Lane Cove Council

 

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council

 

 

 

AGENDA

 

 

 

DATE OF MEETING:          19 March 2007

 

LOCATION:                          Council Chambers

 

TIME:                                     6.30pm.  Note. If members of the public are not interested in any business recommended by the General Manager to be considered in Closed Session or there is no such business, Council will ordinarily commence consideration of all other business at 7pm.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meetings held in the Council Chambers are recorded on tape for the purposes of verifying the accuracy of minutes and the tapes are not disclosed to any third party under section 12(6) of the Local Government Act, except as allowed under section 18(1) or section 19(1) of the PPIP Act, or where Council is compelled to do so by court order, warrant or subpoena or by any other legislation.

 

 

Lane Cove Council business papers and minutes are available on Council’s website www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au.

 


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

19 MARCH 2007

 

 

 

ITEM                                                  REPORT CONTENT                                                PAGE

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

MATTERS RECOMMENDED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER TO BE CONSIDERED IN CLOSED COMMITTEE

 

Confidential Items

 

1.       Human Services Division Report No. 5

SUBJECT: 2006 Lane Cove Citizenship Awards

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the matter will involve the discussion of personnel matters concerning a particular individual; it further being considered that discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to public interest by reason of the foregoing.

  

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

 

Council at its meeting of the 13th May 1996, resolved in part that:

 

“3.  At the second Council meeting (third Monday) of each month, people who wish to address Council on an issue (for a maximum of three minutes) be allowed to do so at the conclusion of Closed Committee.”

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

2.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 5 MARCH 2007

 

 

 

Orders Of The Day

 

3.       Order Of The Day No. 5

SUBJECT: Council and Committee Meeting Schedule - April 2007

 

Notices of Motion

 

4.       Notice of Motion No. 6

SUBJECT: Extension of Exhibition of the Draft Passive Smoking Policy to 27th April 2007

 

 

 

General Managers Reports

 

5.       General Managers Report No. 5

SUBJECT: Meeting House Redevelopment - Recommended Concept Plans

 

Corporate Services Division Reports

 

6.       Corporate Services Division Report No. 12

SUBJECT: Results of Public Exhibition of Draft Policy on Community Consultation

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Reports

 

7.       Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 7

SUBJECT: Lane Cove Tunnel Status Report

 

8.       Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 9

SUBJECT: Lithgow Street, St Leonards - Petition

 

9.       Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 8

SUBJECT: Proposed Sale of Part of Unmade Section of Dunois Street, Longueville.

 

Environmental Services Division Reports

 

10.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 4

SUBJECT: Cities for Climate Protection - Milestone 2

 

11.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 5

SUBJECT: Proposed Application for a Sustainability Levy

 

Human Services Division Reports

 

12.     Human Services Division Report No. 4

SUBJECT: Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) Action Plan (DDAAP)

  

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

 

***** END OF AGENDA *****

 

         


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

ORDER OF THE DAY NO. 5

 

19 MARCH 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 19 March 2007

12/03/2007 to Ordinary Council

Order Of The Day No. 5

Subject:           Council and Committee Meeting Schedule - April 2007    

Record No:     SU1915 - 5443/07

Author(s):       Myrna Eisenhuth 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council and Committee Meeting Schedule – April 2007-03-12

 

            April 2              Ordinary Council

                                    Planning and Building Committee

                                    Services and Resources Committee

 

            April 16            Ordinary Council

                                    Planning and Building Committee

                                    Services and Resources Committee

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council and Committee Meeting Schedule for April 2007 be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

CNL190307OD_5.doc

*****   End of Order Of The Day No. 5   *****

 


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 6

 

19 MARCH 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 19 March 2007

14/03/2007 to Ordinary Council

Notice of Motion No. 6

Subject:           Extension of Exhibition of the Draft Passive Smoking Policy to 27th April 2007    

Record No:     SU1831 - 5580/07

Author(s):       Councillor Ann Smith 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A number of people have indicated to me that they would like to make a submission/petition but are unable to do so because of work and other commitments.  The exhibition is currently scheduled to conclude on 28 March 2007.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council extend the exhibition period for the Draft Passive Smoking Policy to the 27th April 2007 to enable all people wishing to make a submission the opportunity to do so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

CNL190307NM_6.doc

*****   End of Notice of Motion No. 6   *****

  


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT NO. 5

 

19 MARCH 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 19 March 2007

28/02/2007 to Ordinary Council

General Managers Report No. 5

Subject:           Meeting House Redevelopment - Recommended Concept Plans    

Record No:     SU348 - 4534/07

Author(s):       John Lee 

 

 

Executive Summary

Council will recall that Architects Malone Campbell-Allen were appointed last October to develop concepts for the redevelopment of Meeting House.  The appointment provided a 3 staged approach, the first being to develop concept plans, the second being detailed design and prepare for lodgement of a development application and the third being tender and building construction. 

 

Three (3) matters of significance raised by the community during consultation were:

·    residential units being incorporated into the development as part of the project’s financial viability;

·    part the proposed Meeting House and associated community facilities extending over into the adjacent Goodlet Reserve; and

·    the inclusion in the building design to cater for long day care for 0-2 year olds in the future and associated discussions on the operational relationship between preschool and long day care. 

 

Other matters that have been raised being more of an operational nature will be addressed as part of the development application process and include:

·    Stranger Danger;

·    Parking / Traffic;

·    Solar Access;

·    Safety;

·    Proximity to existing units; and

·    Planning issues.

 

This report provides an overview of the issues raised during consultation, includes the Architect’s assessment report and recommends Council endorse  Option 3A as its preferred layout subject to conditions. 

 

Once Council resolves a preferred option, the Architects will prepare the necessary documentation for submission of a development application.

 

Background

Meeting House provides a welcoming environment and social support to community groups and a range of existing and potential services, which include (among others):

Toastmasters

WAIG

Cove Club

Preschool

Friendship Group

Iranian Ladies

Social Sewing Club

Book Club

Bus Trip Café

Games night

Playgroups

Senior Citizens

Wine Appreciation

Music Appreciation

Meeting Rooms

Scrap Books

Mens Group

Creative Writing

 

The following list is just some of the shortcomings of current Meeting House:

·    The meeting rooms are neither suitable or big enough;

·    There is very limited capacity to expand services;

·    The kitchen is not suitable for food preparation;

·    It is not readily accessible for disabled, elderly or parents with prams;

·    Visibility of children at all times within the preschool is less than ideal;

·    There is a lack of off street parking;

·    There is a lack of storage; and

·    The bathroom is very dated with the bath planked over.

 

There is general consensus that Meeting House needs to be upgraded, and at both public meetings Ms Melody Braithwaite, President of Meeting House Inc has provided compelling argument on the role of Meeting House within the Lane Cove North neighbourhood.

 

The two houses on 25-27 Stokes Street have been renovated within the structural constraints of a traditional house with internal support walls widened to provide Meeting House meeting rooms and child care services.  These two houses are at the end of their use by date and cannot be further renovated in a cost effective manner to increase the level of services.

 

At the Ordinary Meeting on 7 August 2006, Council endorsed the design brief for the redevelopment of Meeting House.  Following calling of tenders based on the design brief, Council appointed Malone Campbell-Allen as architects and their contract commenced on 16 October 2006.

 

Meeting House Redevelopment Project

The detailed project scoping in the endorsed design brief includes:

a)      Meeting House Long Day Care Centre / Preschool

The following is a guide to the provision of children’s services in the project.  Flexibility is required in the design to allow changes to be made in the future to allow the Centre to function either as a Preschool or as a combined Long Day Care Centre / Preschool.

Clause 30 of the Children’s Services Regulations sets out the centre based children’s services requirements.  The Children’s Services Regulations are on line at: (http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/subordleg+260+2004+FIRST+0+N?)

 

The Long Day Care / Preschool section makes provision for the special requirements for 0-2 year olds in addition to the normal pre school requirements and includes:

i)          Two (2) offices having an area not less than 12 m2 that is used only for administration of the long day care services and for private consultation between staff and parents;

ii)         Phone and internet access communications in the administration offices on a separate account to Meeting House.  Phone cabling to have capacity for 3 concurrent telephone lines;

iii)        a room or an area at least 20 m2, located away from the areas used by children, that is to be jointly used for respite of staff from the Meeting House and Long Day Care / Preschool);

iv)        A lounge room at least 15 m2 suitable for adult use;

Note: Council’s DCP for Child Care Centres requires 5 m2 in total for each employee (for office space, adult toilet etc).

v)         a room or an area that is used only for sleeping up to 10 children under 2 years of age designed to allow for easy access to and exit by any child;

vi)        unencumbered indoor play space exclusively for the use of children of at least 130 m2,  not including any passage way or thoroughfare, door swing areas, kitchen, cot rooms, toilet or shower areas located in the building or any other facility such as cupboards and areas set aside as referred to in sub clauses above;

vii)       indoor space areas to allow for 2 separate groups of 15 for children older 2 years;

viii)      A laundry with tub connected to both hot and cold water and safe sanitary facilities for the storage of soiled clothes, linen and nappies before laundering or disposal; 

ix)        Two (2) nappy change tables with impervious washable surface areas with hand washing facilities for adults in the immediate vicinity (of the nappy changing area);

x)         One (1) indoor play area of 8m2 away from food preparation areas or nappy change areas with a bench, lockable cupboard and sink with cold water supply for craftwork purposes. 

xi)        A separate kitchen with provision for stove, microwave, sink, refrigerator, suitable disposal facilities and hot and cold water supply and designed to prevent children from gaining access to any harmful substance, equipment or amenity;

The kitchen will also include a facility for the preparation of bottles for children under 2 years of age;

xii)       One (1) each male, female and a disabled toilet for adults and at least five (5) toilets appropriate for the ages of children expected to attend the Long Day Care / Preschool facility.  Sanitary facilities must comply with the requirements for class 9b buildings (Early childhood centres) of clause F2.3 of the Building Code of Australia;

xiii)      Two (2) lockable storage areas at least 4m2 each;

xiv)      Provision for prams;

xv)       an outdoor play area of at least 280 m2 not including car parking areas, storage sheds and other fixed items that prevent children from using the space or that obstruct the view of staff supervising children in the space;

xvi)      External storage areas of at least 10 m2 attached to or adjacent to the building for the storage of play equipment, gardening tools and larger items.

