accommodation size.

Boarding houses are not permissible in the E3 Environmental Management Zone and E4

Environmental Living Zone.

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

The report on Permissibility of Boarding Houses in R2, E3 and E4 zones be received and noted.


Page 4

PL

N0

37

-19

PURPOSE

This report outlines the permissibility of boarding houses in the R2 Low Density Residential, E3

Environmental Management Zone, and E4 Environmental Living Zone in response to a request for

information from Council.

BACKGROUND

On 16 September 2016, Council considered a report on DCP controls for boarding houses (PLN028-

19, 16 September 2019). As part of the deliberations, Council requested a report on the permissibility

of boarding houses in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone and the low density residential zones

generally. The E3 Environmental Management Zone and E4 Environmental Living Zone are

considered the low density residential zones in Sutherland Shire.

DISCUSSION

The permissibly of boarding houses in Sutherland Shire is determined through two legislative

instruments. These are the Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 and the State

Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARHSEPP). These instruments use

the same definition of boarding houses:

Boarding house means a building that:

(a) is wholly or partly let in lodgings, and

(b) provides lodgers with a principal place of residence for 3 months or more, and

(c) may have shared facilities, such as a communal living room, bathroom, kitchen or

laundry, and

(d) has rooms, some or all of which may have private kitchen and bathroom facilities,

that accommodate one or more lodgers,

but does not include backpackers’ accommodation, a group home, hotel or motel

accommodation, seniors housing or a serviced apartment.

Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015 (SSLEP2015)

Under SSLEP2015, boarding houses are a mandatory use permissible with consent in the R2 Low

Density Residential Zone, in accordance with the provisions of the Standard Instrument – Principle

Local Environmental Plan. Boarding house proposals in the R2 zone are subject to the development

controls in the LEP applicable for the relevant land. These include landscaped area, floor space ratio,

and building height. Notably, there is currently no minimum lot size requirement in the SSLEP2015 for

boarding houses.

Boarding houses approved under SSLEP2019 are subject to the requirements of the Sutherland Shire

Development Control Plan 2015. Recent amendments, which came into effect on 9 October 2019,

apply to boarding houses and compliment the standards contained in the ARHSEPP to ensure

proposals more specifically relate to the character and built form of the Sutherland Shire.

http://www.sutherlandshire.nsw.gov.au/files/sharedassets/website/document-library/governance/council-meetings/2019-09-02-pln-business-paper.pdf

http://www.sutherlandshire.nsw.gov.au/files/sharedassets/website/document-library/governance/council-meetings/2019-09-02-pln-business-paper.pdf


Page 5

PL

N0

37

-19

Under SSLEP2015 boarding houses are not permissible in the E3 Environmental Management Zone

or E4 Environmental Living Zone. These zones are generally more distant from the centres where

services and public transport connections are more frequent, or are areas identified as bush fire prone

land where increased population density is not appropriate.

Affordable Rental Housing State Environmental Planning Policy (AHRSEPP)

The objective of the ARHSEPP is increasing the supply and diversity of affordable rental and social

housing in NSW. Boarding houses are identified as a permissible use in the R2 Low Density

Residential Zone, but are limited to a maximum of 12 boarding rooms. This size restriction came into

effect on the 8 February 2019, meaning that boarding houses in the R2 Zone approved before this

date were not subject to this limitation. The boarding house provisions of the AHRSEPP do not apply

to the E3 Environmental Management and E4 Environmental Living zones.

The AHRSEPP contains standards that ‘cannot be used to refuse consent,’ including standards for

density, building height, front setback landscaping, solar access, private open space, parking, and

accommodation size. Some of these standards are linked to council’s LEP controls on the subject land

(e.g. height of buildings and floor space ratio). Other matters are left to the discretion of councils

through Development Control Plans (DCPs). If there is an inconsistency between the ARHSEPP and

SSLEP2015, the provisions of the ARHSEPP apply.

Past applications

In the past seven years there have been 17 individual applications for boarding house developments

across Sutherland Shire. The majority have been focussed around the centres of Sutherland, Kirrawee

and Miranda. There have been five boarding house proposals in the R2 Low Density Residential

Zone. Two of these have been approved, two have been refused, and one is currently under

assessment.

