Housekeeping Amendment to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008

The proposed amendment of subclause 1.19(1)(e) is welcomed; however only including land that is significantly contaminated will not be sufficient to address the issue of complying development increasing potential health and environmental risks on sites affected by contamination from adjacent properties, such as residential homes next to service station sites. The amendment should preclude any complying development on land that is - listed on the NSW EPA Record of Notices - listed on the NSW EPA list of Notified Sites - the subject of an Environmental Mangement Plan; - land that is listed as potentially contaminated on a council register; and - directly adjacent to land that is any of the above.

The Department of Planning Environment (DPE) has placed on exhibition proposed amendments to the Codes SEPP 2008, which are intended to improve the clarity, performance and implementation of exempt and complying development code provisions. The exhibition period is from 20th June to 18th July, 2018. The following is Armidale Regional Council™s submission to DPE, identifying matters in the Explanation of Intended Effect Housekeeping Amendments (EIE) and Frequently Asked Questions documents that Council supports and matters that should be further considered and addressed prior to finalizing changes to the planning legislation. From Table 2 of EIE Gross Floor Area definition Agree with the need to clarify gross floor area and the extent of car parking space that can be excluded from GFA calculation. Environmentally Sensitive Land Clause 1.5 of Codes SEPP has definition for oeenvironmentally sensitive area not oeenvironmentally sensitive land. Is the proposed oeenvironmentally sensitive land definition intended to replace the definition of oeenvironmentally sensitive area The Draft Primary Production and Rural Development SEPP refers to the Codes SEPP for the definition of oeenvironmentally sensitive area (see p. 11 of relevant EIE from October 2017). What will the implication be if oeenvironmentally sensitive land [area] in the Codes SEPP states that the definition of such land [area] is contained in the relevant EPI, if an EPI is referring the reader to the Codes SEPP in the first instance for that definition Cabanas Agree with the need to define what a cabana is. Contaminated Land Agree with the proposal to exclude significantly contaminated land (CLM Act) from being able to be developed as complying development. Furthermore, potentially contaminated land as identified in Council™s information system and flagged in a section 10.7 Planning Certificate should not be able to be developed as complying development. Street Libraries Could the provision for street libraries not be absorbed into exempt development provision for ˜letterboxes™ Street libraries are generally located close to the property frontage so the user does not necessarily need to trespass on property to access them. Some people may choose to incorporate the letterbox and street library into one structure (with separate openings). Fence in E4 Zones Fencing provisions for E4 zones should not be contained in Subdivision 17 (fences in residential zones) of Part 2 Exempt Development. E4 is not a residential zone, even if some residential development is permitted on E4 land, in the same way that RU1 is not a residential zone despite some residential development being permitted in that zone. DPE™s Practice Note 09-002 states that the application of E4 zoned land should be to ¦existing low impact residential development. This may include areas already zoned for rural residential that have special conservation values. (p. 9). Furthermore, DPE™s Practice Note 11-002 recommends that the E4 zone ¦ may be applicable to areas with existing residential development in a rural setting, which still has some special conservation values. Most E4 lots are considerably larger than R1, R2, R3, or R4 lot sizes. If E4 land were to be added to Subdivision 17 of the exempt code, fences along the boundary or within the setback area of a primarysecondary road would need to be capped at a lower height (1.2m versus 1.8m above GL). Ultimately, councils may need to then assess DAs for boundary fencing or fencing in the front setback on E4 land where the landowneroccupier wishes to raise the fence height to adequately contain any hobby stock andor install electrical fencing. It is believed that it would be more prudent to require councils to assess DAs for boundary fencing on E4 land where the landowneroccupier wishes to have fencing type other than post wire or post rail (which is believed to be the motivation for inserting E4 land into Subdivision 17). Additionally, the loss of post wire and post rail fencing should be assessed on its merits. These fencing types are a lot more sympathetic to rural settings, rural residential areas, and native fauna movements (which are more likely in E4 zones than R1, R2, R3, R4 zones) than a perimeter of say, pre-fabricated metal panel style fencing. Temporary Use Agree that temporary uses themselves need to be clarified as exempt, not just their associated temporary structures. Complying Development carried out on a single lot Is it proposed that only single dwellings under complying development are not able to be built across multiple lots What of other structures Additional Parts 3, 3A, 3B, and 3C of the Codes SEPP do not clarify the meaning of ˜public road™ in the sub clause ˜Lot requirements™, and so the Code user must refer to the Roads Act 1993. The Roads Act does not define the level of formation of a public road, only that the road be oeopened or dedicated as a public road. It is assumed that for the purposes of the Codes SEPP, ˜public road™ excludes an unformed or unconstructed portion of road reserve. For user clarity, it is recommended that this distinction be included in the Codes SEPP. Otherwise, a development may considered complying development despite the fact that the development (dwelling, dual occupancy, etc) will not have access to a formed part of a road, and there will be no mechanism available to require that part of the road to be constructed.

