Lane Cove Council

 

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council

 

 

 

AGENDA

 

 

 

DATE OF MEETING:          7 May 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

 

7 MAY 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.       Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 15

SUBJECT: Requested Purchase of Lot 114 of DP 9653 - Being Council's Drainage Reserve between Centennial Avenue and Hallam Avenue, Lane Cove West

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (c) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; 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 and  the report contains discussion of the proposed purchase of land.

 

2.       General Managers Report No. 10

SUBJECT: Senior Staff Contracts

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 and the report discusses contract conditions of members of staff.

 

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

SUBJECT: Survey of Stormwater Drainage Network for the Lane Cove Local Government Area

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret; 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 and  that the report contains discussion of commercial information disclosed in the tender process by companies.

  


 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

4.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 16 APRIL 2007

 

 

 

Orders Of The Day

 

5.       Order Of The Day No. 13

SUBJECT: Meeting in the Plaza - Saturday 26 May 2007

 

Corporate Services Division Reports

 

6.       Corporate Services Division Report No. 18

SUBJECT: Goods and Services Tax Certificate of Compliance

 

7.       Corporate Services Division Report No. 21

SUBJECT: Review of Ward Boundaries - Results of Consultation

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Reports

 

8.       Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 14

SUBJECT: Street Lighting Improvement Program - Update

 

Environmental Services Division Reports

 

9.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 318

SUBJECT: 8 Cobden Avenue, Lane Cove

 

10.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 8

SUBJECT: Comparison of Privately Certified and Council approved Construction Certificates

 

11.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 9

SUBJECT: Passive Smoking Policy

  

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

 

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

 

         


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

ORDER OF THE DAY NO. 13

 

7 MAY 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 7 May 2007

23/04/2007 to Ordinary Council

Order Of The Day No. 13

Subject:           Meeting in the Plaza - Saturday 26 May 2007    

Record No:     SU1914 - 9611/07

Author(s):       Myrna Eisenhuth 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Councillors are next due to meet with the public in the Plaza on Saturday 26th May 2007 between 10:30am and 12:00 midday.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Councillors nominate whom they wish to attend the Meeting in the Plaza to be held Saturday 26th May 2007.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

CNL070507OD_13.doc

*****   End of Order Of The Day No. 13   *****

    


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 18

 

7 MAY 2007

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 7 May 2007

11 April 2007 to Ordinary Council

Corporate Services Division Report No. 18

Subject:           Goods and Services Tax Certificate of Compliance    

Record No:     SU1915 - 8562/07

Author(s):       Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report recommends Council sign a GST Compliance Certificate as required by the Department of Local Government.

 

Discussion

 

The due date for this year’s GST Compliance Certificate is 31 May 2007.  Accordingly, it will be necessary for Council to pass a resolution in order for the Certificate to be submitted.

 

The Certificate confirms that:-

 

        Voluntary GST has been paid by Council for the period 1 May 2006 to 30 April 2007.

        Adequate management arrangements and internal controls were in place to enable Council to adequately account for its GST liabilities and recoup all GST input tax credits eligible to be claimed.

        No GST non-compliance events by Council were identified by or raised with the Australian Taxation Office.

 

As Council’s Responsible Accounting Officer, I Craig Wrightson confirm that Council’s obligations in relation to GST have been met for the period, and the certificate should therefore be signed. 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That a Certificate of Compliance for Council’s GST obligations be signed by the Mayor, one other Councillor, the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer for the period 1 May 2006 to 30 April 2007.

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Goods and Services Tax Certificate

1 Page

 

 

CNL070507CSD_18.doc

*****   End of Corporate Services Division Report No. 18   *****


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 21

 

7 MAY 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 7 May 2007

1/05/2007 to Ordinary Council

Corporate Services Division Report No. 21

Subject:           Review of Ward Boundaries - Results of Consultation    

Record No:     SU821 - 10555/07

Author(s):       Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report outlines the outcome of the consultation in relation to the proposed boundary change between East and Central Ward. Council received two submissions opposing the change. On the basis that Council has considered various options to meet its obligation under the legislation and determined that this option has the least impact of the options available, it is recommended that Council proceed with the proposed change to the Ward boundaries.

 

Background

 

Council is required by Section 211 of the Local Government Act to keep its Ward boundaries under review.  Council at its meeting of 20 March 2006 considered a report outlining the status of the wards in terms of the number of electors and opportunities for Council to bring them within a 10% range of each other as required by the Act. The selected option was to move Census Collector District 1381707 from Central Ward to East Ward, which has the effect of moving Northwood into East Ward.