 

b)      Meeting House Community Space

It is expected that Community groups, not associated with the Long Day Care / Preschool facility, will require concurrent use of the “Meeting House” community space.  The design of Meeting House must take into account “stranger danger” for children.

Meeting House is to include:

i)          Two (2) offices having a combined area not less than 12 m2 that is used only for administration of community services.   Preferably the offices will be in the same general location as the Long Day Care / Preschool offices.

ii)         Phone and internet access communications in the administration offices on a separate account to the Long Day Care / Preschool, and have capacity for 5 concurrent telephone lines;

iii)        Two (2) meeting rooms, preferably adjacent and interconnectable, with flexibility to divide the room to accommodate up to a 30/20 person split.  The combined size of these two (2) meeting rooms is to be not more than 50 m2.  Its design and location must be also suitable for secure use by the Long Day Care / Preschool centre.

iv)        One general purpose meeting room not less than 20 m2 suitable capable of providing specialist centre based Home and Community Care services targeted around dementia.

v)         Each meeting room to have cabling for audio visual capability, data projection, DVD, Video, secure broadband internet, cable and free to air television.   

vi)        At least one (1) meeting room with a sink with hot and cold water supply and cupboards below.

vii)       A staff room – may be jointly used with the Long Day Care / Preschool

viii)      A separate kitchen with provision for stove, microwave, sink, refrigerator, suitable disposal facilities and hot and cold water supply and designed to prevent children from gaining access to any harmful substance, equipment or amenity;

ix)        an outdoor play area of at least 100 m2 for the exclusive use of playgroups associated with the Meeting House community space.

x)         At least one (1), preferably two (2) lockable storage areas at least 12m2 each.

xi)        One (1) each male, female and disabled toilet for adults.

 

c)      Residential Units

Up to 6 residential units

 

Architects Report

The report by Malone Campbell-Allen (MCA) in Attachment 1 recommends Option 3A to Council.  In their opinion it is not possible to combine residential units and all of the child care for 40 children within 25-27 Stokes Street identified as Option 1 in Council’s brief.

 

When considering Options 2 and 3 which both included part of the 280m2 child care play area within Goodlet Reserve, less building bulk is achieved in Option 3 by locating the meeting rooms adjacent to the carpark accessible directly from Stokes Street.  Option 3A maintains the two storey streetscape character of the adjacent units.

 

The essential features of this option include:

a)         340 m2‑ long day care centre / preschool with direct access from Goodlet Reserve

b)         Secure lift access from basement carpark into the long day care / preschool centre

c)         150 m2 meeting rooms with direct access from Stokes Street

d)         280m2 play area for the long day care centre / preschool

e)         550 m2 landscaping (residential component) on 25-27 Stokes Street

f)          Building setback from Stokes Street approx 11.5m and generally consistent with adjacent units

g)         Setback to side boundary with 29-31 Stokes Street 4 m with a building separation of 9.4m (excluding balconies and awnings)

h)         4 carparking spaces external to the building for set down and pick up including 1 disabled space

i)          Basement carparking at or below Stokes Street for:

·    6 carparking spaces internal for Meeting House and long day care / preschool and 1 bus parking space

·    11 spaces for Residential Units, 6 of which will be secure garages located at the rear of the carpark

j)          Maintenance of the large trees along the rear boundary and within Goodlet Reserve

k)         Enhancement of Goodlet Reserve with additional play equipment.

l)          Minor relocation of the slippery dip play equipment in the Stokes Street end of Goodlet Reserve

 

MCA have concluded that FSR as a measure of bulk over the 3 sites is modest compared to the density of surrounding unit development.  They believe that it is reasonable that the inclusion of the community facilities with the potential development of Nos 25 and 27 should be assessed in the first instance as complying with respect of Nos 25, 27 for the residential component and complying overall with the inclusion of No 23 in the FSR calculations.

 

After taking into account all costs including enhancement of Goodlet Reserve, it is expected that the project will be either revenue neutral to Council, or may require a nominal injection of funds.  In the event of a surplus, such surplus would be allocated toward funding other community projects.

 

Quantity Surveyors

Rider Hunt P/L will be engaged as an independent quantity surveyor to provide preliminary cost assessments and costed bills of quantity to be used for tender assessment purposes.

 

Consultation

Subsequent to briefing the Meeting House Committee, the first of two public meetings was held in Council Chambers on 21 November 2006.  This meeting provided an overview of the need for new Meeting House facilities and outlined three (3) options being considered.  Mr. Stephen Malone discussed in more detail the merits and shortcomings of these options.

 

Copies of the presentation and audio files from the information evening were posted on Council’s website.  

 

Councillors attended a workshop on 11 December 2006 and were provided background information.  Councillors also met at meeting house on 3 February 2007 to consider the marked out building footprint for option 3A.

 

Concerns raised in correspondence to Council have also been responded to.  On Monday 26 February staff met separately with the Meeting House Preschool Director and with interested unit owners from 29-31 Stokes Street.  A second public meeting was held on site at Meeting House on Tuesday 27 February 2007. 

 

Issues Raised by the Community

A précis of issues raised by the Community is included in Attachment 2. 

 

Each of the issues raised by the Community has been carefully considered.  A number of issues relate to building design which will be taken into consideration in the detailed building design and Development Application. 

 

Three (3) matters of significance raised by the community during consultation were:

·    part the proposed Meeting House and associated community facilities extending over into the adjacent Goodlet Reserve; and

·    residential units being incorporated into the development as part of the project’s financial viability;

·    the inclusion in the building design to cater for long day care for 0-2 year olds in the future and associated discussions on the operational relationship between preschool and long day care.

 

The first two issues of use of open space and funding by inclusion of residential units remain a passionate issue for some in the community. 

 

The Lane Cove North Residents Association supported the principle of integrating the Meeting House and pre-school in an upgraded development but also expressed concerns about some aspects of the proposal incorporating residential units and the potential for complaints affecting the long term operation of the community facility, long day care vs preschool and open space for part of the long day care / preschool. 

 

Open Space

Attachment 3 shows the ground level footprint of the preferred concept (Option 3A) which extends 60 m2 over into Goodlet Reserve (21-23 Stokes Street). 

 

To achieve the 280 m2 of open space (7 m2 per child) as part of the Department of Community Services requirements, 110 m2 of open space is required from Goodlet Reserve.  In discussion with the Meeting House Preschool Director it was agreed that part of the long day care / preschool play area would be kept secure to avoid the need to store their play equipment on a daily basis and the remaining part to contain robust playground equipment made available to the general public outside day care hours.

 

While there is still reservations in the minds of some in regard to the inclusion of open space, with 40 children in the long day care / preschool, maximum use of this section of open space can be assured during week days – when many children are at school – and after long day care hours and weekends when available for public use.

 

Concerns in relation to anti social outcomes including equipment damage, syringes, broken class etc. within the play area to be available to the public out of hours are legitimate, but no less so than for the play areas within any other play area including in the adjacent Goodlet Reserve.

 

Council does have a number of community facilities constructed within parks / open space including child care.  Other examples include:

·    various scout halls;

·    bowling clubs;

·    golf club, maintenance sheds, pro shop and restaurant;

·    community halls;

·    grandstands;

·    tennis facilities;

·    club rooms;

·    swimming pools;

·    skate facilities;

·    garden sheds;

·    rowing facilities;

 

Some of the playground equipment will be relocated.  The enhancement proposed for Goodlet Reserve will increase the availability of play areas and playground equipment.  A working group will be formed to agree with Council and the architects a detailed landscaping and playground plan.

 

 

Funding

The estimated cost of the new Meeting House and Preschool/Long Day Care Centre for 40 places is between $1.3 million and $1.54 million including structural parking for 8 spaces and surface parking for 4 spaces.

 

As with any project, capital funding can be achieved from existing funds or loan funds.  In light of Council’s financial situation and demands on its limited funds, going forward neither option is recommended.

 

In this case, the inclusion of residential units is a means by which the majority of the project can be “self funded” and completed in a timely manner.  From the outset this approach was regarded as an essential part of the project when considered in the broader context the delivery of other identified projects.  Unless the majority of the project can be “self funded”, despite a critical need for additional child care, it is not likely that the Meeting House redevelopment would be listed as priority budget expenditure in the short to medium term.

 

Residential Units

Issues and/or objections to the inclusion of 6 residential units (other than a means of funding the community facility) based on too many units in Lane Cove North, loss of views beyond the existing single story houses, associated traffic impacts, loss of privacy, potential interference with the community facilities activities have all been considered.

 

The two houses are on land zoned residential and whilst historically the two separate buildings have housed Meeting House and the preschool, there is no reason why another location (if available) in Lane Cove North could not be equally suitable.  If Meeting House were relocated to an alternate site, residential units consistent with a residential 2c zoning would be the most likely development outcome for 25-27 Stokes Street.

 

What the Architects have achieved is a modest building with 3 x 2 bedroom units and 3 x 3 bedroom units as well as the child care and meeting room without compromising on the building bulk.  When viewed in comparison of the 7 x 3 bedroom units of the adjacent building on 29-31 Stokes Street, the building is lower in height by approx 2m and is not as close to the rear boundary.

 

Concerns that a unit owner could affect a closure of the child care or community facility are valid and were foreseen as a matter to be addressed in the strata management plan where Council will hold the majority voting rights. 

 

5 of the 6 units do not have a physical orientation to the child care part of the project.  Addressing view lines and potential acoustic issues from the child care area will be considered in the building design with particular focus on the 6th unit.  Building articulation will also be incorporated in the design.

 

Issues of bulk, scale, security, solar access and strata governance are covered by the brief and will be addressed in the more detail in the development application.  After considering the merits of issues raised, there is no technical reason why residential units should not form part of the project. 

 

Long Day Care / Preschool

There were some initial misconceptions and concerns in regard to potential changes to the Meeting House Preschool.  In discussion with the Preschool Director, these appear to have been addressed. 