Attached is the AACs submission on the Proposed Housekeeping Amendment to the Codes SEPP 2008

Please find letter attached from the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors

Ballina Shire Council would like to make a submission in relation to the hours for construction specified in the schedules 6, 7 and 9 to the SEPP. These specified hours i.e. Construction may only be carried out between 7.00 am and 5.00 pm on Monday to Saturday and no construction is to be carried out at any time on a Sunday or a public holiday, are inconsistent with the standard construction hours specified in the NSW EPA Interim Construction Noise Guideline. The NSW EPA Guideline specifies the following as standard construction hours Monday to Friday 7 am to 6 pm, Saturday 8 am to 1 pm No work on Sundays or public holidays. It has been Councils experience that complaints are being made by the community in relation to the longer hours of construction permitted on a Saturday and it is hard to educate the community, tradesmen and regulate as there are now two possible sets of standard construction hours depending on the approvals pathway. This may have made sense when only minor works were permitted under complying development however as complying development expands and large and longer duration building projects are permitted to be constructed as complying development the standard construction hours should be made consistent with the hours applied to development applications approved. Your favorable consideration of this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Please find attached Councils comments.

As per attachment

Safety of Existing Awnings Change This is quite unworkable proposal to link this to CDC for Commercial and Industrial Alterations. A CDC for a small office fitout of a tenancy on level X of an existing office tower, with multiple awnings on the ground floor over the street - requiring Structural Certification of these is unrealistic and unreasonable, also how is this processed, such review would review destructive testing, this is external works and now needs a DA really . this will reduce the extent of CDC certification for Retail and Commercial applications further driving them back to obtaining DA from council where this would not apply. Building owners already have an obligation to check their awnings Why is this now beeign transferred to the tenant, also each time the BCA is amended a new assessment would be needed resulting in numerous reviews of the same awning, and potentially upgrades to the awning each time the BCA is amended with no benefit to the community. Suggestion 2 - This should only apply when the application for the CDC is by the sole tenant or owner of the building, similar to Disabled Upgrade triggers under Access to Premises standard, as they have the ability and means to obtain this structural confirmation, a small tenant wanting to install a small office, or replacement of a change room in a shop should not be a trigger for a structural review of awnings far removed from the area the subject of the CDC, and also these small tenants applicants would not be in a position to engage or get owners consent to undertake structural investigation of non-tenant related areas either, further frustrating the CDC process, especially when a DA process would not trigger this requirement. Also some All this aside I think that this should be left as a council responsibility to look after their local area, determine structural upgrading based on community concerns complaints, through the NoticeOrder process, as each council normally has a awning review process for public awnings in their area, so this seems unnecessary. Contamination from Demolition Change This change needs a very clear definition as to what oerisk of contamination is, leaving this open to interpretation will mean that a lot of Demolition CDC work will cease For Example Asbestos Removal, even if undertaken by a licenced Asbestos contractor has a oerisk of contamination, therefore cannot be done as a CDC Not a test for DA Approval for Demolition in this manner There is a lot of Demolition coming up through the Schools work, and if any of these buildings to be demolished have asbestos or lead in them then there is a oerisk of contamination, even if licensed removers are engaged Again this is setting up the two speed approval process, the DA Process would not have this risk assessment

Refer attached document.