 

Approval was subsequently obtained from Electoral Commissioner for New South Wales and the Australian Statistician for Council to consult on the proposed changes. Council at its meeting of 19 February, 2007 resolved to:-

 

“1.       Receive and note the report;

2.         Proceed with the February 2007 option for the boundary change between East Ward and Central Ward; and

3.         Proceed with the consultation process outlined in the report.”

 

The consultation included promotion through Council’s Community Newsletter, Libraries, Customer Service Centre, Council’s Website, Community Notice boards, Local Media and via Council’s E-newsletter email groups, which includes to all local Residents Associations/ Groups. 

 

Discussion

 

Council received three responses to the consultation undertaken in relation to the proposed Ward Boundary adjustment, these have circulated separately to Councillors.  The first submission suggested that there were communities of interest between the Longueville and Northwood area and therefore they should remain within the same Ward.  The second submission also opposed the change, the main reason being “The East Ward already covers a very diverse and far flung area.  The Greenwich peninsula varies very greatly from St Leonards and environs, as does the area Osborne Park, and the rest of the area covered by the East Ward.  Northwood is separated even further by these areas by a large area of bushland and River Road.“  The third submission also believed that there were communities of interest and suggested “that in lieu of adding Northwood to East ward that the area west of Longueville Road and north of River Road West up to at least Tambourine Bay Road, Cox's Lane/ Epping Road be added to East ward. ….. This means that the

whole of the Village Centre commercial/retail area is in the one ward, as well as adding enough

people to balance East Ward with the other wards but still leaves Northwood connected to

Longueville and Riverview.

 

Council has previously acknowledged the issue of communities of interest. The option advertised was considered to have the least impact of the options available. The suggestion of incorporating the area bounded by Tambourine Bay Road, Longueville Road and River Road West would involve moving 2 CCD groups, and approximately 760 people (compared to 693 under the proposed change). It would achieve the required balance between the Wards. The issues with this option are,  is it a logical boundary? Does it have any lesser impact in terms of community of interest? The new option is less of a logical boundary, Tambourine Bay Road is perhaps significant enough to be used as a Ward Boundary, but Cox’s Lane less so. In terms of communities of interest, it does place the whole Village commercial area in one Ward, but also splits the central residential area of Lane Cove. It is difficult to assess the exact impact of the community of interest.

 

Council, having completed the consultation process and considered the points raised in the submissions, must determine whether or not to proceed with the proposed Ward Boundary adjustment or the suggested alternative.

 

Upon Council determining the matter, if Council adopts the option, feedback will be provided to the persons lodging the submissions by letter and the community via the website, next quarterly newsletter to residents and suitable notice in a local newspaper. Council is also required to advise the Electoral Commissioner for New South Wales and the Australian Statistician of its decision.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.         receive and note the report;

 

2.         determine whether to:-

a.          proceed with the proposed change to the boundary between East Ward and Central Ward, by moving Census Collector District 1381707 from Central Ward to East Ward, or

b.         seek approval from the Electoral Commissioner for New South Wales and the Australian Statistician to consult on the suggested proposal for the area west of Longueville Road and north of River Road West up to Tambourine Bay Road, Cox's Lane/ Epping Road be added to East Ward;

 

3.         If 2a. is adopted, proceed with the feedback process outlined in the report and advise the Electoral Commissioner for New South Wales and the Australian Statistician of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Final Lane Cove Council Ward Review Option

1 Page

 

 

CNL070507CSD_21.doc

*****   End of Corporate Services Division Report No. 21   *****

 


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

OPEN SPACE AND URBAN SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 14

 

7 MAY 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 7 May 2007

18/04/2007 to Ordinary Council

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 14

Subject:           Street Lighting Improvement Program - Update    

Record No:     SU2432 - 9306/07

Author(s):       Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Lane Cove Council has been part of the Street Light Improvement Program (SLIP) since its’ inception in 2003. As a result of being part of the SLIP, Council has been able to obtain improved street lighting throughout the whole of Greenwich and Linley Point, and large segments of Lane Cove, Longueville and Northwood. 

 

Council’s ongoing participation in this Program is considered to be paramount to continue obtaining improvements in technology and maintaining pressure on Energy Australia to improve their inefficient practices and lengthy delays in completing repairs, modifications and additions. 

 

Background

 

Councils in metropolitan Sydney, the Central Coast and Hunter have been working closely together since 2003 under the Street Lighting Improvement Program to implement the findings of the 2002 Street Lighting Review.  Collectively the 29 councils in the SLIP encompass about 85% of the public lighting in Energy Australia’s distribution territory and about 40% of public lighting in NSW. 

 

The Program was established to achieve reforms to serious longstanding deficiencies in Energy Australia’s provision of public lighting services.  Areas being progressively addressed include updating poor technology selection, inefficient practices and lengthy delays in completing repairs, modifications and additions.  The Program has also played a leading role in the adoption of a NSW Public Lighting Code and in advocating for Councils’ position in IPART pricing decisions and related regulatory reviews.  Next Energy has been the Program Manager since inception, with day to day oversight provided by the Executive Director of SSROC. 

