PART ONE - Campbelltown City Council - NSW Government

PART ONEReports from the Planning and Environment Committee Meeting held at7.30pm on Tuesday, 5 April 2011.APOLOGIESACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF LANDDECLARATIONS OF INTERESTPecuniary InterestsNon Pecuniary – Significant InterestsNon Pecuniary – Less than Significant InterestsITEM TITLE PAGEPART ONE1. WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES1.1 Quarterly Statistical Report - Second Quarter 2010/20111.2 Clean Up Australia Day 20112. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING2.1 Changes to Requirements for Reticulated Recycled Water2.2 Bush Fire Prone Land Map2.3 Minutes of the Heritage Protection Sub Committee Meeting held on 10 March20112.4 Eagle Vale Pond Catchment Community Education Day2.5 Proposed Renaming of Mortimer Street, Minto2.6 Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) DCP 2011 (Volumes 1, 2 & 3) - Stage 42.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study and Register Review2.8 Community River Health Monitoring Program Report Card2.9 Public Exhibition of Bardia Sub Precinct Development Control PlanPART TWO3. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES3.1 Development Services Section Statistics - February 20113.2 Nos. 104 & 106 O’Sullivan Road - Demolition of two existing dwellings and theconstruction of 10 seniors living unitsPART THREE

ITEM TITLE PAGE3.3 No. 96 The Parkway, Bradbury - Construction of alterations and additions tohotel3.4 Nos. 90 & 110 Denham Court Road, Denham Court - Boundary Adjustment toOvercome Building EncroachmentPART FOUR3.5 No. 133 Englorie Park Drive, Glen Alpine – Construction of two 2-storeydwellings and subdivision into two Torrens title allotments3.6 Lot 757 DP 787316, Heritage Way, Glen Alpine - Subdivision to create 32residential allotments and one new road4. COMPLIANCE SERVICES4.1 Legal Status Report5. GENERAL BUSINESS18. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS18.1 Confidential Information Relating to Items on the Planning and EnvironmentAgenda 5 April 2011

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 31.1 Quarterly Statistical Report - Second Quarter 2010/2011Minutes of the Planning and Environment Committee held on 5 April 2011PresentApologiesCouncillor R Kolkman (Chairperson)Councillor J BourkeCouncillor G GreissCouncillor P HawkerCouncillor M OatesGeneral Manager - Mr P TosiActing Director Planning and Environment - Mr A SpoonerManager Environmental Planning - Mr P JemisonManager Development Services - Mr J BaldwinActing Manager Compliance Services - Mr P CurleyManager Waste and Recycling Services - Mr P MacdonaldManager Community Resources and Development - Mr B McCauslandActing Manager Corporate Support - Mr T RouenSenior Strategic Environmental Planner - Ms R HaddadExecutive Assistant - Mrs D Taylor(Greiss/Hawker)That the apologies from Councillors Thompson and Matheson be received andaccepted.CARRIEDAcknowledgement of LandAn Acknowledgement of Land was presented by the Chairperson Councillor Kolkman.DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTThere were no Declarations of Interest at this meeting.Pecuniary InterestsNon Pecuniary – Significant InterestsNon Pecuniary – Less than Significant Interests

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 41.1 Quarterly Statistical Report - Second Quarter 2010/20111. WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES1.1 Quarterly Statistical Report - Second Quarter 2010/2011Reporting OfficerManager Waste and Recycling ServicesAttachmentsNil.PurposeTo provide Council with a quarterly update of the domestic waste and recycling tonnages,diversion rates and requests received for waste-related services during the second quarter of2010/2011, which is the period from 1 October to 31 December 2010.ReportFor the purpose of this report, 'domestic waste' refers to waste disposed of in household generalwaste (garbage – red lid), recyclables (yellow lid) and garden organics (green lid) bins, as well aswaste collected at booked kerbside clean ups.Figure 1 illustrates the tonnage of domestic waste collected during the second quarter of2010/11, compared with the tonnages collected during the second quarters of 2007/08, 2008/09and 2009/10.Tonnes9000800070006000500040003000200010000Total Domestic Waste Collected - Second QuarterGeneral Waste Recycling Organics Clean Up2nd Qtr 07/082nd Qtr 08/092nd Qtr 09/102nd Qtr 10/11Figure 1: Comparison of tonnages collected during the second quarters of 2007/08, 2008/09,2009/10 and 2010/11

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 51.1 Quarterly Statistical Report - Second Quarter 2010/2011The second quarter of 2010/11 saw an overall increase in the tonnages of waste collected fromhouseholds across the Campbelltown Local Government Area, when compared with figures fromthe second quarter of 2009/10. While recycling tonnages remained fairly stable, both generalwaste and clean up materials saw a slight increase in tonnage during the second quarter of2010/11. Garden organics tonnages experienced a spike during this quarter, with tonnages upmore than 30% on the second quarter of 2009/10. This is more than likely due to the increasedrainfall experienced during this period.The NSW Government, under the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2007, hasset a target for NSW Councils to divert 66% of municipal waste from landfill by 2014. At the endof the second quarter, Council's total diversion rate across all waste streams was 65.7%, withmore than 12,900 tonnes of material diverted from landfill for the quarter.25000Total Diversion (all domestic waste)Tonnes2000015000100005000Diverted(tonnes)Landfilled(tonnes)02nd Qtr07/082nd Qtr08/092nd Qtr09/102nd Qtr10/11Figure 2: Comparison of total diversion ratesFigure 2 (above) shows the improvement in diversion rates for all domestic waste over the pastfour years. The increase in diversion rates during 2009/10 and 2010/11 is a result of theAdvanced Waste Technology used at the Macarthur Resource Recovery Park, which hasincreased resource recovery from the general waste stream.This improvement is also demonstrated in Figure 3 (below), which shows a significant increase inthe diversion rates of general waste during the past four years. The diversion rate for generalwaste during the second quarter of 2010/11 was approximately 35%.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 61.1 Quarterly Statistical Report - Second Quarter 2010/20119000General Waste Diversion800070006000Diverted(tonnes)Tonnes500040003000Landfilled(tonnes)2000100002nd Qtr07/082nd Qtr08/092nd Qtr09/102nd Qtr10/11Figure 3: Comparison of diversion rates for general wasteDiversion rates for both recycling and garden organics streams have remained constant atapproximately 95% and 97% respectively. Approximately 3,800 tonnes of recyclables and 6,100tonnes of garden organics were diverted from landfill during the second quarter of 2010/11.Figure 4 (below) shows the diversion rate for clean up material during the second quarter of2010/11, in comparison with the diversion rates for the second quarters of 2007/08, 2008/09 and2009/10. Improved diversion rates during 2009/10 and 2010/11 were a result of an increase inthe sorting of clean up materials at the Macarthur Resource Recovery Park.1400Clean Up Diversion1200Tonnes1000800600400Diverted(tonnes)Landfilled(tonnes)20002nd Qtr07/082nd Qtr08/092nd Qtr09/102nd Qtr10/11Figure 4: Comparison of diversion rates for kerbside clean up waste

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 71.1 Quarterly Statistical Report - Second Quarter 2010/2011Figure 5 (below) shows the amount of kerbside waste and recycling generated per capita for thesecond quarter of 2010/11, in comparison with the second quarters of the previous three financialyears. While the overall generation rate has increased significantly during this quarter to 121kgper person (up from 103kg during the same period in 2009/10), this was due to the spike ingarden organics tonnages during this time.60Waste Generation (kg per capita)Kilograms50403020102nd Qtr 07/082nd Qtr 08/092nd Qtr 09/102nd Qtr 10/110General Waste Recycling OrganicsFigure 5: Comparison of waste generation ratesFigure 6 (below) shows the number of customer service requests received by request type for thesecond quarter of 2010/11. All request types other than kerbside clean ups have remainedreasonably constant during the second quarter, with no significant changes in comparison to thesecond quarters of the previous financial years.10000Customer Requests90008000Number of Requests7000600050004000300020002nd Qtr 07/082nd Qtr 08/092nd Qtr 09/102nd Qtr 10/1110000Damaged BinsIllegally DumpedRubbishStolen BinsClean UpsFigure 6: Comparison of customer requests

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 81.1 Quarterly Statistical Report - Second Quarter 2010/2011Requests for kerbside clean up services increased by more than 1000 bookings during thesecond quarter of 2010/2011, in comparison to the same period in 2009/10. The second quarterwould ordinarily be a busy period for kerbside clean ups due to the approaching festive season,however, the increase could also be explained by additional advertising that was carried outbetween August and November 2010 to promote the kerbside clean up service.ConclusionCouncil's Waste Management Strategy includes two major objectives:1. To strive towards the lowest practical amount of waste generated per household; and2. To strive towards the highest practical ratios of recyclables-to-waste produced perhousehold.The information contained in this report indicates that the amount of general waste produced byresidents continues to increase gradually each year, which highlights the importance of ongoingcommunity education in relation to waste minimisation. Some of the educational programsdeveloped to date include free community workshops to educate residents about practices suchas worm farming and composting, and ‘Recyc-Olympics’, which is an activity that is run inprimary schools and at community events to teach children about how to recycle correctly.In addition to increased resource recovery from the general waste stream that now takes place atthe Macarthur Resource Recovery Park, Council continues to develop campaigns and programsto educate residents about correct recycling practices, and reducing overall waste generation.Officer's RecommendationThat the information be noted.Committee’s Recommendation: (Oates/Bourke)That the Officer's Recommendation be adopted.CARRIEDCouncil Meeting 12 April 2011 (Kolkman/Oates)That the Officer's Recommendation be adopted.Council Resolution Minute Number 48That the Officer's Recommendation be adopted.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 91.2 Clean Up Australia Day 20111.2 Clean Up Australia Day 2011Reporting OfficerManager Waste and Recycling ServicesAttachmentsNil.PurposeTo present the results of Clean Up Australia Day 2011 to Council.ReportClean Up Australia Day 2011 was held over the following days:Business Clean Up Day - Tuesday, 1 MarchSchools Clean Up Day - Friday, 4 MarchClean Up Australia Day - Sunday, 6 MarchThe 2011 event marked the 21 st birthday of Clean Up Australia Day, and an estimated 565,631volunteers at 7,477 registered sites took part in the event, removing around 16,449 tonnes ofrubbish from the environment across Australia.There were 52 sites registered in the Campbelltown Local Government Area in 2011. Of thesesites, 23 were registered for the main event on Sunday 7 March, and one was registered forBusiness Clean Up Day on Tuesday 1 March.Schools Clean Up Day accounted for 28 of the registered sites, which has been the highestnumber of registrations for Schools Clean Up Day received to date.As in previous years, Council supported the event by:assisting Clean Up Australia and volunteers, both on and prior to the day;promoting the event through local media;coordinating site registrations;providing additional equipment; andallocating staff to act as trouble-shooters and to remove waste collected.Over 7 tonnes of rubbish were collected from parks, bushland and waterways across theCampbelltown Local Government Area. Additional rubbish was also removed from schoolgrounds during Schools Clean Up Day, however, as most schools arranged their own disposal ofthis rubbish, tonnage information was not available.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 101.2 Clean Up Australia Day 2011Letters of appreciation have been sent to all schools and site coordinators who participated inClean Up Australia Day. In addition, an advertisement appeared in the Macarthur Chronicle andMacarthur Advertiser on 15 and 16 March listing all registered sites and thanking volunteers fortheir contribution.Officer's RecommendationThat the information be noted.Committee’s Recommendation: (Hawker/Oates)That the Officer's Recommendation be adopted.CARRIEDCouncil Meeting 12 April 2011 (Kolkman/Oates)That the Officer's Recommendation be adopted.Council Resolution Minute Number 48That the Officer's Recommendation be adopted.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 122.1 Changes To Requirements For Reticulated Recycled WaterAs a result of this decision, those Growth Centres precincts where developer contributions havebeen paid, and reticulation pipes have already been laid or are under construction, will continueto be provided with reticulated recycled water by Sydney Water. Within the South West GrowthCentre these areas include Edmondson Park and certain parts of Oran Park and Turner Road.The other parts of Oran Park and Turner Road where construction of recycled water reticulationhas not commenced and all other precincts which have not yet been released, will not beserviced with a reticulated recycled water system. The Department of Planning is working withSydney Water to amend BASIX by removing the requirements for reticulated recycled systemswithin these areas.Officer's RecommendationThat the information be noted.Committee’s Recommendation: (Bourke/Hawker)1. That the information be noted.2. That Council write to Sydney Water expressing dissatisfaction with the decision to abandonreticulation of recycled water to new housing developments.3. That Council write to the Premier, the Minister for the Environment and the Minister forPlanning expressing disappointment with Sydney Water’s decision to abandon thereticulation of water to new housing and seeking assurances that such a service beguaranteed in any expansion of housing on Sydney’s fringe to ensure that any suchexpansion is sustainable.4. That Council write to the appropriate Minister requesting a copy of the research undertakenby Sydney Water enabling them to reach their conclusion.CARRIEDCouncil Meeting 12 April 2011 (Kolkman/Oates)That the Committee's Recommendation be adopted.Council Resolution Minute Number 48That the Committee's Recommendation be adopted.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 132.1 Changes To Requirements For Reticulated Recycled WaterATTACHMENT 1

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 142.1 Changes To Requirements For Reticulated Recycled Water

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 152.1 Changes To Requirements For Reticulated Recycled Water

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 162.1 Changes To Requirements For Reticulated Recycled Water

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 172.1 Changes To Requirements For Reticulated Recycled Water

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 182.2 Bush Fire Prone Land Map2.2 Bush Fire Prone Land MapReporting OfficerManager Environmental PlanningAttachments1. Campbelltown City Council Bush Fire Prone Land Map – Current (distributed underseparate cover)2. Campbelltown City Council Bush Fire Prone Land Map – Revised (distributed underseparate cover)PurposeTo seek Council’s endorsement of the draft Bush Fire Prone Land Map prior to its submission tothe Commissioner of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service for certification.ReportBackgroundSection 146 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) requirescouncils, where a Bush Fire Risk Management Plan (BFRMP) applies, to prepare and submit aBush Fire Prone Land Map (BFPLM) to the Commissioner of the New South Wales Rural FireService (NSW RFS) for certification. A bush fire prone area is described as an area of land thatcan support a bush fire or is likely to be subject to bush fire attack. Campbelltown Council has aBFRMP and therefore is required to prepare a BFPLM.The BFPL Map provides the foundation for planning for bush fire. New development on areasidentified as bush fire prone are subject to the development and planning controls of ‘Planning forBush Fire Protection 2006’ and must be designed to improve the survivability of the developmentand the occupants that are exposed to a bush fire hazard.Areas of bush fire hazard are illustrated on the map in two ways; (1) bush fire vegetation and (2)bush fire vegetation buffer. Table 1 describes the breakdown of bush fire vegetation and the bushfire vegetation buffer.Table 1: Description of BFPL map vegetation categoriesVegetationCategoryDescription Identifier Buffer width1 Forest, woodlands, heaths and wetlands Orange 100m2Moist rainforests, shrub land, open woodlands,mallee and grasslandsYellow30m

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 192.2 Bush Fire Prone Land MapOf note, vegetation less than 1 hectare, managed grassland, managed botanical gardens,agricultural lands and mangroves are excluded from the bush fire categories.Council’s current BFPLM (provided as attachment one) was certified by the Commissioner of theNSW RFS Mr Phillip Christian Koperberg AM, AFSM, BEM in 2003. In accordance with theEP&A Act, the map is required to be revised.Proposed Bush Fire Prone Land MapIn accordance with guidelines developed by the NSW RFS, and in consultation with the NSWRFS, a draft BFPLM has been prepared for Council’s endorsement (provided as attachment two).Although there have been no significant amendments to the guidelines since the development ofCouncil’s current map, the revised map includes a number of minor changes. Of note are thefollowing:- Consistent with written advice provided by the NSW RFS, areas of grassland along thewestern edge of the Local Government Area (LGA) have been included. Following recentfire events including the Victorian Fires and the associated Royal Commission, findingshave highlighted the significant threat posed by grassland. Standards Australia is currentlyreviewing their position on grasslands which is anticipated to redefine how grasslands areconsidered and mapped.- Portions of land within the Menangle Park Urban Release Area have been excluded fromthe BFPLM based upon recognition of its regular management/maintenance.- Properties located in Wedderburn, Minto Heights and Kentlyn that were not originallyidentified to be bush fire prone land have been included based upon updated vegetationmapping.As a result of the above mentioned changes, bush fire prone land within the LGA is proposed toincrease from 20,630 hectares or 6,586 land parcels to 23,290 hectares or 7,370 land parcels.Officer's RecommendationThat the draft Bush Fire Prone Land Map provided as Attachment 2 be endorsed by Council andsubmitted to the Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service for certification.Committee’s Recommendation: (Hawker/Oates)That the Officer's Recommendation be adopted.CARRIEDCouncil Meeting 12 April 2011 (Kolkman/Oates)That the Officer's Recommendation be adopted.Council Resolution Minute Number 48That the Officer's Recommendation be adopted.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 202.3 Minutes Of The Heritage Protection Sub Committee Meeting Held On 10 March 20112.3 Minutes of the Heritage Protection Sub Committee Meeting held on 10March 2011Reporting OfficerManager Environmental PlanningAttachmentsMinutes of the Heritage Protection Sub Committee Meeting held on 10 March 2011.PurposeTo seek Councils endorsement of the Minutes of the Heritage Protection Sub Committee Meetingheld on 10 March 2011.ReportDetailed below are the recommendations of the Heritage Protection Sub Committee. Councilofficers have reviewed the recommendations and they are now presented for Council'sconsideration. The recommendations that require an individual resolution of Council are detailedin the officer's recommendation.Recommendations of the Heritage Protection Sub-CommitteeReports listed for consideration7.1 Minto Historical BrochureThat the Heritage Protection Sub Committee endorse the Minto Historic Brochure which hasbeen prepared by the local community group Access Action in Minto (AAIM) subject to someminor corrections as advised by the Heritage Protection Sub-Committee.8.1 Heritage Festival Events - April 20111. That the information be noted.2. That Council be requested to write to the National Trust requesting greater notice in relationto the announcement of heritage festival themes in order to meet advertising deadlines forthe National Trust Heritage Festival programme of events.8.2 Heritage Study and Register reviewThat the information be noted.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 212.3 Minutes Of The Heritage Protection Sub Committee Meeting Held On 10 March 20118.3 316 Queen Street, Campbelltown (Formerly Kendall's Mill House)1. That the information be noted.2. That Council be requested to provide the Heritage Protection Sub Committee members witha copy of the heritage report in relation to the Old Kendall's Mill House prepared by PaulDavies Heritage Consultants.8.4 Local Heritage FundThat the information be noted.8.5 Macarthur Heritage Directory1. That the information be noted.2. That Council be requested to investigate the accuracy of information relating to heritageitems within the Campbelltown Local Government Area contained within the MacarthurHeritage Directory which is hosted via Campbelltown City Council's website, and updateinformation as required.8.6 Gift of Time CertificatesThat the information be noted.8.7 MilestoneThat the Heritage Protection Sub Committee be advised as to the whereabouts of the sandstonedistance marker (milestone) which was located on Campbelltown Road Leumeah.Officer's Recommendation1. That the Minutes be noted.2. That in regard to item 8.1 - Heritage Festival Events - April 2011, Council write to theNational Trust requesting greater notice in relation to the announcement of heritage festivalthemes in order to meet advertising deadlines for the National Trust Heritage Festivalprogramme of events.Committee’s Recommendation: (Greiss/Bourke)That the Officer's Recommendation be adopted.CARRIEDCouncil Meeting 12 April 2011 (Kolkman/Oates)That the Officer's Recommendation be adopted.Council Resolution Minute Number 48That the Officer's Recommendation be adopted.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 222.3 Minutes Of The Heritage Protection Sub Committee Meeting Held On 10 March 2011ATTACHMENT 1Minutes of the Heritage Protection Sub Committee MeetingHeld on Thursday 10 March 2011 in Committee Room 3Meeting commenced at 6.05am.1. Acknowledgement of LandAn Acknowledgement of Land was presented by the Chairperson, Councillor Bourke.2. Attendance and ApologiesAttendance:Councillor Julie Bourke (Chairperson) - Campbelltown City CouncilCouncillor Meg Oates - Campbelltown City CouncilJacqueline Green - Historical SocietyJenny Goodfellow - Historical SocietyLearna Coupe - Historical Society (Alternate)Robert Wheeler - National Parks AssociationMelissa Plummer - Heritage OwnerAlso in Attendance: Phil Jemison - Manager Environmental PlanningNikoleta Szabados - Education & Public Programs OfficerJeff Burton - Strategic Environmental PlannerJane Worden- Executive SupportApologies:Mario Majarich - Qualified PersonJames Gardner - Qualified PersonSub Committee's Recommendation (Bourke/Oates)That the apologies from Mario Majarich and James Gardner be accepted.CARRIED3. Declarations of InterestThere were no Declarations of Interest made at this meeting.4. Minutes of the Previous MeetingReporting OfficerManager Environmental PlanningReportThe Minutes of the Heritage Protection Sub Committee Meeting held on 2 December 2010,copies of which were circulated to each Sub Committee Member, were presented to Council foradoption at its meeting held on 1 February 2011.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 232.3 Minutes Of The Heritage Protection Sub Committee Meeting Held On 10 March 2011Council resolved as follows:1. That the Minutes be noted.2. That in regard to Item 7.2 - Lot 1 DP 713646 Glenlee House, Glenlee Road, Menangle Park- Reconstruction of a Fire Damaged Woolshed Building, Council be advised that theHeritage Protection Sub Committee endorses support, on Heritage grounds, forDevelopment Application 1999/2001/DA-C relating to the reconstruction of the firedamaged woolshed at the heritage listed Glenlee Estate.3. That in regard to Item 7.3 - Lot 1 DP 216516 - Warby's Stables, No's 12-14 Queen Street,Campbelltown - Alterations to an existing building, and fit out and use of premises asconsulting rooms, Council be advised of the following comments in relation to DevelopmentApplication No. 2202/2010/DA-C, relating to alterations to Warby’s Stables:That the Heritage Protection Sub Committee requests the submission of a detailedlandscape proposal including plant species which are appropriate to the heritagesignificance of the item and its setting, andThat the Heritage Protection Sub Committee notes that the later addition located atthe rear of the building is not sympathetic to the heritage significance of the item, andwould encourage minor modifications to the external features of the addition toimprove its appearance and make it more compatible with the heritage item.4. That in regard to Item 7.3 - Lot 1 DP 216516 - Warby's Stables, No's 12-14 Queen Street,Campbelltown - arrangements be made for Council to inspect the site.Officer's RecommendationThat the information be noted.Sub Committee's Recommendation (Wheeler/Green)That the information be noted.CARRIED5. Business Arising from the Previous MinutesReporting OfficerManager Environmental PlanningPurposeTo report on business arising from the Minutes of the Heritage Protection Sub CommitteeMeeting held on 2 December 2010.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 242.3 Minutes Of The Heritage Protection Sub Committee Meeting Held On 10 March 2011ReportA report on the Minutes of the Heritage Protection Sub Committee meeting (held on 2 December2010) was presented to Council on 1 February 2011. Council resolved as follows:1. That the Minutes be noted.2. That in regard to Item 7.2 - Lot 1 DP 713646 Glenlee House, Glenlee Road, Menangle Park- Reconstruction of a Fire Damaged Woolshed Building Council be advised that theHeritage Protection Sub Committee endorses support, on Heritage grounds, forDevelopment Application 1999/2010/DA-C relating to the reconstruction of the firedamaged woolshed at the heritage listed Glenlee Estate.3. That in regard to Item 7.3 - Lot 1 DP 216516 - Warby's Stables, No's 12-14 Queen Street,Campbelltown - Alterations to an existing building, and fit out and use of premises asconsulting rooms Council be advised of the following comments in relation to DevelopmentApplication No. 2202/2010/DA-C, relating to alterations to Warby’s Stables:That the Heritage Protection Sub Committee requests the submission of a detailedlandscape proposal including plant species which are appropriate to the heritagesignificance of the item and its setting, andThat the Heritage Protection Sub Committee notes that the later addition located atthe rear of the building is not sympathetic to the heritage significance of the item, andwould encourage minor modifications to the external features of the addition toimprove its appearance and make it more compatible with the heritage item.4. That in regard to Item 7.3 - Lot 1 DP 216516 - Warby's Stables, No's 12-14 Queen Street,Campbelltown - arrangements be made for Council to inspect the site.The following update is provided on business arising from those relevant items in the HeritageProtection Sub Committee Minutes from its meeting held on 2 December 2010.Item 7.2 - Development Application 1999/2010/DA-C relating to the reconstruction of thefire damaged woolshed at the heritage listed Glenlee Estate.Development Application 1999/2010/DA-C for the reconstruction of a fire damaged woolshedbuilding at Lots 1 and 2 DP 713646, Glenlee House, Glenlee Road Menangle Park, wasconditionally approved by Council's Manager Development Services on 14 February 2011. It isnoted that the conditions of this consent included compliance with the the relevant approvalissued by the Heritage Council of New South Wales pursuant to Section 63 of the NSW HeritageAct 1977.Item 7.3 - Development Application No. 2202/2010/DA-C relating to alterations and use ofthe heritage listed Warby’s Stables.On 17 December 2010, Council staff issued a deferral letter to the applicant requesting additionalinformation to allow further consideration of the subject application. It is noted that the request foradditional information included those matters identified by the Heritage Protection SubCommittee relating to the rear addition of the building and the submission of landscaping details.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 252.3 Minutes Of The Heritage Protection Sub Committee Meeting Held On 10 March 2011On 15 February 2011, Councillors inspected the property in accordance with the Councilresolution of 1 February 2011.A verbal update of the progress of the assessment and determination of the subject developmentapplication will be provided by Council staff at the Heritage Protection Sub Committee meeting of10 March 2011.Officer's RecommendationThat the information be noted.Sub Committee Note:Council's Strategic Environmental Planner provided the Heritage Protection Sub Committee witha verbal update of the progress of the assessment and determination of the subject developmentapplication. It was noted that the applicant had responded to the deferral matters raised byCouncil and that this additional information was being assessed by Council Planning staff. Nodetermination of the development application had been made at this time.Sub Committee's Recommendation (Goodfellow/Plummer)That the information be noted.CARRIED6. Correspondence - Nil7. Reports7.1 Minto Historical BrochureReporting OfficerManager Environmental PlanningPurposeThe purpose of this report is to inform the Heritage Protection Sub Committee of the MintoHistorical Brochure (Minto heritage walk) prepared by the local community group 'AAIM' (AccessAction in Minto), and to seek the Heritage Protection Sub Committee’s support of the document.ReportAt its meeting of 7 October 2010, Council's Heritage Protection Sub Committee considered areport on the preparation of a historic information brochure for the Minto area being undertakenby representatives of the local community group 'AAIM' (refer Attachment No.1).The purpose of the brochure was to promote a self guided historical tour of the built environmentof Minto, providing details of the historical buildings and early pioneers of the Minto community.The preparation of the brochure was purposely timed to commemorate the 200 th anniversary ofthe original land grant in Minto to Dr William Redfern in 1811.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 262.3 Minutes Of The Heritage Protection Sub Committee Meeting Held On 10 March 2011In accordance with the Sub Committee's recommendation on the matter, a letter was sent toAAIM representatives formally advising that the Heritage Protection Sub Committee supports andcongratulates them on their initiative in preparing the Minto Historical Brochure. Council officersalso met with representatives of the group to provide resource assistance and backgroundinformation for the project.In January 2011, Council received a draft copy of the updated brochure from AAIM. Council staffhave worked on the final design in consultation with representatives of AAIM, to generallyimprove the graphic design and layout of the brochure. The amended design is now consideredto be in a format that is suitable for its intended purpose, and is in the process of being printed fordistribution and replicated on Council's website.A copy of the updated brochure has been distributed for the information of Sub Committeemembers under separate cover.ConclusionThe local community group 'AAIM' has prepared a historical information brochure to helppublicise the historical buildings and pioneers of the Minto area. The brochure has been reviewedby Council staff, and minor changes have been undertaken in consultation with AAIMrepresentatives to generally improve the final design and graphic layout. With the support of theHeritage Protection Sub Committee, it is intended to print the brochure for distribution and alsoreplicate an electronic version on Council's website.Officer's RecommendationThat the Heritage Protection Sub Committee indicates its support for the Minto Historic Brochurewhich has been prepared by the local community group Access Action in Minto (AAIM).Sub Committee's Recommendation (Oates/Wheeler)That the Heritage Protection Sub Committee endorses the Minto Historic Brochure which hasbeen prepared by the local community group Access Action in Minto (AAIM) subject to someminor corrections as advised by the Heritage Protection Sub Committee.CARRIED8. General Business8.1 Heritage Festival Events - April 2011Council's Education and Public Programs Officer advised the Heritage Protection Sub Committeethat the theme for the 2011 Heritage Festival is "Amazing Stories" and that the CampbelltownArts Centre is currently working on the production of the flyer for the 2011 Heritage Festival. TheCommittee were provided with a brief update in relation to the proposed 2011 Heritage FestivalEvents Program as follows: 2 April 2011 - Uncover Campbelltown: Guided walking tour of Campbelltown (cost $13)departing from Quondong, 10am - 1pm. 6 April 2011 - Amazing Campbelltown: Photos, document, artefacts and talks, held at the HJDaley Library at 10am.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 272.3 Minutes Of The Heritage Protection Sub Committee Meeting Held On 10 March 20117 April 2011 - Behind the scenes tour: Discussion tour of Campbelltown Arts Centre between10am - 11.30am.14 April 2011 - Launch of commissioned film by emerging Indigenous artist and awardwinning photographer Bindi Cole at 7pm.14 April 2011 - Amazing stories: An oral history to be held at the Campbelltown Arts Centreat 7.00pm.15 April 2011 - Writing workshop: To encourage participants to share cultural and familystories, held at Campbelltown Arts Centre between 10am - 3pm.Councillor Oates noted that the above mentioned events did not feature in National Trust 2011Heritage Festival programme and was advised by Council's Education and Public ProgramsOfficer that the National Trust announced the theme for the Heritage Festival program inapproximately September 2010 which was then followed by a program advertising deadline ofOctober 2010 which made it very difficult for Campbelltown Arts Centre staff to confirm festivalactivities in order to meet advertising deadlines.The Heritage Protection Sub Committee suggested that Council write to the National Trustadvising that Council requires greater notice in relation to heritage festival themes in order tomeet advertising deadlines for programme events.Campbelltown and Airds Historical Society representative Jacqueline Green also advised theCommittee of the following Heritage Festival events taking place at Glenalvon:5 April 2011 - Open house at Glenalvon: Amazing but true stories in pictures to be heldbetween 10am - 1pm9 April 2011 - Campbelltown - Amazing but true: Tea, tour and talk (various speakers)commencing at 10amSub Committee's Recommendation (Oates/Goodfellow)1. That the information be noted.2. That Council be requested to write to the National Trust requesting greater notice in relationto the announcement of heritage festival themes in order to meet advertising deadlines forthe National Trust Heritage Festival programme of events.CARRIED8.2 Heritage Study and Register ReviewCouncil's Strategic Environmental Planner advised the Heritage Protection Sub Committee that aReview of Council's Heritage Register has been completed by Paul Davies Heritage Consultants.A briefing on the outcomes of the review has been provided to Heritage Protection SubCommittee members and a similar briefing has been organised for Councillors on Tuesday 15March 2011.Sub Committee's Recommendation (Plummer/Green)That the information be noted.CARRIED