Contamination from Demolition Change This change needs a very clear definition as to what oerisk of contamination is, leaving this open to interpretation will mean that a lot of Demolition CDC work will cease. For Example Asbestos Removal, even if undertaken by a licenced Asbestos contractor has a oerisk of contamination, therefore cannot be done as a CDC. Not a test for DA Approval for Demolition in this manner There is a lot of Demolition coming up through the Schools work, and if any of these buildings to be demolished have asbestos or lead in them then there is a oerisk of contamination, even if licensed removers are engaged Again this is setting up the two speed approval process, the DA Process would not have this risk assessment. If the concern is Contamination then it would be better to require a Hazardous risk register to be prepared with a methodology of removal and disposal to be required instead of just not allowing it as CDC, as often if it goes through as a DA this is a standard condition for the certifier to obtain and confirm anyway, so why not align CDC and DA approvals with the same end game, that of checking and ensuring best practise rather than putting a holt on CDC altogether. This doesn™t appear to be a oeHousekeeping change, more of a dramatic change to the Demolition code, its best to have this managed rather than blocking CDC altogether if there is a risk. Suggestions 1. Make the requirement to obtainprovide a Hazardous Materials Register and demolition methodology to be a condition of the CDC. 2. Remove the proposal to stop CDC Approval for Demolition if there is a oerisk of Contamination 3. Provide a clear definition of what is meant by oerisk and what is meant by oecontamination as without this the opportunity for hind sight retribution on certifiers is high, which will lead to a stop to Demolition CDC™s or no change to status quo both of which is not helpful to this proposed change

Few Comments Safety of Existing Awnings Change This is quite onerous and unworkable proposal to link this to CDC for Commercial and Industrial Alterations Example 1 - CDC for a small office fitout of a tenancy on Level 30 of an existing office tower, with multiple awnings on the ground floor over the street - requiring Structural Certification of these is unrealistic and unreasonable on the tenant to do this, they wouldn™t have the ability to do this and is so far remote from the works it doesn™t meet the reasonableness test. Example 2 - Internal shop fitout to a small internal tenancy in a large shopping centre, with multiple awnings around the perimeter of the building - requiring structural certification in this case is also unrealistic and unreasonable This will stop the use of CDC for shop fitout, as the small tenants (applicants) will not have the ability to request or obtain this confirmation, and under a DA Process this is not required - this will reduce the extent of CDC certification for Retail and Commercial applications further driving them back to obtaining DA from council where this would not apply. Also what happens if the Awning is structurally unsound - as rectification works cannot be done as a CDC, so then does the fitout need to go via a DA because an awning far removed from the works proposed is structurally not compliant with the latest version of the BCA. Suggestion 1- Confirmation should be that the Awning is oestructurally adequate from a structural engineer rather than to current BCA, as that will achieve the same result, as structural references in the BCA are the latest requirements and awnings may still be structurally sound even if built to an older standard, more of a fit for purpose assessment, as otherwise each time the BCA is amended a new assessment would be needed resulting in numerous reviews of the same awning, and potentially upgrades to the awning each time the BCA is amended with no benefit to the community. Suggestion 2 - This should only apply when the application for the CDC is by the sole tenant or owner of the building, similar to Disabled Upgrade triggers under Access to Premises standard, as they have the ability and means to obtain this structural confirmation, a small tenant wanting to install a small office, or replacement of a change room in a shop should not be a trigger for a structural review of awnings far removed from the area the subject of the CDC, and also these small tenants applicants would not be in a position to engage or get owners consent to undertake structural investigation of non-tenant related areas either, further frustrating the CDC process, especially when a DA process would not trigger this requirement. Also some buildings such as shopping centres will have numerous CDC™s under assessment all year and through the years, requiring a fresh assessment each time a CDC is lodged is also unreasonable, put a time frame on reliance on the assessment, within 12 months for example so that you don™t have to have a structural engineer assessing the awning every time a CDC is lodged, again meeting the intent without unnecessary busy work by structural engineers. All this aside I think that this should be left as a council responsibility to look after their local area, determine structural upgrading based on community concerns complaints, through the NoticeOrder process, as each council normally has a awning review process for public awnings in their area, so this seems unnecessary. I am not aware of any evidence of mass public walkway awning collapses resulting in death or injury necessitating such a dramatic legislative impost on every internal fitout to commercial or industrial buildings in NSW with an awning over a public space. I understand the concern but the reasonableness of this being attached to CDC for commercial and industrial alterations is not the right spot for it and I think this requirement is not warranted based on the evidence of community safety being limited at best, and should be removed from these oehouse keeping changes Suggestions 1. Remove this from the proposed amendment to the SEPP and leave the status Quo for commercial and industrial alterations 2. If there is evidence of community safety issues related to this issue then a. Assessment Test - Make it a Structural Adequacy assessment by Structural Engineer (not BCA confirmation of compliance) b. Application - Only Apply it to Sole Tenant or Building Owner CDC Applications i.e. limit it to CDC where the applicant is in a position to undertake engage the assessment. c. Time Frame for reliance on assessment If a Structural Adequacy assessment has been undertaken in the previous 12 months then this may be relied upon for issue of the CDC, allow multiple use of the one structural assessment to avoid structural busy work unnecessary cost on these small business owners in NSW