 

A building design accommodating long day care, with sleeping rooms for the 0-2 year old group, meeting Government regulations can be used as a preschool - the converse is not so.  The inclusion of 0-2 year old facilities and expansion from 18 places to 40 places is supported and will go partway to fulfilling the child care needs within the Lane Cove North neighbourhood. 

 

Interim accommodation will need to meet DoC’s requirements.  Options being considered for interim accommodation include:

a)         Air conditioned demountable buildings (in preferential order) in a fenced area within Helen Street Reserve, in a fenced area within Goodlet Reserve closer to Helen Street, or on the tunnel construction site in Burley Street (owned by RTA);  

b)         Within other child care centres – if places are available; or

c)         In an alternate building if a suitable building is available for rent prior to construction.

 

Long day care will be phased in over a number of years, recognizing the existing commitments of the preschool at Meeting House with no disadvantage to existing parents.  A preschool may well continue as a core component of long day care.  Flexibility in the building design allows the centre to also operate as a preschool or as a combined preschool / long day care centre and meet changing demographics into the future.

 

At this stage it is likely that construction and the need for interim accommodation will occur for most of 2008.

 

29-31 Stokes Street

Concerns raised by unit owners in 29-31 Stokes Street include a number of matters normally addressed as part of the DA assessment.  Once detailed designs are near completed, further discussions with these unit owners will occur.   A request to incorporate advanced plantings as part of the landscape proposals has merit.

 

One owner requested Council redesign the building layout to locate residential on 23 Stokes Street within Goodlet Reserve and relocate the child care play area on the northern side.  Such an outcome would be inconsistent with our objectives of minimising the building footprint within Goodlet Reserve and would result in loss of sunny areas identified by the community as being important.

 

A request to further lower the carpark (and hence overall building height) will be looked at, notwithstanding that the carpark is already at or just below street level and provides disabled friendly access into Meeting House.

 

Accessible / Adaptable Housing

There has been limited discussion on whether the residential units should be adaptable or accessible housing.  To manage community concerns in regard to stranger danger, it was not proposed to combine lift access into the long day care / preschool area with lift access into the residential. Separate lift access would require a modified layout.  Although lift access into the residential is possible at additional cost, ongoing maintenance as a strata cost and the initial capital cost may detract some from the market.  The ground floor units will be accessible from Stokes Street.  

 

Adaptable housing with design features that are easily adapted at a later date provides the flexibility for people to easily modify their dwellings as their circumstances or physical abilities alter.  Examples include wall to wall tiling of kitchen floors, dividing walls between toilet and bathroom not being load bearing and tiled to a common floor waste and with typical disabled access circulation areas in the vicinity of doorways.

It should be noted that the lift serving the child care area is located with a standing area in the carpark (out of the driveway aisle) and opens within the child care area.  If list access to an adaptable unit was considered an essential part of the project, this lift could continue to the upper level to serve at least one of the upper level 3 bedroom units. 

Typically, the building cost for adaptable housing is 2-6% of the cost of construction.  Given that the 2 ground floor units may have disabled compliant access without lift access, consideration will be given in the building design for these 2 units or to extending the lift to serve at least one of the 3 bedroom units to include adaptable housing principles.  A disabled compliant car space would be allocated under the strata plan to the respective unit incorporating adaptable principles.  Strict security card regimes would need to limit access if the lift extends between residential and child care.

Conclusion

The design brief endorsed by Council was premised on residential units being part of the project with a view to break even funding.  While management issues need to be addressed the reasons for not including residential as part of the development have not been compelling.  If the residential component is not included, the redevelopment of Meeting House would not be put to Council to fund as a “stand alone” project at this time.

 

Option 3A is recommended by the Architects and this report therefore seeks Council’s endorsement of Option 3A inclusive of 6 residential units as its preferred option, allowing the Architects to proceed with next stage of the design and prepare a Development Application with associated reports. 

 

This endorsement is consistent with the Meeting House Probity Plan and does not fetter Council’s statutory planning and assessment functions.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council endorse Option 3A prepared by Architects Malone Campbell-Allen as its preferred design for the redevelopment of Meeting House at 23-27 Stokes Street, Lane Cove subject to:

a.     A minimum of 130 m2 of open space associated with the long day care / preschool being designed and constructed for public use outside of long day care / preschool hours;

b.    Any playground equipment affected by the development to be upgraded and/or relocated;

c.     Not more than 65 m2 of Goodlet Reserve being affected by the visible footprint of the long day care or meeting house meeting rooms;

d.    Advanced plants being incorporated in with the landscaping proposals to assist in enhancing the visual amenity when viewed from 29-31 Stokes Street;

e.     Inclusion of appropriate adaptable housing principles in at least one of the units;

f.     Interim accommodation proposals being clarified prior to or in conjunction with the lodgement of a development application;

 

2.   Council note that Architects Malone Campbell-Allen will prepare detailed designs and associated reports for lodgement of a development application;

 

3.   Council note that a working group with interested stakeholders will be formed and chaired by the Executive Manager Open Space and Urban Services to develop landscaping and playground equipment plans for Goodlet Reserve; and

 

4.   The President of Meeting House Inc and those on the Meeting House mailing list be advised of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Att-1 Malone Campbell-Allen's Architectural report

19 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Att-2 Precis of issues raised by Community

8 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Aerial View of Meeting House

1 Page

 

 

CNL190307GM_5.doc

*****   End of General Managers Report No. 5   *****

 


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 12

 

19 MARCH 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 19 March 2007

27/02/2007 to Ordinary Council

Corporate Services Division Report No. 12

Subject:           Results of Public Exhibition of Draft Policy on Community Consultation    

Record No:     SU80 - 4420/07

Author(s):       Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report outlines the results of the consultation undertaken in relation to Council’s Draft Consultation Policy and Framework. There were 8 submissions received, whilst generally supportive there were a number of issues raised, which are discussed in the report. They relate to “Limits to Influencing the Consultation Process”, responsiveness and feedback, key stakeholders, notice of public exhibition, provision of information, timing, councillor responsibilities, methods of consultation, and evaluation.  The key issues for Council to determine, prior to adopting the policy, are, does Council wish to:-

a.         Undertake further research in relation to best practice engagement methodologies;

b.         conduct a forum on Community Consultation; or

c.         make the method of consultation/project outlined in the Consultation Methods Guide obligatory.

Subject to determining the above, it is recommended that the Consultation Policy, Process and Consultation Methods Guide dated 9 March 2007, be adopted.

 

Background

 

Council in its meeting of 20 November, 2006 resolved: -

 

“1.       Council place the Draft Community Consultation Policy, Process and Consultation Matrix on public exhibition until 28 February, 2007, subject to the following changes:-

a.         the policy shall apply except where a consultation process is defined in legislation;

b.         The fourth point under “Provision of Information” in the Policy being amended to read “Council will ensure that relevant information is available to the public at least 2 weeks prior to a consultation event”;

c.          The first point under “Timing” in the Policy being amended to read “Having regard to the project scale, purpose and timeframes, Council undertakes to call for community consultation at the earliest appropriate stage in the life of the project”.

2.         a.         Council advertise all notices of public exhibition by placing the notices in the local press, sending emails to community groups and inclusion on Council’s website;

b.         Council include in all notices of public exhibition, a statement of the proposed future notification procedures and seeking community comment on same.

 

3.         Following the period of exhibition a report be presented to Council”

 

As per the Consultation Strategy outlined in the report, an advertisement was placed in the Northside Courier, the information was placed on Council’s website and at Council libraries and at Council’s Customer Service Centre and emails were sent to all groups/persons registered to be consulted on Council matters.

 

Discussion

 

The Community Consultation Policy, Process and Consultation Methods Guide are included as Attachment 1. They incorporate minor wording changes and corrections (highlighted in bold).

 

In response to requests for submissions, Council received eight formal submissions which will be discussed below and received verbal feedback from various groups indicating support for the Draft Policy.  Copies of the submissions have been circulated separately to all Councillors.  It is now proposed to address, in no particular order, each of the points raised in the submissions:-

 

1.    “Limits to Influencing the Consultation Process” - There are two statements about the communities ability to influence which raised concern, they were; “there are limits to what can and cannot be influenced by the community” and “Council clearly defined the extent of the communities influence at the beginning of a consultation process so that expectations are not unfairly raised”.  The issue raised is under what circumstance would the communities influence be limited and to what extent?

 

Response

 

The proposed wording is designed to provide reassurance to the community that its opinions would not be sought on matters which it cannot influence.  For example, if Council has a legislative requirement to do something, in undertaking the consultation Council may be able to choose between options, but not have the option do nothing at all.  An example of this is the recent report relating to Ward Boundaries, where Council is obliged to review Ward boundaries, and is consulting on a nature of the proposed boundaries rather than whether or not to actually carry out a boundary redistribution.

 

Ordinarily, proposals by Council will be able to be influenced by the community and this clause will ensure Council has regard to any limits in designing the consultation process.

 

2.    Responsiveness and Feedback - Council is requested to consider that when providing feedback (preferably within one month), to provide a summary of views expressed during the consultation process, together with the reasons for accepting or rejecting the various views and suggestions, and finally Council’s rationale for its final decision.

 

Response

 

Dependant on the scale of submissions, it has always been Council’s practice to include in any report on the results of consultation, details of the issues raised and response thereto.  Where there has not been adequate opportunity to deal with each submission individually, they have been grouped together in terms of like issues and addressed in the report on the matter.  It is proposed that this would continue.

 

The results of community consultation are reported back to Council together with consideration of the issues raised, and a recommendation is made. The report provides the rationale for the recommendation to ensure transparent decision making and good governance.  This can be used as the basis for proving feedback to the community via the community newsletter in addition to the website, new e-newsletter email system and/or by letter (where there are a smaller number of submissions).  More focus will be placed on communicating the outcomes of the process, post the consultation and this can be achieved within one month for the website, new e-newsletter email system and/or by letter.

 

3.    Key Stakeholders - Who decides and on what basis are the key stakeholders identified? What consultation processes defined in legislation does “The policy shall apply except where a consultation process is defined in legislation”, apply to?