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 282.3 Minutes Of The Heritage Protection Sub Committee Meeting Held On 10 March 20118.3 316 Queen Street, Campbelltown (Formerly Kendall’s Mill House)Council's Strategic Environmental Planner advised the Heritage Protection Sub Committee thatthe NSW Heritage Branch has advised Council that they are reviewing the heritage significanceof the property located at 316 Queen Street, Campbelltown (formerly known as Kendall’s MillHouse) and are preparing a report as to the possibility of listing the item on the State HeritageRegister. To assist this review, Council staff have provided the NSW Heritage Branch with acopy of the draft report prepared on the property by Paul Davies Heritage Consultants.The Heritage Protection Sub Committee requested that a copy of the heritage report prepared byPaul Davies Heritage Consultants to be provided to Sub Committee members following Council'sendorsement of the heritage report.The Heritage Protection Sub Committee was very encouraged by this news and look forward toany updates in relation to this matter.Sub Committee's Recommendation (Bourke/Green)1. That the information be noted.2. That Council be requested to provide the Heritage Protection Sub Committee members witha copy of the heritage report in relation to the Old Kendall's Mill House prepared by PaulDavies Heritage Consultants.CARRIED8.4 Local Heritage FundCouncil's Strategic Environmental Planner provided the Heritage Protection Sub Committee witha verbal update in response to a request from the Heritage Protection Sub Committee regardingthe processing of Local Heritage Fund applications given the reduced 2011 meeting schedule forthe Heritage Protection Sub Committee.It was noted that Council's Local Heritage Fund Guidelines provided an efficient mechanism forthe processing of Local Heritage Fund applications and that the reduced 2011 HeritageProtection Sub Committee meeting schedule could be effectively managed by Council staffwithout having any adverse impact on the Local Heritage Fund application process.Sub Committee's Recommendation (Plummer/Wheeler)That the information be noted.CARRIED8.5 Macarthur Heritage DirectoryHeritage Protection Sub Committee representative Robert Wheeler informed the Committee ofthe Macarthur Heritage Directory. The Committee collectively reviewed this document on lineand noted that there appears to be some inaccurate information contained in the Directory whichis hosted via Campbelltown City Council's website.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 292.3 Minutes Of The Heritage Protection Sub Committee Meeting Held On 10 March 2011The Heritage Protection Sub Committee requested that Council investigate the accuracy ofinformation in relation to heritage items within the Campbelltown Local Government Areacontained within the Macarthur Heritage Directory and update all references as required.Sub Committee's Recommendation (Wheeler/Bourke)1. That the information be noted.2. That Council be requested to investigate the accuracy of information relating to heritageitems within the Campbelltown Local Government Area contained within the MacarthurHeritage Directory which is hosted via Campbelltown City Council's website, and updateinformation as required.CARRIED8.6 Gift of Time CertificatesCouncillor Bourke distributed 2010 Gift of Time certificates to the following Heritage ProtectionSub Committee recipients who were unable to attend the ceremony:Jacqueline GreenJenny GoodfellowLearna CoupeRobert WheelerMelissa PlummerMario Majarich, andJames GardnerCouncillor Bourke personally thanked the Heritage Protection Sub Committee members for theirongoing commitment, dedication and contribution toward heritage matters and for their efforts inmaking the Heritage Protection Sub Committee a dependable Committee.Sub Committee's Recommendation (Oates/Bourke)That the information be noted.CARRIED8.7 MilestoneCouncillor Oates noted that there is currently some road works being undertaken near thehighway off ramp located on Campbelltown Road, Leumeah and enquired as to the whereaboutsof the sandstone distance marker (milestone) erected in this area.Council's Strategic Environmental Planner gave an undertaking to investigate the matter andadvise the Heritage Protection Sub Committee of the location of the milestone and whether it willbe re-installed at a similar location once the road works have been completed.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 302.3 Minutes Of The Heritage Protection Sub Committee Meeting Held On 10 March 2011Sub Committee's Recommendation (Oates/Bourke)That the Heritage Protection Sub Committee be advised as to the whereabouts of the sandstonedistance marker (milestone) which was located on Campbelltown Road, Leumeah.CARRIEDNext meeting of the committee will be held on Thursday 9 June 2011 at 6.00pm in CommitteeRoom 3.Councillor Julie BourkeChairpersonMeeting concluded at 7.00pm

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 312.4 Eagle Vale Pond Catchment Community Education Day2.4 Eagle Vale Pond Catchment Community Education DayReporting OfficerManager Environmental PlanningAttachmentsNilPurposeTo seek Council’s endorsement of the Eagle Vale Pond Community Education Day.HistoryDue to increasing pressures from urban development, waterways and surrounding natural areasoften become impacted upon by contamination from pollutants such as chemicals, heavy metals,oils, excess nutrients, and litter. These pollutants can enter into critical catchment locations eitherdirectly at the source or by travelling significant distances downstream through natural waterwaysor stormwater channels.Several sites across Campbelltown’s Local Government Area (LGA) have been identified aspriority areas for community engagement activities to address some of the behaviours which canpotentially harm catchment health and riparian or aquatic habitats.Eagle Vale Pond has been identified as one such site due to its proximity to urban areas, as wellas evidence of behaviours such as littering and illegal dumping. These issues have resulted in anumber of enquiries to Council regarding the health of the waterway. Specific issues cited includethe death or apparent ill health of ducks and other water birds around the pond; water quality,turbidity, and illegal dumping. Based on the identification of these issues and the level ofcommunity concern for the pond, it is believed that a Community Education Day to be held at theduck pond will help to raise community awareness regarding the behaviours which influencethese issues and to address some of the community's concerns.ReportIt is proposed that a Community Education Day be held on Sunday 1 May 2011, in associationwith the internationally celebrated Earth Day 2011 - A Billion Acts of Green. The themes of thetwo days are closely aligned in that they both emphasise conservation and taking sustainableaction. Thus it is considered that by aligning the timing of the events, visibility will be enhanced,thereby raising community interest and awareness regarding Eagle Vale’s natural environment.Further, by holding the event on a Sunday as opposed to a Saturday, when many families areotherwise engaged with sporting events and other activities, participation will be maximised.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 322.4 Eagle Vale Pond Catchment Community Education DayA promotional flyer will be distributed to Eagle Vale households prior to the event, to informresidents of the Community Education Day. These flyers will also be made available at EagleVale Central and posters will be displayed within the location. In addition, an outdoor banner willbe displayed on the day to encourage the attendance of residents.The event is proposed to include several aspects, including the following:Catchment Model Demonstration – Council will borrow a 3-dimensional catchmentmodel from Wollondilly Shire Council which will be used to educate the public about thenatural and managed hydrological cycle. The catchment model operates by flushing waterand food colouring through the model to demonstrate the stormwater system. As thedemonstration is conducted, a presentation will be given highlighting water quality issuesmost relevant to the Eagle Vale residents.Tree Planting - Appropriate trees and shrubs will be planted by community volunteers atthe site, in specific locations approved by Council's Operational Services Section.Clean Up Activities – Council will provide garbage bags and gloves for volunteers toassist with the picking up of litter around the area.Council will offer participating volunteers a sausage sizzle lunch on the day in recognition of theirinvolvement in the event. In addition, eco-friendly prize bags will be given away to all childrenattending and adults will be given a native seedling and an environmentally friendly reusable bag.ConclusionThe Eagle Vale Community Day has a proposed budget of $3,000. These funds will be sourcedfrom the Environmental Education budget and will provide for the seedlings and associatedplanting equipment, catering costs, giveaway items, printing and promotional material associatedwith the event. It is hoped that the Eagle Vale Community Education Day will provide a model forundertaking similar activities at other aquatic locations throughout the LGA.Officer's RecommendationThat Council endorse the proposed Community Education Day to occur on Sunday, 1 May 2011in association with Earth Day.Committee’s Recommendation: (Oates/Kolkman)1. That Council endorse the proposed Community Education Day to occur on Sunday, 1May 2011 in association with Earth Day.2. That an evaluation be undertaken on the success of this event and further considerationbe given to conducting similar events at other locations around the Campbelltown LGA.CARRIEDCouncil Meeting 12 April 2011 (Kolkman/Oates)That the Committee's Recommendation be adopted.Council Resolution Minute Number 48That the Committee's Recommendation be adopted.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 332.5 Proposed Renaming Of Mortimer Street, Minto2.5 Proposed Renaming of Mortimer Street, MintoReporting OfficerManager Environmental PlanningAttachmentsLocation planPurposeTo seek Council's approval to rename Mortimer Street at Minto to Hotham Road.HistoryMortimer Street was constructed by the Housing Commission of NSW in the mid 1970’s as partof their residential development in Minto. The three main roads within this development, includingMortimer Street, were named after early local land grantees. William Mortimer was granted 63acres of land in the Parish of St Peter on 20 June 1816, close to the present day intersection ofCampbelltown Road and the Hume Highway.At its Extraordinary Meeting on 18 April 2006, Council approved the concept plan anddevelopment control plan for the Minto Renewal Project which included the construction of anumber of new streets and the realignment of some existing roads. Construction works withinStages 5 and 6 of the Minto Renewal Project (or One Minto Project as it is now known) have nowcommenced and will result in a major realignment of Mortimer Street. As a result, Landcom haverequested that Council consider a proposal to rename Mortimer Street and have suggested thename Hotham Road from the list of road names approved for the Minto Renewal Project area byCouncil at its meeting on 10 June 2008, based on the theme of Australian mountain peaks andranges.ReportThe following reasons are provided in support of the proposal to rename Mortimer Street:1. Mortimer Street currently runs generally in a north-easterly direction between GuernseyAvenue and Benham Road. Works associated with Stages 5 and 6 of the One MintoProject involve the closure of over half the length of this existing road from its intersectionwith Benham Road and the construction of a new section of road through to an extensionof Gawler Avenue. Once these works are complete, this road will run generally in aneasterly direction (see the location plan included as Attachment 1 to this report). Theproposed renaming will help emphasise that the alignment of this road has significantlychanged and this will assist in avoiding any future confusion by the travelling public andemergency services.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 342.5 Proposed Renaming Of Mortimer Street, Minto2. As a prominent road within the One Minto Project, Landcom have suggested that it isdesirable that its name is drawn from the list of new names approved by Council toassociate it with the redevelopment of this area.3. Past events have led to the name of this road being associated with an image of Minto thatthe One Minto Project aims to change. It is therefore suggested that the renaming of thisstreet will contribute to the broader objectives of this project.In accordance with Clause 7 of the Roads Regulation 2008, the proposal to rename MortimerStreet was advertised in local newspapers to allow for public submissions. The agencies andauthorities prescribed in Clause 7 of this regulation were also notified of the proposal by letter, aswell as the residents of the eight existing properties in Mortimer Street who would be directlyaffected by the renaming of this road. Any submissions were required to be received by Councilbefore the 4 March 2011.The following submissions were received:1. Written objections from two of the residents directly affected by the renaming proposal onthe grounds of the potential disruption to the delivery of mail and other services to theirproperties, the expense and inconvenience of changing their contact details with numerousagencies and the fact that Mortimer Street is a long established street name within theMinto area.2. A letter from the Land and Property Management Authority stating that they had noobjection to the use of the name Hotham Road in the proposed renaming of this road,providing it did not refer specifically to any living person.3. The Macquarie Fields Local Area Command have confirmed that they do not have anyobjections to the renaming proposal.4. A petition containing 32 signatures objecting to the proposal on the grounds of the potentialdisruption to the delivery of mail and other services to properties, the expense andinconvenience of changing contact details with numerous agencies and the fact thatMortimer Street is a long established street name within the Minto area. The signatories ofthis petition include the residents of five of the eight existing properties directly affected bythis renaming proposal (including one who had previously written to Council objecting tothe proposal). Four of these residents are currently tenants and one is a property owner.The remaining signatures are primarily from occupants of the various Ways that currentlyrun off Mortimer Street or from other parts of the Campbelltown Local Government Areaand would not be directly affected by the proposal.With regards to the concerns raised by residents about the potential disruption to mail deliveriesand the changing of contact addresses, it should be noted that where a road is renamed Councilstaff always liaise closely with Australia Post and other service providers to help minimise anyinterruptions.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 352.5 Proposed Renaming Of Mortimer Street, MintoAt its meeting on 9 June 2009, Council approved the renaming of Archer Place to Gawler Avenuefor reasons also associated with the One Minto redevelopment. One of the residents directlyaffected by this renaming also made a submission objecting to the proposal on the grounds ofthe potential disruption to mail deliveries and the inconvenience of changing all of their contactdetails. Following the renaming of this road, staff contacted various agencies to ensure minimumdisruption to the delivery of services to existing residents. No reports of any problems have beenreceived and Council staff would implement the same procedures should the renaming ofMortimer Street be approved.In considering the objections raised, and the proposed measures that will be put into place toovercome any potential disruption to mail deliveries, it is recommended that Council approve therenaming of Mortimer Street to Hotham Road.Officer's RecommendationThat Council approve the renaming of Mortimer Street in Minto to Hotham Road.Committee’s Recommendation: (Oates/Kolkman)That Council supports the retention of the name Mortimer Street at this location.CARRIEDCouncil Meeting 12 April 2011 (Kolkman/Oates)That the Committee's Recommendation be adopted.Council Resolution Minute Number 48That the Committee's Recommendation be adopted.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 362.5 Proposed Renaming Of Mortimer Street, MintoATTACHMENT 1Location plan

