Waste management
(8) the acceptability of the design of waste management facilities and proposals for waste collection, in relation to which:
1. in response to evidence provided by the Parties expert planners, the Applicant amended it application so as to:
1. re-allocate a previously proposed car space (car space 9) for the purpose of on-site waste collection within the basement of the Proposed Development;
2. propose the use of a small waste vehicle that could park within the nominated space when collecting waste from the Proposed Development on a twice weekly basis;
3. confirm that the space nominated for use by a small waste collection vehicle could be used at other times for the parking of vehicles associated with trades and other maintenance personnel attending the Subject Site;
1. the Applicant provided a letter from ttpp transport planning, tendered as evidence at the hearing, confirming that:
1. the requirements for manoeuvring and parking of the small waste collection vehicle proposed by the Applicant were consistent with the requirements of B99 vehicle; and
2. the proposed aisle width and parking space dimensions associated with the nominated space (car space 9) were compliant with the requirements under AS2890.1 for access by a B99 vehicle;
1. the Respondent submitted within its written closing submissions that the Court had been provided insufficient information to be satisfied that the proposed waste collection vehicle could enter the basement car park and collect waste while parked in the nominated space (car space 9), and it noted that the following matters required further advice for the purposes of assessing the viability of the Applicant's amended proposals for waste collection:
1. confirmation that basement entry and basement proper provided a minimum clearance of 2.1m throughout the proposed path of travel for the small waste collection vehicle;
2. if the rear of the small waste collection vehicle is required to be lifted in order to collect waste, confirmation that this be accommodated within the height clearance available in the space nominated for waste collection;
3. confirmation that the side mirrors of the small waste collection vehicle included in the width dimension provide for the vehicle by ttpp transport and planning of 1.95m;
4. the method by which the Applicant proposes that the nominated waste collection space would be kept reserved for waste collection; and
5. the frequency required for waste collection, having regard to the capacity of the vehicle;
1. the Respondent had further submitted that it remained concerned that the Applicant's proposals for waste management were unable to be guaranteed given that the vehicle proposed by the Applicant could only be provided by a single private sector service provider;
2. the Applicant in its closing submissions in reply provided the following information in relation to the Respondent's requirements for further information:
1. the Applicant's architect had confirmed that a minimum 2.1m clearance was available for the small waste collection vehicle to access to the basement and throughout the Applicant's nominated path of travel and space proposed for waste collection;
2. the Applicant's waste expert, Mr Rudd of ttpp transport and planning had confirmed that the small waste collection vehicle was able to collect waste within the 2.1m headroom clearance available within the nominated waste collection space;
3. the width of the proposed small waste collection vehicle was 1.7 m, and the swept path available to the vehicle for movement within the basement had been calculated on a 2.1m wide vehicle, and provided a further 300mm clearance beyond the path calculated;
4. the nominated waste collection space could be kept reserved for waste collection through the imposition of a condition requiring installation of a folding and lockable bollard to be managed by the on-site boarding house manager and under management arrangements provided within the Applicant's plan of management for the facility;
1. in response to an invitation from the Court to confirm arrangements in relation to waste management, the Applicant provided additional information from its expert, Mr Rudd, concerning the collection of waste from the Proposed Development and confirming the dimensions of vehicles proposed to be utilised for that purpose;
2. the Respondent, noting the further information provided by the Applicant, made the following further submissions;
1. the proposed biweekly collection is unusual for waste and more so for recycling in a residential development, which are typically weekly for general waste and fortnightly for paper and cardboard bins (blue) and container recycling bins (yellow);
2. the waste collection company proposes to combine all materials into the one collection vehicle for later sorting at a tipping facility which would negatively impact on Waverley Council's landfill diversion targets.
3. while the dimensions of the truck cited to be used for servicing may be able to enter the parking area, the on-site waste collection area must be designed to allow collection vehicles to enter and exit the property in a forward direction and have adequate vehicle clearance;
4. the waste collection vehicle proposed to service the site does not meet the relevant requirements set out in Part 2: Off Street Commercial Vehicle Facilities (AS 2890.2), per Annexure B1-3 in the Waverley Council Development Control Plan 2012;
5. it is unclear the mechanism by which the bins would be emptied into the vehicle indicated, given the significant weight of 660L waste bins proposed at this development;
6. on-site waste collection is to be accommodated within a basement from a dedicated collection point or loading bay that does not impede pedestrian or vehicle movement within the development. It is unclear how the vehicle can service the development in a safe manner;
7. the use of a private waste collection service and particularly a small vehicle with limited capacity, is not a cost-effective approach, as the small truck volume requires more frequent collection (biweekly). This development is modelled to generate at least 13 x 660L mobile garbage bins (MGB) per week. It is unclear as to whether the vehicle proposed would be able to collect this amount of material twice per week. The proposed small vehicle size also does not allow for a change of use to council's collection service in the future by current or future owners or tenants;
8. no additional SWRMP has been provided to detail waste minimisation practices, indicate where bulky waste storage is located, or to address the comments provided in the previous referral, including all details of the onsite collection;
9. the above matters could be resolved through the imposition of conditions of consent, drafts of which it had provided with its further submissions;
1. the Applicant stated, in response to the Respondent's further submissions that:
1. its proposed waste collection service provider had confirmed that, whilst a 660L bin is larger than a standard residential waste bin, it is not heavy or cumbersome and easily managed by the vehicle proposed for waste collection;
2. its expert traffic engineer had confirmed that the Proposed Development facilitated the ingress and egress of the vehicle proposed to collect waste;
3. in relation to the Respondent's comments concerning bi-weekly collections and costs associated with same, the Proposed Development is not able to be subdivided, would be owned by a single entity and the costs associated with the collection of waste are a consideration for that owner;
4. the Applicant is the current owner and is content to bear costs associated with the proposed method for management and collection of waste;
5. the Applicant would accept imposition of the conditions proposed by the Respondent in respect of waste management including conditions relating to waste minimisation during construction and a condition requiring a covenant to be registered on title to ensure the ongoing operation of the proposed garbage collection methodology.
1. having considered the submissions of the Parties and the evidence of the Applicant's traffic expert, Mr Rudd, I am satisfied that:
1. the Applicant's proposal for on-site waste collection, as recommended by the Parties' expert planners, is consistent with the provisions of section 1.4.2.1 of WDCP concerning waste collection in relation to multi-residential and mixed use developments;
2. as the Applicant's proposed arrangements for management of waste were amended during the hearing, the Applicant should be required, through the imposition of a condition of consent, to amend its Site Waste and Recycling Management Plan (SWRMP);
3. the Respondent's proposed conditions of consent concerning waste management, which include requirements for the Applicant to amend its SWRMP, should be reflected in any final agreed conditions of consent prepared in relation to the Proposed Development; and
4. the Applicant's proposals for waste management within the Proposed Development, together with the imposition of conditions of consent as proposed by the Respondent, are acceptable and resolve the contention in relation to waste management;