 

Discussion

 

In 2006, significant effort was devoted to finalising the $4.2m grant awarded by the NSW Energy Savings Fund.  In 2007, the Energy Savings Fund grant will directly provide funding for a good portion of the work to improve lighting technology on main and residential roads.  However, there are also some important technology selection, service, regulatory and pricing issues not covered by the grant, which are the object of a proposal by Next Energy on behalf of the SLIP. 

 

For completeness, the work covered and paid for by the Energy Savings Fund grant is summarized in that proposal, although it is covered under separate arrangements with SSROC as administrator of the grant on behalf of the member councils.  The proposed work program for 2007 is summarised as follows (Note that items marked with * fall under the Energy Savings Fund grant):

 

1.   Improved Technology - Negotiations with Energy Australia, equipment suppliers and other parties on improved lighting technology arrangements, most notably in the selection of new and better performing default lighting for:

 

·    residential roads*

·    main roads*

·    special area lighting (eg decorative, prestige, high crime and floodlighting);

 

2.   Appropriate Pricing for New Technology – Where new technology is introduced, pricing and service terms need to be negotiated with Energy Australia as these would not be covered by the 2005 IPART Pricing Decision (*falls under ESF work for main and residential road lighting but not for special area lighting or variants to basic lighting such as new lamp types or luminaire shielding);

 

3.   Improved Service Arrangements - Monitoring the implementation of the Public Lighting Code, Energy Australia’s new Management Plan and negotiating with Energy Australia on any service improvements required;

 

4.   Improved Regulatory & Policy Arrangements - Promoting councils’ position with regulators and, in particular, representing council in the 2007 Dept of Energy Utilities and Sustainability review of the NSW Public Lighting Code;

 

5.   Monitoring Implementation of New Technology - Monitoring the implementation of technology changes (*falls under ESF work for new main and residential road lighting but not for service changes or special area lighting);

 

6.   Education of Council Officers in the Management of Public Lighting – Councils are having to take increased responsibility for public lighting, whether directly owned and managed or owned and managed on their behalf Energy Australia.  At the suggestion of councils, the SLI Program proposes to develop and run a one-day workshop in the basics of managing public lighting on behalf of councils; and

 

7.   Problem Resolution - Assisting councils in resolving problems that may arise in their interactions with Energy Australia, particularly where resolution of those problems would set a useful precedent for all participants.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Council’s ongoing participation in the Street Light Improvement Program (SLIP) is considered to be beneficial for the Lane Cove community. Pressure will be maintained by Next Energy on behalf of the SLIP for Energy Australia to improve their current inefficiencies and additional training will also be provided for Council officers to help them manage public lighting.


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the Street Light Improvement Program Update report.

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

CNL070507US_14.doc

*****   End of Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 14   *****

 


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 318

 

7 MAY 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 7 May 2007

9/01/2007 to Ordinary Council

Environmental Services Division Report No. 318

Subject:           8 Cobden Avenue, Lane Cove    

Record No:     DA06/367-01 - 511/07

Author(s):       David Campbell 

 

 

Property:               Lot 4 of DP11342 - 8 Cobden Avenue, Lane Cove

 

DA No:                  D367/06

 

Date Lodged:        13.12.06

 

Cost of Work:       $84,870.00

 

Applicant:              Archiworks Architects Pty Ltd

 

Owner:                   David & Rebecca Sim

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

 

Alterations and additions to existing single storey dwelling with partial demolition of the existing dwelling at the rear of the property.

ZONE

Residential 2(a1)

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

 

Yes

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

 

No

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

 

Yes

DOES DCP 1- BUSHLAND APPLY TO THE PROPERTY?

 

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a

STOP THE CLOCK USED

No

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                             316 Pacific Highway; 4,6, 10, 12 Cobden Avenue; 1 Haldane Crescent

Ward Councillors                   Tudge & Lawson

Progress Association             Osborne Park Progress Association

 

 

 

 


REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

The application has been called to Council by Clr Longbottom due to concerns raised by neighbours about loss of privacy, solar access and the appearance of the building.

 

Further an appeal has been lodged by the owner to the NSW Land and Environment Court.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This report assesses a proposal for significant alteration and additions to the rear of an existing single storey cottage. The additions include a mezzanine level with extensive glass façades, a first floor balcony at the rear of the dwelling and a turret feature at the rear of the house.  The proposal was notified to adjoining neighbours and two submissions were received raising concerns at loss of privacy, loss of views and the style of the additions being out of character with the area.

 

The main issue of numeric non-compliance relate to FSR and side setback.