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 372.6 Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Dcp 2011 (Volumes 1, 2 & 3) - Stage 42.6 Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) DCP 2011 (Volumes 1, 2 & 3) -Stage 4Reporting OfficerManager Environmental PlanningAttachments1. Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Development Control Plan 2011 (Volume 1)(distributed under separate cover).2. Proposed Nomination and Assessment Process for Inclusion of Trees on the SignificantTrees Register (distributed under separate cover).Purpose1. To present to Council Stage 4 of Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Development ControlPlan (draft SCDCP) comprising: Volume 1: Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) DCP Parts 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, 8, 9,10, 11,12 and 13;Volume 2: Site Specific DCPs; andVolume 3: Engineering Design Guidelines for Development.2. To seek Council’s endorsement to publicly exhibit Volume 1 of the draft SCDCP for twentyeight days (28) days in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planningand Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).HistoryCampbelltown (Sustainable City) Development Control Plan 2009 (SCDCP 2009) currentlycomprises two (2) Volumes:Volume 1 consists of Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 being:Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4Part 5Part 6Part 7Preliminary;Requirements Applying to all Types of Development;Dwelling Houses, Multi Dwelling Houses, Narrow Lot Housing and ResidentialSubdivision;Residential Apartments and Mixed-Use Development;Commercial Developments;Industrial Developments; andChild Care Centres.Volume 2 is Council’s Engineering Design Guidelines for Development.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 382.6 Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Dcp 2011 (Volumes 1, 2 & 3) - Stage 4The SCDCP 2009 came into effect on 24 June 2009.Stage 4 of the SCDCP has now been prepared in draft form (Attachment 1) and includes: The outcomes of a review of the previously adopted Volume 1 of SCDCP 2009 (Parts 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7); and Proposed new structure of Volume 1 of draft SCDCP to ensure that the various partswithin the document have a logical order. The inclusion of six new parts into Volume 1 (Parts 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13). A new Volume 2 to include existing site specific DCP’s. Moving Councils Engineering Design Guidelines for Development to Volume 3.The proposed new structure of the SCDCP is as follows:Volume 1: Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Development Control PlanPart 1 Preliminary;Part 2 Requirements Applying to All Types of Development;Part 3 Dwelling Houses, Narrow Lot Dwellings, Multi Dwelling Houses, andResidential Subdivision;Part 4 Rural Residential Development [proposed new part] (Part 4 was previouslyResidential Apartments and Mixed-Use Development);Part 5 Residential Apartments and Mixed-Use Development (Part 5 waspreviously Commercial Developments);Part 6 Commercial Developments (Part 6 was previously IndustrialDevelopments);Part 7 Industrial Developments (Part 7 was previously Child Care Centres)Part 8 Child Care Centres;Part 9 Public Consultations (proposed new part);Part 10 Religious Establishments; (proposed new part)Part 11 Vegetation Management (proposed new part);Part 12 Telecommunication Facilities (proposed new part); andPart 13 Sex Industries (proposed new part).Volume 2: Site Specific Development Control PlansPart 1Part 2Part 3One Minto DCPGlenfield Road Urban Release Area DCPThe Link Site DCPVolume 3: Council’s Engineering Design Guidelines for DevelopmentIt is anticipated that the remaining additional parts of the SCDCP along with a comprehensivereview of the adopted SCDCP will be prepared and presented to Council in line with thepreparation of the new comprehensive LEP.The remaining additional Parts of the SCDCP, to be included in a future review are as follows:Part 14Part 15Part 16Part 17Parking of Commercial Vehicles on Private Lands;Advertising and Signs;Educational Establishments; andSpecific Controls for Certain Heritage Items.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 392.6 Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Dcp 2011 (Volumes 1, 2 & 3) - Stage 4The outcome of all the completed stages of the SCDCP would be the consolidation of allCouncil’s existing development control plans into a single document. Once completed, theSCDCP would replace all existing stand-alone development control plans.Previous Briefings to CouncilIn 2010, Councillors were provided with two briefings (27 January and 03 August) in relation toVegetation Management within Campbelltown Local Government Area (LGA). At the briefings,Councillors were presented with information on the following:The main issues affecting vegetation management in Campbelltown including publicliability and infrastructure cost; andA discussion on the proposed controls for vegetation management.At the time, two comprehensive discussion papers relating to vegetation management withinCampbelltown LGA were distributed to all Councillors.On 23 November 2010, Councillors were provided with a briefing on the following proposed draftParts of the SCDCP:Draft Part 4:Draft Part 9:Draft Part 10:Draft Part 11:Draft Part 12:Draft Part 13:Rural Residential DevelopmentPublic Consultations;Religious EstablishmentsVegetation Management;Telecommunication Facilities; andSex Industries.ReportThis report provides information on the following items:1. Review of the adopted SCDCP 2009;2. Proposed new Parts and Volumes; and3. Proposed consultation with the Community for Stage 4 of the draft SCDCP 2011.1. Review of the Adopted Sustainable City Development Control Plan 2009The adopted SCDCP 2009 has been in operation since June 2009. Following theimplementation of the SCDCP 2009 the need for a number of minor amendments has beenidentified by staff. These amendments are required to address such issues as:inconsistencies with State Environmental Planning Policies; andminor technical anomalies with the SCDCP 2009 that have become apparent in its dayto-dayimplementation.The SCDCP 2009 is a workable document that will continue to be regularly reviewed to ensureconsistency with introduced legislation and guidelines by the relevant public authorities, includingthe NSW Department of Planning and the NSW Department of Environment and ClimateChange.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 402.6 Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Dcp 2011 (Volumes 1, 2 & 3) - Stage 4It should be noted that there are no proposed amendments to the existing Volume 2 EngineeringDesign for Development, at this stage, just a reordering of the components into Volume 3.A summary of all the proposed changes are shown in Attachment 1 of this report. Following is adot point summary of the main changes in each part:Proposed Amendments to Part 1: PreliminaryAn updated explanation of the Planning Process.Inclusions of a number of new definitions in the dictionary to provide clarity.Proposed Amendments to Part 2: Requirements Applying to all Types of DevelopmentIntroduction of a new section being Section 2.4.3 Light Pollution, that encouragesnew developments to be designed to minimise light pollution from the unnecessarydispersion of light into the sky and neighbouring residential properties;Introduction of a new section being Section 2.16 Provision of Services, that providesdevelopment controls in relation to the provision of services such as water, electricityand sewage treatments, in particular, where developments are proposed within nonurban lands and such services are not provided; andIntroduction of a new section being Section 2.17 Work on, near or over public land,to ensure the protection of public safety, wellbeing and health and protect Council’sassets from being damaged as a result of construction works on or near public lands.Proposed Amendments to Part 3: Dwelling Houses, Narrow Lot Dwellings, Multi DwellingHousing, and Subdivision A new requirement is proposed that all garages be setback by 500mm behind the mainbuilding line fronting the primary street boundary. This requirement is in addition to thecurrent clause that requires garages to be setback by at least 5.5 metres from theprimary street frontage. The proposed clause would ensure that proposed garageswould be located behind the main building alignment, regardless of the location of thebuilding in relation to the front boundary. An amendment is proposed to the Visual Privacy Section 3.5.2 b), this clause requiresany window of a habitable room located on an upper level to be screened or have a sillheight of 1.7 metres. It is proposed that this clause be amendment to apply only towindows of “living rooms”. An additional clause is proposed under Section 3.6 Solar Access that requires alldevelopment to take into consideration the range of factors that impact on solar accessincluding the slope of land, existing vegetation and the height and position of existingbuildings and structures.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 412.6 Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Dcp 2011 (Volumes 1, 2 & 3) - Stage 4 An amendment is proposed to Swimming Pools Section 3.7.4 a). It is proposed tochange the maximum coping/decking height that triggers the setback requirements of5.0 metres from side and rear boundaries, from 300mm to 600mm to be consistent withthe State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Codes) 2008. Inaddition the required setback for pools that incorporate above ground decking, is toinclude all associated structures (including decking). i.e the deck has to be setback by 5metres where it is higher than 600mm from natural ground floor. An additional design clause is proposed for Section 3.8 Narrow Lot Dwellings. Councilstaff have reviewed existing narrow lot housing developments built in accordance withthe existing SCDCP provisions, and it is considered that these developments generallyhave a poor streetscape presentation resulting from garage dominated building facades.Given the site width restriction of these allotments, it is considered that the best designoutcome would be to require a non-obtrusive open type parking design to ensure thatthe street façade of these developments promotes a high standard of excellence.Accordingly, an additional design clause is proposed for narrow lot housing developments torestrict standard garages along the primary street frontage.Proposed Amendments to Part 4 Residential and Mixed-Use DevelopmentSite Requirements for Mixed Use DevelopmentUnder the current provisions of the SCDCP, Council may consider a mixed use development onsites less than 2,500 sqm and width less than 30 metres, only where a building on the allotmentwas in existence on the date the plan became effective.The above clause has been amended to delete the reference of “an existing building on theallotment” as it created confusion and restricted mixed use developments on vacant allotments.It is proposed that Clause 4.5.2 Site Requirements for mixed-use development be amended toread: Council may consider a mixed-use development on land with an area less than 2,500and a width less than 30 metres.It should be noted that the existing Part 4 now becomes Part 5 in the amended document.Proposed Amendments to Part 5 Commercial DevelopmentOn 2 May 2000, Council adopted a DCP entitled DCP No. 96 The Provision of ParentingFacilities. The aims of DCP No. 96 are to:Ensure that adequate parenting facilities are provided within large scale commercialand retail developments; andProvide easily accessible, safe and adequately equipped parenting facilities suitable forthe feeding and other purposes related to care of babies/infants by both female andmale carers.It is proposed that DCP No. 96 be reformatted and included as Section 5.12, The Provision ofParenting Facilities, under Part 5 of the SCDCP.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 422.6 Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Dcp 2011 (Volumes 1, 2 & 3) - Stage 4It should be noted that the existing Part 5 now becomes Part 6 in the amended document.Proposed Amendments to Part 6: Industrial DevelopmentAn amendment is proposed to exclude the mezzanine floor space areas from the totalleasable floor area (within industrial developments) for the purposes of calculating therequired car parking spaces, providing such areas are exclusively used for storage.An amendment is proposed that industrial fencing at the primary and secondary streetsbe setback three (3) metres from the front and side property boundaries to enablelandscaping to be provided forward of front fences. This is to enhance streetscapeswithin industrial areas.It should be noted that the existing Part 6 now becomes Part 7 in the amended document.Proposed Amendments to Part 7 Child Care Centres.There are no proposed amendments to Part 7 Child Care Centres, note that Part 7 now becomesPart 8 in the amended document.2. Proposed New Draft Parts and Volumes to the SCDCPThe proposed draft parts have been prepared by Council staff in consultation with varioussections within Council. In undertaking the review staff have considered:Other Council’s Development Control Plans, including Wollongong, Liverpool, SydneyCity Council and Parramatta City Council;Matters raised by Councillors over the past 18 months; andNew planning legislation introduced by the NSW Department of Planning (theDepartment).For each proposed new draft part, the following matters will be discussed:current legislative frame work and/or development controls;issues with current controls; andProposed changes.Volume 1:Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) DCP(a) Draft Part 4 Residential Development within Non Urban Lands(i)Current Legislative Framework for Residential Developments within Non-UrbanLandsThe following Environmental Planning Instruments (EPIs) apply to non urban land within theCampbelltown LGA:Local Environmental Plan ( LEP) 2002; LEP1; LEP 32 LEP District 8 ( Scenic Hills); andInterim Development Order ( IDO) No. 15; IDO No. 28; and IDO No.13.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 432.6 Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Dcp 2011 (Volumes 1, 2 & 3) - Stage 4The above EPIs generally contain provisions for:permissibility of land uses within each zone of the relevant area that is covered by eachEPI;minimum lot sizes that are required to allow for the erection of rural residentialdevelopment;tree preservation provisions; anda list of heritage items.The provisions within the IDOs are difficult to interpret, in particular, the provisions for thepermissibility of dual occupancies and rural worker dwellings. A great deal of this uncertainty inthese provisions is generated by the revoking of older planning instruments by the Department ofPlanning over the past years and the inconsistency in the interpretation of these clauses over theyears.The above EPIs will be reviewed and consolidated as part of Council’s comprehensive LEPInstrument. This would provide clearer provisions and certainty for property owners anddevelopers.In addition to the above EPIs, the following DCPs apply:- DCP 49 - Rural Sub-division Dwelling Policy (DCP 49); and- DCP 6 – Wedderburn.DCP 49 applies to all non urban lands within the City of Campbelltown with the exception ofWedderburn, where DCP 6 applies.DCP 49 – Non Urban Lands:Contains development controls for allotment configurations (width and depth) accordingto the minimum subdivision standards under the relevant EPI;Provides controls for building setbacks;Contains development controls for dual occupancies within non-urban lands; andProvides provisions for trees preservation.DCP 6 – Wedderburn (applies to the Wedderburn area). Includes development controls for:subdivision standards;building lines;building materials;fencing and screen walls; andtree preservations.(ii)Issues with Current Controls of Rural Residential development under DCP 49 andDCP 6The following shortcomings have been identified with DCP 49 and DCP 6:DCP 49 and DCP 6 lack specific controls in relation to visual and acoustic amenity,provision of services, car parking and access and height controls; andDCP 49 includes outdated provisions in relation to public reserves and communityfacilities contributions.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 442.6 Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Dcp 2011 (Volumes 1, 2 & 3) - Stage 4(iii)Proposed Controls for Rural Residential development – Draft Part 4 Rural ResidentialDevelopmentThe proposed new draft Part 4 is a consolidation of the current controls in DCP 49 and DCP 6 inrelation to minimum subdivision standards, and building setbacks.The proposed main controls are:rural residential development shall not exceed two (2) storeys in height;colour of roofing, fencing and walls shall not be obtrusive and shall compliment thesurrounding settings of the building;rural worker’s dwellings shall not exceed 120 square metres in gross floor area; andthe total number of dwellings that occupy a certain parcel of land shall be limited to two(2) dwellings.(b)(i)Draft Part 9 Public ConsultationExisting Controls for Public ConsultationDCP 87- Public Notification and Public Exhibition Policy (DCP No. 87) was adopted by Councilon 12 August 1998.Summary of existing controls under DCP 87The main provisions in DCP 87 are as follows:role of the applicant, adjoining neighbours and Council in relation to notification, publicexhibition and submissions to Council;types of development applications that require public notification to owners that adjointhe land. These include dwellings more than one storey in height, dual occupancy,granny flats, swimming pools, rural environmental protection subdivision;requirements for public exhibition;information on types of development to be publicly notified;the periods of notification for the different types of developments (30 days fordesignated development & 10 days for all other applications); andincludes notes on the requirements for public exhibition periods for LEPs/DCPs/Section94 Plans and other Council policies and codes.(ii) Issues with Current Controls of Public Consultations under DCP No. 87The main issues with DCP 87 have been identified and are as follows:DCP 87 is outdated, as it refers to Interim Development Orders that were replaced byLEP 2002;The provisions within DCP 87 are too generic, which creates uncertainty for Council’scustomers; andThe terms used in DCP 87 are not inclusive and in need of revision and clarification.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 452.6 Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Dcp 2011 (Volumes 1, 2 & 3) - Stage 4(iii)Proposed Controls for Public Consultation – Draft Part 9 Public ConsultationThe main proposed provisions are as follows:proposed new definitions for the various terms used in draft Part 9 Public Consultationthat are clear and precise;a proposed new section that explains the process of public consultation for Councils’Strategic Documents which include DCPs, LEPs, Section 94, Voluntary PlanningAgreements and Plans of Management;clarification on the process of Public Consultation of development applications;A proposed list of the types of development that will be publicly notified including:• Torrens title residential subdivision involving more than 5 allotments;• Significant external construction works to heritage items;• Commercial and industrial developments that involve significant constructionworks, where the proposed development adjoins land where residentialdevelopment is permissible; and• Designated” development and “advertised” developmentProposed clarifications on the re-notification requirements of amended DAs; andProposed new section on persons to be notified, which will require notification be givento the following:• All adjoining land owners;• The secretary of the owner’s corporation for Strata title and community titledevelopments; and• Others as considered appropriate by the Director of Planning and Environment.(c)(i)Draft Part 10 Religious EstablishmentsCurrent Legislative Framework for Religious EstablishmentsThe permissibility of religious establishment within Campbelltown LGA is provided under thevarious environmental planning instruments (EPIs) that apply to Campbelltown LGA. The tablebelow lists all the EPIs and the permissibility of religious establishments within the various zonesunder each EPI.EPILEP 2002Permissibility Zones where religious establishments arepermissible under each EPIYes (within 2(b) Residential Zonecertain Zone 7(d1) Environmental Protection (100zones)hectares) Zone 9 – Community Uses Zone Zone 10(a) Regional ComprehensiveCentre Zone Zone 10(b) District Comprehensive CentreZone Zone 10(c) Local Comprehensive CentreZone Permissible only within an existing buildingin : 4(a) General Industry Zone; 4(b) industry B Zone; and 4(c) Industry C Zone.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 462.6 Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Dcp 2011 (Volumes 1, 2 & 3) - Stage 4IDO 28 No N/AIDO15 No N/AIDO 13 No N/ALEP 32 No N/ALEP 112 No N/ALEP 1 Yes Rural small holdings, Neighbourhood business3(c1)Religious establishments, as stipulated in the above table, are generally permissible withinresidential areas, main commercial centres; within an existing building (not purpose built building)within certain industrial zones, and within very limited zones in the non urban lands under LEP 1.Development control standards for religious establishments are currently provided under theprovisions of DCP 82 ‘Religious Establishments’.Summary of existing controls under DCP 82DCP 82 includes development standards for:maximum noise levels at the site boundaries;landscaping;on site car parking rates;site selection;operation of establishments;religious establishments evolving from existing buildings; andExpansion of exiting religious establishments.(ii) Issues with the current controls for Religious Establishments under DCP 82The following issues with DCP 82 have been identified:lack of numerical controls for congregation sizes and number of users within residentialareas;lack of site or locality requirements;insufficient off street car parking rates;lack of height limits; andthere are no numerical standards for building setbacks from boundaries.(iii) Main Proposed Controls for Religious Establishments – Draft Part 10 ReligiousEstablishmentsThe following development controls are proposed for religious establishments:A height limit of two (2) storeys;Spires and similar structures shall only be permitted where, in the opinion of Council,the proposed structure is of appropriate height, bulk and scale, is compatible withsurrounding land users and does not result in overshadowing of private open space andliving rooms of adjacent development;Proposed separation requirements of:• 150 metres from sex industries;• 250 metres from any other religious establishment within residential areas; and• 500 metres from any other religious establishment within non urban land areas.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 472.6 Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Dcp 2011 (Volumes 1, 2 & 3) - Stage 4Capacity:• Proposed maximum capacity requirements;• Maximum of 100 person capacity in residential areas; and• Maximum of 250 person capacity for non urban land.A minimum of one car parking space for every 3.5 site users;Proposed height and set backs controls within residential zones:•••••Maximum 9.5 metres in height (spires and similar structures based on meritassessment);Minimum 5.5 metre front setback;Minimum 10 metre rear setback;Minimum 5 metre side and secondary street setbacks; andMinimum 2 metre landscaping buffer between driveways and the adjoiningproperty boundary.Setbacks within commercial zones are to comply with the setbacks and buildingenvelope requirements in Part 6 Commercial Development; andProposed setbacks within non-urban land:•••Minimum 20 metre setback from the primary and secondary street boundaries;Minimum 10 metre setback from the rear and side boundaries; andMinimum 3 metre landscaping buffer to side and rear boundaries.Where located within non-urban lands the site shall be serviced by a sealed road.(d)(i)Draft Part 11 Vegetation ManagementExisting Legislative Framework for the Management of Trees.A number of EPIs are in place that apply to different parts of the Campbelltown LocalGovernment Area. These are Campbelltown (Urban Area) LEP 2002; LEP 1; LEP (Central Hills)District 8; LEP 112 - Macquarie Field House; LEP 32, IDO 13; IDO 15 and IDO 28.Each of these instruments contain provisions (controls) relating to tree preservation. There are anumber of inconsistencies across these LEPs and IDOs with respect to the management oftrees.Notwithstanding, all of the EPIs require the consent of the Council to remove trees, or in someinstances, an approval of Council (not being a development consent) can suffice.Importantly, the forthcoming Comprehensive LEP must follow a standardised format or ‘template’mandated by the NSW Department of Planning. That ‘template’ includes an optional clause todeal with the issue of the preservation of trees and other vegetation. It will be recommended bystaff, at a later date, that Council incorporate the optional tree preservation clause into theComprehensive Campbelltown LEP. In the interim, however, it is important for any newprovisions for the management of trees, to be consistent with the ‘template clause option’.Underlying the provisions of the various LEPs and IDOs, mentioned above, is another layer ofstatutory ‘control’ for tree preservation that applies across the Campbelltown LGA. This ‘layer’ isDevelopment Control Plan 114 - Trees (DCP 114).

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 482.6 Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Dcp 2011 (Volumes 1, 2 & 3) - Stage 4DCP114 includes controls for the removal and pruning of trees. It applies to all land includingprivately owned land. This DCP requires the approval of Council before certain works impactingon trees, are carried out.Summary of current controls under DCP 114 (Trees)DCP 114 includes the following main provisions:A definition of a tree;A list of valid reasons for requesting a tree to be removed or prunedClarification of the tree removal process; andA list of significant trees (significant tree register).(ii)Issues with Current Controls – DCP 114 (Trees)DCP114 (Trees) is now considered to be out of date and suffers a number of shortcomings. Itwas last reviewed and updated in 2002.In summary the following main shortcoming with DCP 114 (Trees) have been identified:There is a need to update the development assessment process to clarify when apermit is needed as opposed to a development application; andLack of tree replacement controls.(iii)Proposed Controls for Trees Management - Draft Part 11 Management of TreesThe following main controls are proposed:a list of detailed and comprehensive definitions;two types of applications: a development application or a permit depending on thenumber and age of the trees to be removed;the introduction of a new policy for tree replacement; anda limit of 5 years for a permit/DA to be valid commencing from the issue date byCouncil.The Significant Tree RegisterCouncil has a Significant Tree Register that is currently part of DCP 114 (Trees). Given that it isintended to transfer the requirements of DCP 114 (Trees) into a new draft Part 11 of the SCDCP,it follows that the Significant Tree Register should also be incorporated into Part 11.However, it is now considered best practice that ‘lists’ or ‘registers’ that are continually updated,are best kept as ‘stand alone’ documents and instead, referred to by EPIs or development controlplans. If such lists and registers are included in either an EPI or a DCP, and are required to beamended, a significant time and resource intensive process would be required including publicexhibition, submissions to the Department of Planning and significant reporting to Council. Astand alone document also allows Council to expediently amend its significant tree register toadd a tree, if Council believes it may be in danger of removal or being damaged.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 492.6 Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Dcp 2011 (Volumes 1, 2 & 3) - Stage 4By keeping documents such as Council’s Significant Tree Register as a ‘stand alone document’,it can be updated as required without the need to undergo a statutory process. Notwithstanding,any establishment and updating of the Significant Tree Register is required to follow a certainprocedure, and any amendment (ie. removal or adding trees) would require the endorsement ofCouncil.Importantly, draft Part 11 Tree Management includes a reference to the Significant tree Register.It requires that any development application or application for a permit to carry out tree worksinvolving an item listed on Council’s Significant Tree Register, will be referred to the HeritageProtection Sub-Committee for consideration and then Council for determination.Council staff has prepared a Nomination and Assessment Process for Inclusion of a nominatedTree(s) on the Significant Tree Register as shown in Attachment 2 of this report.In summary, the proposed procedure would ensure that the owner(s) of nominated trees are:informed of the nomination as soon as possible;provided with the opportunity to make representations to Council concerning thenomination; andgranted the opportunity to address Council’s Planning and Environment Committee(and possibly the Heritage Protection Sub-Committee).The adoption of this procedure by Council will enable staff to utilise it in the future assessment ofnominated significant trees.(e)(i)Draft Part 12 Telecommunication FacilitiesSummary of Existing Legislative Framework for Telecommunication FacilitiesCouncil is the consent authority for telecommunication facilities that require development consentunder the terms of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. In NSW, the SEPP(Infrastructure) 2007 and the Commonwealth Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities)Determination 1997, permit a wide range of telecommunications infrastructure (includingbroadband cabling) to be undertaken without consent from Council.The Commonwealth Telecommunications Act 1997 (Telco Act) provides the framework forregulating the provision of telecommunication services throughout Australia. All licensed carriersmust comply with the Telco Act and the Telecommunications Code of Practice 1997.Schedule 3 of the Telco Act sets out carriers’ powers and immunities from certain State andTerritory laws, and includes a provision that the Minister may determine that a specified facility isa “low-impact facility” under the Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 1997.This Determination was made pursuant to Schedule 3 of the Telco Act, and contains a scheduleof low-impact telecommunications facilities that are exempt from State and Territory laws, andtherefore may be legally constructed without Council approval.State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 and State Environmental PlanningPolicy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 also permit a wide range oftelecommunication facilities without Council approval. This includes public infrastructure such asbroadband cabling, and certain domestic equipment such as antennae and satellite dishes.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 502.6 Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Dcp 2011 (Volumes 1, 2 & 3) - Stage 4For any development applications submitted to Council for telecommunication facilities, Council'sDCP 107 Siting of Communication Facilities (Telecommunication Towers) provides Council'spolicy requirements that must be considered. This policy came into effect on 19 September 2002.(ii)Issues with Current DCP Controls for Telecommunication FacilitiesThe issues identified with the current DCP in the review of the Plan are outlined as follows:The DCP was formulated at a time which pre-dated the adoption of a clear AustralianStandard to regulate the safe exposure of Electromagnetic Energy emissions to thecommunity. As such, the numerical figure for radiation exposure provided in the DCP isoutdated, and has no legal or scientific basis for Council to impose as a requirement fortelecommunication infrastructure.The definition of a 'telecommunication facility' needs to be updated in the Plan to beconsistent with the definition provided under the State Government's 'StandardInstrument - Local Environmental Plan'. At present, the DCP does not technically applyto satellite dishes or ancillary infrastructure such as cabling.(iii) Proposed Controls for Telecommunication Facilities - Draft Part 12Adoption of 'telecommunication facility' and 'telecommunication network' definitionsprovided under the State Government's 'Standard Instrument - Local EnvironmentalPlan'. This will ensure the DCP captures all types of telecommunication infrastructure,such as satellite dishes and cabling.Requirement for all telecommunication facilities to comply with relevant AustralianStandard;Retain emphasis on site selection and separation distances to 'sensitive uses'.Provision of merit based controls relating to reduction of visual and amenity impactsassociated with new infrastructure; andUpdated reference to State and Federal legislation that permits certain types oftelecommunication infrastructure and facilities.(f)(i)Draft Part 13 Sex IndustriesSummary of Existing DCP Controls for Sex IndustriesCampbelltown Sex Industry Development Control Plan 2003 was adopted by Council on 25February 2003 and became effective on 18 March 2003. The Plan provides guidelines for thedetermination of development applications for sex industries within the Campbelltown LocalGovernment Area.The DCP complements Campbelltown (Urban Area) Local Environmental Plan 2002 whichdefines Sex industry premises to mean any brothel, restricted premises or sex-on-premisesestablishment, and restricts such developments to industrial zoned land under that Plan.The DCP provides location and design requirements for all types of sex industry premises. ThePlan requires a 150 metres (minimum) separation between sex industry premises, and alsobetween a sex industry premises and certain 'sensitive' land uses.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 512.6 Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Dcp 2011 (Volumes 1, 2 & 3) - Stage 4(ii)Issues with Current DCP Controls for Sex Industry PremisesThe potential shortcomings of the current DCP provisions are summarised as follows:Council's legal role in the regulation of Sex Industry Premises is limited to the relevantprovisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and LocalGovernment Act 1993. The role and regulatory functions of other Government agenciesthat also contribute to the safe and legal operation of such premises needs to be betterexplained in the Plan;The DCP provides no clear rationale to justify the imposition of a 150 metre separationdistance for brothels and sex-on-premises establishments. Given that arbitraryseparation distances for brothels have been varied by the Land and Environment Court,the Plan needs to better articulate the underlying planning purpose and rationale ofthese separation distances in order to provide greater certainty of these controls beingupheld if challenged;The Plan differentiates between brothels and sex-on-premises establishments for thepurpose of outlining development controls, however, in planning terms there is littledifference between the two uses and the result is essentially a duplication of the samecontrols within the Plan;The relaxation of sanitary facility requirements for brothels and sex-on-premises of lessthan 5 client rooms is questionable, given that there is a clear argument for the samehealth provisions and design standards to apply regardless of the development size.There is also the potential issue of developments identifying less than 5 client roomssimply to avoid the higher development standard for proposals over this threshold; andThe definitions used in the DCP do not align with the definitions provided for thedevelopment of sex industry premises under Campbelltown (Urban Area) LocalEnvironmental Plan 2002.(iii) Proposed Controls for Sex Industry Premises - Draft Part 13The proposed controls have been re-written to address those issues as outlined above.Whilst the majority of the controls have been generally replicated, the main amendmentsare noted as follows:Council's role in applying the planning controls for sex industry premises is providedin the background section of the draft Part, as well as the role of other governmentagencies. The intent of providing this information within the DCP is to clarify for allstakeholders the legal responsibilities of all government agencies involved in theregulation of sex industry premises. Importantly, this includes the NSW Departmentof Health and the NSW WorkCover Authority who are responsible for safe healthpractices in the sex industry.Performance standards to justify the 150 metre separation requirement for sexindustry premises have been provided within the draft DCP. These criteria arebased upon the planning principles set out by the Land and Environment Courtrelating to the location of brothels and separation distances (Martyn v HornsbyShire Council [2004] NSWLEC 614).