 

Response

 

Clearly many matters that Council deals with could ultimately impact on not only the local community, but even the broader Sydney community.  In determining who the key stakeholders are, Council staff and Councillors (when considering a report to commence consultation), have regard to the people who will be most affected, and/ or where persons can make a contribution. A balance must be obtained between cost/efficiency/effectiveness, when selecting the consultation tools to be utilised to consult the key stakeholders. The general public notice advertisement, Council and Library Exhibition, website notice and email groups are designed to inform the other stakeholders.

 

The qualification that the consultation process doesn’t apply where it is defined in legislation, is a requirement as Council’s policy can not override legislation. For example the notification of a Development Applications to surrounding neighbours is prescribed.  

 

4.    Notice of Public Exhibition - Newspaper advertisements should be in an appropriate publication and be appropriate size and location which “is quite likely to be larger than as required by legislation”, and the option of letterbox dropping an direct notification by letter of those affected should be considered.  It also suggested that all residents should be asked whether they wish to be notified via email. 

 

Response

 

In relation to the actual type of advertisement being placed, Council staff have reviewed the style of advertisements with a view to making them more ‘noticeable’ in the local paper, and this includes the use of larger font, Plain English content and headings, and the use of a colour format to attract attention.  Advertisements will, where possible, be placed in the body of the paper, rather than in the classifieds area.

 

The issue of which of the local newspapers to use has previously been considered by staff. Council currently uses all three publications and makes available all three in the Civic Centre foyer. The TVO is used to provide non statutory community information, is most cost effective and has wide circulation in the area. It has for many years also included a Mayoral column free of charge to Council. The Northside Courier is the next cheapest, and its audited circulation figures for Lane Cove and its suburbs show comparable circulation figures to the North Shore Times. Its circulation area covers the whole Lane Cove Local Government area. Council currently places the majority of statutory advertisements in the Northside Courier. The North Shore Times also cover the Lane Cove Local Government area and Council places some statutory advertisements in it.

 

The suggestion about Letterbox drops and direct correspondence is noted. These remain an option for Council where localised issues are to be addressed, as a tool for informing people of what is going on, not engagement per se. The writer of the submission was seeking Council to use direct notification more extensively, as they perceive the community to be a different group to “owners and residents”. As mentioned previously under Key Stakeholders, ultimately every person can be a stakeholder, on the basis of cost/efficiency/effectiveness, additional consultation tools are designed for application to key stakeholders.  

 

In relation to notifying all persons of the opportunity to receive information by email, Council included an article in the last Community Newsletter, and it is proposed to send out a flyer with the next full rates instalment in July 2007, advertising the availability of this service.  This is the next time a Rates Notice will be issued to all property owners.

 

5.    Provision of Information - Council should look to use visual aids as part of the consultation process in particular virtual or spatial 3D information on major proposals. Executive Summaries should be included in larger documents and information must be “accurate, unbiased and complete”. It is also suggested the community be given any written information 4-8 weeks prior to a consultation event.

 

Response

 

Councillors would be aware that Council has purchased the Simmersion 3D model software which has been used in relation to the assessment of the Duntroon Ave proposal, development of the St Leonards Strategy and will be utilised on Council projects going forward.  As major developments occur, Council approaches the developer with a view to including their scheme into the 3D model, to assist the community to better understand what is proposed.

 

The vast majority of large Council documents include an Executive Summary, the concept was also introduced to Council Reports some twelve months ago. The issue will be monitored to ensure they are included where appropriate.

 

The provision of plain English, accurate and unbiased information is part of the policy and it will be adhered to. It is proposed to also include the word “complete” as suggested.

 

The suggestion that material be made available 4-8 weeks prior to a consultation event would make the process extremely slow. Currently, consultation processes have a submissions period of between, 4 and 6 weeks, longer over Christmas. If Council was to conduct a meeting in the middle of this and be required to give the information out 4 weeks prior, it would slow the process dramatically. Two weeks is considered reasonable and a longer period is not supported.

 

6.    Timing – The ‘earliest appropriate stage’ be when this is first proposed by or to Council (idea stage) rather than when a full or partially worked out proposal is done.

 

Response

 

 Council in recent times has received some criticism for the partial development of proposals prior to consulting with the community. The Lane Cove West Bowling Club renewal project is highlighted in the submissions as an example. However, it is not feasible for Council to consult with the community when it has merely an idea.  As a community leader, it is necessary sometimes for Council to undertake some work on a proposal, prior to presenting it as having any merit or benefit to the community.  Balancing how much work is undertaken against the speed at which the community is advised will always be difficult, however, it is important to note that the consultation framework recognises that timing is an issue, that early is better, and that Council will have regard to it for any new projects.

 

There is also often some confusion about process associated with Council’s statutory processes. A rezoning for example has a mandatory consultation process. Council makes a decision to proceed to undertake the consultation process. The community often only becomes aware of a proposed rezoning at this consultation stage, however, this is legitimate. Council then considers after the consultation, whether or not it should proceed. This is the exact same process Council follows for its draft policy documents and the like. It is apparent that in the Council reports and the draft material provided at the consultation stage, that this process must be made clearer. 

 

7.    Councillor Responsibilities – It is suggested that Councillors should listen to the results of consultation and that while the recommendations or outcomes of consultation are not binding on Councillors, it is suggested that Councillors that go against the recommendations of consultation, be required to formally state their reasons to improve their accountability.

 

Response

 

The results of community consultation are normally reported back to Council together with consideration of the issues raised.  Council officers include a recommendation which Councillors are free to adopt or alter in any way they see fit.  Councillors when altering recommendations would normally in the course of debate give reasons as to their disagreement or otherwise with the recommendation which is in a public forum.  This can be deemed as having met what the writer has requested.  It is up to individual Councillors to decide whether they wish to incorporate into the resolution the reason for the change of any recommendation. This can be achieved by adding a preamble to the decision, “having regard to …… Council….”. This would then be similar to the inclusion of reasons with each condition of development consent, as is the current practice.

 

8.   Methods of Consultation

 

It is suggested that Councils proposed policy and framework is a minimalist approach aimed at informing and consultation rather than engagement and that Council should look to best practice in relation to engagement methodologies. It is also suggested that Council make the method of consultation/project outlined in the Methods Guide in Appendix 1 less ambiguous by making them obligatory, for example:

·    Always appropriate – this consultation method is mandatory for the project,

·    Usually appropriate – this consultation is recommended for the project,

·    Occasionally appropriate – this consultation method is optional and may be included in the project at the project owner’s discretion.

Finally, it suggested that Council might also like to have a forum to discuss Consultation.

 

 

 

 

Response

 

Council as an organisation has over the years undertaken consultation at various levels.  Whilst major plans such as the Sustainability Plan, Cultural Action Plan, Social Plan have used the collaboration approach, Council has not necessarily undertaken such consultation in relation to development of its individual plans with less direct impact, for example its Privacy Management Plan. Notwithstanding this, Council has tried to establish reference groups in relation to key issues such as Bushland, Sustainability, Culture, Social, etc which have provided a collaborative approach on the specific issue.

 

Ultimately it is up to the Council to determine on a case by case basis how much consultation it believes is necessary to undertake.  The consultation framework is designed to provide guidance and while it has been suggested that the scales in the methods guides be made mandatory to provide more certainty to the community, the current methods guide does not have any regard to the scale of impact of an issue and other relevant factors. The Consultation process states that in selecting the method Council will have regard to the following issues:-

·    Level of Impact

·    Level of community participation required.

·    The timeframe available for the consultation

·    Any legal requirement to consult with the community?

·    The size and characteristics of the target groups

·    The benefits, constraints and costs of consulting

·    Potential benefits and risks of the various consultation methods proposed

 

If Council wants to proceed down the path of making the consultations methods obligatory, prior to doing this, it would be appropriate for a further report to be submitted which would have regard to the need for a more complex guide, which incorporates the above issues. 

 

In relation to having a forum, the option is available, however the policy and process is based on the Victorian Local Government Association (VLGA) website, Local Government Consultation and Engagement.  The theory therefore has sound basis, it is the application of it to individual proposals, that will ultimately determine it effectiveness.

 

9.   Evaluation - Council should monitor the effectiveness of the policy and whether Council is considering and actioning community input.

 

Response

 

The Evaluation section of the policy proposes to monitor the effectiveness of the policy and Council’s ‘compliance’ with it. For the policy to be effective, it will need to be evident that Council is “is considering and actioning community input“. It is worth stating, that as Council is for the first time providing more structure to its consultation process, there will be a learning curve for staff and therefore issues may arise in its implementation. To minimise this, as mentioned in the previous report, Council’s Manager Communications will assist staff in using these tools to ensure that there is consistency in the methods of consultation utilised and standards in terms of readability of the content and presentation of the information.

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

The adoption of the Draft Policy by Council is recognised as a positive step to formalising the structure and improving the quality of community consultation and engagement going forward.  As has been discussed previously, the success of the framework will be dependant on how it is implemented and there is a great deal of learning by Council staff to be undertaken to achieve this.  It is recommended that Council adopt the Community Consultation Policy, Process and Consultation Methods Guide, dated 9 March, 2007, included as Attachment 1, as amended.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.         The report be received and noted,

 

2.         Council determine, prior to adopting the policy, if it wishes to:-

a.        Undertake further research in relation to best practice engagement methodologies;

b.        conduct a forum on Community Consultation; or

c.        make the method of consultation/project outlined in the Consultation Methods Guide obligatory.

 

2.         Subject to Part 2, Council adopt the Consultation Policy, Process and Consultation Methods Guide dated 9 March 2007.

 

3.         Council write to the groups and persons which made submissions, advising of Council’s decision and including a copy of this report.

 

4.         An update on the adoption of the policy be included on Council’s website and next Community Newsletter.

 

5.         A flyer be sent out with the next full rates instalment in July 2007, advertising the availability of the e-newsletter email service.

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Post Consultation - Policy on Community Consultation

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Post Consultation - Community Consultation Process and Methods Guide

4 Pages

 

 

CNL190307CSD_12.doc

*****   End of Corporate Services Division Report No. 12   *****

 


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

OPEN SPACE AND URBAN SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 7

 

19 MARCH 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 19 March 2007

15/02/2007 to Ordinary Council

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 7

Subject:           Lane Cove Tunnel Status Report    

Record No:     SU1477 - 3550/07

Author(s):       Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The works associated with the Lane Cove Tunnel project are now drawing to a close, with an official opening date of Sunday, 25 March 2007 now provided by Connector Motorways.