 

The application is currently the subject of a class 4 appeal (No. 10269 of 2007) before the NSW      Land and Environment Court under the provision of deemed refusal. Council has engaged Pike, Pike and Fenwick, Lawyers to defend the appeal.

 

The applicant has not submitted a Basix Certificate with the application and contends the proposed additions and alterations are less than $100K.  This may be an issue for the Court.

 

 The proposal is considered to be out of character with the area and presents a significant impact to the amenity of adjoining residences together with numeric non-compliances and is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

SITE

 

The subject site (Lot 4 DP 11342) is known as No.8 Cobden Avenue, Lane Cove, it is a regular-shaped block measuring 13.715m wide by 40.84m long with a total site area of 559.9m2 and is located on the southern-eastern side of Cobden Avenue near where Cobden Avenue intersects with the Pacific Highway.

 

The site is currently occupied by an existing single storey dwelling of brick and tiled roof construction with an attached garage to the south-western side boundary, which has access to Cobden Avenue via an existing concrete driveway.  The site slopes gradually down from the north-eastern side to the southwest side as well as from the rear to the front of the property.   Site Plan and Notification Plan are attached (AT1 and AT2).

 

PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for the partial demolition of the rear of the existing single storey dwelling and the construction of additions to the rear of the dwelling which incorporate a roof mezzanine level, a rear deck area and roof turret.

 

The resulting development is proposed to retain the existing 1920s dwelling and behind it construct an addition built in a modern design. The ground floor level of this addition would have extensive windows set into aluminium frames accounting for over half of the ground floor façades. The remaining portion of the ground floor façades being built of painted hardiflex.

The first floor level of the proposed development is a mezzanine level built into the proposed roof. The floor plan of the mezzanine level shows a central platform shown on the plans as a library and a bathroom, with two open void areas either side of this platform.    The mezzanine level would be provided with large windows on the south-western elevation and on the rear elevation. These windows, like those on the ground floor are proposed to be set into aluminium frames, and take advantage of the vista to the south.

 

The rear of the proposed additions would include an open wooden balcony at both the ground and first floor levels.

 

The existing hipped roof at the rear of the current dwelling is to be removed to allow the new roof line to integrate with existing. The application is for the new portion of the building to be roofed in tile that matches the existing tiled roof.

 

While the front portion of the house would retain an early twentieth century roof profile, the proposed roof line for the additions at the rear is of an unusual design incorporation a tall windowed turret on the north-eastern elevation and two large dormer windows on the south-western elevation

 

The most unusual aspect of the proposed additions are a prominent turret structure at the rear of the development and the use of large areas of glass as a  feature of the development.

  

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY:

 

Council’s records indicate that the subject site has had no other development applications lodged in the past few years.

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE:

Site Area (559.9m2)

 

PROPOSED

CODE

COMPLIES

Floor Space Ratio        (max)

0.53:1   #

0.5:1

No- see below

Soft Landscaped Area  (min)

42.26%

35%

Yes

Side Boundary Setback  (min)

1.1m(west) and 1.0m(east)

(an existing awning is .3m of boundary)

1.2/1.5m

No – See variation section see below

Overall Height (m)        (max)

8.9m

9.5m

Yes

Ceiling Height (m)         (max)

6.9m

7.0m

Yes

No of Storeys

2

2

Yes

Building Line     (max)

6.1

7.5m

Yes- Retains existing

Cut and Fill       (max)

0.0m

1m

Yes

Deck/Balcony width     (max)

2.1m

3m (if elevated by >1m)

Yes

Solar Access    (min)

Adequate

3 hours to north elevation

Yes

BASIX      # #

not required based on the price quoted to Council

not required for development less than $100000

See variation section see below

#  this figure includes the area of the void space around the mezzanine and turret roof space which are included in GFA

# #  the applicant submits a cost of works of $84,870. However, based on a review by Council staff  against the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors Building Cost Code July 2006 the price of the works is estimated to exceed $ 169,216 and therefore the development is subject to the provisions of the BASIX requirements.

 

 

REFERRALS

 

Manager Urban Design and Assets

 

No objection was raised by this department subject to conditions of consent being imposed.

 

Manager Parks

 

No objection was raised by this department subject to conditions of consent being imposed.

 

Manager Bushland

 

No referral was raised with the manager of bushland as part of this assessment

 

Other (Heritage, Traffic, Waterways, Rural Fire Service)

 

No referrals were raised with external agencies as part of this assessment

 

Lane Cove LOCAL Environmental Plan 1987 (Section 79c(1)(a))

 

Zoning

 

The subject site is zoned Residential 2(a1) and the proposal is a permissible use in the zone.

 

Heritage

 

The subject site is not listed as an item of heritage significance in Lane Cove LEP, or the State Register.  The subject site is not a known archaeological site.

 

Environmental Protection Areas

 

The proposal is not within an area listed for environmental protection within the Lane Cove LEP.