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 522.6 Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Dcp 2011 (Volumes 1, 2 & 3) - Stage 4The draft amendments consolidate the DCP requirements for 'brothels' and 'sex-onpremisesestablishments' given the similarity in planning considerations for theseuses. This includes a consistent requirement for the provision of sanitary facilitiesfor brothels and sex-on-premises, regardless of the number of client rooms.Laundry facilities with appropriately sized hot water systems have been required inresponse to feedback from Council's Environmental Health Unit.The definitions provided in the draft DCP have been amended to be consistent withthe definitions provided under Campbelltown (Urban Area) Local EnvironmentalPlan 2002 for the development of sex industry premises.Volume 2: Site Specific Development Control PlansOn 30 September 2005, Part 3 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&AAct) was amended to introduce new requirements in respect to DCPs. Under the provisions ofsection 74C (2) of the EP&A Act, only one DCP can apply to one Local Government area (LGA).Under the EP&A Regulation, Council has six (6) months to comply with the above requirement,from the date of the gazettal of its comprehensive LEP.To comply with the above requirement, Council must have one DCP that applies to the entireLGA. Consequently, all the various DCPs need to be included as part of the SCDCP, includingthe site specific DCPs such as the One Minto DCP.In this regard, it is proposed that Volume 2 of the draft SCDCP includes the site specific DCPs asfollows:Part 1Part 2Part 3One Minto DCPGlenfield Road Urban Release Area DCPThe Link site DCPNotably, the site specific DCPs have been individually adopted by Council at various Councilmeetings in the past years. At this stage, there are no amendments proposed to any the sitespecific DCPs. As such these DCPs will be included under Volume 2 of the SCDP without theneed to re-exhibit them as part of the preparation of Stage 4 of the SCDCP.It is proposed that the site specific DCPs be reformatted to match the SCDCP format, without anychanges to the written content of these DCPs.Site specific DCPs that will be adopted by Council in the future, will be added to Volume 2 ‘SiteSpecific DCPs’ of the SCDCP.3. Proposed Community Consultation Program for the Public Exhibition of the DraftPlanA community consultation program (focused on these latest amendments to SCDCP) has beendeveloped to ensure that:1. The community is fully engaged and aware of the Draft Plan;2. Information is available to the community to assist people to understand the proposedDraft Plan and;

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 532.6 Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Dcp 2011 (Volumes 1, 2 & 3) - Stage 43. To invite community and industry feedback on the new proposals for Council toconsider prior to adoption of final SCDCP.It is recommended that Volume 1 of draft SCDCP 2011 be publicly exhibited for a period of 28days at a number of locations across the City including Council's Civic Centre, all libraries, andon Council’s website.Officer's Recommendation1. That Council publicly exhibit Volume 1 Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) DevelopmentControl Plan 2011 as contained within Attachment 2 for a period of 28 days in accordancewith the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.2. That Council endorse the proposed restructure of the SDCP to include the previouslyadopted site specific DCPs comprising One Minto DCP, Glenfield Road Urban ReleaseArea and DCP104 (Link Site) under Volume 2 Site Specific DCPs and the EngineeringDesign for Development under Volume 3 of the draft SCDCP 2011 as outlined in thisreport.3. That Council endorse the Significant Tree Register being a ‘stand alone’ document.4. That Council adopt the procedure for inclusion of additional trees on the Significant TreeRegister as outlined in Attachment 2 of this report.5. That a report be presented to Council following the exhibition period detailing allsubmissions and the outcomes of the public information session.Committee’s Recommendation: (Bourke/Kolkman)1. That Council publicly exhibit Volume 1 Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) DevelopmentControl Plan 2011 as contained within Attachment 2 for a period of 28 days in accordancewith the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.2. That Council endorse the proposed restructure of the SDCP to include the previouslyadopted site specific DCPs comprising One Minto DCP, Glenfield Road Urban ReleaseArea and DCP104 (Link Site) under Volume 2 Site Specific DCPs and the EngineeringDesign for Development under Volume 3 of the draft SCDCP 2011 as outlined in thisreport.3. That Council endorse the Significant Tree Register being a ‘stand alone’ document.4. That Council adopt the procedure for inclusion of additional trees on the Significant TreeRegister as outlined in Attachment 2 of this report.5. That a report be presented to Council following the exhibition period detailing allsubmissions and the outcomes of the public information session.6. That the period of notification for all developments be extended from 10 to 30 days.CARRIED

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 542.6 Draft Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Dcp 2011 (Volumes 1, 2 & 3) - Stage 4Council Meeting 12 April 2011 (Kolkman/Oates)That the Committee's Recommendation be adopted.Council Resolution Minute Number 48That the Committee's Recommendation be adopted.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 552.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register Review2.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study and Register ReviewReporting OfficerManager Environmental PlanningAttachments1. Copy of Draft Campbelltown Local Government Area Heritage Review – Report, datedNovember 2010 (distributed under separate cover).2. Recommended changes to existing listings – St Peter’s Group (distributed under separatecover).3. Recommended changes to existing listings – Queen Street Group, Heritage ConservationArea and a new zone for the southern end of Queen Street (distributed under separatecover).4. Recommended changes to existing listings – Group items near Lithgow Street (distributedunder separate cover).5. St John’s Group – Important view lines (distributed under separate cover).Purpose1. To augment the presentation on the draft Campbelltown Heritage Study and RegisterReview that was provided to Council at its briefing night on 15 March 2011; and2. To seek Council’s support of the findings and recommendations of the draft CampbelltownHeritage Study and Register Review.HistoryIn March 2009, Council appointed Paul Davies Pty Ltd Architects and Heritage Consultants toundertake a review of the current Heritage Study and Register for the Campbelltown LocalGovernment Area (LGA). The original Heritage Study and Register were prepared in 1994 andlast updated in 1998. Some minor adjustments and updating of photographs have also occurredover time. The current Heritage Study and Register Review is required as part of the preparationof the new comprehensive Local Environmental Plan for the Campbelltown LGA.As part of the review, the consultants were required to undertake the following tasks: Review the existing heritage items listed in Council’s Local Environmental Plan and InterimDevelopment Order schedules; Assess the heritage significance of thirty-two (32) potential heritage items which had beenidentified by the Heritage Protection Sub Committee and Council staff; Prepare a heritage database for the Campbelltown LGA, utilising the State HeritageInventory program software for all listed heritage items and potential heritage itemsrecommended for listing; Review the boundaries of the Queen Street Heritage Conservation Area; Review and update the Campbelltown Heritage Study Built Environment report (1994);

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 562.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewUndertake community consultation workshops with regard to the review; andProvide advice to Council in regard to both conservation planning controls and the on-goingmanagement of heritage items.Consultation with owners of existing and potential heritage items was undertaken in March 2009and owners will be consulted again during the preparation of the new comprehensive LEP.The draft Heritage Study and Register Review have recently been completed. Councillors wereprovided with a presentation on the Heritage Study Review at the Councillor’s briefing night on 15March 2011. The presentation outlined the key findings of the Heritage Study Review and theproposed recommendations.ReportOverviewThe draft Campbelltown Heritage Study and Register Review 2010 consists of two volumes:Volume 1Volume 2Report, summary of findings and recommendations.State Heritage Inventory (SHI) forms for each property for presentationas the online SHI database for the Campbelltown LGA.The SHI is a database of all heritage listings in NSW. It includes both local and State significantitems and conservation areas for all local government areas in NSW.Volume 1 provides an overview of the methodology used to undertake the project and anacknowledgement of data sources. It also provides an overview of the historic development ofthe Campbelltown LGA and information on important historic figures, many of whom are linked toparticular existing and potential heritage items. The Volume explains the National, State andLocal Historical Themes that apply to existing and potential heritage items within theCampbelltown LGA and which are used to assist in establishing the significance of heritage itemsin NSW. It also sets out the reasoning behind, and the findings of, the assessment of eachexisting and potential heritage item.This report explains the findings and recommendations of the Review for both existing andpotential new heritage items and for the Queen Street Heritage Conservation Area.Terminology – ‘Heritage Item’, ‘Group Heritage Item’ and ‘Heritage Conservation Area’Most heritage items located within the Campbelltown LGA are individual ‘heritage items’. Thismeans that they have heritage significance as an individual property or place, and that new workneeds to ensure that it respects this significance.The term ‘group item’ is particularly appropriate in the Campbelltown LGA because it allowsplaces that are related in some way, for example, historically or geographically, to be listed insuch a way that the cumulative significance of each element is recognised. The listing of a placeas also being part of a group item does not trigger any additional need for approval over thatrequired for an individual heritage item, with the main impact in the development process being toencourage proper and careful consideration of the impact of the new work on the significance ofboth the subject property and the group as a whole.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 572.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewA group item differs from a ‘heritage conservation area’. A heritage conservation area (HCA)describes an area which has heritage significance as a whole, and the properties within this areacan have, but do not have to have, sufficient individual heritage significance to satisfy the criteriafor listing as individual items. Heritage conservation areas are also geographically contiguous,whereas group items can be physically separated. Development within a HCA needs to ensurethat it respects the significance of the area as a whole. Unless properties within the HCA areindividually listed as heritage items, the priority is placed on respecting the area’s value. Ifheritage listed items are contained within a HCA, then both the significance of the individualheritage items and the significance of the area as a whole need to be considered.Curtilage IssuesThe curtilage of a heritage item is the area of land that contributes to the heritage significance ofthe item. In most cases, the curtilage is the same as the current lot boundary, but in some cases(such as the early Colonial estates of State or higher significance where the original property hasbeen subdivided or land beyond the current property boundary forms part of the significant viewsto, or from the property), the curtilage can extend well beyond the existing property boundary.The majority of the heritage item listings in the Campbelltown LGA include a curtilage formed bythe current property boundary.The Heritage Review recommends that the heritage curtilage issues be addressed via land useplanning controls by requiring a Curtilage Study (in the form of a Heritage Impact Assessment) toaccompany any development application for subdivision that will affect a heritage-listed property(whether a heritage item or an item within a heritage conservation area). The circumstances inwhich a Curtilage Study will be required should be specified in Council’s Development ControlPlan. It also recommends that the NSW Heritage Council be requested to review the curtilage ofsome of the existing State Heritage Register listings in light of the issues discussed above.Review of Existing Heritage ItemsThe existing heritage items within the Campbelltown LGA were reviewed to ensure that they stillsatisfy the NSW Heritage Council’s criteria for local heritage listing. The State Heritage Inventoryform for each existing item was also updated to include more detailed historic information,photographs, and management guidelines. This additional information will assist both ownersand Council in their management of heritage items, including both the planning of conservationwork and any proposed new development.The review of the heritage significance of each property against the current criteria for heritagelisting has also lead to certain changes being recommended to some listings. These proposedchanges include:1. That the boundary of the St Peter’s Group be adjusted to better reflect the heritagesignificance of the Group and its setting by including Mawson Park and the land betweenthe Church and the Cemetery (see Attachment 2).2. That the historic buildings at the southern end of Queen Street be recognised andprotected through the retention of existing Heritage Items; the Heritage Conservation Area(Queen Street), and the introduction of special controls (including zoning and urban designcontrols) as part of the statutory planning process (see Attachment 3).

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 582.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register Review3. That three (3) small Group Items (each group comprising two (2) sites that are alreadylisted individually as heritage items) be listed in recognition of the strong historic andaesthetic links between the buildings in each pair. These pairs are: Glenalvon andRichmond Villa; Braefield and Caversham; and the St David’s Presbyterian Church andManse (see Attachment 4).It is important to note that the current listing for the St John’s Church Group was also investigatedbut no changes to the current listing or curtilage are recommended. However, suggestions onhow to protect the setting of the Group through appropriate planning controls are made (seeAttachment 5).In addition, no existing heritage items have been recommended for removal from either the StateHeritage Register or from listing in Council’s Environmental Planning Instruments.The “Findings and Recommendations” section of this report (see below) is an extract of allrecommendations from the Heritage Study and Register Review, including the assessed heritagesignificance of the investigated potential items; a proposed schedule of heritage items forinclusion in the Campbelltown LEP; and tables identifying the items (existing and proposed)relevant to the specific recommendations of the Review. These specific recommendations arediscussed in more detail in the following sections of this report.Investigation of Potential Heritage ItemsA key element of the project was to investigate the heritage significance of a list of potentialheritage items. This list was based on places recommended by the Heritage Protection SubCommittee and through previous resolutions made by Council. The list is provided below.It is important to note that Council currently has a policy of not pursuing the investigation of thepotential heritage significance of properties in cases where the owner objects. Owners wereadvised of the proposed Heritage Study Review by letter in March 2009. Where objections werereceived, no further investigations of the properties concerned were undertaken.The following table provides a summary of the properties that were identified for investigation aspart of the Review, and the recommendations that have been made for each property.Potential Item Discussion RecommendationCampbelltown Scenic HillsThe Georges RiverSt Helens Park Historic DamsWater CanalBetter protection could be affordedthrough zoning rather than heritagelisting.Specific sites along the River have beenidentified as potential heritage items –Simmo’s Beach, The Woolwash, TheBasin, Frere’s Crossing and IngleburnWeir.Westgarth’s Dam (associated with StHelens Park House) is the only historicdam in St Helens Park. St Helens ParkHouse is currently on both the State andlocal registers, but the dam is only onthe local register.The Sydney Water Supply Upper Canalis already listed on both State and localregisters.Not recommended for listing as a heritageitem.The specific sites are recommended forlisting as local heritage items and as aheritage item group.Recommended to seek amendment of thecurrent listings so that the house and damare both included on the State and localheritage registers.No change recommended.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 592.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewSt Barnabas Church, IngleburnSoldiers’ Settlement Houses inWaminda Avenue and MacquarieAvenue, CampbelltownHouse in Waminda Avenue,CampbelltownMawson Park, CampbelltownThe KO Jones Memorial Baby HealthCentre, within Mawson Park,CampbelltownBeverley Park House (in the groundsof Beverley Park Special School),CampbelltownSmith’s Creek (from Ruse to Warby’sDams in Leumeah)The Castle (4 Dowling Street,Leumeah)Centenary of Federation Trees,Pembroke Road, MintoWalsa (house at Wedderburn)St Gregory’s College, Gregory HillsThe owners objected to heritage listing,therefore the heritage significance ofthis item was not investigated.14 of the 19 surviving houses wereinvestigated (5 were not investigateddue to objections from owners) andmost were found to still demonstrate thecore characteristics of the Soldiers’Settlement Scheme.The owners did not wish to pursueinvestigation of this property.Mawson Park is an important historiclink between the Court House and StPeter’s Church. It also has heritagesignificance in its own right as thelocation where Governor Macquarieproclaimed the town of Campbell Townand through its role as the maincommunity open space since the Townwas first settled.The Baby Health Centre hassignificance for both historic and socialreasons.Beverley Park House (now theLomandra School) has significance forhistoric, aesthetic and social reasons.Smiths Creek is an important naturalfeature within the urban area of theCampbelltown LGA.The house known as “The Castle” is aunique dwelling, that has been largelyhand constructed using traditionaltechniques.This group of trees is young but will intime form an aesthetically impressiveand historically and socially significantavenue of trees, if protected from harm.This house is a good and relatively rareexample of a late 19 th /early 20 th Centuryvernacular rural farm dwelling.The main 1940s College building issignificant for its historic, social andaesthetic/technological values and itssetting.Not included as part of the study.Recommended to list the investigated itemsthat still demonstrate the core characteristicsof the Soldiers’ Settlement Scheme, subjectto further consultation with the owners.Not included as part of the study.Recommended that Mawson Park be listedas a local heritage item and also that it beincluded within the “St Peter’s ChurchGroup” (the Group is recommended fornomination for listing on the State HeritageRegister).Recommended that the KO Jones MemorialBaby Health Centre be listed as a heritageitem and also (because it is located withinMawson Park) that it be included within the“St Peter’s Group” (the Group isrecommended for nomination for listing onthe State Heritage Register).Recommended that the property be listed asa local heritage item.Recommended that the nominated section ofthe Creek (including the open space), belisted as a local heritage item.Recommended for listing as a local heritageitem.Recommended for listing as a local heritageitem.Recommended for listing as a local heritageitem.Recommended for listing as a local heritageitem.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 602.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewHurlstone Agricultural High School,GlenfieldVeterinary Research Station –Director’s House (located within theHurlstone Education Precinct,Glenfield)The Hilltop Special Schools (locatedwithin the Hurlstone EducationPrecinct, Glenfield)The school is of historic, technical,aesthetic and social heritagesignificance, at a local, and possiblyState, level. It is an existing heritageitem but the current listing informationdoes not make clear whether it includesthe whole site or the original buildingonly. The significance extends over thewhole site and this needs to be clarified.The site forms part of the HurlstoneEducation Precinct.It is also of significance for its historicand aesthetic role as part of thecurtilage of Macquarie Field House.The house is of historic, aesthetic andsocial heritage significance at a locallevel. The site forms part of theHurlstone Education Precinct.This complex is of historic, aesthetic andsocial significance at a local, andpossibly, State level.The site forms part of the HurlstoneEducation Precinct.Recommended for clarification of the extentof the listing as a local heritage item at thispoint in time.Note: The Hurlstone Education Precinct hasalready been referred to the NSW HeritageCouncil for assessment and possibleinclusion on the SHR. This is a separateprocess to the Heritage Review.Part of the site (Lot 4, DP 845870) isrecommended for referral to the NSWHeritage Council as part of the SHR curtilageof Macquarie Field House.Recommended for listing as a local heritageitem at this point in time.Note: The Hurlstone Education Precinct hasalready been referred to the NSW HeritageCouncil for assessment and possibleinclusion on the SHR. This is a separateprocess to the Heritage Review.Recommended for listing as a local heritageitem at this point in time.Note: The Hurlstone Education Precinct hasalready been referred to the NSW HeritageCouncil for assessment and possibleinclusion on the SHR. This is a separateprocess to the Heritage Review.Also recommended for nomination to theNSW Heritage Council for inclusion on theSHR as an individual State significantheritage item.It should also be noted that Council has already (in December 2009) requested the HeritageCouncil to assess the significance of the existing and former educational and scientific researchproperties in the Hurlstone area – including the Hilltop Special Schools, the Hurlstone AgriculturalHigh School and the former Veterinary Research Station. These lands were originally part of theMacquarie Field Estate and have various layers of additional significance as a result of their lateruse. The investigation and assessment is proceeding separately to the Heritage Study andRegister Review. However, the Review has clarified the nature and extent of the contribution ofeach of these sites to the precinct, and the findings for each property should be forwarded to theDepartment of Planning’s Heritage Branch to assist in their research and assessment.Heritage Inventory SheetsNew heritage inventory sheets (using the standard State Heritage Inventory database, andtherefore referred to as SHI forms) have been prepared for each existing and potential heritageitem. The SHI forms for the potential heritage items will only come into effect if the owners of thenominated properties do not object to the listing of their properties as heritage items. While initialconsultation has taken place, further consultation with owners of the subject properties will takeplace as part of the LEP preparation process.It is important to note that the names of some of the existing heritage items have been changedto better reflect their historic significance.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 612.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewThe SHI form for each heritage item (and potential item) includes a section identifying principlesfor the ‘recommended management’ of the property which should be referred to when planningany new work. The principles are general in nature and are intended to provide an overview ofsome of the types of work that may or may not be appropriate. It should be noted that alldevelopment applications for new work will need to be assessed on their merits at the time andmust comply with the provisions of the LEP that applies to the land; and in the case of Statesignificant items and archaeological sites, the provisions of the NSW Heritage Act (1977), willalso need to be considered.Heritage ManagementThe Review has identified some heritage items that appear to be in urgent need of repair orrequire maintenance in order to ensure that their heritage significance is not compromised.The Review also makes recommendations for Council’s heritage management strategy, includingthe appointment of a heritage advisor to assist both Council and the community to manage itsheritage assets in the best possible manner; the need to maintain the Heritage Inventory recordsfor each item; the need for Council to continue to conserve its own heritage places in the bestpossible way; and recommendations for the promotion of heritage in the Campbelltown LGA,including the establishment of a cultural heritage precinct at the southern end of Queen Street.Findings and Recommendations of the ReviewOne of the most important aims of the Heritage Study Review was to provide recommendationsto assist Campbelltown City Council in preparing its new comprehensive LEP for theCampbelltown LGA and to assist Council to ensure that its planning process will facilitate thecurrent, future and on-going management of heritage items, conservation areas andarchaeological sites.Unless otherwise noted, each recommendation should be addressed in the preparation of thenew comprehensive Local Environment Plan (LEP) for the Campbelltown LGA. It is recognisedthat some recommendations, such as those involving further investigation or referral orconsultation, will not be able to be achieved as part of the current LEP process and will need tobe addressed in a future review of the instrument.The draft Campbelltown Heritage Study and Register Review makes twenty-three (23)recommendations regarding heritage in the Campbelltown LGA. Each of the recommendations islisted and discussed in detail below. This report provides comments on each of therecommendations of the Review and makes suggestions regarding how Council may wish toproceed with implementing those Recommendations.Recommendation 1: Adopt the recommended new local heritage itemsThe Heritage Study Review recommends that Council endorse the new heritage items listedbelow as Local Heritage Items and Groups (as appropriate) of significance to the CampbelltownLGA.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 622.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewProposed New Heritage Items and GroupsSuburb Street StreetNo.Lot & DP No. Item Name AssessmentSignificance LevelVariouslocations alongthe GeorgesRiverNumerous lotsadjacent to theRiver, theswimming spotsthemselves arepart of the RiverGeorges RiverSwimming Spots:Simmos Beach,Ingleburn Weir, Frere’sCrossing, The Basinand the WoolwashLocalCampbelltown Queen Street (northeastcorner of Mawson Park)Part Lot 1, DP668144Dr K.O. Jones MemorialBaby Health CentreCampbelltown Beverley Road 100 Lot 12, DP Lomandra School1013021Campbelltown Queen Street (cornerLot 1, DP Mawson ParkCordeaux Street)668144Campbelltown Macquarie Avenue 25 Lot 17, DP Soldier Settlement418762HouseCampbelltown Macquarie Avenue 35 Lot 3, DP 31732 Soldier SettlementHouseCampbelltown Macquarie Avenue 87 Lot 3, DP 31299 Soldier SettlementHouseCampbelltown Macquarie Avenue 99 Lot 2, sec 1, DP Soldier Settlement250737HouseCampbelltown Macquarie Avenue 142 Lot 2, DP Soldier Settlement500508HouseCampbelltown Waminda Avenue 30 Lot C, DP Soldier Settlement420833HouseCampbelltown Waminda Avenue 41 Lot A, DP Soldier Settlement417951HouseCampbelltown Waminda Avenue 66 Lot X, DP Soldier Settlement417849HouseCampbelltown Waminda Avenue 115 Lot Y, DP Soldier Settlement4175089HouseCampbelltown Waminda Avenue 116 Lot 388, DP Soldier Settlement752062HouseCampbelltown Waminda Avenue 124 Lot 8, DP Soldier Settlement230885HouseCampbelltown Waminda Avenue 131 Lot 1, DP Soldier Settlement545956HouseCampbelltown Waminda Avenue 132 Lot A, DP Soldier Settlement445479HouseCampbelltown Waminda Avenue 141 Lot 3, DP Soldier Settlement206450HouseCampbelltown Waminda Avenue and Various Various Soldier SettlementMacquarie AvenueHouses GroupGlenfield Roy WattsLot 21, DP Hurlstone AgriculturalRoad/Campbelltown1035516 and Lot High School (not justRoad4, DP 845870 main building)Glenfield Roy Watts Road Lot 1, DP175963Glenfield Roy Watts Road 1 Part Lot 22, DP1035516Gregory Hills Badgally Road 100 Part Lot 93, DP1137298Leumeah Dowling Street 4 Lot 25, DP236021The Hilltop SpecialSchoolsVeterinary ResearchStation DirectorsResidence (former)St Gregory’s College –1940 Buildingencompassing formerBadgally HouseThe Castle (Ye OldeKeepe)LocalLocalLocalLocalLocalLocalLocalLocalLocalLocalLocalLocalLocalLocalLocalLocalLocalLocalLocal(NB: Lot 4 alsorecommended forinclusion as part ofSHR curtilage forMacquarie FieldHouse)State(SHR nominationrecommended)LocalLocalLocal