I am a site auditor accredited under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997. One of the most significant and persistent difficulties experienced by site auditors relates to the post-audit enforcement of Environmental Management Plans (EMP). An EMP can be an effective means of safely managing residual contamination that would otherwise preclude the suitability of the land for a particular use. A Section A (land suitability) site audit statement can be made conditional upon the implementation of an approved EMP, provided that the auditor has established that the EMP can reasonably be made legally enforceable. Where development requires consent, this can be achieved through a condition of consent, which is enduring and runs with the land. However, this is not possible for complying development. There are few other enforcement mechanisms available, and these are all quite difficult to implement. I suggest that the proposed amendment to subclause 1.19(1)(e), to include a new subclause land that is significantly contaminated land within the meaning of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 (CLM Act ) be extended to include land for which a site audit statement has been issued, where that site audit statement requires the implementation of an EMP. This change will substantially improve integration between the CLM Act and the planning legislation, to the benefit of the objectives of both. Chris Jewell .

Please see attached submission.

Please see attached

See attached

Definition of Corner Lots - As part of the housekeeping amendments, is it possible to please review the definition of corner lots. We have had to reject many complying development proposals on corner lots solely on the basis that that lots had numerous splay corners that when measured individually at their inetrsections with the next splay, were greater than 135 degrees but if you measured the projected intersection of the two main boundary frontage, the y inetrsect at less than 135 degrees. The implications are that the primary road frontage and setback is therefore calculated across the entire lot and turns the corner on what for all intents and purposes is a typical corner lot. It also means lot widths are always more than 24m and increased side setbacks apply. Meaning more often than not a DA is required soley because of this. I have included two attachments that show measured splay corner angles as the definition in the Code requires. The splay angles diagram shows a splay corner lot where the intersecting angles are 154.4 and 153.7 degrees and therefore more than 135 degrees therefore its not a corner lot as defined. The second diagram shows the same site with main frontages extended so they intersect. The intersecting angle is 126 degrees meaning the lot would be a corner lot if it did not have a splay. I find it nonsensical that a small splay can actually turn what is a typical corner lot into a conventional lot for the purposed of the code. The lot shown in my example is almost identical to the corner lot shown in the bottom diagram in Clause 3.3(1) of the Housing Code. Im not sure the best way to address this anomoly but measuring that angle to a projected intersection of the main frontages seems logical approach. That wont work on corner lots with road frontages though

See attached comments

I think there may be an anomaly in the General Housing Code related to side setbacks and rainwater tanks. There is no specified exemption for the application of the side setback control (900mm) for water tanks, only a lesser setback for tanks with a height greater than 1.8m of 450mm. I am dealing with a case where the tank is less than 1.8m in height and is setback 300mm. Given a lesser setback is allowed for a taller tank it may be reasonable to interpret the policy as there being no setback requirement for tanks that are below 1.8m. However, this is not specified in the Code. My own opinion is that there is a mistake in the SEPP where instead of the lesser setback of 450mm applying to oerainwater tanks greater than 1.8m in height it should read oerainwater tanks NOT greater than 1.8m in height this would make more sense.