 

Tree Preservation

 

The proposal does not include the removal of any trees covered by the Tree Protection Order.  The application has been referred to Council’s Manager, Open Space for comment who raised no objection subject to conditions of consent being imposed.

 

Aims of the LEP

 

In clause 2 of the Lane Cove LEP specific aims and objectives are set out in relation to housing, specifically:

 

to maintain and where appropriate improve the existing amenity and environmental character of residential zones,” and “to permit new residential development only where it is compatible with the existing environmental character of the locality and has a sympathetic and harmonious relationship with adjoining development 

 

The proposal would also result in a loss of privacy due to the proposed first floor balcony and the proposal is not in accordance with the stated objectives of this clause.

 

It is considered that the level of integration between the existing and proposed building is poor given the extensive use of glass and the mismatch of modern materials with the more traditional existing fabric. 

 

Other Planning Instruments

 

SEPP 55 – State Environmental Planning policy No.55 – Remediation of Land

 

Clause 7 of this instrument requires Council to assess whether the subject site is contaminated.  Notwithstanding that site investigations have not been carried out, the current and previous use of the site and surrounding sites for residential uses would substantially reduce the possibilities of contamination.  Accordingly, contamination of the site is unlikely to be an issue.

 

APPLICABLE REGULATION

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations

 

The proposal involves the partial demolition of the existing dwelling house.  Under Clause 92 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, Council must address Australian Standard (AS2601-1991):  The Demolition of Structures.  The issue is addressed by the placement of a condition of consent in the without prejudice conditions prepared for the Land & Environment Court appeal to be heard on this application.

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

 

Residential Zones Development Control Plan

 

The Lane Cove Residential DCP applies to the subject site but no relevant provisions have effect in the current proposal.

 

Development Control Plan No.4 – Waste Management and Minimisation

 

The Lane Cove Waste Management Development Control Plan is applicable to this application.  A Waste Management Plan has been lodged with this application and its review has formed part of this assessment.  Should an approval be issued then an appropriate Condition would be imposed.

 

 

 

 

 


PLANNING  CONTROL CONTROLS

 

The ‘Code and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings’

 

The proposed development has been assessed under the ‘Code and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings. The development has a number of non compliances with regard to the numeric standards in this control code. These numeric non-compliances include side setback and FSR variations.

 

The code also fails to meet the objectives of a number of points in the Code including requirements for the protection of existing streetscape, and loss of privacy and views.  

 

Variations to Council’s Codes/PolicIes (seCTIONS 79c(1)(a), (1)(b), and (1)(c))

 

The preceding policy assessment table identifies those controls with which the proposal does not comply. Each of the departures is discussed below.

 

Floor Space Ratio

 

Pursuant to the ‘Code and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings’ Floor Space Ratio (FSR) is determined by the ratio of the Gross Floor Area against the site area. Gross Floor Area is defined in the ‘Code and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings’ as

 

the sum of areas of each floor of all buildings where the area of each floor is taken to be the area within the outer face of the external enclosing walls ….. Where floor to ceiling heights exceeds 5 metres, the area of that part of the building would l be multiplied by 2 (that space being considered to be 2 storeys)…External decks, balconies or terraces which are covered by more  than half of its width will be included as part of the gross floor area.”

 

This definition has important implications for the current proposal in that:

 

·    The void either side of the mezzanine level results in a floor to ceiling height of more than 5 metres such that this area is captured by the 5 metres floor to ceiling height provisions.  This area is included as gross floor area.

 

·    The proposed turret rises up from the main roof line to form a skylight structure for the proposed study which is on the ground floor level below it. Like the mezzanine level mentioned above, this area has a floor to ceiling height excessive of the 5 metres mentioned in the definition of Gross floor area and is also included in determining the FSR.

 

·    The rear balcony is covered and in accordance with the definition of Gross Floor Area is included in determining FSR for the building.

 

 

 

 

Therefore the proposed development would have a gross floor area as set out in the following table

 

Ground floor area (both Proposed and existing)

229m²

First floor area  (both mezzanine space, void area and balcony)

55.59m²

First floor Turret area   

16.0m²

Total GFA     

300.81m²

 

With a total GFA of 300.81m² and a site area of 559.9m2, the development would have a floor space ratio of 0.53:1 which exceeds the maximum allowable figure for this site. Council’s policy is to limit noncompliant FSR, to avoid excessively large developments in the Councils area. The Council therefore requires adherence to the FSR controls.

 

The current proposal is seen to be an over development of the site when viewed in conjunction with the variation to side setback and the neighbour objections based on the bulk of the building.