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 632.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewLeumeah Pembroke Road,Numerous lots Smiths Creek Reserve LocalLeumeah RoadMinto Pembroke Road Within Road Centenary ofLocalReserveFederation TreesWedderburn Pheasants Road 29 Lot 31, DP785548WalsaLocalComment:This recommendation is a key consideration in the preparation of the new comprehensive LEPfor the Campbelltown LGA. The new LEP will need to include a Schedule of Heritage Items(including items, groups and heritage conservation areas) and a Heritage Map layer that showsthe location and extent (curtilage) of each heritage item, group and heritage conservation area,listed in the Schedule.Consultation with the owners of proposed new heritage items was undertaken at thecommencement of the Heritage Study and Register Review. Where owners indicated that theydid not wish for their properties to be investigated for heritage listing, these properties wereremoved from the review process. Further consultation will be undertaken (via writtencorrespondence) with the owners of the new proposed heritage items during the preparation ofthe draft comprehensive LEP. These owners will also have the opportunity to comment or objectduring the formal public exhibition of the draft LEP (which is likely to take place in late 2011). ForCouncil owned sites, relevant Council stakeholders will continue to be consulted during thepreparation of the new comprehensive LEP.Suggested Recommendation:That Council include the draft proposed heritage items, as identified in the CampbelltownHeritage Study and Register Review (2010), in the new draft comprehensive LEP, subject tofurther consultation with the owners of the nominated properties.Recommendation 2: Include the Heritage Item Schedule in the LEPThe Heritage Study Review recommends that Council adopt the Heritage Item Schedule, asidentified in the Campbelltown Heritage Study and Register Review (2010), that is reiteratedbelow, and the Queen Street Heritage Conservation Area, for inclusion within its draftComprehensive LEP.It is important to note that the Standard LEP only makes provisions for items to be identified asbeing of either local or State significance. Only items listed on the State Heritage Register can belisted as being of State significance in new comprehensive LEPs that are based on the StandardLEP. Items that have previously been identified as being of “regional” or “national” significance inLEPs need to be re-assessed to fit the new Standard LEP requirements.Item name Address Assessment Significance LevelPART 1: INDIVIDUAL HERITAGE ITEMSVarious LocationsUpper Canal System (Prospect Reservoir) Extends through LGA State (SHR listed)

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 642.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewAirdsBriar Cottage 14-16 Waterhouse Place LocalThe Woolwash Georges River LocalBlair AtholBlair Athol 23 Blair Athol Drive LocalKia, The 21 Blair Athol Drive LocalKraal, The 29 Blair Athol Drive LocalMaryfields – Stations of the Cross Narellan Road LocalBlairmountBlairmount Badgally Road LocalKenny Hill Reservoir Kenny Hill Road off Narellan Road LocalBradburyRaith 7 Pine Avenue LocalSilos Appin Road Reservation (east) LocalCampbelltownBraefield 24 Oxley Street LocalCampbelltown Railway Station Hurley Street LocalCaversham 26 Oxley Street LocalCransley 104 Waminda Avenue LocalDr K.O. Jones Memorial Baby Health Centre Mawson Park LocalEmily Cottage 1 Old Menangle Road LocalFowler’s Cottage (Dredge’s Cottage) 303 Queen Street State (SHR listed)Glenalvon 4 Lithgow Street State (SHR listed)Horse Trough, monument and lampBroughton Street (cnr), within Civic LocalCentreHouse 64 Lithgow Street LocalLomandra School 100 Beverley Road LocalMawson Park Queen Street (corner Cordeaux) Local(recommended for nomination forSHR listing as part of the St PetersGroup)Methodist/Congregationalist Cemetery St Johns Road, Pioneer Park LocalMilestone 33 miles to Sydney Queen Street (Mawson Park) Local(recommended for nomination forSHR listing as part of the MilestonesGroup)Old Bursill’s Building 292 Queen Street StateOld Campbelltown Court House 95 Queen Street Local(recommended for nomination forSHR listing)Old Campbelltown Post Office 261 Queen Street State (SHR listed)Old Campbelltown Town Hall 297 Queen Street LocalOld CBC Bank 263 Queen Street State (SHR listed)Old Coach House 298 Queen Street State (SHR listed)Old Congregational Manse (Gold Wheel 38 Queen Street LocalRestaurant)Old Doyle’s Railway Hotel 288 Queen Street State (SHR listed)Old Farriers Arms 318 Queen Street LocalOld Fieldhouse Stores 317 Queen Street LocalOld Kendall Mill House 316-318 Queen Street Local(recommended for nomination forSHR listing)Old McGuanne House 286 Queen Street State (SHR listed)Old St Johns Catholic Cemetery George Street corner Broughton Street State (SHR listed)Old St Johns Catholic Church 34 Sturt Street State (SHR listed)Presbyterian Cemetery Broughton Street Local

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 652.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewQuondong: Old Catholic Schoolhouse 15 Old Menangle Road LocalReservoir, cattle tank and silt traps Allman Street Local(recommended for nomination forSHR listing)Richmond Villa 12 Lithgow Street LocalSoldier Settlement House 25 Macquarie Avenue LocalSoldier Settlement House 35 Macquarie Avenue LocalSoldier Settlement House 87 Macquarie Avenue LocalSoldier Settlement House 99 Macquarie Avenue LocalSoldier Settlement House 142 Macquarie Avenue LocalSoldier Settlement House 30 Waminda Avenue LocalSoldier Settlement House 41 Waminda Avenue LocalSoldier Settlement House 66 Waminda Avenue LocalSoldier Settlement House 115 Waminda Avenue LocalSoldier Settlement House 116 Waminda Avenue LocalSoldier Settlement House 124 Waminda Avenue LocalSoldier Settlement House 131 Waminda Avenue LocalSoldier Settlement House 132 Waminda Avenue LocalSoldier Settlement House 141 Waminda Avenue LocalSt Davids Presbyterian Church 40 Lithgow Street LocalSt Davids Presbyterian Manse 32 Lithgow Street LocalSt Elmo 94 Broughton Street LocalSt John the Evangelist Catholic Church Cordeaux Street LocalSt Peters Anglican Cemetery Broughton Street corner Howe Street Local(recommended for nomination forSHR listing as part of the St PetersGroup)St Peters Anglican Church Cordeaux Street Local(recommended for nomination forSHR listing as part of the St PetersGroup)St Peters Rectory and Stables (former) Cordeaux Street Local(recommended for nomination forSHR listing as part of the St PetersGroup)Taminer House Cordeaux Street LocalTimber Workers Cottage 10 Sturt Street LocalVirginia Cottage 8 Sturt Street LocalWarbys Barn 18 Queen Street State (SHR listed)Warby’s Stables 12-14 Queen Street State (SHR listed)Watton Cottage 14 Sturt Street LocalWeatherboard House 2 Condamine Street LocalWesleyan Chapel (former) Allman and Oxley Streets LocalClaymoreGlenroy 2 Dobell Road (corner Badgally Road) LocalHillcrest Badgally Road LocalDenham CourtDenham Court 238 Campbelltown Road State (SHR listed)Milestone 27 miles to Sydney West of 5 Dickson Road Local(recommended for nomination forSHR listing as part of the MilestonesGroup)Eagle ValeMount St Joseph – former – Novitiate 13 Moonstone Place LocalEnglorie ParkEnglorie Park House 2 Parkholme Circuit Local

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 662.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewEschol ParkEschol Park House and Driveway Trees14 Eschol Park Drive and Eschol ParkDriveGileadLocalBeulah Appin Road State (SHR listed)Brookdale: Site of Hamilton Hume’s588 Appin Road LocalHomesteadGlen Lorne – site 982 Appin Road LocalHume Monument 588 (adjacent to) Appin Road LocalHumewood Forest Appin Road LocalKilbride Nursing Home 70 Glendower Street LocalMeadowvale 715-717 Appin Road LocalMount Gilead Appin Road LocalSugarloaf Farm Menangle Road State (SHR listed)Glen AlpineGlen Alpine – site of original house Abington Crescent LocalGlen Alpine (second house) 12 Belltrees Close LocalGlenfieldHurlstone Agricultural High School Roy Watts Road Local (part of site recommended forinclusion within the curtilage of theSHR listing of Macquarie FieldHouse)Milestone 24 miles to Sydney Campbelltown Road Local(recommended for nomination forSHR listing as part of the MilestonesGroup)The Hilltop Special Schools Roy Watts Road Local(The proposed item has beenreferred to the NSW HeritageBranch for SHR listing as part of theHurlstone Education Precinct)Veterinary Research station (DirectorsResidence)(Also recommended for nominationto the NSW Heritage Council forinclusion on the SHR as anindividual State significant heritageitem)1 Roy Watts Road Local(Already being considered for SHRlisting as part of the HurlstoneEducation Precinct).St Gregory’s CollegeGregory Hills100 Badgally Road (including BadgallyHill)IngleburnLocalAnnis and George Bills Horse Trough and 14 Oxford Road (south of) LocalIngleburn Army Camp MemorialBoronia 6 Dove Place LocalIngleburn Community Hall 72 Oxford Road LocalIngleburn Public School 51 Oxford Road LocalIngleburn Weir Georges River LocalMess HallIngleburn Army Camp, Campbelltown LocalRoadMilestone 26 miles to SydneyCampbelltown Road, near IngleburnArmy CampLocal(recommended for nomination forSHR listing as part of the MilestonesGroup)

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 672.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewMont St Quentin Oval and gatesIngleburn Army Camp, Campbelltown LocalRoadRobin Hood Farm 169 Campbelltown Road State (SHR listed)Stone Cottage 28 Mercedes Road LocalThe Pines 13 Macquarie Road LocalWoodcrest 111 Oxford Road LocalKearnsEpping Forest Mississippi Crescent State (SHR listed)KentlynFrere’s Crossing Georges River LocalKeira Villa 20 Hansens Road LocalOld Ford Road Georges River Road (east end) LocalOsbaldeston 226 Georges River Road LocalLeumeahHolly Lea and Plough Inn 185 Airds Road State (SHR listed)Milestone 32 miles to Sydney Campbelltown Road (west of 11-11AHollylea Road)The Castle 4 Dowling Street LocalWarby’s Dams 1 and 2 on Fitzroy Creek Fitzroy Creek LocalWarby’s Dams 3 and 4 on Fitzroy Creek Fitzroy Creek near Lindesay Street LocalLeumeah/RuseLocal(recommended for nomination forSHR listing as part of the MilestonesGroup)Smiths Creek ReserveGeorges RiverRoad/Leumeah/Pembroke Roads (near)Macquarie FieldsLocalMacquarie Field House Quarter Sessions Road State (SHR listed)(recommended for SHR curtilageamendment)Simmo’s Beach Georges River LocalMenangle ParkGlenlee Glenlee Road State (SHR listed)Menangle House 170 Menangle Road Local(recommended for nomination forSHR listing)Menangle Park Paceway – entry gate Racecourse Avenue LocalMenangle Weir adjacent to rail bridge LocalRiverview 121 Menangle Road LocalThe Pines 190 Menangle Road LocalMenangle Park/GileadMenangle Rail Bridge over Nepean River Main Southern Railway State (SHR listed)

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 682.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewMintoCampbellfield 10 Lind Street/Guernsey Avenue LocalCentenary of Federation Avenue of Trees Pembroke Road – road reserve LocalEagleview House 107 Eagleview Road LocalMilestone 30 miles to SydneyMilestone 31 miles to SydneyCampbelltown Road (south of BenLomond Road)Campbelltown Road (west of 149 AirdsRoad)Minto HeightsLocal(recommended for nominationfor SHR listing as part of theMilestones Group)Local(recommended for nominationfor SHR listing as part of theMilestones Group)Etchell’s Cottage 60 Hansens Road LocalHansen’s Cottage – outbuilding 23 Hansens Road LocalKeith Longhurst Reserve – The Basin Georges River LocalStone Cottage Lot 315, Ben Lomond Road State (SHR listed)St AndrewsEarly farmhouse 11 Shiel Place LocalSt Helens ParkDenfield Appin Road State(recommended for SHRcurtilage amendment)St Helens Park House 66 St Helens Park Drive State(recommended for SHRcurtilage amendment)St Helens Park DamLot 252, DP 703991 and Lot 4, DP865319LocalVarrovilleIngleburn Dam 1098 Camden Valley Way LocalVarroville 196 St Andrews Road State (SHR listed)(recommended for SHRcurtilage amendment)WedderburnCharcoal Pits: 3 sandstone lined pits Wedderburn Road LocalMorning Glory Minerva Road LocalOld Wedderburn Post Office 419 Wedderburn Road LocalUnion Church SiteWedderburn Road corner Aberfoyle LocalRoadWalsa 29 Pheasants Road LocalPART 2: GROUP HERITAGE ITEMSBlair Athol Group21, 23 and 29 Blair Athol Drive, Blair LocalAtholBraefield and Caversham Group Oxley Street, Campbelltown LocalGeorges River Swimming Spots Georges River, Various Locations LocalGlenalvon and Richmond Villa Group Lithgow Street, Campbelltown State/LocalMilestones GroupCampbelltown Road, Campbelltown toGlenfieldLocal(recommended for nominationfor SHR listing)Old St Johns Church GroupSturt, George and Broughton Streets, State (SHR listed)CampbelltownQueen Street Buildings Group 286-298 Queen Street, Campbelltown State (SHR listed)

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 692.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewSoldier Settlement Houses GroupSt Helen's Park and St Helen's Park Dam(Westgarth's Dam)Waminda Avenue and MacquarieAvenue. Includes 25,35,87,99 and 142Macquarie Avenue and30,41,66,115,116,124,131,132 and 141Waminda Avenue, Campbelltown66 St Helens Park Drive and part of theopen space adjacent to Ironside Avenue(being Lot 252, DP 703992 and Lot 4,DP 865319)LocalState (house), Local (dam)(recommended to nominate thedame for inclusion on theexisting SHR listing of St Helen'sPark)St Davids Presbyterian Church Group Lithgow Street, Campbelltown LocalSt Peters Anglican Church GroupQueen, Cordeaux and BroughtonStreets, CampbelltownLocal(recommended for nominationfor SHR listing)Part 3: Heritage Conservation AreasQueen Street Heritage Conservation Area Queen Street, Campbelltown StateComment:This recommendation is a key consideration in the preparation of the new comprehensive LEPfor the Campbelltown LGA. As previously stated, the new LEP will need to include a Schedule ofHeritage Items (including items, groups and heritage conservation areas) and a Heritage Maplayer that shows the location and extent (curtilage) of each heritage item, group and heritageconservation area, listed in the Schedule.There are no proposals to remove any existing heritage items from the local or State heritagelists for the Campbelltown LGA. In most cases, the existing items will retain their currentsignificance level and curtilage and their heritage listing will simply be transferred from anexisting local planning instrument into the new comprehensive LEP. There is no need foradditional consultation for these items where there is no change. In cases where changes areproposed, consultation will need to be undertaken with affected owners. All land owners andowners of heritage items in the Campbelltown LGA will have the opportunity to comment on thedraft LEP during the formal public exhibition process.Further consultation will be undertaken (via written correspondence) with the owners of the newproposed heritage items during the preparation of the draft comprehensive LEP. These ownerswill also have the opportunity to comment or object during the formal public exhibition of the draftLEP (which is likely to take place in late 2011).Suggested Recommendation:That Council include the draft proposed Schedule of Heritage Items (including groups and aheritage conservation area) as identified in the Campbelltown Heritage Study and RegisterReview (2010) in the new draft comprehensive LEP, subject to further consultation beingundertaken with the owners of proposed new items.Recommendation 3: Include relevant provisions in the City-wide DCP – developmentaffecting heritage itemsThe Heritage Study recommends that Council prepare specific controls for inclusion in its CitywideDCP to guide the conservation of heritage items and ensure that any development isappropriate for the type of item, its heritage significance and its setting.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 702.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewComment:This recommendation relates directly to the preparation of the new comprehensive LEP for theCampbelltown LGA. The new LEP will include the new standard heritage provisions provided bythe NSW Department of Planning. However, specific local heritage controls, that augment thestandard provisions, will need to be included in the Sustainable City Development Control Plan, ifsuch controls are deemed necessary. Council has recently applied for substantial funding underthe NSW Department of Planning’s LEP Acceleration Fund (LAF) to fund additional resources toassist in the preparation of the LEP. If Council’s application for funding is successful, some of thisfunding may be able to be used to appoint a specialist heritage planner to assist in thepreparation of the DCP controls. If the application for funding is not successful, the provisions inthe existing Heritage DCP should be carried over into the Sustainable City Development ControlPlan, and a further review of the controls would be undertaken when, and if, funds becameavailable.Suggested Recommendation:That Council include heritage provisions in the Sustainable City Development Control Plan toguide the conservation of heritage items and ensure that any development is appropriate for thetype of item, its heritage significance and its setting.Recommendation 4: Include relevant provisions in the City-wide DCP – developmentaffecting historic curtilagesThe Heritage Study recommends that Council’s City-wide DCP should describe the principles tobe followed in the design and siting of development to minimise the impact on the setting of anitem and its historic curtilage. In the case of subdivision or other significant development likely toaffect the curtilage of a heritage item, the DCP should require the preparation of a heritagecurtilage study that describes the impact of the proposed subdivision and any development likelyto occur as a result of this subdivision on the historic and contemporary curtilage, views andsetting of the item.Comment:This recommendation does relate directly to the preparation of the new comprehensive LEP forthe Campbelltown LGA. As stated previously, the new LEP will include the new standard heritageprovisions provided by the NSW Department of Planning, but more detailed local provisions willneed to be included in the Sustainable City Development Control Plan, if such controls aredeemed necessary.Suggested Recommendation:That Council include heritage provisions in the Sustainable City Development Control Plan thatdescribe the principles for the design and siting of development to minimise the impact on thesetting of a heritage item (or group) and its historic setting, and a requirement for a heritagecurtilage study to be provided by the applicant with any application for subdivision that is likely toaffect the curtilage of a heritage item, group or heritage conservation area.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 712.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewRecommendation 5: Include relevant provisions in the City-wide DCP – Queen StreetHeritage Conservation AreaThe Heritage Study recommends that Council prepare specific controls for inclusion in its DCP toprotect the heritage significance of the Queen Street Heritage Conservation Area and eachidentified Group of Heritage Items. These controls should focus on how to protect the cumulativeor aggregated heritage significance of the Heritage Conservation Area or Group and ways inwhich any new development should respect the significance of the Group.Comment:This recommendation relates directly to the preparation of the new comprehensive LEP for theCampbelltown LGA. As there is limited scope to include heritage provisions on specific areas inthe new LEP, it is important that specific controls for the Queen Street Heritage ConservationArea be included in the Sustainable City DCP.Suggested Recommendation:That Council include specific heritage provisions relating to the Queen Street HeritageConservation Area and Group in the Sustainable City DCP, to assist in ensuring the ongoingprotection of the significance of the heritage items in this area.Recommendation 6: State Heritage Register Listings – Nomination of Items for SHRThe Heritage Study recommends that Council advise the NSW Heritage Council that theproperties identified in Appendix 3 – Recommendation 6 (of the Campbelltown Heritage Studyand Register Review 2010) are considered likely to be of State heritage significance and requestthat the NSW Heritage Council assess them to determine whether they should be listed on theState Heritage Register.Item DetailsReason for NominationCampbelltownSt Peters Anglican Church Group;Church, Rectory, Stables andCemetery, and Mawson ParkCordeaux StreetLot 7028, DP 1055669; Lot 1, DP668144; Lot 100, DP 811930; Lots 50,51 and 52, DP 811930Reservoir, Cattle Tank and SiltTrapsAllman Street (within Hurley Park)Lot 7021, DP 1028116St Peters Church Group is likely to be of State historical, associative and aestheticsignificance.Contains one of the earliest Georgian Churches in Australia (1821), its early ColonialCemetery (1820), a late Victorian Italianate Rectory (1887) and stables and MawsonPark, which has been the centre of public recreation since the proclamation ofCampbelltown in 1820.The Group continues to demonstrate a strong connection between its elements andthe town centre, with the continuum of State (in the form of the Old Court House), theCommunity, the Church and Cemetery and Education still able to be clearly read andappreciated in the landscape.Constructed 1833-1839, the Reservoir, Cattle Tank and Silt Traps are likely to be ofState historical and aesthetic/technical significance as a unique example of a largewater supply-related public work surviving from the Colonial period. It is one of theearliest forms of water conservation engineering/damming works for public use in NSWand possibly Australia.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 722.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewOld Campbelltown Court House95 Queen StreetLot 1, DP 772068Built 1887- 1888, the building is a fine example of a court house by the prolific ColonialArchitect James Barnet. The site has been used continuously as a court house since1827, years before the official Macquarie Town Plan allotments were released. TheSupreme Court sat on circuit in Campbelltown between 1829 and 1839, and the OldCourt House has always been of central importance to the town.Old Kendall Mill HouseBuilt as part of the first steam powered mill in Campbelltown, the Old Kendall MillHouse provides important surviving evidence of the infrastructure required to supportthe most important industry in early Campbelltown.Campbelltown to GlenfieldMilestones GroupCampbelltown RoadVariousSeven sandstone milestones along Campbelltown Road installed by theCommissioners of the Road Trust on 1854. While the group is not complete (3milestones are missing and the “33 miles to Sydney” milestone has been relocated toMawson Park), it is considered likely this is the largest extant group of mid 19 th Centurymilestones in NSW on a single road and is therefore likely to be of State heritagesignificance.GileadMeadowvale715-717 Appin RoadThis property, within structures from c1812, the 1830s, and the 1880s, is on land whichincludes the original 1812 grant to Andrew Hume and is considered likely to be of Stateheritage significance.Lot 1, DP 602888Mount Gilead GroupAppin RoadLot 1, DP 807555The Mount Gilead estate is likely to be of State significance as a cultural landscape onaccount of the nationally rare surviving features within it, its intactness as an estate, itscollective value as part of a continuum of notable colonial properties along AppinRoad, and its association with influential entrepreneurs and families. Developed from1820, particularly in the period 1828-1836, the Mount Gilead Group comprises a groupof fine stone buildings culminating in the tower of a windmill on the highest point of theridge. The rest of the Group comprises the stone homestead, now altered andextended (c.1977), and the two storey store and stable. There is also a substantial‘granary’ or store to the south-east of the homestead and there are several other minorstone service buildings to the south.GlenfieldThe Hilltop Special SchoolsRoy Watts RoadLot 1, DP 175963The Special Schools are considered to be likely to be of State heritage significance fortheir historical, aesthetic and social values by both this Study and the Graham Brooksand Associates Heritage Assessment: Department of Education and Training Sites,Roy Watts Road, Glenfield, June 2009. The property is not at present listed on the LEPand is also recommended for local heritage listing. The Hilltop Special Schools arewithin the Hurlstone Education Precinct that has already been nominated the NSWHeritage Branch for possible SHR listing as part of an important group of propertiesassociated with the innovation in education and research in NSW.Menangle ParkMenangle House170 Menangle RoadLot 102, DP 776612Menangle House and its stone kitchen c.1839, are considered likely to be of Statehistorical significance. It was built as Taber’s Inn (which operated from 1839 to 1844).The property is of historical significance for its ability to demonstrate innkeeping on theGreat Southern Road in the early Colonial period, its association with early Colonialperiod farming, and for its association with the development of the local horse breedingand horse racing industry from the 1860s. It is of aesthetic significance as a rare OldColonial Georgian building which retains many fine original details, including windowand door joinery, all cedar chimney pieces and Regency-style moulded plastercornices and ceiling roses to main formal rooms. Menangle House and the stonekitchen are of technical significance for their ability to demonstrate early colonialbuilding techniques, including the layout and operation of an early colonial roadsideinn, including a very rare c.1839 servery hatch at Menangle House.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 732.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewComment:This recommendation relates directly to the preparation of the new comprehensive LEP for theCampbelltown LGA. However, preparation of the LEP can proceed without this recommendationbeing implemented. Due to the limited timeframe Council has for the preparation of the LEP(currently a April 2012 deadline for completion), and the uncertainty regarding whether or not theNSW Heritage Branch will agree to consider listing additional items on the State HeritageRegister, it is considered appropriate to use the existing endorsed significance levels (forheritage items and groups) to prepare the LEP and to amend the LEP if and when any of theproposed items are added to the State Heritage Register.Suggested Recommendation:That Council:Proceed with the preparation of the new comprehensive LEP for the CampbelltownLGA using the existing endorsed significance levels for heritage items and groups;Write to the NSW Department of Planning’s Heritage Branch, after undertakingfurther consultation with the owners of the identified items, requesting that it considerlisting:o The St Peters Anglican Church Group (including the Church, Rectory,Stables, Cemetery and Mawson Park)o The Reservoir, Cattle Tanks and Silt Traps (within Hurley Park)o The Old Campbelltown Court Houseo The Old Kendall Mill House (former Fisher’s Ghost Restaurant)o The Milestones Group (along Campbelltown Road)o Meadowvale (at Gilead)o The Mount Gilead Group (at Gilead)o The Hilltop Special Schools (on part of the Hurlstone Agricultural HighSchool site)o Menangle House (at Menangle Park) on the State Heritage Register.Amend the comprehensive LEP (as required) to reflect any changes to the endorsedsignificance of heritage items and groups listed within the LEP.Recommendation 7: State Heritage Register Listings – Review of CurtilagesThe Heritage Study recommends that Council request the NSW Heritage Council to review thecurtilages of the State Heritage Register (SHR) listings for the properties identified in Appendix 3– Recommendation 7 (of the Campbelltown Heritage Study and Register Review 2010), andwhich are reiterated in the following table.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 742.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewItem Details Address - Lot/DP No. Recommended Change and Reason(s)Beulah House,Outbuilding, TimberBridge and GazeboAppin RoadBeulah: Currentcurtilage part of Lot 23,DP 1132437 (originallypart Portion 78, Parishof Menangle)Extend SHR curtilage boundary to include Humewood Forest (Lot 21, DP113464).The land of Humewood Forest was originally granted to Francis Rawden Humein 1823 along with the area now known as Beulah. It remained in Hume familyownership until 1936 and in trust as part of the Will of Ellen Clayton Hume until1969. It encompasses an intact forest of Eucalyptus Maculata (Spotted Gum)comprising 80 acres which was set aside by Ellen Hume as a nature reserveand which is likely to be of State heritage significance in its own right as well asits historic role as part of the Beulah estate. It also provides frontage to AppinRoad from Beulah. It is considered that this land portion is both historically andphysically linked to “Beulah” and should be included within the same SHRcurtilage (it is listed already as a heritage item within the existing local planninginstrument).Macquarie FieldHouseDenfieldSt Helen’s ParkVarrovilleRoy Watts RoadLot 4, DO 845870 –Part of HurlstoneAgricultural HighSchoolAppin RoadCurrent SHR curtilage:Lot 1, DP 540248. Thislot has been replacedby subsequentsubdivision.St Helens Park Driveand Ironside AvenueCurrent SHR curtilage:Lot 60, DP 739072196 St Andrews RoadCurrent SHRboundary: Part Lot 21,DP 564065Macquarie Field House’s SHR curtilage should be extended to encompass Lot4, DP 845870.This land lies between the main school site and Macquarie Field House. It isrecommended by the Campbelltown Heritage Study and Register Review 2010and the Graham Brooks and Associates Heritage Assessment: Department ofEducation and Training Sites, Roy Watts Road, Glenfield, June 2009 Study, thatthis Lot be included in the SHR curtilage to Macquarie field House to ensurethat any development of this site (including development associated with theSouth-West rail link) respects its role as part of the historic estate and as animportant part of the current aesthetic setting and viewscape of the MacquarieField House property.The curtilage should be amended to include Lot 101, DP 1128548 and Lot 122,DP 813654.Subdivision has occurred within the SHR listed boundary resulting in a loss ofcurtilage and State heritage values to the east of the house. The current ownershave purchased land however to extend the curtilage adjacent to the house (tothe south). This has helped to ensure that the aesthetic significance of thehouse and its setting have been protected from the important views along AppinRoad. It is recommended that the Heritage Council be requested to amend theSHR listing to reflect the new boundaries of the property.The curtilage should be amended to include Lot 252, DP 703991 and Lot 4, DP865319.The existing SHR listing includes the house and its outbuildings, but not its dam(also known as Westgarth’s Dam) which has become separated from theoriginal lot through subdivision. It is recommended that the Heritage Council berequested to amend the SHR listing to include the dam and its creek setting.Varroville SHR curtilage should be extended to include outbuildings and theoriginal entry drive with its avenue of trees and historic dams which are withinLot 22, DP 564065.The current SHR curtilage excludes the 19 th Century Varroville outbuildings andoriginal entry drive with its avenue of trees as well as the historic hand-formeddams. The site has been subdivided and these features are now on a separatelot and in separate ownership from the house and garden and thereforepotentially under threat of demolition and/or unsympathetic development withoutproper consideration of likely impacts on their heritage significance as part ofthe historic Varroville Estate.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 752.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewComment:This recommendation relates directly to the preparation of the new comprehensive LEP for theCampbelltown LGA. However, preparation of the LEP can proceed without this recommendationbeing implemented. Due to the limited timeframe Council has for the preparation of the LEP(currently a April 2012 deadline for completion), and the uncertainty regarding whether or not theNSW Heritage Branch will agree to amend SHR curtilages, it is considered appropriate to use theexisting curtilages to prepare the LEP and to amend the LEP if and when the SHR curtilages arechanged.Suggested Recommendation:That Council: Proceed with the preparation of the new comprehensive LEP for the Campbelltown LGAusing the existing curtilages for items listed on the State Heritage Register; Write to the NSW Department of Planning’s Heritage Branch, after undertaking furtherconsultation with the owners of the identified items, requesting that it consider amendingthe State Heritage Register curtilages of Beulah, Macquarie Field House, Denfield, StHelens Park and Varroville, in accordance with Recommendation 7 of the CampbelltownHeritage Study and Register Review (2010) Amend the comprehensive LEP (as required) to reflect any changes to the State HeritageRegister curtilages of items included on that Register.Recommendation 8: Prepare and Archaeological Management Plan for the LGAThe Heritage Study recommends that Council, for its next five-yearly review of its comprehensiveLEP, consider allocating funding and applying for funding assistance from the NSW HeritageBranch Heritage Grants Program to undertake an Archaeological Management Plan for theCampbelltown LGA, based on the NSW Heritage Branch standard brief for ArchaeologicalManagement Plans. It is suggested that the Archaeological Management Plan be undertaken asa two (2) year project, assisting Council in management of costs, and allowing time for athorough project to be undertaken. If limited funding is available then priority should be given tothe sites identified in Recommendation 9 (below).Comment:This recommendation does not relate directly to the current process for preparation of the newcomprehensive LEP for the Campbelltown LGA. However, Council has been advised by theNSW Department of Planning’s Heritage Branch that it may be required to prepare anarchaeological study for the Campbelltown LGA in a future review of the LEP. Council’sEnvironmental Planning Staff have already placed a notation in the LEP Budget regarding thispossible future requirement.Suggested Recommendation:That Council: if Council is required to undertake an Archaeological Study for the Campbelltown LGA, ina future review of Council’s LEP, that Council should consider applying for any fundingassistance that may be available under the NSW Heritage Branch Heritage GrantsProgram to help fund the study; and