In reply please quote 0904653 Contact Patrick Warren on 9725 0215 18 July 2018 Director, Codes and Approval Pathways Department of Planning and Environment GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001 Dear SirMadam, SUBMISSION HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENTS SEPP (EXEMPT AND COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT CODES) 2008 I refer to the exhibition of the above Housekeeping Amendments to the SEPP (Exempt and Complying Code) 2008 (Codes SEPP). The need for a general housekeeping amendment to the Code SEPP is acknowledged. However, below are a number of issues outlined for consideration and recommendations for improvement as part of the Housekeeping Amendments process. Awnings Over Public Land The draft amendments to the Codes SEPP, addresses the safety of existing awnings over public land. This requires that existing awnings over public land comply with Section B of Volume 1 of the Building Code of Australia. The following codes are affected by this Exempt and Complying Development Codes; Housing Code; Rural Housing Code; and Commercial and Industrial Alterations Code. The draft amendment detailed by the Explanation of Intended Effects (EIE) requires certification by a structural engineer for existing awnings that project over public lands. The awning must comply with Section B of Volume 1 of the BCA wherever exempt and complying development works are being undertaken regardless of whether the proposed works are to the awning or not. This amendment is to be placed in Subdivision 20A of the Codes SEPP. Council officers are concerned with the above amendment in that There is significant cost in obtaining the services of a structural engineer; The Codes SEPP does not make it clear which party is responsible for rectification works of a defective awning being the public authority involved or the owner of the property; and Council has an existing procedure in place for the carrying out and completion of structural rectification works on or over Council land. Council officers acknowledge the need for an effective mechanism to be in place for structurally defective assets. However, the above stated concerns place a great cost on the owner of the business and don™t acknowledge established council processes that deal with this issue. Outbuildings and garages The draft amendment seeks to include a definition for oecabana and clarify that a cabana cannot include shower, bathroom, a kitchenette or cooking facilities if undertaken as exempt. It is proposed that this also be expanded to also include complying development. Fairfield City Council often comes across complying development certificates (CDC) determined by private certifiers which proposed garages, workshops or outbuildings that contain full bathrooms, in addition to other developments on site such as a secondary dwelling or studio. This then permits the owner to undertake works (whether certified or not) to fit out the outbuilding, garage or workshop as another dwelling or occupancy. This results in, but not limited to, a poor outcome for the adjoining residents and future residents occupying the site, overall amenity of the area and other environmental impacts such as noise, privacy, deceased deep soil and open space areas, increased number of people on site, etc. See Attachment A of this letter for recent examples of applications determined by private certifiers. As a result, it is also proposed that the following amendment (highlighted in bold) be made to the definition of ˜outbuilding™ outbuilding means any of the following class 10a buildings under the Building Code of Australia (a) balcony, deck, patio, pergola, terrace or verandah that is detached from a dwelling house, (b) cabana, cubby house, fernery, garden shed, gazebo or greenhouse, (c) carport that is detached from a dwelling house, (d) farm building, (e) garage that is detached from a dwelling house, (f) rainwater tank (above ground) that is detached from a dwelling house, (g) shade structure that is detached from a dwelling house, (h) shed. Note Outbuildings carried out as exempt or complying development cannot include a shower, bathroom facilities or a kitchenette or cooking facilities (other than a barbeque). Compliance and Regulatory Issues resulting from Codes SEPP As outlined above, Council consistently receives examples of CDCs determined by private certifiers under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP and for the Exempt and Complying Development Codes SEPP where unsatisfactory outcomes are proposed. In some of these examples Councils development standards and the land use zones permit full dual occupancy development or multi dwelling housing if the lots had been amalgamated. However, the