RESOURCING STRATEGY IMPLICATIONS

The preparation of this report has been undertaken by the Strategic Planning Unit utilising existing

resources.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

No community engagement has been undertaken during the preparation of this report.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

Boarding houses provide a form of residential accommodation which contributes to the Community

Strategic Plan Outcome 6: A Liveable Place with a High Quality of Life. The links to the strategies and

deliverables are set out below.


Page 6

PL

N0

37

-19

Community Strategic Plan Strategy Delivery Program (2017-2021) Deliverables

6.2 Facilitate a diverse housing mix that

provides choice and meets the needs of all

community members

6B. Manage new and existing development

within a robust and effective framework.

6C. Support enhanced housing diversity,

accessibility and affordability to meet the diverse

needs of the community.

POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

The permissibility of boarding houses is governed by State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable

Rental Housing) 2009 (ARHSEPP) and Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015.

CONCLUSION

Boarding Houses are not permissible in the E3 Environmental Management Zone or the E4

Environmental Living Zones under SSLEP2015 or under the State Environmental Planning Policy

(Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARHSEPP).

Boarding houses are a mandatory permissible form of development in the R2 Low Density Residential

Zone through both the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

(ARHSEPP) and Sutherland Shire Local Environmental Plan 2015. Council has no discretion to

remove this permissibility.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for the preparation of this report is the Manager Strategic Planning, Mark

Carlon, who can be contacted on 9710 0523.

File Number: 2015/87442


Page 7

PL

N0

38

-19

PLN038-19 INDEPENDENT PRICING AND REGULATORY TRIBUNAL (IPART) -

SUBMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT REPORTING, REGULATION

AND ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES

Attachments: Appendix A⇩ and Appendix B⇩

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2014 and 2016 the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART), on behalf of the

Office of Local Government, undertook a series of reviews covering the rating system, reporting

and compliance burdens on local government, and local government compliance and

enforcement. These reports have now been made public.

The Government is now consulting on the finalisation of these reports. The recommendations of

the IPART reports are generally supported.

Many of the recommendations require legislative reform, the drafting of guidelines, and new

online systems. It is essential that reforms clearly identify and delineate State and local

government responsibilities, and consider the regulatory burdens and financial ramifications for

local government.

Feedback was due 25 October 2019. A preliminary submission has been made given time

constraints. A final submission will be made following Council’s resolution on this report.

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

THAT:

The draft Submission to the Office of Local Government (attached as Appendix A and B) be

endorsed as Council’s submission.


Page 8

PL

N0

38

-19

PURPOSE

This report informs Council of current Office of Local Government consultation on legislative and

process changes recommended by IPART, and seeks Council’s endorsement of the preliminary

submission prepared by Council officers.

BACKGROUND

In 2014 and 2016 the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART), on behalf of the Office of

Local Government, undertook a series of reviews which covered the rating system, reporting and

compliance burdens on local government and local government compliance and enforcement

functions. Three reports were produced:

IPART’s first report relates to the rating system. This report proposed 42 recommendations

including the introduction of a new improved valuation method for council rates and charges.

The Government has not endorsed the IPART recommendations for changes to the current

rates exemption framework and a rates deferral scheme for pensioners. Consultation on this

report is now closed.

IPART’s second report relates to the reporting and compliance burdens on local government.

This report makes 10 recommendations including the clarification of state-made council

regulations, the reduction of the regulatory burden on councils, and that councils be reimbursed

for certain shortfalls in state statutory fees. Comments on the ‘reporting and compliance

burdens’ recommendations close 25 October (addressed in this report).

IPART’s third report relates to Council’s compliance and enforcement role. This report makes 42

recommendations including key amendments to various council forms, the development of a

partnership model with councils and state agencies and state guides for developing council

regulations. Comments on ‘compliance and enforcement’ recommendations close 15 November

(addressed in this report).

The three reports are nearly 1,000 pages long and contain many detailed recommendations. Some

recommendations have already been ruled out by the State Government as they would impact on

vulnerable members of the community, affect jobs, and cost taxpayers – this includes IPART

recommendations to remove restrictions on fees and capping of fees below cost recovery.