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 762.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register Reviewif funding for an Archaeological Study is limited, and subject to agreement from the NSWDepartment of Planning, the Archaeological Study could focus on the sites identified inthe Campbelltown Heritage Study and Register Review (2010) as those sites likely tohave high archaeological potential.Recommendation 9: Identify sites of known high archaeological potential on s.149Planning CertificatesThe Heritage Study recommends that where sites are known to have high archaeologicalpotential (listed in Appendix 3 – Recommendation 9 of the Campbelltown Heritage Study andRegister Review 2010), and reiterated in the table below, property owners be alerted to thelegislative requirements relating to this archaeological potential by the Council inserting thefollowing standard statement in the S149 Certificates for these properties:This property has high archaeological potential evident from historical research. All knownpotential archaeological relics in New South Wales are protected under the NSW HeritageAct 1977 (as amended). When intending to disturb or excavate land where archaeologicalrelics have been identified or are considered likely to occur, it is the responsibility of theproperty owner to seek either an excavation permit under Section 140 of the Act or anException under Section 139 of the Act. Application forms and more information can beobtained from the NSW Heritage Branch website www.heritage.nsw.gov.au or bycontacting the NSW Department of Planning’s Heritage Branch. Council can requireevidence that a permit or exception under the NSW Heritage Act has been sought andobtained before granting a Development Consent relating to this property.ItemReason for RecommendationCampbelltownReservoir, cattle tanks (Hurley 1833-1838 water supply dam built with convict labour.Park)St Peter’s Anglican Cemetery Cemetery dates from 1820.Old St John’s Cemetery1827 Catholic cemetery, one of the earliest in Australia. Foundations of an early building withinthe cemetery have previously been noted.Presbyterian CemeteryExtant 1837 Presbyterian cemeterySt Peter’s Anglican Rectory 1 st rectory built 1840 and a well constructed; rectory demolished 1887 for new (extant) rectory(Manse)and stables. The well adjacent to the former rectory has high archaeological potential. Thesub-floors of the former rectory and stables also have archaeological potential.St Peter’s Anglican Church 1824 Church (one of the four oldest Anglican churches in Australia): sub-floor and otherundisturbed areas. Any early well also has potential for archaeological deposits. Also, thegrounds in the vicinity of the Church have moderate potential.St David’s Presbyterian Church St David’s Presbyterian Church has a sub-floor space that has not been disturbed since 1842,and would have high archaeological potential. The remainder of the site (including any earlywell) also has archaeological potential.Richmond VillaExtant villa built 1835. Potential for sub-floor archaeological deposits. The remainder of thesite (including any early well) also has archaeological potential.GlenalvonExtant c.1836 house. Potential for sub-floor archaeological deposits. The remainder of the site(including any early well) also has archaeological potential.Emily CottageCottage c.1825, extant by 1844. Located at a junction of three early colonial roads. Potentialfor sub-floor archaeological deposits. The remainder of the site (including any early well) alsohas archaeological potential.Old Catholic Schoolhouse Extant 1840 schoolhouse. Potential for sub-floor archaeological deposits. The remainder ofthe site (including any early well) also has archaeological potential.CavershamHistorical evidence of 1830s building on the site (since demolished). Sub-floor space ofcurrent building c.1890. Any early well also has potential for archaeological deposits.Wesleyan Chapel1840s building with high potential for sub-floor deposits. The remainder of the site (includingany early well) also has archaeological potential.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 772.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewOld CBC BankOld McGuanne HouseOld Doyle’s Railway HotelOld Bursill’s BuildingOld Coach HouseFowler’s Cottage (Dredge’sCottage)Old Kendall Mill HouseOld Farrier’s ArmsOld Campbelltown Court HouseMethodist/CongregationalistCemeteryOld St John’s Catholic ChurchIf the sub-floors have not been lifted and the well has not been excavated, these would havemoderate to high archaeological potential. The remainder of the site (including any early well)also has archaeological potential.C. 1850s commercial building. The sub-floor of the building has high archaeological potential.The remainder of the site (including any early well) also has archaeological potential.C. 1845-1855 commercial hotel building. Potential for sub-floor archaeological deposits. Theremainder of the site (including any early well) also has archaeological potential.c. 1845-1850 commercial building. Potential for sub-floor archaeological deposits. Theremainder of the site (including any early well) also has archaeological potential.C. 1858 commercial building. Potential for sub-floor archaeological deposits. The remainder ofthe site (including any early well) also has archaeological potential.Historical evidence of pre 1844 buildings on the site (no longer extant). Extant building c.1875.Any early well would have archaeological potential.C. 1840s building – potential for sub-floor archaeological deposits. The remainder of the site(including any early well) also has archaeological potential.Extant c. 1850 inn building. Potential for sub-floor archaeological deposits. The remainder ofthe site (including any early well) also has archaeological potential.There is some potential that the gaol excavated underneath the First Court House on the site(1827) was merely filled in for later development and there may be archaeological evidence ofthe harsh conditions of the early Colonial period. The later Court House would not havesubstantially disturbed this evidence.A mid- 19 th Century cemetery: oldest gravestone dated 1865.Extant 1824 Catholic Church with no subsequent development. Potential for sub-floorarchaeological deposits, plus general grounds, including the location of Father Therry’s slabhut. Any early well also has potential for archaeological deposits.Eschol ParkEschol Park HouseDocumentary record in 1828 of buildings on site likely to have been built c. 1820. Extant twostorey house c. 1858. Complex collection of early outbuildings – remains have higharchaeological potential. Any early well also has potential for archaeological deposits.GileadBrookdaleGlen Lorne (site)Mt Gilead GroupMeadowvale (formerly “HumeMount”)Sugarloaf FarmSite of Hamilton Hume’s homestead. House and outbuildings demolished but outline offootings still visible. Site never redeveloped. Any early well also has potential forarchaeological deposits. High archaeological potential.Location of former Glen Lorne farm house and outbuildings – European occupation since1832. Although no substantial structures other than fences survive, the site has not beenredeveloped and has high archaeological potential.Site acquired by Thomas Rose from 1821. Extant structures (dam, windmill, stone buildings)from the period c.1824-1830s. Any early well also has potential for archaeological deposits.High archaeological potential in the vicinity of farmhouse, mill and other extant structures.Site includes original 1811 land grant to Andrew Hume and additional land acquired byAndrew Hume in the 1820s. Site occupied by Andrew Hume and family from 1812. Extantbuilding c.1835. Any early well also has potential for archaeological deposits. Higharchaeological potential.Historical records of buildings on the site from 1820. Extant c.1835 building and associatedoutbuildings. Any early well also has potential for archaeological deposits.Glen AlpineGlen Alpine – site of originalhouse (Heritage Park)Site occupied 1832 by house built for the Rev Reddall (later demolished). Site now HeritagePark. Any early well also has potential for archaeological deposits.IngleburnRobin Hood FarmExtant c. 1860-1862 building. Any early well also has potential for archaeological deposits.KearnsEpping ForestHistorical record of site occupation by William Kearns from 1823. Extant c.1825 buildings. Anyearly well also has potential for archaeological deposits.LeumeahHollylea and Plough InnSite occupied c.1818. Extant buildings c. 1818 and c.1832. Any early well also has potentialfor archaeological deposits.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 782.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewMacquarie FieldsMacquarie Field HouseHistorical records of “Meehan’s Castle” building c. 1811 (since demolished). Extant house late1830s-early 1840s. Any early well also has potential for archaeological deposits.Menangle ParkGlenleeMenangle HouseExtant c.1823 house and early 19 th Century outbuildings. Any early well also has potential forarchaeological deposits.Possible site occupation from 1823. Extant c.1839 former Inn and separate kitchen. Extensiveoutbuildings in historical record from 1857 (no longer extant but have archaeological potential).Any early well also has potential for archaeological deposits.MintoCampbellfieldExtant cellar, wall and chimney of c.1819. History of European settlement from 1818, withassociated archaeological potential. Any early well also has potential for archaeologicaldeposits.Minto HeightsThe Jug (Stone Cottage)Extant c. 1820s stone convict-built outbuilding possibly associated with Redfern’sCampbellfield estate. Any early well also has potential for archaeological deposits.WedderburnOld Union ChurchRemains of late 19 th Century rural church building, in a state of collapse. The site hasarchaeological potential as a result of its role as a local gathering place.Comment:This recommendation does not relate directly to the preparation of the new comprehensive LEPfor the Campbelltown LGA. Using Section 149 (planning) certificates to provide more informationto existing and potential property owners on their obligations under existing legislation can bebeneficial. However, Council needs to give serious consideration to the potential legalimplications of including information regarding archaeological potential on its Section 149certificates.Suggested Recommendation:That Council consider including a notation on the Section 149 certificates for properties that havebeen identified in the Campbelltown Heritage Study and Register Review (2010) as having higharchaeological potential, subject to Council obtaining legal advice to determine if there are anyunexpected ramifications for Council.Recommendation 10: Management of entries in the State Heritage InventoryIn order to ensure the Campbelltown SHI remains up to date, the Heritage Study recommendsthat:The responsibility for ongoing maintenance of this SHI be allocated to a small number ofrelevant Council staff such as:o a designated Senior Strategic Planner;o a designated staff member with the Local Studies area of the H.J. Daley Library;ando a Campbelltown Heritage Advisor (if appointed in future).

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 792.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register Review Upgrading of the SHI should be included in the duty statements for the designatedCouncil staff; Council staff in the designated positions should be required to undergo SHI trainingoffered by the NSW Department of Planning’s Heritage Branch; and The designated Senior Strategic Planner should be responsible for sending a copy of theupdated Campbelltown SHI to the NSW Heritage Branch at least annually (more often ifmajor changes to the SHI have been made), to ensure the publicly available version ofthe SHI is also kept up to date.Comment:This recommendation does not relate directly to the preparation of the new comprehensive LEPfor the Campbelltown LGA. However, the draft Heritage Study and Register Review is asubstantive and well–researched resource for Council that should be kept up to date asadditional relevant information is provided. This will prevent Council having to allocate substantialfunding to undertake an exhaustive review of the Heritage Study in future.Suggested Recommendation:That Council nominate a designated Senior Strategic Planner to:undergo appropriate training to update the Heritage Study and Register;update the Heritage Study and Register as required; and send an updated copy of the electronic register to the NSW Department of Planning’sHeritage Branch on an annual basis or whenever substantial changes have been made.Recommendation 11: Improve accessibility of information about listed heritage itemsThe Heritage Study recommends, that to facilitate SHI upgrading and public availability ofhistorical information, Development Applicants should be required to provide a minimum of fourcopies of any Heritage Impact Statement or Conservation Management Plan submitted as part ofthe Development Application process. Once such documents are received by Council: One (1) copy should be sent to Local Studies at the H.J. Daley Library; One (1) copy should be sent to a designated staff member for their use for SHI upgrading(e.g. Senior Strategic Planner or Heritage Advisor); and Two (2) copies should be retained by the Development Assessment Planner (one for filereference, one in the internal Planning Library).Four (4) copies of other Conservation Management Plans (for example, those preparedseparately as part of a Funding Agreement or without any associated Development Application)that have been endorsed by Council, should also be required and distributed in a similar manner.Comment:This recommendation does not relate directly to the preparation of the new comprehensive LEPfor the Campbelltown LGA. However, as previously stated, the draft Heritage Study and RegisterReview is a substantive and well–researched resource for Council that should be kept up to dateas additional relevant information is provided. This will prevent Council having to allocatesubstantial funding to undertake an intensive review of the Heritage Study in future. DevelopmentApplicants and other relevant persons should be requested to provide four (4) hard copies of anyHeritage Impact Statement or Conservation Management Plan, and an electronic copy (in anappropriate format).

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 802.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewSuggested Recommendation:That Council consider introducing a requirement for development applicants and other personspreparing Conservation Management Plans and Heritage Impact Statements to submit four (4)hard copies of the documents and an electronic copy (in an appropriate format) to Council so thatthe information can be integrated into Council’s Heritage Study and Register and added to thereference material available on heritage items within the Campbelltown LGA.Recommendation 12: Local Heritage Management: Heritage AdviceThe Heritage Study recommends that Council allocates a budget and applies for fundingassistance from the NSW Department of Planning’s Heritage Branch to enable the appointmentof a Heritage Advisor to Council. It is suggested that the Advisor’s contract initially be for a periodof three (3) years. Once funding for the position has been established, a minimum of three (3)heritage consultancy firms should be invited to quote to provide the Heritage Advisor service toCouncil.Comment:This recommendation does not relate directly to the preparation of the new comprehensive LEPfor the Campbelltown LGA. Having a Heritage Advisor available to assist both Council andowners of heritage items with heritage management is desirable and reflects best practice.However, a Heritage Advisor Position is not within Council’s current structure, nor has futurefunding been allocated to enable Council to apply for funding assistance to augment its ownbudget allocation for a Heritage Advisor.Suggested Recommendation:That Council consider the appointment of a Heritage Advisor, and apply for funding from theNSW Department of Planning’s Heritage Branch to assist with funding the position, shouldfunding become available.Recommendation 13: Local Heritage Management: sites needing particular attentionIt is recommended that the site-specific issues identified in Appendix 3 – Recommendation 13 (ofthe Campbelltown Heritage Study and Register Review 2010) as reiterated below, are pursuedwith the relevant authorities and owners and their attention (including the repair and conservationof deteriorated fabric) be a priority in the management and future planning of these sites. Casesof demolition by neglect of items listed on the State Heritage Register should be referred to theNSW Heritage Council.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 812.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewItem Observed Threatening Process Recommended ActionEpping ForestOld St John’sCatholicChurchOld St John’sCatholicCemeterySt Peter’sAnglicanCemeteryMethodist/CongregationalCemeterySevere neglect. The building isfenced off and appears to beunoccupied. The property was notedas vacant on 28 June 1999(Heritage Council SHI form). Someof the brickwork at the rear is in astate of collapse. The house is on alarge site, but is now surrounded bymodern suburbia and is therefore atrisk of vandalism.Although extensive restoration workshave been carried out in recentyears, the building is now vacantand the roof has begun to failallowing pigeons to roost in theceilings. This in turn is allowingpigeon droppings to build up in theroof space and to fall down into thehall. The space is regarded as ahealth hazard and is not used.The 19 th Century cemeteries ofCampbelltown are of very highhistorical significance to the area,reflected in their heritage listing. Allof these cemeteries are in need ofbetter management, for example,fencing to prevent vandalism, weedmanagement etc. It is noted that StPeter’s Cemetery has received aFederal heritage grant of $44,000 forfencing.As this early 19 th Century property is listed on the SHR, Council shouldconsult both the property owner and the NSW Heritage Council toconsider options to ensure the conservation of the buildings on theproperty. These could include: Encourage the owner to apply for a heritage grant to update theConservation Management Plan prepared in 2000 and undertakeurgent conservation works (note due to the State significance ofthe property, it is recommended that the grant be sought from theHeritage Council, rather than the Campbelltown City Councilheritage fund); Consult with the NSW Heritage Council regarding enforcement ofthe “minimum maintenance” provisions applying to State HeritageRegister Listed properties; An active residential (or other sympathetic) use should be foundfor the site.As this early 19 th Century property is listed on the SHR, Council shouldconsult both the Church and the NSW Heritage Branch to consideroptions to ensure the conservation of the church building.It is understood that policies applying at the time of the earlierrestoration prevented the introduction of active security devices (suchas bars on windows) which led to vandalism and the withdrawal ofinsurance on the building, affecting its potential for active use. Themanagement of security for heritage items such as old churches hasimproved significantly in the interim and the Church owners areencouraged to seek a solution that includes an active use for thebuilding.It is recommended that Campbelltown City Council encourage theChurch to apply for State heritage grants to repair the roof and remedydamage from roof leaks and pigeon ingress as an immediate priority.The building should be a prime candidate for financial assistance andthe work could assist in providing local employment.Encourage the Church to apply for a heritage grant to prepare andimplement the Conservation Management Plan for the site. Thisprocess should highlight the importance of this early site to thecommunity and to the Church as a whole.Subject to available funding and resources, Council should assist thechurches with appropriate conservation management of thecemeteries. The following options are suggested:Request the National Trust Cemeteries Committee to view thecemeteries and provide management advice to the relevantchurch cemetery management authorities via a Council facilitatedworkshop;Encourage the relevant cemetery management bodies to apply forheritage grants. Given St Peter’s success, it is considered that allthe cemeteries should apply for Federal and State heritage grants,using “Historic Cemeteries of Campbelltown – a Macquarie Town”as an umbrella title; and/orCouncil apply for a NSW heritage grant to undertake aConservation Management Plan (CMP) for all four cemeteries.This would require cooperation of the four churches.PresbyterianCemeteryOld Kendall MillHouseThe building has been fire damagedand is disused.Encourage the property owners to work with Council to better managethe building and the site. This could include making an application toCouncil’s Heritage Fund for assistance in undertaking conservationwork to the building and then seeking an active use compatible withthe recommended Cultural Tourism zone (for this part of theCampbelltown CBD).