 

Side Boundary Setback

 

The existing dwelling has a side setback to the south western boundary of 3.5 metres, while to the north-eastern elevation the setback is 2.0 metres. There is also an existing awning protruding from the eastern side which is not enclosed and this is built to only 0.3 metres off the boundary. This is to be retained in the proposed development.

 

An existing garage is between the house and the south-western boundary line and is built to the side boundary.

 

The proposed additions would be setback 1.1 metres to the western boundary and 1.0 metres to the eastern boundary, with the existing awning being retained to its current 0.3 metres from the eastern boundary.

 

The setback controls in the ‘Code and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings’ is:

 

  A minimum setback of 1200mm from the side boundary for a single storey dwelling and a minimum setback of 1500mm for a two storey dwelling. The setback is measured at right angles to the boundary and to the wall of the dwelling or any ancillary structures like balconies or stairs.

 

Both side setbacks in the proposed additions are less than the setback required under the Councils Code, specifically the north-eastern setback is required to be 1.5 metres while the south-western setback is required to be 1.2metres.

   

Given strong neighbour objection over loss of privacy and the bulk of the building this half a metre variation is of concern as it is exacerbating the impact of both the buildings bulk and the privacy loss. The perception of bulk and scale in particular would be increased more than it may have been perceived with more generous setbacks.

  

The proposed development is not compliant with the side setback controls and would impact the level of amenity of the adjoining neighbours. 

 

Front Setback

 

The proposed development retains the existing front setback of the cottage and would not seek to amend the front setback of the building.

 

The requirement of the ‘Code and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings’ for front setbacks allows that:

 

A variation may be considered where unusual site constraints exist or if there is an established building line less than 7.5 metres and the proposal will have a minimal impact on the streetscape.

 

The current setback of 2 Cobden Ave is 0 metres and the setback of numbers 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 Cobden Ave are all between 5 and 6 metres from the road reserve boundary. An established localized building line variation is therefore existing in Cobden Ave. Given the established building line and given the retention of the existing front setback this assessment does not include this variation as one of the reasons of refusal.

 

Basix Certificate

 

The applicant submitted a cost of works for the proposal of $84,870. However, based on a review of the likely cost of works by Council staff using the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors Building Cost Code (July 2006) the price of the works is estimated to be a minimum of $169216. The development will therefore require the submission of a BASIX Certificate and be required to comply with the provisions of the BASIX instrument.

 

The applicant has not submitted a BASIX certificate for the application and has therefore failed to address these requirements.

 

SECTION 79C(1)(b) – Environmental Impacts

 

Clause 79C(1)(b) requires consideration of likely impacts of development on both the natural and the built environments and the social and economic impacts in the locality.  The main issues resulting from the proposed development relate to privacy loss, streetscape impact and view loss.

 

Streetscape Character

 

In the ‘Code and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings’ objective A. of Clause 3.7 requires that development must:

 

 ‘Minimize the impact of the dwelling on the streetscape’

 

The applicant submits in their Statement of Environmental Effects that that the proposal comprises of alterations and extension of the existing ground floor to the rear of the property and addition of a roof mezzanine area over the new rear extension, and that “The front of the existing residence will be unchanged and therefore this portion of the building would have no altering effect on the existing streetscape

 

However, this assessment finds that although the front portion of the proposal is unchanged, the development would impact the streetscape through:

·    The additions would provide a significant built feature to the rear of the building that is both bulkier and taller than the existing cottage and surrounding established dwellings.  The resulting disparity of scales detracts from the overall presentation of the development.

 

·    The size and height of the proposed additions would burden itself on the appearance and small scale of the established building due to its size.  This effect would be particularly exacerbated when viewed from an oblique angle.

 

·    The additions differ from the existing portion of the dwelling in regard to the use of materials, notably expanses of glass and painted ‘hardi-flex’ board. The use of these materials would clash with the more traditional fabric of the existing cottage The resulting dissimilarity in materials and finishes detracts from the presentation of the site in the street context.

 

·    The proposal of the turret is in variance with surrounding rooflines detracting from the overall appearance of the street.

 

·    The use of material including large expanse of glass set in aluminium frames and wide use of hardi-flex sheeting, merges poorly with the masonry and tile exterior of the existing cottage and sits at variance with materials in adjoining residences.  The proposed materials and style of the building additions differ from the primarily federation character of the street and is generally considered to be out of character with the locality.

 

·    From a stylistic point of view the propose additions are out of character with the surrounding temperament of the street which is predominantly early twentieth century in nature. 

 

Visual Intrusiveness of Proposal

 

In the ‘Code and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings’ the objectives set out in clause 2 require that:

 

any development that is proposed to be built amongst existing dwellings the design must take into account  factors beyond the site including potential constraints relating to …. street character.

 

The proposed development would be highly intrusive in the appearance of the streetscape.

 

The use of wide expenses of glass in the new additions will have three highly intrusive impacts on the streetscape.