 

Not surprisingly, this is the day after the State Government elections.

 

The fact that the Iemma State Government has forced the opening date beyond the State elections confirms Council’s concerns that there will be traffic congestion occurring on the local street network as a result of toll avoiders and additional traffic drawn into the Tunnel/Epping Road corridor. Suffice to say that Council has already raised a number of concerns about impacts on the local community after the Tunnel opens, including motorist confusion resulting from the Tunnel changes, reduced vehicular access for a large number of residents and businesses, and the resultant air pollution of 100,000+ vehicles per day using the Tunnel blowing out of the “unfiltered” stacks. Council has been lobbying government and Connector Motorways continually over the past 2-3 years on these issues, predominantly to no avail.

 

Not withstanding this, the RTA and Connector Motorways are keen to expedite the construction of the Epping (Longueville) Road Bus Interchange and Pedestrian Overbridge. With respect to the ongoing operation and maintenance of this facility, it has been proposed that:

 

(i)         The RTA will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the pedestrian overbridge, stair and lifts; and the maintenance of the road pavement between kerbs within the interchange.

(ii)        Council will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the areas behind the kerbs.

 

This is discussed in more detail in the body of the report.

 

 

Discussion

 

Since the previous Status Report, negotiations have been ongoing with the RTA, Theiss John Holland and the Ministry of Transport on developments with the proposed Bus Interchange & Pedestrian Overbridge on Longueville Road, just east of Parklands Avenue. Correspondence from the RTA’s John Anderson is included as Attachment 1 outlining proposed responsibilities for operation and maintenance of the facility, and including a plan that identifies the areas of responsibility for both Council and the RTA. These responsibilities are similar as those for Epping Road, where Council maintains the areas behind the kerbs and the RTA manages the areas between, and inclusive of, the kerbs.

 

Mr Anderson’s letter details that the acquired properties 49-55 Longueville Road will be dedicated as public road. Council will become responsible for the operation and maintenance of the areas behind the kerbs to the project boundaries, excluding the pedestrian overbridge and its’ associated infrastructure (Stairs, lifts, etc). That is, Council will become responsible for the tiered landscape areas, proposed bus stop areas, and bicycle locker area. Negotiations between Council and Adshel have commenced with respect to the proposed bus shelters; and Council and Ministry of Transport with respect to the proposed cycle lockers.

 

Page 2 of Attachment 1 details the plan view geometry of the bus interchange and pedestrian overbridge. This plan shows the proposed location of the pedestrian overbridge, stairs and lifts, the proposed locations for the bus shelters and bicycle lockers, and the kerb and boundary alignments.

 

Discussions have also continued with Theiss John Holland (TJH) on the details of the Epping Road – Stage 2 works. However, there is no indication of the staging of these works from TJH after the opening of the Tunnel, other than meeting the Government’s requirement that the works must be completed within 11 months after the opening, subject to the traffic monitoring results. Council will be kept informed on any progress in relation to the Epping Road works and also the Local Area Improvement Program (LAIP), with respect to traffic calming measures required in Mowbray Road West and other local streets.

 

In this respect, Council may recall that at the Ordinary Council meeting of 18 September 2006, it was resolved that Council monitor the current volumes and speeds of the area bounded by Longueville Road, Dorritt Street, Phoenix Street, First Avenue, Osborne Road and the Pacific Highway. The monitoring of traffic in this area has commenced and will continue following the opening of the Tunnel. Council will report back to Council after April on the results of this monitoring and proposed course of actions dependent on the results.

 

 

Conclusion

 

The opening of the Lane Cove Tunnel on Sunday, 25 March 2007 will result in changes to the existing traffic patterns.

 

What these will be are subject to numerous connotations.

 

Due to widely varying predicted traffic volumes provided by the RTA and Connector Motorways, it is unclear exactly how significant the traffic impacts will be on local streets once the Tunnel opens. In addition to the ‘condition of consent’ monitoring that Connector Motorways must undertake, Council will also continue to monitor traffic volumes and speeds on local streets in the Lane Cove North, Lane Cove East (Osborne Park) and Lane Cove West areas.

 

With respect to the Epping (Longueville) Road Bus Interchange and Pedestrian Overbridge, it is considered appropriate that Council advise the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW that it will maintain the areas behind the kerbs. However, this would be subject to Council obtaining similar funding arrangements for these areas, to those that exist with the other State/Regional Road areas that Council maintains on the RTA’s behalf.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.         Receive and note the Lane Cove Tunnel Status Report.

 

2.         Advise the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW that it will accept responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the areas behind the kerbs of the proposed Bus Interchange, as shown on the attached drawing RG10/0020, dated 140706.

 

3.         Advise the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW that acceptance of these areas is subject to the Council obtaining similar funding arrangements for these areas that exist with other State/Regional Road areas that Council maintains on the RTA’s behalf.

 

 

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

RTA correspondence

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Copy of Bus Interchange Plan

1 Page

 

 

CNL190307US_7.doc

*****   End of Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 7   *****

 


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

OPEN SPACE AND URBAN SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 9

 

19 MARCH 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 19 March 2007

12/03/2007 to Ordinary Council

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 9

Subject:           Lithgow Street, St Leonards - Petition    

Record No:     SU1666 - 5454/07

Author(s):       Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has received a petition from residents within the North Sydney LGA regarding parking issues in Lithgow Street.

 

The residents, who reside in Lithgow Street, between Oxley Street and River Road, are impacted on by the strong demand for parking in this area, and the fact that many of them do not have off-street parking facilities.

 

The residents’ petition is included as Attachment 1, for the information of Councillors.

 

Open Space & Urban Services will liaise with North Sydney Council and the residents to address the issues in their petition.

 

 

Background

 

Lithgow Street, between Oxley Street and River Road, forms the boundary between Lane Cove and North Sydney Councils. Lane Cove manages the western side of the road carriageway, whilst North Sydney manages the eastern side of the road.

 

The western side adjoins the Northern Sydney rail corridor and consists entirely of metered parking, whilst the eastern side consists of residential properties.

 

Following North Sydney’s construction of a park reserve on the State Rail land on the western side of Lithgow Street and provision of kerb and gutter along the street frontage, Lane Cove extended the on-street meter parking area through to the southern end of the street. This resulted in approximately an additional 10-12 on-street car spaces being metered. The metered area on Lithgow Street was extended to assist Council in managing the long term parking demand created by the St Leonards Railway Station and businesses such as Fitness First and The Nature Care College on the on-street parking supply.

 

As a result of the metered scheme’s extension, the residents of Lithgow Street have petitioned Council to provide them with parking permits to park in the metered areas. This is mainly due to long term vehicle parking associated with the railway station and St Leonards Commercial Area now causing additional pressure on the resident parking scheme along the eastern side of Lithgow Street.

 

 

Conclusion

 

On-street parking demand in Lithgow Street is high, as detailed above. Although Council does not issue parking permits to residents for any of its’ metered parking within the municipality, the impacts on these North Sydney residents has been noted. As such, Council will work with North Sydney Council and the residents to address the issues in the petition.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.         Receive and note the petition from the residents of Lithgow Street, between Oxley Street and River Road.

 

2.         Liaise with North Sydney Council and the residents to address the issues in the petition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Petition from 24 residents of Lithgow Street

2 Pages

 

 

CNL190307US_9.doc

*****   End of Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 9   *****

 


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

OPEN SPACE AND URBAN SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 8

 

19 MARCH 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 19 March 2007

12/03/2007 to Ordinary Council

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 8

Subject:           Proposed Sale of Part of Unmade Section of Dunois Street, Longueville.   

Record No:     SU2346 - 5433/07

Author(s):       Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council may recall that an approach has been made by the land owners of 30 & 32 Lucretia Avenue to acquire the unmade section of Dunois Street, Longueville, adjacent to 30 & 32 Lucretia Avenue.

 

This matter was deferred at the Ordinary Council meeting of 19 February 2007, to allow Council to undertake a site inspection of the subject land.

 

Following the site inspection by the Councillors on Saturday, 24 February 2007, the position was formed whereby Council should retain the subject unmade section of Dunois Street and staff investigate the possibility of widening the roadway adjacent to 30 & 32 Lucretia Avenue to accommodate additional on-street parking and the provision of a formalised cul-de-sac at the eastern end of Dunois Street.

 

Investigations will be undertaken by staff in the near future and Council will then be advised further on this matter.

 

The land owners of 30 & 32 Lucretia Avenue requesting purchase of the subject unmade land will be notified of Council’s decision.

 

 

Discussion

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting of 19 February 2007, concerns were expressed by Councillors that any sale of the unmade section of road adjacent to 30 & 32 Lucretia Avenue, and subsequent development that could occur, would impact on the visual amenity of that part of Longueville in the vicinity of Lucretia Baths. Further, it was considered that inappropriate development may have other detrimental effects on the area.

 

A site inspection of the subject area was undertaken by Councillors on Saturday, 24 February 2007. It was considered at the site inspection that the construction of any structure on this unmade land would impact on the visual amenity of the foreshore from Woodford Bay. Further, those present at the site inspection concurred that a pressing concern in the local area of Lucretia Baths was the lack of on-street parking for visitors wishing to utilise this facility and boating access to Woodford Bay. Consequently, it was proposed that staff investigate the possibility of widening the roadway in Lucretia Avenue, outside 30-32 Dunois Street, and to also provide a formalised cul-de-sac at the eastern end of the existing road carriageway.

 

Council’s Open Space & Urban Services will undertake preliminary investigations of these suggestions and will provide further advice to Council upon concluding the investigations.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.         Write to the land owners of 30 & 32 Lucretia Avenue advising of its’ decision not to proceed with the land sale.