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 822.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewThe KiaEtchell’sCottageOldWedderburnPost OfficeThis house has been disused andderelict since at least 1979.A brick, timber and corrugated ironcottage which currently appearsvacant and in very poor condition.This is considered to be a highlyvulnerable structure.Building appears to be in poorcondition.Council should consider: Consulting the property owner regarding appropriate active usesfor the house; Encouraging the owner to apply for funding assistance forrestoration from the Campbelltown City Council Heritage Fund;and Encourage the stabilisation of the building to prevent furtherdeterioration of fabric whilst management and conservationoptions are explored.Encourage the property owners to apply to Council’s Heritage Fund forassistance in undertaking conservation work.Encourage the property owners to apply to Council’s Heritage Fund forassistance in undertaking conservation work. Discuss viable new usesfor the building with the property owners.EarlyFarmhouse(Shiel Place)Both the house and the timber andcorrugated steel outbuilding are inneed of some repair.Encourage the property owners to apply Council’s Heritage Fund forassistance in undertaking conservation work.RaithThe house appears vacant and indanger of vandalism. Securityfences have been breached.Write to the owner (NSW Department of Community Services)requesting implementation of the recommendations of theConservation Management Plan prepared in 2006 and thereinstatement of the security fence and surveillance of the site toprevent further vandalism.EagleviewHouseThe house appears in need ofmaintenance, and there is also atimber outbuilding in a state ofcollapse.Encourage the property owners to apply to Council’s Heritage Fund forassistance in undertaking conservation work to both the house and theoutbuilding.HillcrestBlairmountMilestones 26and 30 (part ofthe MilestonesGroup,CampbelltownRoad)Old UnionChurch Site(Wedderburn)House appears to be in need ofmaintenance.Two early timber outbuildings are inpoor condition, one in a state ofcollapse.These milestones within theCampbelltown Road milestonesgroup are in poor condition.Church building in state of collapse.Encourage the property owners to apply to Council’s Heritage Fund forassistance in undertaking conservation work.Encourage the property owners to apply to Council’s Heritage Fund forassistance in undertaking conservation work to the outbuildings.Repairs to early rural outbuildings should be a priority categoryCouncil’s Heritage Fund as such structures are vulnerable.It is recommended that Council request the RTA to undertake aConservation Maintenance Policy for the milestones group andundertake conservation work, particularly to these two milestones, as amatter of urgency. (Note: The Milestones Group has beenrecommended in this Study for listing on the SHR).Milestone 26: located on the east side of Campbelltown Road atIngleburn, west of the Ingleburn Army Camp.Milestone 30: East side of Campbelltown Road, Minto, just south of theintersection of Campbelltown Road and Ben Lomond Road, Minto, tothe west of and near the boundary of properties at Nos. 5 and 9Swettenham Road, Minto (these properties are Lots 6 and 7respectively of DP 834139).Encourage the property owners to apply to Council’s Heritage Fund forassistance in undertaking stabilisation work to the remains of thestructure.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 832.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewComment:This recommendation does not relate directly to the preparation of the new comprehensive LEPfor the Campbelltown LGA. Managing heritage items and ensuring that they are well maintainedis very important, however, it is a resource intensive process.All private owners of heritage items (located in the Campbelltown LGA) are invited to apply forfunding under Council’s Local Heritage Fund. Letters inviting applications are distributed onceper year, inviting owners to apply for up to $1500, which is provided on a dollar for dollar basisand reimbursed to the owner once the works have been satisfactorily completed. The number ofapplications received for each funding round has increased in recent years, and due to thisincreasing popularity, the Fund guidelines have been amended so that owners who receivefunding in one year cannot apply for funding in the following year – this is an attempt to ensure afairer and even spread of funding. The Sub Committee have previously considered amending theLocal Heritage Fund Guidelines to make applications for funding competitive, but resolved not topursue this option as it would be resource intensive and could mislead owners and thecommunity to believe that some local heritage items are valued as being more important thatothers.Epping Forest has been in a poor state of maintenance for many years. Council has no power toenforce minimum standards of repair at the local level, but the Heritage Branch should berequested to initiate action to prevent further deterioration of the heritage item.Suggested Recommendation:That Council:1. Continue to write annually to private owners of heritage items (within the CampbelltownLGA) to advise that they can apply for assistance under Council’s Local Heritage Fund.2. Liaise with the NSW Department of Planning’s Heritage Branch to ask that it write to theowners of Epping Forest to enforce the minimum standards for maintenance that apply toState listed heritage items.Recommendation 14: Local Heritage Management: Campbelltown City Council HeritageFundThe Heritage Study recommends that Council apply to the NSW Heritage Council in the nextavailable funding round, for matching funding of $5,000, to expand the Local Heritage Fund to$10,000 per annum.Comment:This recommendation does not relate directly to the preparation of the new comprehensive LEPfor the Campbelltown LGA, however, it is worthy of implementation. State level funding toaugment local heritage funds is not always available, but at the next available opportunity,Council should apply for funding, bearing in mind the possible administrative responsibilities thatmight be required if grant funding is received.Suggested Recommendation:That Council investigate future opportunities for funding to augment the Local Heritage Fund, andthat application(s) be made to source this funding whenever funding is available.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 842.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewRecommendation 15: Local Heritage Management: Local Heritage Fund PrioritiesThe Heritage Study recommends that Council should identify priorities in its heritage fundingprogram and restructure the program so that funding applications are assessed competitively toensure the best grant applications are funded each year. Initial funding priority should be givento: Structures that are threatened by their poor condition; Early rural outbuildings and garden structures; Buildings or sites owned by non-profit organisations (e.g. churches) Historic cemeteries; and Small grants to assist owners in meeting the cost of Conservation Management Plans forthe conservation and maintenance of their heritage items (excluding new developmentproposals).Items that could be considered as a priority are identified in Recommendation 13 (above) and thefollowing properties (that are not considered to be under threat at the present time but wouldbenefit from specific conservation actions).Item Details Observed Threat Recommended ActionEschol Park HouseMenangle Rail Bridgeand Menangle WeirComment:Nil observedNil observed, but access andinterpretation should beimproved.This site does not appear to be under current threat, but it is notedthat it has a complex history, with buildings and high archaeologicalpotential possibly dating back to c.1817 or the 1820s. AConservation Management Plan should be prepared prior to anyfuture major changes to this property. The property owners shouldbe encouraged to apply for a Local Heritage Fund grant to assist inthe preparation of a CMP.These items, which are in sight of each other, are accessed from theNepean River Reserve, Menangle Park (a Council owned reserve).There is no formal access path to allow viewing of the heritage itemsfrom the reserve and no interpretation of the items. The Bridge is theoldest railway bridge in NSW.It is recommended that the reserve be upgraded as follows: Bush regeneration of the reserve be undertaken to removeweeds and open up vistas to the heritage items; A formal access path be constructed from the car park(preferably wheelchair accessible); Interpretive signage relating to the heritage items be installedadjacent to the formal access path; Seating, picnic tables and possibly a BBQ area with appropriatelandscaping be installed adjacent to the car park.This recommendation does not relate directly to the preparation of the new comprehensive LEPfor the Campbelltown LGA, and its full implementation would be resource intensive. As previouslystated in this report, all private owners of heritage items (located in the Campbelltown LGA) areinvited to apply for funding under Council’s Local Heritage Fund. Other sources of funding couldpotentially be available for publicly owned heritage items through the NSW Department ofPlanning’s Heritage Branch, though this matter requires further investigation. Access andinterpretation works cannot be budgeted for in the short to medium term but could potentially beconsidered as a long-term project.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 852.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewSuggested Recommendation:That Council:Continue to write annually to private owners of heritage items (within theCampbelltown LGA) to advise that they can apply for assistance underCouncil’s Local Heritage Fund.Consider, as a long-term project and subject to the required resources andfunding being available, improving access to, and interpretation of, the NepeanRiver Reserve (including the Railway Bridge and Menangle Weir).Recommendation 16: Local Heritage Management: seek additional heritage fundingThe Heritage Study recommends that Council investigate whether Federal Heritage assistancegrants or grants from other sources may be available for conservation or interpretation works forCouncil-owned heritage-listed sites.Comment:This recommendation does not relate directly to the preparation of the new comprehensive LEPfor the Campbelltown LGA. However, staff from Council’s Environmental Planning Section arealready implementing this recommendation by regularly investigating and applying for availableheritage grants as they become available.Suggested Recommendation:That Council continue the current practice of investigating and applying for heritage assistancegrants as they become available.Recommendation 17: Local Heritage Management: promote Council-owned and managedheritage itemsThe Heritage Study recommends that, subject to Council’s available funding and resources,options for enhancing public appreciation of Council-owned heritage listed sites should beexplored. For example, through open days during Heritage Week and History Week, andinterpretation projects (as appropriate to each site).Comment:This recommendation does not relate directly to the preparation of the new comprehensive LEPfor the Campbelltown LGA. While the recommendation to explore options to enhance publicappreciation of Council-owned heritage sites is valuable, it is unlikely to be achievable in theshort to medium term due to current staff and budget allocations.Suggested Recommendation:That Council consider, as a long-term project, options for enhancing the public appreciation ofCouncil-owned heritage listed sites, as additional funds and resources become available.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 862.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewRecommendation 18: Local Heritage Management: Council’s historic propertiesThe Heritage Study recommends that subject to Council’s available funding and resources:A three to five year prioritised plan should be developed to prepare or upgradeConservation Management Plans, including the identification of appropriate HeritageMaintenance Policies, for all Council-owned heritage properties in consultation withCouncil’s Property Management staff. The plans and policies should examine ongoingrequirements, needs and maintenance issues including such issues as fire safety andprovision of disabled access to Council-owned buildings where necessary.In the case of Mawson Park, a new Plan of Management should be prepared for thepark (and associated structures) which incorporates the findings of the ConservationManagement Plan (CMP) for the park. The CMP should be prepared by anexperienced heritage landscape consultant.Comment:This recommendation does not relate directly to the preparation of the new comprehensive LEPfor the Campbelltown LGA. While the recommendation to prepare or upgrade ConservationManagement Plans (and Plans of Management, where appropriate) for all Council-ownedheritage properties is highly commendable and reflects best practice, it is not possible in theshort to medium term due to current resources.Suggested Recommendation:That Council consider, as a long-term project, the possibility of preparing or upgradingConservation Management Plans (and Plans of Management, where appropriate), that includeHeritage Maintenance Policies, for all Council-owned heritage properties, in consultation withrelevant Council stakeholders.Recommendation 19: Promotion of Heritage in the Campbelltown LGA: websiteIn terms of promoting heritage in the Campbelltown LGA, the Heritage Study recommends thatCouncil: upgrades the heritage information on its website to improve both content andaccessibility. Heritage information should be able to be accessed through“Development”, “Community” and “Visitors” headings on Council’s website, as well asbeing prominent on the Library’s website and linked to the Quondong visitors centrewebsite. update the suburb history information available through Council’s website based oninformation in its Heritage Study Review.Provide links to the State Heritage Inventory from Council’s website.Amend the heritage information on its website to include links to heritage fundingassistance information on the NSW Heritage Council website (due to the number ofState heritage listed items within the Campbelltown LGA). It is suggested thatNewcastle City Council’s website could be used as a model.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 872.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewComment:This recommendation does not relate directly to the preparation of the new comprehensive LEPfor the Campbelltown LGA. However, improving access to information regarding heritage inconsidered important.Suggested Recommendation:That Council, subject to the necessary resources being available, upgrade and improve theheritage information provided on the Council, Council Library, and Quondong Visitor InformationCentre websites. Improvements should include updating suburb history information, andproviding links to heritage funding assistance information.Recommendation 20: Promotion of Heritage in the Campbelltown LGA: publicationsThe Heritage Study recommends that Council update the existing Heritage Walking Tourbrochure and improve online availability.Comment:This recommendation does not relate directly to the preparation of the new comprehensive LEPfor the Campbelltown LGA, and is therefore not an immediate priority.Suggested Recommendation:That Council update the existing Heritage Walking Tour brochure and improve its onlineavailability, as resources become available.Recommendation 21: Promotion of Heritage in the Campbelltown LGA: promotionsThe Heritage Study recommends that Council ensures that its Local Studies Librarian andHeritage Advisor (should they be appointed) liaise together and with the Quondong VisitorInformation Centre to ensure that Heritage Week and History Week events (e.g. guided walks,bus tours, exhibitions, heritage and history talks and arts and cultural events at Council ownedheritage places) are held annually in Campbelltown.Comment:This recommendation does not relate directly to the preparation of the new comprehensive LEPfor the Campbelltown LGA. However, it is an important consideration for the annual HeritageWeek and History Week events.Suggested Recommendation:That Council ensures that Heritage Week and History Week events are held annually.Recommendation 22: Promotion of Heritage in the Campbelltown LGA: tourism websitesThe Heritage Study recommends that links to Council’s heritage information and publications areprovided on the website www.visitmacarthur.com.au and any other relevant tourism website.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 882.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewComment:This recommendation does not relate directly to the preparation of the new comprehensive LEPfor the Campbelltown LGA. However, it could be relatively quick and simple to implement, oncethe new Heritage Study and Register are adopted by Council.Suggested Recommendation:That Council investigate the possibility of providing links to Council’s heritage information andpublications on the website www.visitmacarthur.com.au.Recommendation 23: Continue to research heritage places in the LGAThe Heritage Study recommends that Council continue to identify, investigate, assess, and ifappropriate, list places of significance that may not have been investigated in this or earlierheritage studies.Comment:This recommendation does not relate directly to the preparation of the new comprehensive LEPfor the Campbelltown LGA, but it is considered to be an important ongoing issue that should beaddressed.Suggested Recommendation:That Council, subject to the necessary resources and funding being available, continue toidentify, investigate, assess and if appropriate, list items and places that are found to be ofheritage significance, in consultation with the owners of the identified items and places.Officer's RecommendationThat Council endorses and adopts the findings and recommendations of the draft CampbelltownHeritage Study and Register Review 2010, and the following proposed implementation strategyfor the recommendations of that Study:1. That Council include the draft proposed heritage items, as identified in theCampbelltown Heritage Study and Register Review (2010), in the new draftcomprehensive LEP, subject to further consultation with the owners of the nominatedproperties.2. That Council include the draft proposed Schedule of Heritage Items (including groupsand a heritage conservation area) as identified in the Campbelltown Heritage Studyand Register Review (2010) in the new draft comprehensive LEP, subject to furtherconsultation being undertaken with the owners of proposed new items.3. That Council include heritage provisions in the Sustainable City Development ControlPlan to guide the conservation of heritage items and ensure that any development isappropriate for the type of item, its heritage significance and its setting.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 892.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register Review4. That Council include heritage provisions in the Sustainable City Development ControlPlan that describe the principles for the design and siting of development to minimisethe impact on the setting of a heritage item (or group) and its historic setting, and arequirement for a heritage curtilage study to be provided by the applicant with anyapplication for subdivision that is likely to affect the curtilage of a heritage item, groupor heritage conservation area.5. That Council include specific heritage provisions relating to the Queen StreetHeritage Conservation Area and Group in the Sustainable City DCP, to assist inensuring the ongoing protection of the significance of the heritage items in this area.6. That Council: Proceed with the preparation of the new comprehensive LEP for theCampbelltown LGA using the existing endorsed significance levels for heritageitems and groups; Write to the NSW Department of Planning’s Heritage Branch, after undertakingfurther consultation with the owners of the identified items, requesting that itconsider listing:o The St Peters Anglican Church Group (including the Church, Rectory,Stables, Cemetery and Mawson Park)o The Reservoir, Cattle Tanks and Silt Traps (within Hurley Park)o The Old Campbelltown Court Houseo The Old Kendall Mill House (former Fisher’s Ghost Restaurant)o The Milestones Group (along Campbelltown Road)o Meadowvale (at Gilead)o The Mount Gilead Group (at Gilead)o The Hilltop Special Schools (on part of the Hurlstone Agricultural HighSchool site)o Menangle House (at Menangle Park) on the State Heritage Register. Amend the comprehensive LEP (as required) to reflect any changes to theendorsed significance of heritage items and groups listed within the LEP.7. That Council: Proceed with the preparation of the new comprehensive LEP for theCampbelltown LGA using the existing curtilages for items listed on the StateHeritage Register; Write to the NSW Department of Planning’s Heritage Branch, after undertakingfurther consultation with the owners of the identified items, requesting that itconsider amending the State Heritage Register curtilages of Beulah, MacquarieField House, Denfield, St Helens Park and Varroville, in accordance withRecommendation 7 of the Campbelltown Heritage Study and Register Review(2010) Amend the comprehensive LEP (as required) to reflect any changes to the StateHeritage Register curtilages of items included on that Register.8. That: if Council is required to undertake an Archaeological Study for the CampbelltownLGA, in a future review of Council’s LEP, that Council should consider applying forany funding assistance that may be available under the NSW Heritage BranchHeritage Grants Program to help fund the study; and

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 902.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register Review if funding for an Archaeological Study is limited, and subject to agreement fromthe NSW Department of Planning, the Archaeological Study could focus on thesites identified in the Campbelltown Heritage Study and Register Review (2010)as those sites likely to have high archaeological potential.9. That Council consider including a notation on the Section 149 certificates forproperties that have been identified in the Campbelltown Heritage Study and RegisterReview (2010) as having high archaeological potential, subject to Council obtaininglegal advice to determine if there are any unexpected ramifications for Council.10. That Council’s Environmental Planning Section nominate a designated SeniorStrategic Planner to: undergo appropriate training to update the Heritage Study and Register; update the Heritage Study and Register as required; and send an updated copy of the electronic register to the NSW Department ofPlanning’s Heritage Branch on an annual basis or whenever substantial changeshave been made.11. That Council consider introducing a requirement for development applicants andother persons preparing Conservation Management Plans and Heritage ImpactStatements to submit four hard copies of the documents and an electronic copy (in anappropriate format) to Council so that the information can be integrated into Council’sHeritage Study and Register and add to the reference material available on heritageitems within the Campbelltown LGA.12. That Council consider the appointment of a Heritage Advisor, and apply for fundingfrom the NSW Department of Planning’s Heritage Branch to assist with funding theposition, should funding become available.13. That Council: Continue to write annually to private owners of heritage items (within theCampbelltown LGA) to advise that they can apply for assistance under Council’sLocal Heritage Fund; and Liaise with the NSW Department of Planning’s Heritage Branch to ask that it writeto the owners of Epping Forest to enforce the minimum standards for maintenancethat apply to State listed heritage items.14. That Council investigate future opportunities for funding to augment the LocalHeritage Fund, and that application(s) be made to source this funding wheneverfunding is available.15. That Council: Continue to write annually to private owners of heritage items (within theCampbelltown LGA) to advise that they can apply for assistance under Council’sLocal Heritage Fund. Consider, as a long-term project and subject to the required resources and fundingbeing available, improving access to, and interpretation of, the Nepean RiverReserve (including the Railway Bridge and Menangle Weir).16. That Council continue the current practice of investigating and applying for heritageassistance grants as they become available.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 912.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register Review17. That Council consider, as a long-term project, options for enhancing the publicappreciation of Council-owned heritage listed sites, as additional funds and resourcesbecome available.18. That Council consider, as a long-term project, the possibility of preparing orupgrading Conservation Management Plans (and Plans of Management, whereappropriate), that include Heritage Maintenance Policies, for all Council-ownedheritage properties, in consultation with relevant Council stakeholders.19. That Council, subject to the necessary resources being available, upgrade andimprove the heritage information provided on the Council, Council Library, andQuondong Visitor Information Centre websites. Improvements should includeupdating suburb history information, and providing links to heritage fundingassistance information.20. That Council update the existing Heritage Walking Tour brochure and improve itsonline availability, as resources become available.21. That Council ensures that Heritage Week and History Week events are held annually.22. That Council investigate the possibility of providing links to Council’s heritageinformation and publications on the website www.visitmacarthur.com.au.23. That Council, subject to the necessary resources and funding being available,continue to identify, investigate, assess and if appropriate, list items and places thatare found to be of heritage significance, in consultation with the owners of theidentified items and places.Committee Note: Ms Kirkby and Father Bourke addressed the Committee regarding a numberof proposed amendments to the Campbelltown Heritage Study and Register Review.Committee’s Recommendation: (Oates/Bourke)That the Officer's Recommendation be adopted subject to Item 1 in the proposed implementationstrategy being amended to read:CARRIED1. That Council include the draft proposed heritage items, as identified in theCampbelltown Heritage Study and Register Review (2010), in the new draftcomprehensive LEP, subject to further consultation with the owners of the nominatedproperties and if at any stage, the owners object to the Heritage listing of theirproperty then no further action be taken regarding that Heritage listing.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 922.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register ReviewCouncil Meeting 12 April 2011 (Kolkman/Oates)That the Committee's Recommendation be adopted.Amendment (Bourke/Borg)That Council endorses and adopts the findings and recommendations of the draft CampbelltownHeritage Study and Register Review 2010, and the following proposed implementation strategyfor the recommendations of that Study noting that the preparation of the draft comprehensiveLEP follows a direction from the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure. In addition tothe Heritage Study and Register Review, a number of other studies are being prepared toprovide recommendations about the content of the draft comprehensive LEP. It is also arequirement that supporting documents be placed on public exhibition when a draft LEP is madeavailable for wide public examination, and that local residents, land owners and the broadercommunity are provided with the opportunity to lodge formal written submissions on the draftcomprehensive LEP:1. That following the public exhibition a report be presented to Council that summarisesthe contents of the submissions received to the public exhibitions, and that makesrecommendations for Council's consideration as to any amendments or adjustmentsthat should be made to the draft LEP based on all of the issues raised in thesubmissions.2. That Council include the draft proposed heritage items, as identified in theCampbelltown Heritage Study and Register Review (2010), in the new draftcomprehensive LEP, subject to further consultation with the owners of the nominatedproperties and if at any stage, the owners object to the Heritage listing of theirproperty then no further action be taken regarding that Heritage listing.3. That Council include the draft proposed Schedule of Heritage Items (including groupsand a heritage conservation area) as identified in the Campbelltown Heritage Studyand Register Review (2010) in the new draft comprehensive LEP, subject to furtherconsultation being undertaken with the owners of proposed new items.4. That Council include heritage provisions in the Sustainable City Development ControlPlan to guide the conservation of heritage items and ensure that any development isappropriate for the type of item, its heritage significance and its setting.5. That Council include heritage provisions in the Sustainable City Development ControlPlan that describe the principles for the design and siting of development to minimisethe impact on the setting of a heritage item (or group) and its historic setting, and arequirement for a heritage curtilage study to be provided by the applicant with anyapplication for subdivision that is likely to affect the curtilage of a heritage item, groupor heritage conservation area.6. That Council include specific heritage provisions relating to the Queen StreetHeritage Conservation Area and Group in the Sustainable City DCP, to assist inensuring the ongoing protection of the significance of the heritage items in this area.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 932.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register Review7. That Council: Proceed with the preparation of the new comprehensive LEP for theCampbelltown LGA using the existing endorsed significance levels for heritageitems and groups; Write to the NSW Department of Planning’s Heritage Branch, after undertakingfurther consultation with the owners of the identified items, requesting that itconsider listing:o The St Peters Anglican Church Group (including the Church, Rectory,Stables, Cemetery and Mawson Park)o The Reservoir, Cattle Tanks and Silt Traps (within Hurley Park)o The Old Campbelltown Court Houseo The Old Kendall Mill House (former Fisher’s Ghost Restaurant)o The Milestones Group (along Campbelltown Road)o Meadowvale (at Gilead)o The Mount Gilead Group (at Gilead)o The Hilltop Special Schools (on part of the Hurlstone Agricultural HighSchool site)o Menangle House (at Menangle Park) on the State Heritage Register. Amend the comprehensive LEP (as required) to reflect any changes to theendorsed significance of heritage items and groups listed within the LEP.8. That Council:9. That: Proceed with the preparation of the new comprehensive LEP for theCampbelltown LGA using the existing curtilages for items listed on the StateHeritage Register; Write to the NSW Department of Planning’s Heritage Branch, after undertakingfurther consultation with the owners of the identified items, requesting that itconsider amending the State Heritage Register curtilages of Beulah, MacquarieField House, Denfield, St Helens Park and Varroville, in accordance withRecommendation 7 of the Campbelltown Heritage Study and Register Review(2010) Amend the comprehensive LEP (as required) to reflect any changes to the StateHeritage Register curtilages of items included on that Register. if Council is required to undertake an Archaeological Study for the CampbelltownLGA, in a future review of Council’s LEP, that Council should consider applying forany funding assistance that may be available under the NSW Heritage BranchHeritage Grants Program to help fund the study; and, if funding for an Archaeological Study is limited, and subject to agreement fromthe NSW Department of Planning, the Archaeological Study could focus on thesites identified in the Campbelltown Heritage Study and Register Review (2010)as those sites likely to have high archaeological potential.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 942.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register Review10. That Council consider including a notation on the Section 149 certificates forproperties that have been identified in the Campbelltown Heritage Study and RegisterReview (2010) as having high archaeological potential, subject to Council obtaininglegal advice to determine if there are any unexpected ramifications for Council.11. That Council’s Environmental Planning Section nominate a designated SeniorStrategic Planner to: undergo appropriate training to update the Heritage Study and Register; update the Heritage Study and Register as required; and send an updated copy of the electronic register to the NSW Department ofPlanning’s Heritage Branch on an annual basis or whenever substantial changeshave been made.12. That Council consider introducing a requirement for development applicants andother persons preparing Conservation Management Plans and Heritage ImpactStatements to submit four hard copies of the documents and an electronic copy (in anappropriate format) to Council so that the information can be integrated into Council’sHeritage Study and Register and add to the reference material available on heritageitems within the Campbelltown LGA.13. That Council consider the appointment of a Heritage Advisor, and apply for fundingfrom the NSW Department of Planning’s Heritage Branch to assist with funding theposition, should funding become available.14. That Council: Continue to write annually to private owners of heritage items (within theCampbelltown LGA) to advise that they can apply for assistance under Council’sLocal Heritage Fund; and Liaise with the NSW Department of Planning’s Heritage Branch to ask that it writeto the owners of Epping Forest to enforce the minimum standards for maintenancethat apply to State listed heritage items.15. That Council investigate future opportunities for funding to augment the LocalHeritage Fund, and that application(s) be made to source this funding wheneverfunding is available.16. That Council: Continue to write annually to private owners of heritage items (within theCampbelltown LGA) to advise that they can apply for assistance under Council’sLocal Heritage Fund. Consider, as a long-term project and subject to the required resources and fundingbeing available, improving access to, and interpretation of, the Nepean RiverReserve (including the Railway Bridge and Menangle Weir).17. That Council continue the current practice of investigating and applying for heritageassistance grants as they become available.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 952.7 Campbelltown Heritage Study And Register Review18. That Council consider, as a long-term project, options for enhancing the publicappreciation of Council-owned heritage listed sites, as additional funds and resourcesbecome available.19. That Council consider, as a long-term project, the possibility of preparing orupgrading Conservation Management Plans (and Plans of Management, whereappropriate), that include Heritage Maintenance Policies, for all Council-ownedheritage properties, in consultation with relevant Council stakeholders.20. That Council, subject to the necessary resources being available, upgrade andimprove the heritage information provided on the Council, Council Library, andQuondong Visitor Information Centre websites. Improvements should includeupdating suburb history information, and providing links to heritage fundingassistance information.21. That Council update the existing Heritage Walking Tour brochure and improve itsonline availability, as resources become available.22. That Council ensures that Heritage Week and History Week events are held annually.23. That Council investigate the possibility of providing links to Council’s heritageinformation and publications on the website www.visitmacarthur.com.au.24. That Council, subject to the necessary resources and funding being available,continue to identify, investigate, assess and if appropriate, list items and places thatare found to be of heritage significance, in consultation with the owners of theidentified items and placesCouncil Resolution Minute Number 48That the above amendment be adopted.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 962.8 Community River Health Monitoring Program Report Card2.8 Community River Health Monitoring Program Report CardReporting OfficerManager Environmental PlanningAttachments1. Community River Health Monitoring Program Report Card – Spring 2010 (distributed underseparate cover).2. Community River Health Summary - Spring 2010 Report Card (distributed under separatecover).PurposeTo provide Council with an update on the Georges River Combined Councils Committee(GRCCC), Georges River – Community River Health Monitoring Program.HistoryIn 2009, the GRCCC was granted $210,000 from the Federal Government as part of the ‘Caringfor Our Country Community Coast Program,’ for the GRCCC Georges River - River HealthMonitoring Program. The Program involves the monitoring of macro invertebrates, water qualityand riparian vegetation at 42 selected sites along the Georges River Catchment. The datacollected is being used to produce a series of program 'report cards' which provide a snapshot ofthe health of the Georges River.The objective of the project is to gain a greater understanding of the Georges River System. Itwill identify areas of high biodiversity that should be protected, areas where on-ground workshave been effective, areas where remediation works could be carried out in the future and areaswhere future investigation may be required. The results will inform more rigorous studies andguide expenditure for environmental works within the catchment through the identification ofproblem areas.The project also aims to create an on-going "culture shift" to allow and encourage residents to beactive in "their" River's management. The program is to be conducted over two years, with fourrounds (in Spring and Autumn) of testing, which will produce four report cards.The first two rounds of testing took place in Spring 2009 and Autumn 2010 with the results usedto produce report cards released in 19 April 2010 and 14 October 2010 respectively. Both reportcards were presented to Council in reports to the Planning and Environment Committee.ReportThe third round of testing was undertaken between 16th October - 15th November 2010 alongthe course of the River and the results have been used to produce the Spring 2010 Report Card(Attachment 1) which was publicly released on 31 March 2011.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 972.8 Community River Health Monitoring Program Report CardMethodologyThe testing was undertaken by over 200 community volunteers from Streamwatch and Bushcaregroups led by Council staff and science professionals at 42 sites along the Georges River. Themonitoring examined both fresh water and estuarine environments in the catchment from theRiver's headwaters in Appin, to Botany Bay.The testing focused on three key river health indicators:1. Water quality - water was tested for pH, electrical conductivity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen,total phosphorous and total nitrogen, against ANZECC guidelines for upland and lowlandrivers, to determine what pollutants may be affecting the health of the river. Manyorganisms are sensitive to changes in water quality and changes to water quality can resultin population decline or extinction.2. Riparian vegetation – vegetation was tested under the Rapid Appraisal of RiparianCondition guideline (published by the Australian Government's Land and Water Australia),which assesses the ecological condition of riparian habitats using indicators that reflectfunctional aspects of the physical, community and landscape features of the riparian zone.Healthy riparian vegetation is an important factor in maintaining a functioning ecosystem.These vegetation communities play an important role in recycling nutrients, slowingstormwater flows into waterways and filtering sediment. They also provide critical habitatand food for a vast array of organisms. Through monitoring these communities it is hopedto better understand their condition and effectiveness in maintaining water quality within thecatchment.3. Macroinvertebrates- include insects, crustaceans, molluscs, arachnids and other smallaquatic animals. They are commonly used as indicators of water quality as different taxaexhibit a range of sensitivities and tolerances to various levels of pollution and disturbance.Macroinvertebrate assemblages were tested for richness against different orders (astatistical test for biodiversity) and with repeated monitoring will enable the detection ofchanges in the health of the aquatic ecosystem.Under each of the tests a statistical score is generated, these scores are then extrapolated to agrading for each indicator and further combined to produce an overall grading for each site, subcatchment(upper, middle and lower Georges River) and the overall catchment. The gradingscores range from A+ (excellent) to F- (poor). The results provide a greater understanding of theintegrity of the aquatic ecosystems.Test ResultsThe results from Round Three indicated that the overall health of the Georges River systemcontinues to be fair, receiving a grading of C (as compared to C+ and C for the Spring 2009 andAutumn 2010 rounds respectively). Thus far all report cards verify that the river system has beenaffected by a degree of urban and industrial development, particularly in the lower catchment.This has lead to a loss of riparian and estuarine vegetation and deterioration in water quality andmacro invertebrate diversity.Once again slight variations were observed in grading in terms of overall catchment health,between the three report rounds, it is considered premature to draw any definitive conclusionsregarding this change which may be due to seasonal variation.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 982.8 Community River Health Monitoring Program Report CardThe report cards also split the catchment into three areas; the Upper, Mid and Lower. Whilst thereport cards do not include or follow local government boundaries the Campbelltown LocalGovernment Area (LGA) lies within the upper catchment section of the project. Six sites withinthe Campbelltown LGA are being tested in each round under the program. A further seven siteswithin the upper catchment are located within the Wollondilly LGA.The location and results for the Campbelltown LGA are listed in the table below:SiteStokes Creek(Dharawal staterecreation area)O’Hares Creek,The WoolwashGeorges River,The WoolwashGeorges River,Ingleburn WeirGeorges River,Simmos BeachGeorges River,CambridgeAvenueUpper GeorgesRiver (overall)MacroinvertebrateGradingWater QualityGradingVegetationGradingSpring 2010Overall GradingA A+ A+ A+A+ A+ B- AA- C- B+ BA- A+ A+ A+A- B+ C BB- A C BB+ B+ A- B+A comparison of the overall results for sites within the Campbelltown LGA for each of the threerounds is provided in the table below:SiteStokes Creek(Dharawal staterecreation area)O’Hares Creek,The WoolwashGeorges River,The WoolwashGeorges River,Ingleburn WeirGeorges River,Simmos BeachGeorges River,CambridgeAvenueUpper GeorgesRiver (overall)Spring 2010Overall GradingAutumn 2010Overall GradingSpring 2009Overall GradingA+ A+ AA A- AB B B+A+ A+ A+B B B-B B- C+B+ B+ B+