 

·    Firstly the glass would be highly reflective of sunlight at certain times of the day which has a potential to impact adjoining residences and may be distractive to passers by.

 

·    At other times of the day the glass would appear as a dark or black mass on the streetscape.

 

·    During the night, the glass façades would be highly visible in the streetscape as the internal illumination of the dwelling would make the front facing glass façade features stand out prominently.

 

The applicant submits in their Statement of Environmental Effects that the proposed alterations and additions are designed to maximise natural lighting, improve internal layout of the building and provide more useable landscaped outdoor areas for the occupants. 

 

While the proposed additions no doubt does achieve much of these objectives, it does so at considerable cost to the existing dwelling in that the resulting dwelling would be visually intrusive in the following context.

 

·    The roof form of the new portion of the dwelling is taller than the existing portion of the dwelling thereby adding considerable bulk to the dwelling.

 

·    The proposed additions rise above the existing cottage, framing it with a different set of materials, particularly the glass sheet façade, and causing the cottage to be over-burdened, detracting from the appearance of the site. 

 

·    The use of glass is out of character with the existing portion of the house and adjoining residences, in that during the day it would present as a darker mass on the street, and during the night will be illuminated from inside by the domestic house lighting causing the glass elevation to standout against the existing house.

 

·    The two rooflines integrate in a manner that is detracting from an overall appearance of the building, with the proposed portion intergrading poorly from behind the existing portion, imposing overbearing bulk on that potion of the house.

 

·    The proposed glass front facade and roof turret are architecturally different to the surrounding houses.

 

Privacy

 

Clause 3.6 of the ‘Code and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings’ requires that

 

Buildings or additions shall be designed and orientated to avoid overlooking of adjoining dwellings.  

 

The proposed rear balcony and the mezzanine level would impact on the privacy of rear yards and outdoor living areas for adjoining residences.

 

The mezzanine windows look out to the south-western elevation, and do allow casual observance in to neighbours yards most notably 10 Cobden Ave. Direct overview through these dormer windows is limited by the fact a person is not able to stand in the window, but despite this, these windows do still provide passive loss of privacy to the rear yard of number 10 Cobden Ave.

 

With regard to the first floor balcony proposed for the rear of the dwelling, this deck is located such that casual and direct overview of the rear yards of both adjoining residences would occur. This is particularly the case for 6 Cobden Ave where the casual observer on the balcony would have unimpeded views directly into the primary living area of the neighbours house. This deck would have a high impact on the level of privacy for the primary out door living areas of number 6 Cobden Ave.

 

Impact on Trees

 

The Council Parks Department visited the site and observed that “there is a mature Brushbox street tree which will require protection during the construction process. The proposal illustrates an extension to the rear of the property which comes close to an existing Kaffir Plum Harpephylum caffrum along the eastern boundary which will require protection. The proposal indicates all existing trees to be retained”. The conclusion was that the risk to the existing trees can be minimised by protection measure around the trees which will be conditional of any consent that may be issued.

 

Loss of Views

 

An objection of the development from neighbours has been that the proposed development would have an impact on views and access to the sky. 

 

The ‘Code and Development Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings’ requires that development:

 

 Minimize disruption to existing views or to achieve reasonable view sharing from adjacent development with the height and bulk of the development.

 

In determining what impact on views would result from a development, the L&EC case Tenacity Consulting vs Warringah Council (2004) NSW L&EC 347 has become the basis for the planning principle used to examine view sharing. In this Commissioner Roseth framed a series of questions which should be addressed in assessing whether the impact on views is considered unacceptable.  The following is an assessment of the application in terms of these questions which are:

 

1.         The assessment of the views to be affected. Some views (eg. water views, views of iconic buildings) are valued more highly than others.

 

2.         Consider from what part of the property the views are obtained.  Protection of views across side boundaries are more difficult than from front and rear boundaries.

 

3.         Assess the extent of the impact.  This should be done for the whole of the property, not just the view that is affected.

 

4.         Assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact.  Factors include whether the proposal complies with development standards and whether view loss could be ameliorated by better design.

 

In assessing the impact on views it is considered that:

 

1.         The views likely to be affected are not high value in that they are not iconic or of grand vistas, but offer more of an ambient general openness to the south.

 

2.         The views being impacted are across the side boundaries rather than from the front or rear of the property and  are thus recognised as being  difficult to protect.

 

3.         When looking at the reasonableness of the view loss, the views (despite being non iconic) are the primary views to the adjoining residences and do provide a level of amenity for 4 and 6 Cobden Ave. The proposed development would have an effect on the amenity of the neighbours property through loss of views to the south.

 

In view of the above findings it is considered that that the proposal does not satisfy the requirements of Councils Code in terms of view loss and view sharing because of the impact on views for  numbers 4 and 6 Cobden Ave.