 

2.         Investigate the possible widening of Dunois Street, adjacent to 30 & 32 Lucretia Avenue, and the provision of a formalised cul-de-sac at the eastern end of Dunois Street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

CNL190307US_8.doc

*****   End of Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 8   *****

 


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 4

 

19 MARCH 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 19 March 2007

8/03/2007 to Ordinary Council

Environmental Services Division Report No. 4

Subject:           Cities for Climate Protection - Milestone 2    

Record No:     SU1976 - 5158/07

Author(s):       Nathan John; Steve Fedorow 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Purpose of Report

 

As part of Council’s commitment to the Cities for Climate Protection project, Council must now nominate its greenhouse reduction goals.

 

This report provides a background and context for council to nominate greenhouse reduction targets for its corporate and community emissions.

 

Background

 

Council is a member of the Cities for Climate Protection Australia Program, an international campaign to assist local governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In Australia, the program is delivered by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives - Australia/New Zealand (ICLEI-A/NZ), in collaboration with the Australian Greenhouse Office, an agency of the Australian Government.

 

In July 2005, Council resolved to participate in the Cities for Climate Protection Australia Program and work towards achieving the following five milestones:

 

1.   Conduct an inventory and forecast for Community and Corporate (council) greenhouse gas emissions.

2.   Establish an emissions reduction goal.

3.   Develop and adopt a greenhouse gas action plan.

4.   Implement the greenhouse gas action plan.

5.   Monitor and report on achievements.

 

Council has completed milestone 1 and now must set corporate and community emission reduction goals as part of milestone 2 actions.  The ability of Council to achieve its nominated reduction goals will be influenced by the success or otherwise of the proposed sustainability levy also under consideration in this Council agenda.

 

Setting our Environmental Footprint

 

Milestone 1: Conduct a Greenhouse Emissions Analysis

Council has completed Milestone 1 which is the starting point in the CCP Program using 2000/01 as the baseline year to create an inventory and forecast of greenhouse emissions from both “Corporate” (Council) and “Community activities”. 

 

The 2000/01 financial year was chosen as Council’s baseline year, with emissions being projected for 2009/10 on a business as usual basis.  Table 1 below outlines Lane Cove’s total & projected greenhouse gas emissions for these periods.  AT1 provides an in-depth analysis of greenhouse gas emissions by sector.

 

Table 1: Lane Cove Council - Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Sector

2000/01

2009/10

Corporate Emissions (C02e*)

4057

4339

Community Emissions (CO2e*)

446783

521377

 

Note:

 

CO2e:                                                      Carbon dioxide equivalent. This is a unit used to measure the proportional impacts of more than one greenhouse gas. For example, methane is 21 times more potent that carbon dioxide in terms of greenhouse warming potential so 1 unit of methane is equivalent to 21 units of CO2e.

 

Community emissions:                        Derived from energy consumption (including electricity, gas, and other fuels) for the residential, commercial and industrial sectors; fuel consumption (including petrol, diesel, LPG and CNG) for the transport sector; and tonnes of waste to landfill (organic waste breaks down to produce methane).

 

Corporate emissions:                           Derived from energy consumption (mostly electricity and some gas) for buildings, electricity used for street lighting and water pumping, fuel consumption for vehicles and waste to landfill.

 

 

Please refer to attachment 1 for in depth analysis of greenhouse gas emissions by sector.

 

Discussion

 

As highlighted earlier, the CCP program is comprised of a series of 5 milestones.  Council has completed the first milestone (creating a greenhouse gas inventory and forecast) and now must turn its attention to setting greenhouse gas reduction goals.

 

A reduction goal is a Council endorsed, public statement of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to be achieved. They are typically expressed as a percentage of greenhouse gas emissions from a date chosen as the benchmark (referred to as the ‘base year’).  For example, a reduction goal may be: “Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 20% below 1994 levels by 2010” or “Stabilise greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by 2008 and then reduce by 20% by 2018”.

 

Reduction goals typically include two focus areas for reductions:

1. Emissions associated with corporate (in-house) activities.

2. Emissions associated with community (external) activities.

 

These two focus areas need not necessarily share the same percentage reduction target.

 

Types of reduction goals

There are four identified strategies for setting a reduction goal.

 

1.   Stretch: A goal that inspires an organisation to extend itself, with faith in innovative approaches and technologies and they would provide a stretch goal for their municipality to strive towards e.g. zero emissions by 2050.

 

2.   Political: A goal where the primary objective is to take a political stand on an issue e.g. (a) endorsing a 20% reduction goal to complement neighbouring councils goals, or (b) endorsing a 45% reduction goal to demonstrate council leadership.

 

3.   Pragmatic: A goal that has been fully quantified by the quantification of a set of actions to be taken and council is confident that the goal can be reached.

 

4.   Bridge: A combination of a political and pragmatic goal.

 

Council will need to consider what stance it wishes to take when setting a greenhouse gas reduction goal.

 

An increasing number of Australian councils are endorsing 20% reduction goals, indicating the favouring of setting a political goal. 

 

Of the 171 CCP participant councils that had set community reduction goals by March 2005, 154 had chosen a goal of 20% reduction or greater in emissions by 2010, from base years ranging from 1994 and 2003.

 

To assist Council in setting an emission reduction goal, the Sustainability Advisory Committee was asked to review the Milestone 1 baseline inventory and forecast and make a recommendation for emissions reduction targets.

 

Following consideration, the Sustainability Advisory Committee has recommended that Council endorse the following emission reduction goals:

 

Corporate -     Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below 2000/01 levels by 2017; and

Community -   Reduce Greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below 2001/01 levels by 2017.

 

Local and international experience demonstrates that greenhouse gas emission goals are achievable. For example, Toronto endorsed the goal in 1990, aiming to reduce e-CO2 emissions by 20% from 1988 levels by 2005.  A report recently commissioned by the municipality indicates that the City has cut its emissions by 67% from 1990 levels – exceeding it goal by more than three times.  All told, the city has cut annual emissions from the equivalent of 2.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, to only 765,000 tonnes in 1998. 

 

The City of Saarbrucken, Germany, resolved to reduce emissions by 25% on 1990 levels by 2010. The city had made a 22% reduction in CO2 emissions between 1990 and 1997.

 

It is, however, important to note that the CCP goal is a flexible goal to aim for rather than a mandatory target to hit or miss - and can be adjusted by the municipality as the local greenhouse gas action plan progresses. The goal can also be adjusted as part of CCP Plus once Council has completed all five milestones.

 

Financial Implications

 

In joining the Cities for Climate Protection program, Council has indicated its commitment to addressing greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

 

Following the endorsement of greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, Council would need to develop and adopt a greenhouse gas action plan (Milestone 3).  Such a plan would set out the concrete actions that Council would take to meet its reduction targets.

 

Presently these actions and their financial implications are not able to be fully quantified.  It is important to note, however, that new energy efficient technologies can be capital intensive and that there would be a significant financial cost to Council implementing its greenhouse gas action plan.  It would be unlikely Council could achieve a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions without the allocation of additional funds.

 

Council is currently considering a Sustainability Levy that, if supported by the community and Minister for Local Government, would provide a specific revenue stream to assist in funding actions contained within the Sustainability Action Plan and supporting greenhouse gas action plan.

 

Conclusion

 

Council has indicated its commitment to addressing greenhouse gas emissions and climate change through its Sustainability Action Plan and ongoing participation in the Cities for Climate Protection Program.  Council has also completed a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and forecast to achieve Milestone 1 in the Cities for Climate Protection Program.

 

Having regard to the impacts of climate change, Council’s commitment to sustainability and ongoing participation in the Cities for Climate Protection Program, this report seeks Council to nominate and endorse greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for corporate and community emissions.

 

Executive Manager’s Comments

 

Council and the Lane Cove Community have, by adopting a sustainability action plan (2005), shown an awareness and concern for the need to become more sustainable in the actions.  The actions and commitments Council takes on behalf of the community would have financial implications and, as such, must be measured against the benefits to be gained.

 

I would recommend Council not even consider a “stretch” goal nomination unless it is able to allocate additional resources to achieving desired outcomes.  Council would need to review its current allocation of funds or seek additional resources to have a reasonable prospect of significantly reducing the corporate and community greenhouse emission levels from the 2000/01 benchmark.

 

Notwithstanding the above Council has shown leadership and commitment by completing Milestone 1 and now must nominate a greenhouse gas reduction target for Milestone 2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.         Receive and note the report;

 

2.         Adopt a greenhouse gas reduction target of 50% below 2000/01 baseline levels for both corporate and community sectors;

 

3.         Staff investigate/research and develop a greenhouse gas action plan designed to achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction target.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Cities for Climate Protection Milestone 1 Report

41 Pages

 

 

CNL190307ES_4.doc

*****   End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 4   *****

 


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 5

 

19 MARCH 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 19 March 2007

9/03/2007 to Ordinary Council

Environmental Services Division Report No. 5

Subject:           Proposed Application for a Sustainability Levy    

Record No:     SU2817 - 5284/07

Author(s):       Steve Fedorow; Craig Wrightson; Michael Mason 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

In 2006 Council considered options for implementing a Sustainability Levy and resolved to prepare a draft application to implement a Sustainability Levy on all rateable properties.

 

Council staff have finalised a draft sustainability levy applicable to all rateable properties for consideration by Council and in turn the Minister for Local Government.

 

Having regard to Lane Cove’s commitment to sustainability, demonstrated by its adoption of a 10 year strategic Sustainability Action Plan and the limited opportunities available to Council to fund such actions, it is recommended that Council apply to the Minister for Local Government under s508(2) to the Local Government Act 1993 to implement a 6% special variation on all rateable properties.

 

Background

 

In August 2006, Council considered a report (ESD Report No. 154, 7 August 2006) that discussed the options available to Council for implementing a Sustainability Levy.  At that meeting, Council resolved to “commence work on preparing a consultation strategy (to include a Councillor’s workshop) and a draft application for the imposition of a sustainability levy to the Minister for Local Government under section 508(2) of the Local Government Act 1993, to implement a special variation on all rateable properties for a period of 7 years for further consideration by Council.”

 

Discussion

 

Council staff prepared a draft application to implement a special variation under section 508(2) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

As previously discussed (Report No. 154, 7 August 2006), applications to the Minister for Local Government for a special variation to general income can be made in response to a wide range of issues that a council is seeking to address in specific environmental, economic and infrastructure areas that would not ordinarily be able to be funded through Council’s normal budget cycle.