The State Government’s interim response to the three reviews is available via the following link:

https://www.olg.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/LGAT/Government%E2%80%99s%20Interim%20Respo

nse%20to%20Reports.pdf

The State Government is now consulting on the finalisation of the final two reports. It is noted that

some reforms recommended by IPART are marked 'Not for consultation' on the Office of Local

Government feedback form, thus barring the opportunity to comment. Feedback may only be given

on-line in a pre-set feedback form. As the time frame for submissions has passed, a preliminary

submission has been made based on officer feedback. A final Council endorsed submission will be

made following the Council meeting.

https://www.olg.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/LGAT/Government%E2%80%99s%20Interim%20Response%20to%20Reports.pdf

https://www.olg.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/LGAT/Government%E2%80%99s%20Interim%20Response%20to%20Reports.pdf


Page 9

PL

N0

38

-19

DISCUSSION

Complete output from the on-line comment form completed by Council officers is contained in the

attachments to this report. Below is a summary of key issues.

Reporting & Compliance Burdens:

The following comments have been made to the IPART recommendations:

Centralised provision of Planning Certificates: These are currently managed differently by each

Council. Provided the IT platform is user friendly (easy and quick to update), centralisation

could work. However, ensuring the information provided on Planning Certificates is legally

correct is very time consuming and requires significant resources - it is important that Council is

renumerated for this expense. Sutherland Shire Council’s use of online services is well in

advance of most councils and Council is one of the first to fully embrace the planning portal.

Council’s use of e-services is well beyond what the Portal could offer in the near future.

However, for those councils that do not have electronic certificates, the Portal offers some

advantages. Councils should be given the option to opt in/opt out of such services.

Joint applications (DAs and CCs): May only work for very few number/type of applications due

to the number of revised plans/modifications submitted or required. It is rare that an application

completely complies. However, this could work for simpler applications – such as project

homes.

One stop shop: Council is currently using the 'one stop shop' for DA, PP, and CC applications

with great success.

Online payment of State government fee: Online direct payment of the Planning Reform Fee to

DPIE is supported as this would reduce ‘double handling’ of funds.

Standardised conditions of consent: As before, standardised conditions of consent are

supported subject to the ability for councils to tailor wording to address local conditions.

Fire compliance reporting: This can be onerous. An online portal for submitting annual fire

safety statements (AFSS) is supported and would negate the need to submit to two

organisations. Fire Brigade/Order reports to Council on minor issues are time consuming – it is

agreed that some of these minor functions should be at the discretion of the General Manager.

Alcohol Free Zones (roads footpath carparks): These are reviewed every four years in line with

current legislation. However, this is done generally to assist police with enforcement. This

should be done by the Office of Liquor and Gaming as its role in licensing is largely to support

licensed shops and venues. Ministerial Guidelines only currently apply to AFZ.

Alcohol Prohibited Areas (APA): These are Council's responsibility (parks beaches) and are

needed to manage public drinking. The reforms are partially supported - it is considered that

APA are best managed by local government.

Alcohol at events: Council has good temporary and event-based alcohol policies, practises,

and guidelines on its website. Events are well managed by Council, in consultation with police.

Local Government does not need to have an additional, duplicated policing role. The licensing


Page 10

PL

N0

38

-19

functions of the Office of Liquor and Gaming should be more thorough and vigilant, and should

have greater regard to Council’s comments in response to liquor licensing applications.

Open data: This is supported from both State and Local Government. In particular anonymised

Opal data should be made available to assist in strategic and land use planning. It is imperative

that clear IT parameters are set and that assistance is given to under resourced Councils who

are required to provide data. Council is currently submitting development data

(LDPM/SEPP1(Cl4.6)) electronically. However, there is always a need to validate the data

before submission, and hence this is still requires local government resources.

Integrated Planning & Reporting: The requirements have improved the planning and

accountability functions of Council, facilitating better outcomes. A common set of

measures/performance indicators across Councils is supported. Whilst state wide surveys have

some value it is likely that Council will continue to conduct its own measures and surveys. The

Office of Local Government should continue to work with Councils to streamline IP&R reporting.

Performance indicators should not increase cost burdens for Councils. Limiting engagement on

Plans of Management for Community Land to align with IP&R engagement is not necessary.