applicant has been able to utilise the Codes SEPP pathway as a mechanism to get up to 4-5 oedwellings or occupancies approved onsite through private certification, using clever up front design seemingly to initially comply allowing for modification post approval. Council is limited in its control over this issue as approval takes place outside of its regulatory processes. It is only through neighbourhood complaints or by incidental inspections that Council officers are made directly aware of the issue. This form of development creates (amongst many) the following issues Poorly designed defacto medium density; Significant number of vehicles parking onsitestreet rather than on-site; Impacts to Council™s community infrastructure; Restriction on Councils ability to collect appropriate development contributions for the increase in residential density more people unaccounted in Council™s Contributions Plans); Increase in runoff due to hard stand surfaces; Limitedpoor on-site detention systems which would be required for more dense residential development through a development application process; Overload on approved existing drainage systems; Reduced deep soil zones; Reduced private open space and landscaped area; BCA Non-compliance with fire safety ratings and building separation; Neighbourhood noise and general amenity issues; Residents living in substandard dwellings; Inadequate waste servicing, and; Poor egress and entry arrangements. The latest round of housekeeping amendments does not address this issue. Council officers believe that this issue could be mitigated by amending the Codes SEPP through a number of wording changes and amendments. This may be achieved by 1. Inserting a clause in section 1.17A of the Code SEPP as follows 1.17A Requirements for complying development for all environmental planning instruments (1) To be complying development for the purposes of any environmental planning instrument, the development must not (f) Result in the creation of a structure that may be used for a separate domicile or occupancy for the purposes of residential accommodation, other than the main dwelling or a secondary dwelling. 2. Inserting a standard Complying Development Certificate condition in the relevant schedules of the Code SEPP. It would include inserting the condition outlined below Schedules 6, 6A, 6B, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Code SEPP oeA Private Certifier is not to issue a CDC for the purpose of this schedule if the proposed architectural plans facilitate the expansion (whether intended or not) of the proposed structure into one or more separate domicilesoccupanciesdwellings. Council officers believe that these amendments will give certifiers a mechanism by which to seek amended plans or refuse the approval of proposed structures which they expect will be modified to create separate dwellings post approval. This will also tackle the issue of private certifiers approving applicant™s inventive designs which would allow for future retrofit of unauthorised works. Council officers expect the imposition of such a condition will also reduce regulatory burden on its compliance section as Fairfield City receives a significant number of CDC™s approved by private certifiers annually. It is recommended that the above condition or one similar be inserted into the affordable rental housing SEPP as a note under oeSchedule 1 Development Standards. Examples approved by private certifiers in Fairfield Local Government Area that have resulted in separate domicilesoccupanciesdwellings being constructed under the Codes SEPP can be seen in Attachment B of this letter. Need for increased resources The increase in Code assessable development typologies that previously had been assessed by Council have placed a strain on Councils own regulatory resources. Often council officers are required to follow up on complaints and review CDCs. Council officer have then had to prepare material to forward to the Building Professionals Board for action. In addition, the Medium Density Housing Code has now come into force with the expectation that more development will be Code assessable. As a result, it is an inevitable outcome that regulatory and compliance issues will occur. It is therefore more relevant than ever to ensure that local governments and the associated regulatory bodies are resourced and supported adequately to deal with the increase in demand for their services. Accordingly, further resourcing should be provided to the NSW Building Professionals Board and greater support to local Councils who seek to ensure compliance with the Code SEPP. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Patrick Warren on 9725 0215 Chris Shinn COORDINATOR STRATEGIC PLANNING