 

Applications to the Minister for Local Government are required to detail information in the following broad areas:

-     Why the variation is necessary (i.e. how the additional income from the variation would be applied);

-     What benefits Council expects to flow from a variation proposal;

-     Detailed financial information including the impact upon ratepayers; &

-     The results of any publicity and community consultation regarding a rate variation proposal.

 

As Councillors would be aware, following over 16 months of community consultation and development, in December 2005 Council adopted the Sustainability Action Plan.  This plan sets out a 10 year framework with key goals and actions for Council & the community to move toward Sustainability.

 

In preparing the draft application for special variation, Council staff and the Sustainability Advisory Committee (SAC) have reviewed the Sustainability Action Plan and prioritised a range of projects to enable Council meet stated goals.  Projects have been identified that meet these goals and they vary across a wide range of functional areas including Environment; Climate Change; Water; Social/Cultural; Economic; Community Education and Communication.

 

Examples of projects that have been nominated to be funded through any proposed sustainability levy would include:

 

Natural Environment/Open Space

-     Rehabilitate erosion damaged creeks;(e.g. Greendale Reserve, Lovetts Reserve, Stringybark Creek etc)

-     Protect creek riparian areas;

-     Protect Bushland Park;

-     Increase the level and shorten timeframes for bush regeneration work;

-     Expand community nursery & eco-garden;

-     Promote bushwalks in Lane Cove;

-     Control noxious weeds;

-     Rehabilitate wetland areas;

-     Increase information on and protect fungi in Bushland Park;

-     Increase information on and protect threatened species;

-     Increased weed reduction and removal activities;

-     Increased macro-invertebrate monitoring;

-     Promote backyard wildlife program;

-     Increased feral animal control programs.

 

Climate Change

-     Use renewable fuels such as Ethanol & Biodiesel for Council’s fleet;

-     Offset 100% of carbon dioxide emissions from Council’s fleet;

-     Reduce energy consumption in Council facilities;

-     Use accredited GreenPower for Council facilities;

-     Increase use of solar power in Council facilities;

-     Install energy efficient lighting in Council Parks;

-     Increase thermal and energy efficiency in Council facilities;

-     Improve local public transport, eg expand the route of the Lane Cove Community Bus;

-     Implement energy efficient air conditioning at Council facilities;

-     Implement energy efficient hot water systems at Council facilities;

-     Implement energy efficient lighting systems (e.g. LED ) at Council facilities;

-     Reduce energy consumption  to heat the pool water at the Aquatic Centre;

-     Reduce lighting requirements in Council facilities by installing sky lights and skytubes;

 

Water

-     Harvest rainwater at all Council facilities;

-     Harvest rainwater for watering of Park Sporting Fields;

-     Stormwater Harvesting and reuse for parks and ovals;

-     Water Sensitive Urban Design in Council infrastructure works;

-     Reduce water consumption at the Aquatic Centre/Pottery Green Re eg recycle backwash water;

-     Implement a Bulk Water Tank/Rebate Scheme for residents.

 

Social/Cultural

-     New Public Art/Environmental Installations;

-     Provide locally created craft for installation at Council parks;

-     Conservation and Protection of Aboriginal and Heritage sites.

 

Economic Revitalisation

-     Revitalise local commercial areas;

-     Improve business sustainability;

-     Increase local shopping to reduce vehicle trips (Village Gateways);

-     Establish a graffiti reduction program;

-     Promote economic vitality; growers markets.

 

Community Education

-     Run Community Sustainability Workshop Series’ (e.g. “ Footprints”, “ Sustainability Street”, “GreenHome”);

-     Undertake residential energy and water efficiency programs (energy efficient light globes, water efficient shower heads etc);

-     Sponsor sustainable lifestyle choices.

 

Sustainability Levy Programs

 

The Sustainability Action Plan and each of the projects funded by a proposed special variation would be reviewed on an annual basis and reported on through a variety of mechanisms such as:

1.   Council’s Annual Report - the report would contain a specific section devoted to the Sustainability Levy;

2.   Management Plan;

3.   Reports to Council;

4.   Sustainability Levy Communiqués;

5.   Community Newsletters;

6.   Council’s Website; &

7.   Project Specific Educational Material.

 

Additionally, priorities for upcoming years would be identified with funding allocated for individual projects.  The Sustainability Action Committee (SAC) would continue to play a role in reviewing Council’s progress through the Sustainability Action Plan and assist in identifying priority areas on an annual basis.

 

Provision will be also be made for members of the community to suggest projects which would contribute to improving sustainability, particularly at the local level. These will be submitted to Council for consideration by the SAC prior to incorporation into the overall project scheduling.

 

Period of Application for Sustainability Levy

 

Council staff have met with representatives from the Department of Local Government and been advised that a sustainability levy is the type of levy which fits within the Department of Local Government’s guidelines and this type of levy need not be subject to a time limitation.

 

This means that Council would be able to (if approved by the Minister & supported by the community) apply a ongoing sustainability levy, with all additional revenue being applied for funding initiatives identified within the Sustainability Action Plan.

 

Financial Implications

 

The following table outlines the estimated yield from a levy based on a given % increase. Councillors have previously requested that the option of a flat amount be investigated as an option for the levy, however, the Department of Local Government have advised that a % levy is the only option available to councils.

 

 

Table 1: Projected Revenue Raised from Sustainability Levy

Levy

                  Yield

7%

              1,011,609

6%

                 867,093

5%

                 722,578

4%

                 578,062

3%

                 433,547

2%

                 289,031

1%

                 144,516

 

 

Council staff when modelling a levy, had regard to a rule of thumb, that for residential properties, the amount payable for the majority of properties should be no more than $100. The impact of the levy on Residential Rates is outlined in Table 2. The first part of the table shows the % of properties at the respective level of Rates (based on the 2006/7 levy). The second part of the table indicates the amount payable for the respective level of Rates. The table indicates that for a levy of 6%, 89% of properties would pay less than $90, while 45% of the 89% will pay only $23. A levy of 7% would see the $100 rule exceeded.

 

In relation to the Business Rate based on a 6% levy, 89% of properties would pay less than $300, while 57% of the 89%, pay only $33.90. The impact on the Business properties is not considered unreasonable. Having regard to the above a 6% levy is recommended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2 – Impact of a Sustainability Levy on Residential Rates

 

Rates Paid P.A.

 

$379

<$500

<$1000

<$1500

<$2000

<$2500

<$3000

>$3001

% of Assessments.

45%

2%

20%

23%

7%

2%

1%

1%

% Assessments - Cumulative

45%

46%

66%

89%

96%

98%

99%

100%

 

 

Rates Paid P.A.

Proposed Levy

$379

<$500

<$1000

<$1500

<$2000

<$2500

<$3000

>$3001

7%

 27

   35

   70

       105

 140

  175

 210

 318

6%

23

     30

      60

         90

    120

     150

    180

    272

5%

19

     25

      50

         75

    100

     125

    150

    227

4%

15

     20

      40

         60

      80

     100

    120

    181

3%

11

     15

      30

         45

      60

       75

     90

    136

2%

8

     10

      20

         30

      40

       50

     60

      91

1%

4

       5

      10

         15

      20

       25

     30

      45

 

The impact of the levy on Business Rates is outlined in Table 3. The first part of the table shows the % of properties at the respective level of Rates (based on the 2006/7 levy). The second part of the table indicates the amount payable for the respective level of Rates. Note a Special Rate for parking applies in the Lane Cove Village Commercial area, would not be affected by the Sustainability Levy.

 

Table 3 – Impact of a Sustainability Levy on Business Rates

 

Rates Paid P.A.

 

$565

<$1000

<$2000

<$5000

<$10000

<$20000

<$30000

>$30001

% of Assessments.

57%

12%

8%

12%

5%

4%

2%

1%

% Assessments - Cumulative

57%

69%

77%

89%

94%

97%

99%

100%

 

 

Rates Paid P.A.

Proposed Levy

$565

<$1000

<$2000

<$5000

<$10000

<$20000

<$30000

>$30001

7%

40

       70

140

350

   700

  1,400

2,100

  7,576

6%

34

        60

    120

     300

      600

    1,200

   1,800

    6,493

5%

28

        50

    100

     250

      500

    1,000

   1,500

    5,411

4%

23

        40

      80

     200

      400

       800

   1,200

    4,329

3%

17

        30

      60

     150

      300

       600

      900

    3,247

2%

11

        20

      40

     100

      200

       400

      600

    2,164

1%

6

        10

      20

      50

      100

       200

      300

    1,082

 

The projects identified to date exceed the annual yield from a 6% levy, however, there is a need to balance capacity to pay with the need to implement these programs.

 

It is anticipated that some of the initiatives would provide savings in operational costs over a period of time, particularly in relation to energy and water reduction programs. It is proposed that any such savings would be quarantined, and reinvested into projects identified to be funded from the Sustainability Levy, thus providing a further source of income for implementation of these programs.

 

 

 

Indicative costings have been developed for the projects proposed to be funded by a levy. If Council adopts a 6% levy, Table 4 indicates the proposed distribution of funds, which are subject to final costings and prioritisation:-

 

Table 4: Special Rate Variation – Summary ($’000)

Projects

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

TOTAL

Natural Environment & Open Space

188

153

228

103

112.5

103

103

103

103

103

1299.5

Climate Change

187.5

147.5

192

147.5

307.5

217

302.5

172

222

222

2117.5

Water

119

169.5

100

100

100

100

100

100

150

150

1188.5

Social/Cultural

 

50

 

150

 

100

 

100

 

 

400

Economic

230.5

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

200

2030.5

Community Engagement and Capacity Building

 

50

 

55

 

55

 

74.5

 

55

 

55

 

69.5

 

100

 

100

 

100

 

714

Program Management & Communication

 

92

 

92

 

92

 

92

 

92

 

92

 

92

 

92

 

92

 

92

 

920

Total

867

867

867

867

867

867

867

867

867

867

8670

 

 

Application Process

 

The process of submitting an application to the Minister for Local Government seeking a special variation are generally conducted in a three stage process.