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 992.8 Community River Health Monitoring Program Report CardThe overall grading for the Upper Georges River catchment continues to be determined as good,with a grading of B+. The best rated sites were located within bushland catchments in StokesCreek, O'Hares Creek and the upper reaches of the Georges River as well as Ingleburn Weir.The lowest rated site for the Upper catchment was located in Brennan's Creek, near Appin(within Wollondilly Shire Council LGA). The results at Brennan’s Creek suggest that dischargesfrom the West Cliff Colliery are negatively influencing water quality indicators at testing sitesdownstream through Wollondilly’s LGA. These impacted flows eventually proceed into theCampbelltown LGA. Sampling results from the Woolwash, the uppermost testing site withinCampbelltown’s LGA (from the Upper Georges arm of the waterway), reflect the impact of thisdegraded water quality flowing downstream. Impacts from poorer water quality are reducedfurther downstream from the junction of the river and O’Hares Creek, which flushes thewatercourse with clean water from relatively pristine areas of the catchment.Round four of the community monitoring is due to be conducted in Autumn 2011. The resultsfrom this monitoring will be used to produce the fourth Georges River Health Report Card whichis anticipated to be released in late 2011.ConclusionThe third Community River Health Monitoring Program Report Card was publicly released on 31March 2011. The card provides a snap shot of river system health based on results fromsampling undertaken for the Community River Health Monitoring Program in Spring 2010.Overall, the health of the Georges River catchment has been graded as fair and the UpperGeorges River (which includes the Campbelltown LGA) was graded as good. These results aregenerally consistent with those determined in rounds one and two. The results of this programwill assist Council in strategic allocation of further resources towards the management of theRiver.Officer's RecommendationThat the information be noted.Committee’s Recommendation: (Bourke/Hawker)That the Officer's Recommendation be adopted.CARRIEDCouncil Meeting 12 April 2011 (Kolkman/Oates)That the Officer's Recommendation be adopted.Council Resolution Minute Number 48That the Officer's Recommendation be adopted.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 1002.9 Public Exhibition Of Bardia Sub Precinct Development Control Plan2.9 Public Exhibition of Bardia Sub Precinct Development Control PlanReporting OfficerManager Environmental PlanningAttachments1. Copy of all submissions (Distributed under separate cover).2. Amended copy of draft Bardia Development Control Plan (Part 8 CampbelltownSustainable City Development Control Plan 2009). (Distributed under separate cover)PurposeTo advise Council of all submissions received in response to the public exhibition of the proposedamendment to the Campbelltown (Sustainable City) Development Control Plan 2009 (SCDCP)which provides for the inclusion of a new part being Part 8 Bardia Sub-Precinct.Property Description Lots 1 and 2 DP 1144667, Lot 1 DP 831148, Lot 1 DP 831149, Lot 1DP 831150 and Lot 3 DP 246213 Campbelltown Road andMacdonald Road, Bardia.OwnerCommonwealth Department of Defence and NSW Department ofEducation and Training.Statutory Provisions Campbelltown (Urban Area) Local Environmental Plan 2002.HistoryAt its meeting held on 21 September 2010, Council resolved to publicly exhibit the draft BardiaSub-Precinct Development Control Plan (BDCP) as an amendment to the Campbelltown(Sustainable City) Development Control Plan 2009. The purpose of this draft amendment is toprovide planning and development guidelines for the part of the Edmondson Park Urban ReleaseArea now known as the Bardia Sub-Precinct. It was also noted in the report to Council thatLandcom had lodged an application under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act 1979 to develop land within both the Liverpool and Campbelltown LocalGovernment Areas (which includes the Bardia Sub Precinct), and that the Director General of theDepartment of Planning would be the consent authority with regard to any future development ofland under this application.ReportThe draft BDCP was publicly exhibited as an amendment to Campbelltown (Sustainable City)Development Control Plan from Tuesday 5 October 2010 until Wednesday 3 November 2010.Copies of the draft amendment were available for inspection at the Civic Centre, the IngleburnLibrary and Council’s webpage. All relevant landholders and government agencies werespecifically notified of the exhibition period and invited to make comment on the draft BDCP.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 1012.9 Public Exhibition Of Bardia Sub Precinct Development Control PlanSubmissions ReceivedA total of five submissions were received as a result of the public exhibition. Please seeAttachment 1 for a copy of all submissions received.The following provides a précis of the issues raised in each of the submissions.Ingleburn Community Association IncRequests inclusion of the proposed provisions for residential apartment buildings and mixed usedevelopments that are contained in the draft BDCP, into Part 4 of the SCDCP, as it is consideredthat these provisions will result in more sustainable development. It refers specifically to themaximum site coverage provisions and minimum landscaped/pervious area provisions.Comment:Council is currently undertaking a review of the SCDCP. As such the provisions for sitecoverage and landscaped areas, for residential apartment buildings and mixed usedevelopments are being considered as part of this review, and subsequently will beaddressed as part of the Ingleburn Structure Plan.Resident of Zouch RoadRequests that the section of Zouch Road that adjoins their property, which is currently unmade,not be opened for vehicular traffic, except emergency vehicles.Comment:There is no proposal within the draft BDCP to extend Zouch Road into the unmade sectionof the road. However, as part of Landcom’s Part 3A application to develop the Bardia Sub-Precinct, it is proposed to provide access for emergency vehicles within the unmadesouthern section of Zouch Road.Liverpool City CouncilThe draft BDCP is generally supported, however Liverpool Council suggests the inclusion of arequirement for a bus jump facility at the intersection of Campbelltown and Macdonald Roads,and controls that ensure the retention of any sight lines between the Mont St Quentin Oval andthe Bardia Barracks Precinct on the northern side of Campbelltown Road.Comment:It is considered appropriate to increase the road reserve of the realigned Macdonald Roadfrom 23 metres to 27 metres to provide for a 4 metre median strip in the centre of the roadwhich can be utilised to provide for additional lanes at intersections for bus jump facilities ifrequired.As the Mont St Quentin Oval is a listed heritage item it is considered that the heritage provisionswithin Campbelltown (Urban Area) Local Environmental Plan 2002 and the SCDCP willadequately address any proposed visual impact upon the Bardia Barracks Precinct. However, asthe Mont St Quentin Oval and the Bardia Barracks Precinct are separated only by CampbelltownRoad, it is considered appropriate to include a clause in the draft BDCP to ensure that anydevelopment within the road reserve acknowledges these sight lines.Department of Education and Training (DET)The DET supports maintaining the North Ingleburn Primary School in its current position andproviding for the expansion of the area of the site to 3 hectares, (as proposed in the draft BDCP).The DET also supports the realignment of Macdonald Road.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 1022.9 Public Exhibition Of Bardia Sub Precinct Development Control PlanLandcomCharacter Areas and Development Density – Landcom have raised concerns with thespecified character areas within the draft BDCP which require a minimum residential density,although agrees with the philosophy of “densities generally reducing as you get further awayfrom the Town Centre”. Landcom further requests flexibility throughout the release area toallow for “innovative housing forms which respond to changes in demographics and built formoptions”.Comment:The density provisions proposed within the draft BDCP have taken into consideration theobjectives for development, contained within Campbelltown (Urban Area) LocalEnvironmental Plan 2002. These objectives aim to create compact urban centres,surrounded by residential development offering a variety of housing choices at a sustainabledensity. As the proposed density within the draft BDCP achieves this, it is not consideredappropriate at this stage to amend the proposed density provisions and specified characterareas.Street Types – Landcom has raised concerns regarding the local road carriageway widthprovisions within the draft BDCP which require a 15.6m wide road reserve with a 9m widecarriageway. Besides the draft BDCP being inconsistent with the adjoining Liverpool CityCouncil’s DCP for Edmondson Park, which requires a 15m wide road reserve with a 7.2mwide carriageway, it is considered that this narrower carriageway “reduces road constructionand maintenance costs, reduces impervious areas and improves the efficiency of thedevelopment and contributes to a low speed traffic environment”.Comment:Council staff have undertaken inspections of existing development at Middleton Grange(within the Liverpool LGA) where roads with carriageway widths of 7.2m have beenconstructed, and have reviewed the appropriateness of such road widths.It is considered that a reduction in the width of local roads is achievable for the following reasons:‣The proposed design of the Bardia sub-precinct utilises a grid pattern of streets. Suchlinear roads are more conducive to narrower carriageways than curvilinear streets.‣The SDCP includes provisions for narrower carriageway widths within single entry cul-desacsof 8m for a maximum of 30 dwellings and 6m for a maximum of 15 dwellings. Aseach street block in the Bardia sub-precinct has two entry points and as the proposal isonly providing for approximately 20 allotments, it is considered that a carriageway width of7.2m is not unreasonable, and can allow for the orderly operation of the street and usersof these roads.‣Liverpool City Council’s Development Control Plan 2008 includes provisions for acarriageway width of 7.2m for local roads within that part of the Edmondson Park UrbanRelease Area within its local government boundary. Advice from staff at Liverpool CityCouncil has indicated that where development has already been constructed using acarriageway width of 7.2m no detrimental impacts have been reported.‣Narrower carriageways assist in reducing traffic speed and also help to reducedevelopment infrastructure costs.Open Space – whilst the importance of retaining the Memorial Forest is acknowledged it isnoted that Landcom’s Part 3A Concept Plan proposes the Environmental Living Zone (E4)instead of Council’s Private Open Space Zone.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 1032.9 Public Exhibition Of Bardia Sub Precinct Development Control PlanComment:Council originally decided that the best way to ensure the protection of the Memorial Forestwas to include it within a private open space zoning. However, Landcom consider that theenvironmental living zoning (which is a new zone included in the Standard Instrument (LocalEnvironmental Plans) Order 2006), in conjunction with specific development controls toprohibit development, would better ensure the protection of the Memorial Forest. It could beargued that if provisions are put in place to ensure that the only development that waspermissible within the Memorial Forest was conducive to its maintenance, protection andrehabilitation, then maybe the actual zoning of the forest is a secondary consideration.However, the objectives of this environmental living zone aim to ensure that residentialdevelopment does not have an adverse effect on the ecological, scientific or aesthetic valuesof the land, thus it is considered that protection of the Memorial Forest could be achievedunder this zoning. Additionally, it is noted that the Department of Defence who approved theplanting of the forest, do not object to it being zoned environmental living provided it isprotected. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to retain all provisions that relate to theMemorial Forest that are contained in the draft BDCP except the reference to the privateopen space zoning.Subdivision Controls – Landcom has raised concerns regarding the provision in the draftBardia Sub Precinct DCP for any lot under 450m² to be designed as part of an integrateddevelopment. It is considered that “as there will be a high proportion of small lot detachedhousing in the sub-precinct, such a control restricts building delivery and does not align withthe proposed changes to the NSW Housing Code”.Comment:The development of successful small lot housing requires careful planning to ensure that allproperties can be developed to a high standard of urban design to ensure sustainability. Ithas always been considered that this outcome can only be successfully achieved by ensuringthat such housing is designed as an integrated development. However, with the trend for thedevelopment of smaller residential allotments and the subsequent change in housingconstruction over recent years to accommodate smaller allotments, it is consideredreasonable that only lots under 300m² should be assessed under the integrated developmentprovisions. This position would provide consistency with Liverpool City Council’s planningprovisions where it requires “Subdivision of land involving the creation of lots less than 300m²or less than 10m lot width shall include the dwelling house as part of the developmentapplication.”Building Form and Appearance – Landcom has requested that the height of 2 storeybuildings be increased to 9.5m to provide for an attic within a pitched roof on sloping land. Inaddition, Landcom recommends the inclusion of Liverpool City Council’s provisions for stratatitled studiosComment:It is not considered likely that an increase in the height of 2 storey buildings by a metre toprovide the opportunity to utilise the attic space within a pitched roof on sloping land wouldresult in any detrimental outcomes for the surrounding neighbourhood. Therefore it isrecommended that the maximum height for 2 storey residential buildings be increased from8.5m to 9.5m.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 1042.9 Public Exhibition Of Bardia Sub Precinct Development Control PlanWith respect to strata titled studios, the draft BDCP includes provision for the development ofstudio apartments on rear lanes to encourage passive surveillance in these areas, but doesnot permit the subdivision of such development. The SCDCP includes provisions for thedevelopment of garden flats where strata subdivision is also not permitted. It is consideredthat there is a place for the strata subdivision of secondary dwellings in the form of studios,within new residential estates (eg Bardia and Menangle Park), similar to that found within thePark Central and Macarthur Gardens residential developments. However, it is not proposedto include such strata subdivision provisions for new infill development within existingresidential areas. Thus, it is considered appropriate to amend the provisions in the draftBDCP to permit strata subdivision of studio development, and an increase in the maximumfloor area from 45m² to 50m² (to be consistent with the existing provisions for garden flats inthe SCDCP), as well as ensuring appropriate car parking, access, open space and garbagestorage areas are provided. It is also considered appropriate to permit the development ofonly one secondary dwelling (either studio or garden flat) per allotment.Mont St Quentin Oval / Berryman OvalThe preliminary draft BDCP renamed the district park from Mont St Quentin Oval to BerrymanOval. However, Council has now received further information with regard to the naming of theoval.When the oval was first constructed it was known as the Ingleburn Oval, and retained that nameuntil Sir Frank Horton Berryman was appointed General Officer Commanding Eastern Commandin 1945 when it was renamed Berryman Oval. Around 1947 and 1948 there was a general moveto rename various military areas after World War II battles, and Alamein was suggested forBerryman Oval. As a number of places had already taken the name Alamein it was decided tocall Berryman Oval Mont St Quentin Oval after one of the final battles of World War I, where anumber of Australian Divisions were involved and nine Victoria Crosses were awarded toAustralians.It is therefore considered appropriate to retain the name Mont St Quentin Oval for the district parklocated on the southern side of Campbelltown Road.Amendments to Campbelltown (Urban Area) Local Environmental Plan 2002As previously advised in the report to Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 21 September 2010, someprovisions of the draft BDCP would result in the need to amend certain aspects of Campbelltown(Urban Area) Local Environmental Plan 2002. These amendments include the following:1. The replacement of the 3(a) Business Zone on the southern side of Campbelltown Roadwith a residential zoning.2. Provision for road widening along the southern boundary of Campbelltown Road in thevicinity of the Mont St Quentin Oval.3. Provision for the relocation of Macdonald Road to allow for its realignment.4. Deletion of the 3(a) Special Uses School Zone and its replacement with a residentialzoning. Please note that schools are now required to be included in residential zones.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 1052.9 Public Exhibition Of Bardia Sub Precinct Development Control Plan5. Provision for the realignment of the boundaries of the land proposed for water supplypurposes by Sydney Water due to the proposed widening of Campbelltown Road andupdated requirements for the proposed water reservoirs.6. Reduction in the area of land zoned 3(c) Neighbourhood Business, as it is considered thatthe proposed development of a significant town centre on the northern side ofCampbelltown Road within the Liverpool Local Government Area, would negate the needfor the 1.14 hectare of retail area originally proposed.7. Provision for the amendment of the density control map to be consistent with the densitymap included in the draft BDCP.8. The replacement of the 6(c) Private Open Space Zone with an environmental living zoning.It is considered appropriate for the above amendments to be incorporated into the current workbeing undertaken with regard to Council’s New Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan.ConclusionIn consideration of the submissions received and the above comments, it is considered that thedraft BDCP should be amended as follows: Replace all reference to a 23 metre road reserve for the realigned Macdonald Road with 27metres. Replace all reference to a 9 metre carriageway for local roads with 7.2 metres. Remove any reference to a private open space zoning. Reduce the area of an allotment that must be designed as part of an integrated developmentfrom under 450m² to under 300m². Raise the maximum building height for 2 storey dwellings from 8.5 metres to 9.5 metres. Include a reference to the provisions for garden flats in section 3.7.5. Provide for the strata subdivision of studio apartments, and an increase in the maximum floorarea from 45m² to 50m², and include provisions to ensure appropriate car parking, access,open space and garbage storage areas are provided, and that only one secondary dwelling(studio or garden flat) be permitted per allotment. Replace all reference to Berryman Oval with Mont St Quentin Oval. Include provisions to protect the sight lines between the Mont St Quentin Oval and the BardiaBarracks Precinct.In addition to the above amendments, the SCDCP will require the updating of the table ofcontents, the deletion of the reference to the Edmondson Park Locality Development ControlPlan Template in clause 1.1.3, the renumbering of the sections in the draft BDCP (being includedas Part 8 Bardia Sub Precinct) and the inclusion of minor administrative amendments.A copy of the amended draft BDCP being Part 8 of the SCDCP is attached to this report asAttachment 2.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 1062.9 Public Exhibition Of Bardia Sub Precinct Development Control PlanOfficer's Recommendation1. That Council approve the amended draft Bardia Sub Precinct Development Control Planbeing an amendment to Campbelltown Sustainable City Development Control Plan 2009generally in accordance with Attachment 2.2. That notice of Council’s endorsement be published in the local newspaper in accordancewith clause 21 (2) Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.3. That all those who provided a submission to the public exhibition of the preliminary draftBardia Sub Precinct Development Control Plan be advised of Council’s decision.Committee’s Recommendation: (Hawker/Kolkman)That the Officer's Recommendation be adopted.Amendment: (Oates/Hawker)1. That Council approve the amended draft Bardia Sub Precinct Development Control Plan,with the exception of the road width, which will be reinstated to 9 metres being anamendment to Campbelltown Sustainable City Development Control Plan 2009 generally inaccordance with Attachment 2.2. That notice of Council’s endorsement be published in the local newspaper in accordancewith clause 21 (2) Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.3. That all those who provided a submission to the public exhibition of the preliminary draftBardia Sub Precinct Development Control Plan be advised of Council’s decision.CARRIEDCouncil Meeting 12 April 2011 (Kolkman/Oates)That the Committee's Recommendation incorporating the above amendment be adopted.Amendment (Kolkman/Chanthivong)1. That a decision in this matter be deferred.2. That Landcom be informed that Council will not negotiate on road widths under theoriginally proposed 9 metres.Addendum (Matheson/Glynn)3. That Landcom be informed that Council is of the firm opinion that Mont St Quentin Ovalshould be retained for use by AFL Football as that its heritage values be recognised.

Planning and Environment Committee Meeting 5 April 2011 Page 1072.9 Public Exhibition Of Bardia Sub Precinct Development Control PlanCouncil Resolution Minute Number 481. That a decision in this matter be deferred.2. That Landcom be informed that Council will not negotiate on road widths under theoriginally proposed 9 metres.3. That Landcom be informed that Council is of the firm opinion that Mont St Quentin Ovalshould be retained for use by AFL Football as that its heritage values be recognised.