On many of the projects that we are certifying for residential properties there are situations where external stairs are required close to side boundaries at ground floor level to access various rooms ( particularly laundries) to and from surrounding yard areas of the property. Under the BCANCC Codes, stairs are usually required for ground floor access due to the nature of the floor construction, even on a level site. It may be only 2-3 steps from existing finished ground level however the SEPP does not seem to recognise such structures. I have checked Clause 3.11 oe Exceptions to setbacks can so no concessions to stair construction. It appears to me to be an anomaly as I can not see how a small set of stairs ( 1 metre max) which is required under the BCANCC is not permitted under such circumstances with a CDC. It seems unfortunate that the applicant would have to make application to Council for a DA to address such situations.

Please see attached.

Attached is HIAs submission on the Housekeeping Amendments to the Codes SEPP

Please find submission attached

Please see uploaded submission

Attached is submission from the Law Society of NSW.

Please find attached comments on the proposed housekeeping amendment to the Codes SEPP.

Please refer attached letter.

Please see the attached submission from Mosman Council on the Housekeeping Amendments to the Codes SEPP.

I am writing to request if you could consider adding Humane Bird Proofing By a Qualified Industry Professional as a future amendment to Except Development of LEP SEP. Currently in our industry we have two methods to deal with Bird ProofingControl Humane or Inhumane I believe it goes without saying that humane methods are the best approach for all involved. The problem with this is that to install certain methods (and most methods) of humane bird proofing you are required to obtain Development Approval prior to installation. This then, in our clients eyes, puts it in the oetoo-hard-basket and they turn to inhumane (approved) methods of bird control. Birds are a major issue in Sydney the faeces that are left behind are unhygienic and toxic and the damage that birds cause to buildings Facades and roofs are costly to all, whether taxpayers or personal. The methods that I would like to be considered are Eagle Eye httpeagleeyebird.com.au Netting Spiking Shock Track Wire Post Thank you for taking the time to consider my request to add Humane Bird Proofing By a Qualified Industry Professional as a future amendment to Except Development of LEP SEP.

See attached.

See attached.

The maximum size of the oe1 car parking space 18m2 Blacktown council requires minimum of 2 vehicle parking space through their DA. Ku-ring-gai council allows 31sqm to be excluded from the calculation of GFA. Liverpool council also requires 2 car spaces per residential dwelling. Why is the requirement of this SEPP so different from requirements of local councils It™s common knowledge that households nowadays keep at-least 2 cars and space is needed to park these cars. The objective should be to reduce the demand for parking within road reserves and improve the quality of urban infrastructure. The amendment to define car parking space to 18m2 and only allow 18m2 to be excluded from GFA calculation comes across as an encouragement that 1 car parking space is sufficient and no more is needed. Can the department consider allowing exclusion of 2 car parking spaces from the GFA calculation as in to support off street parking and better facilitate multiple car parking on the site itself. Minor Variation to Complying Development separate development Application Despite this being proposed before why isn™t the department considering allowing developments with minor variations to complying development codes to be granted partial consent while requiring a partial development application to be put to council seeking their consent. This will allow so many subject sites which currently have to go through the entire DA process to be able to have their properties use the CDC pathway and not be penalised for a minor non-compliance.

Please accept this as a submission for consideration in regard to the proposed housekeeping changes to the State Environment Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 in relation to sound proof enclosures around pool pumps. State Environment Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008, both historic [Clause 3.34 (6) and Clause 3A.33 (6)] and current versions [Clause 3.28 (3) and Clause 3A.33 (6)], all require a oesound proof enclosure around the pool pump. When the Department of Planning introduced the oesoundproof enclosure, I had several contacts with the department, at submission stage, and they agreed that it was impractical and impossible, due to heat, ventilation and a possible fire hazard, to make a pool pump enclosure, totally soundproof. In the past, my advice to pool owners and pool builders, in residential areas, is to comply with the following, which is agreed to by all pool buildersowners at the time they sign my Notice to Commence form oeThe pool pump and filtration equipment must not result in offensive noise being heard on surrounding properties. The noise level of any filtration equipment or pumps should not exceed 5dBA above the ambient background noise level measured at the property boundary and the pump must be operated in accordance with the Protection of the Environment Operations (Noise control) regulation 2008 which restricts the times of operation. Restrictions apply between 8.00 pm and 7.00 am on weekdays and Saturdays and 8.00 pm to 8.00 am on Sundays and public holidays. My information is that the sound generated from modern pool pumps is minimal and to my knowledge I don™t know of any pool I have approved, that has had a noise complaint about the pool pump. Does the Department have any current specific advice to Certifiers about how to safely provide a sound proof enclosure To enforce the provision of a sound proof enclosure for pool CDC™s, in my opinion, is not in the public interest and I request you consider removing this requirement from the SEPP.