 

Stage 1:          Notice of intention to Apply for a Special Variation – Due 31 March 2007

 

To assist, the DLG in processing Special Variation applications, applicants are required to notify the DLG of their intention to apply for such a levy.  The notification must be in the approved form and include:

-     The type of special variation applied for;

-     Proposed percentage increase (including rate-peg);

-     Additional amount in dollars;

-     Purpose of the special variation;

-     Detail of a Council resolution to apply for special variation

           

Stage 2:          Application for Special Variation to General Income – Due within 2 weeks following the announcement of the rate-peg amount.

 

The following information is required to be submitted to the DLG.

 

-     How the percentage increase was calculated;

-     Why the variation is necessary;

o How the additional revenue from the increase is to be applied;

o Will the proposed variation have a once only or limited impact or will it be ongoing;

o What benefits does Council expect to flow from the variation proposal;

-     Detailed Costings;

o Recent productivity improvements and expenditure reductions;

o Other funding options that Council has considered in lieu of the special variation proposal;

o Are Council’s s94 plans up to date and contributions being used appropriately to fund capital expenditure;

-     Proposed Rates and Annual Charges Structure;

-     Notional General Income;

-     Revenue from Domestic Waste Management Services Charges;

-     Revenue from Stormwater Annual Charge;

-     Current Financial Information;

-     Impact on Ratepayers;

-     Publicity (Community Consultation); &

-     Local Members Views

 

Stage 3:          Results of the Community Consultation submitted to support the Application.

 

Following the period of community consultation (including the exhibition of the Draft Management Plan and Budget), Council is required to forward to the DLG detailed information on the results of the consultation.  This information is used to support Council’s application for a special variation.

 

Community Consultation

 

As part of any levy application to the Minister, broad community consultation must be undertaken.  Should Council resolve to apply for a Sustainability Levy a consultation strategy has been developed having regard to Council’s new draft Consultation Policy and Framework. Implementation of the strategy commenced with consultation with the Council’s Community Reference Groups, the Sustainability Action Committee, Bushland Management Advisory Committee and Lane Cove ALIVE. The remainder of the consultation would take place in parallel with the exhibition of the 2007/8 Management Plan and Budget.

 

Consultation Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to determine if the community is willing to escalate the introduction of sustainability initiatives via a levy to fund the projects. Comments received will be utilised to determine whether or not to proceed with the levy.

 

Methods of Consultation

 

The methods of consultation proposed are outlined in Table 5. The dates outlined are draft and subject to final confirmation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5  – Sustainability Levy Consultation Strategy

 

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Stage 5

 

Collaborate

Involve

Consult

Consult

Consult

Target Audience

Council’s Community Reference Groups

400 members of the Lane Cove Community demography based.

Key message givers eg; presidents of local resident associations

Lane Cove Community

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Briefing sessions and Discussion at Meetings

Deliberative poll

Briefing sessions

Staffed exhibition over 2 days, Wednesday Evening and Saturday Morning

Community Newsletter

Website Survey

Public Exhibition

Indicative Timing

Pre Decision to apply for Levy

3,4,5 April, during Management Plan and Budget Exhibition Phase

11 April, during the  Management Plan and Budget Exhibition Phase

18 & 21 April, during Management Plan and Budget Exhibition Phase

5 April, during Management Plan and Budget Exhibition Phase

 

Conclusion

 

Prior to determining this report, Council will have already considered Environmental Services Report No.4 – Cities for Climate Protection – Milestone 2.  That report helps set a context for consideration of this report.  In sustainability terms, Council has been placed at a significant fork in the road.  Not a day goes past without our attention being drawn to the impacts of climate change, rising sea levels, drought, rising temperatures and changing weather patterns. A Sustainability Levy would provide the means for this community to escalate the introduction of sustainability initiatives. It is recommended Council make an application for a sustainability levy.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Having regard to Lane Cove’s commitment to sustainability, demonstrated by its adoption of a 10 year strategic Sustainability Action Plan and the limited opportunities available to Council to fund such actions, Council:-

 

1.   Receive and note the report.

 

2.   Apply to the Minister for Local Government under s508(2) of the Local Government Act 1993 to implement a 6% special variation on all rateable properties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

CNL190307ES_5.doc

*****   End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 5   *****

 


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

19 MARCH 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 19 March 2007

14/03/2007 to Ordinary Council

Human Services Division Report No. 4

Subject:           Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) Action Plan (DDAAP)    

Record No:     SU100 - 5571/07

Author(s):       Eric Poulos 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This Report brings the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) Action Plan (DDAAP) to Council for formal adoption. Council considered the draft Plan at its Ordinary Meeting of 18 December 2006 and resolved to place the draft on display until 28 February 2007.  This Report recommends changes suggested while the Plan was on public exhibition.

 

The suggested amendments are based on three responses made during the public display period which covered a period from December 2006 to February 2007.  By adopting this Plan, Council will ensure that Lane Cove is made more accessible to residents, workers and visitors.  By implementing the plan, it also allows people with disabilities to be able to participate more fully in our community.  Council will also lodge the Plan with the Disability Discrimination Commissioner of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC).

 

Background

 

Council has in the current Management Plan a recommendation to develop a DDAAP. The Plan gives Council the opportunity to review its practices and programs and to identify the possible sources of discrimination (intentional or unintentional) against people with a disability.  By doing so Council will have a plan to remove barriers to access for people with disabilities and practical actions to assist Council further improve its services and facilities.  In August 2006, Council appointed Gail Le Bransky from GML Social Research to assist in the development of the Action Plan.  She undertook an extensive process of research, consultation and documentation to arrive at the draft plan. 

 

Discussion

 

The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) Action Plan has been through an extensive consultation and drafting process.  Consultations have been held with stakeholders, the Lane Cove Access Committee and key Council staff.  After arriving at a draft Plan, it was put on public display for comments.

 

Three written responses were received over the display period.  One from an individual member of the Lane Cove Access Committee, one from the Access Committee itself and one from the Lane Cove North Residents’ Association.  The full set of submissions has been circulated to Councillors in hard copy.

 

 

 

Amendments made to the DDA Action Plan

Taking into account the three responses, the following amendments are suggested.  They are minor in nature and include:

 

1.         Giving the Plan a title in line with other Council Plans: “Influencing and achieving access for all: Lane Cove Council’s Disability Discrimination Act      Action Plan, 2007-2012”,

 

2.         Within the Mayors Message - paragraph 3, to change “reforming the Lane Cove Access           Committee” to “reinstating of the Lane Cove Access Committee” as it may imply that there       was a problem that needed “reform”.  Also, in the final paragraph, as it is a five year plan, to             change within the Mayor’s Message that “The plan identifies a range of practical goals and    the steps Council will take over the next 5 years” instead of saying 10 years. 

 

3.         On p. 14 under Council’s role add the following sentence to paragraph 3:

            “Council should act as a leader in providing adaptable housing in its own developments.”

            Under Key issues under dot point 2 add:

            e.g. Council should promote adaptable housing in line with its draft DCP on Access and             Mobility

 

4.         Priorities 1.5 and 1.6 upgraded from Important to Critical.  These two priorities read:

            “1.5 Commission the development of advisory notes to assist development        assessment staff to evaluate and determine claims of unjustifiable hardship.

            1.6 Prepare information for distribution to developers, building owners and local            businesses of their responsibilities in relation to the DDA and the benefits to be gained by   removing barriers to access.”

 

5.         Change Priority 1.10 from “Lobby the RTA to achieve a more equitable distribution of Mobility Parking Scheme permit” to “Lobby the RTA to achieve a            more equitable distribution of Mobility Parking Scheme Permits in relation to total parking availability”.

 

6.         Priority on 2.13 Access Report Card upgraded from Beneficial to Important.  Priority reads:      “Continue to use the Access Report Card as a means of obtaining information from residents             about barriers to access.”

 

7.         Priority 2.4, change “Signage that complies with the US Manual on Uniform Traffic Control       Devices” to “Signage that complies with the AS Manual of   Uniform Traffic Control             Devices”.  AS refers to the Australian Standard.  In    relation to the comment by the Lane      Cove North Resident’s Association about “reflective” signage, the issue is that people will see the sign best if it uses non-reflective materials for the sign and viewing background.  This is different from    the “luminous” material that is on road signs to make them visible           when light is shone on them.  Non-reflective materials are recommended by disability         groups such as Vision Australia and the Guide Dogs NSW as best for signage.  Tactile       ground surface indicators are also part of Australian Standards and are recommended for             inclusion on all new bus stops including those on Epping Road as part of Tunnel works.

8.         Priority on 3.9 “an assistance program to collect garbage bins from the properties          of people          with mobility restrictions” upgraded from Beneficial to Important.  Council currently carries    out this service for residents who may need it. 

 

 

9.         Within priority 4.3 add and Councillors. The point will now read:

Provide training to all staff and councillors including disability awareness, communication and DDA responsibilities. When the first training round is completed, disability issues will be incorporated in the staff and Councillors induction program.

 

Conclusion

 

It is suggested that the Plan will go a long way to meeting Council’s obligations under the DDA.  It will continue to improve Council’s inclusion of people with disabilities and assist in our identifying and cutting down on barriers to their participation.  As such, it is recommended for adoption by Council. The Plan should also be lodged with the HREOC so that Council has further protection in the case of a complaint of disability discrimination against the Council. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.         Council resolve to adopt the document ‘Influencing and achieving access for all: Lane Cove             Council’s Disability Discrimination act Action Plan 2007-2012’ as amended.

 

2.         All relevant stakeholders be informed of Council’s adoption of the Plan and be urged to             support its implementation.

 

3.         Council place the ‘Influencing and achieving access for all: Lane Cove Council’s Disability             Discrimination act Action Plan 2007-2012’ on its website.

 

4.         In line with the process followed with other Council Plans, that it be printed and made available to all interested stakeholders and community members via hard copy and in alternate formats.

 

5.         Council write to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) lodging         the Plan with the Disability Discrimination Commissioner.

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Lane Cove Council Disability Discrimination Act Action Plan

31 Pages

 

 

CNL190307HS_4.doc

*****   End of Human Services Division Report No. 4   *****    *****

 

END OF AGENDA *****