Compliance & Enforcement:

The following comments have been made to the IPART recommendations:

Cost recovery: The State Government must work with local government in considering the

impact and cost of its regulatory requirements. Restrictions on fees for statutory approvals and

inspections must be flexible to allow for the recovery of reasonable costs in order to best meet

the needs of growing communities. A quick and easy improvement would be the creation of

standard templates across local government for enforcement action. Cost recovery of

enforcement action is a major inhibitor to meeting community expectations.

Consolidation of regulation: Streamlining and removing duplication in the Local Government

Act, the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act and the Roads Act is supported. However, it

is considered more important that the processes are the same for all local governments. The

enforcement fees should reflect the administration process involved. Council regulatory officers

who have delegated authority under a number of different Acts have different enforcement

powers. Aligning or standardising these powers would be of great benefit.

Development consent conditions: Development across NSW is not significantly different.

Standardised development consent conditions, with the ability to tailor to local circumstances,

are supported. However, IPART approval of additional conditions of consent (National

Construction Code) seems onerous. Similarly, the removal of ‘red tape’ in addressing simpler

public domain (road reserve issues) and section 68 approvals (standard exemptions and

minimum requirements) is supported.

Annual Fire Safety statements: The requirement to submit Annual Fire Safety Statements

(AFFS) to two authorities needs to be streamlined - submitting online to one authority, with

alternate viewing rights, makes sense.


Page 11

PL

N0

38

-19

RESOURCING STRATEGY IMPLICATIONS

The reporting, compliance and enforcement functions of Council are resource consuming, often with

little financial resource. Whilst the proposed reforms, such as streamlining of regulatory and

enforcement functions, have the potential to create savings, it is important that the fees still reflect the

actual administration process and costs involved.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

The State Government is seeking to carry out widespread consultation with residents, council staff,

councillors, peak bodies and other key stakeholders as the Government finalises its response to these

complex reports.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

Council’s Long Term Financial Plan advocates for a balanced financial approach through efficient,

effective and economic use of funds. Council’s role in reporting, enforcement, regulation, and

compliance seeks to maintain the quality of both the natural environment and resident lifestyles and at

the same time meet the greater needs of the community.

Community Strategic Plan Strategy Delivery Program (2017-2021) Deliverables

1.4 Ensure community confidence in Sutherland

Shire Council.

1L Advocate and maintain dialogue across all

levels of government and with key stakeholders

around issues impacting our community.

1.4.3 Welcome independent oversight and take

a risk based approach to delivering effective

governance.

6B Manage new and existing development

within a robust and effective framework

1.4.1 Ensure a strong governance framework

that provides transparency, accountability and

sustainability.

2.2.2 Encourage responsible urban planning

which balances growth with environmental

sustainability

3.1.3 Provide emergency, rescue and public

health and safety services which support

community wellbeing.

POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

These reviews focus on complex areas of government regulation that require detailed consideration,

consultation and review. Arising from this review is likely to be legislative changes to the Local

Government Act and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, and associated Acts and

Regulations. This is a State Government role.


Page 12

PL

N0

38

-19

CONCLUSION

The recommendations of the IPART reports are generally supported. Many of the recommendations

require legislative reform, the drafting of guidelines and new online systems. It is essential that any

reforms clearly identify and delineate State and local government responsibilities, and consider the

regulatory burdens and financial ramifications for Local Government.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

The officer responsible for the preparation of this report is the Manager Strategic Planning, Mark

Carlon, who can be contacted on 9710 0523.

File Number: 2019/354174


Page 13

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix A


Page 14

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix A


Page 15

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix A


Page 16

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix A


Page 17

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix A


Page 18

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix A


Page 19

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix A


Page 20

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix A


Page 21

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix A


Page 22

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix A


Page 23

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix A


Page 24

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix A


Page 25

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix A


Page 26

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix B


Page 27

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix B


Page 28

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix B


Page 29

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix B


Page 30

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix B


Page 31

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix B


Page 32

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix B


Page 33

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix B


Page 34

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix B


Page 35

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix B


Page 36

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix B


Page 37

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix B


Page 38

PL

N0

38-1

9

Ap

pe

nd

ix B

Documents

Agenda of Shire Strategic Planning Committee - 4 00 2019€¦ · Shire Strategic Planning Committee 4 November 2019 Page 7 8-19 PLN038-19 INDEPENDENT PRICING AND REGULATORY TRIBUNAL