Please see attached letter

I object to the Mosman Temporary Exclusion from complying development on the following basis 1. It is not equitable for residents within this exclusion zone to be forced to apply for a costly DA where the rest of Sydney has the right to a cost effective application process. 2. I have documented the random process of approval that Mosman Council employs in its approval process whereby the elite have extra favourable consideration resulting in approvals for constructions, as part of grand architectural plan, that are not available to other residents who are proposing one of the same elements in a one-off development. 3. For the reasons suggested in 2 above, there is no certainty of approval even if you comply with the DCP. 4. Mosman is no different to any other harbour side suburb and should learn to take its place in the general community. 5. Mosman Council has had many years already to put its case for specialness. Clearly, there is no reason why they are special and this is the real reason why they need to delay the inevitable.

Please see the attached PDF.

See attached upload.

Can you please take into consideration the idea of seperating exempt and complying development into two seperate SEPPs. The Current SEPP is becoming very large hard to navigate, and as exempt and complying are two different types of development I think they now should have their own seperate legislation documentation.

Please find Councils submission attached.

The proposed changes to Temporary Use require clarification. To exempt the use of a temporary structure on the basis that the temporary structure is exempt needs careful consideration. As an example, Council receives multiple requests from land owners to hold weddings on their land as a business venture. The requests are in ruralrural residential areas where amenity is highly sensitive to noise and traffic intrusion. If it is not made clear in the proposed amendments wedding function venues will establish as exempt development. It is not clear how the proposed amendments will work with the existing provisions at clause 2.08(1)(h) of the Code and clause 2.117. Council has dealt with this very issue recently where the landowner and planning consultant were attempting to justify a wedding function venue via the temporary marquees and private functions clauses at Subdivision 6 of the Code. It is not clear what the intention of the amendments are. Is it intended to allow wedding functions on a commercial basis as exempt development as opposed to a family member or a family friend letting their property be used for the one off or rare occurrence event Please contact me to discuss further.

CODE SEPP HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENT COMMENTS 1. The deferred commencement should not be added as it will be problematic for Council™s to administer the archiving requirements against properties that have not yet been created. It will also result in errors occurring when the lot is not identical and has not been checked by the certifier or builder before work commences and this is particularly likely where easements are varied. This deferred commencement seems like it will only benefit the developer by giving them contract certainty before subdivision registration, at the potential detriment of the home owner noting that a CDC for a dwelling only takes 10 days to approve anyway. So a significant risk for a 10 day saving 2. Subdivision 16 Farm Buildings 2.32 There should be a definition of farm building in part 1.5 This section should include further development standards to clarify and prevent the misuse of these structures as dwellings or industrial etc. as follows -not contain a bathroom, toilet kitchen or other plumbing fixtures -be single storey -there must not be more than one (1) farm building per lot of less than 2ha and two (2) farm buildings for a lot of 2Ha or more. 3. Fences 2.34 (c ) Should be amended to add a distance reference from the boundary as follows oe if it includes an entrance gatenot have a gate that opens outwards if less than 900mm from a property boundary. 4. Fences subdivision 17 17A Subdivision 17A should be incorporated into Subdivision 17 so it is not missed either intentionally or unintentionally 5. Subdivision 26 Minor Building alteration (internal) Part 2.52 Development standards should have another standard added as follows oeNot cause damage to or require replacement of a waterproofing membrane This is a significant area of defect in a building that needs building certifier involvement by CDC or CC

Submission from Willoughby City Council regarding Housekeeping Amendment