 

Loss of Openness in the Neighbourhood

 

The objections do not relate solely to direct view loss, but also claim that the development would result in a large structure forming a barrier to the sky and horizon being located close to the boundaries which would  contribute to a general building out of the area.

 

It is considered that such a barrier is established and that this would result in a decrease in the ambiance/openness of the area and a loss of sky vista which is a type of outlook loss. The resulting sense of enclosure is not in the best interest of the site, nor adjoining residences, and represents an impact to the amenity of the area.

 

RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION (Section 79C(1)(d))

 

The proposal was notified to six adjoining owner/occupants as well as the Ward Councillors and the Local Progress Association.  Council received two submissions in response to the notification of the development application.  The issues raised in the submission can be summarised as follows.

 

4 Cobden Ave

 

·    The last few metres of the proposed structure extends beyond the back decking area of both my neighbour and us resulting in a privacy issue for us

 

Comment

 

Given that the objector’s property is two houses to the north and given the minor extent of the distance being objected to, this impact is considered to be within the normal range of residential amenity expected on this street.

 

·    Of great concern is the loss of view to the west. The view from our rear veranda and a large portion of our garden would be completely blocked by not only the two storey construction with a somewhat standard roof, but exacerbated with the proposal of a turret that will dominate the skyline. 

 

Comment

 

Due to the fact that the objector is displaced from the subject site by an intervening property, and given also that the objectors residence has only limited views, the impact of the proposed development on this objectors property is considered to be minor.

 

The issue of the bulk of the development intruding into the skyline, particularly the turret feature, is more problematic for the application in that such a proposed structure would add unnecessary visual bulk resulting in a sense of enclosure and reduction of the sky-vista. The skyline intrusion is an overbearing feature of the development.

 

·    This turret does not suit the streetscape and is considered as out of character in our area of Lane Cove.

 

Comment

 

This structure adds bulk to the rear of the building particularly to the height of the building. It also introduces a design feature in the roofline that detracts from the overall harmony of the building and that diverges from the existing character of the immediate area.

 

·    The psychological effect of having yet another large structure forming a barrier to the sky and horizon on the boundaries of our property.  This development plus a new block of units recently built and a 3 storey house on our boundaries will result in a general building out of the area.

 

Comment

 

This issue is difficult to quantify in planning terms. Notwithstanding this, the site is adjacent to an area of higher development along the highway which has already established a sense of a higher level of development.

 

This development, although not on the scale of the nearby flat buildings, adds to the reduction in the sense of openness in what is a normal residential street and is not in the best interest of the amenity of the area and is not in accordance with the objectives of the zone which requires development to “retain and where appropriate improve the existing residential amenity of a  detached single family dwelling area

 

6 Cobden Ave

 

·    The proposed development will look straight into our kitchen and meal area.

 

Comment

 

The proposed first floor windows look to the south west rather than to the objector’s property.  The rear balcony however, does pose an issue with regard to loss of privacy to the rear yard of the adjoining properties, including the objectors. The deck would have an uninterrupted direct view into primary out door living areas for the objectors’ property.  This is an issue for concern and goes to the case for non support of the application.

 

·    Loss of  Solar access

 

Comment

 

The Code and Development Application Checklist For Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools And Outbuildings requires that:

 

“ Building or additions shall be so designed and orientated so as to give reasonable sunlight to the habitable rooms and recreational areas  of the adjoining premises between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 22nd June”.

 

Although the development would result in some overshadow of the objector’s property, this property would receive a level of solar access that is compliant with the above code requirements with much of the additional shadows restricted to the afternoon.  Further, this shadow is not affecting the primary living areas of the objector’s property. The level of shading to the objector’s property is considered to be reasonable.

 

 This assessment does not rely on solar access as one of the reasons for refusal.

 

·    The development will result in a new building that is out of character with the streetscape.

 

Comment

 

As discussed above the proposed development is not considered to be in keeping with the surrounding area. The proposal differs considerably from the existing character of the locality in terms of :-

 

·    the height and bulk of the development,

·    the use of materials and

·    external finishes and the roof line.

 

SECTION 79C(1)(e) – Public Interest

 

An examination of potential impact on amenity including privacy, noise, parking, view sharing, and streetscape, appearance and crime prevention was considered as part of this application.  As stated previously the development has numeric non-compliance with regard to FSR and Side Setback. It also has significant problems with regard to view sharing and privacy, and streetscape appearance and is considered to be not in the public interest.  Furthermore, the objections received and the points raised by neighbours would contribute to the finding of this assessment that the development is not in the public interest.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with the matters for consideration under s.79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987 (the LEP) and  Council’s Code for Dwelling Houses. There are numerical noncompliances with regard to FSR and side setback. Further, the proposal is out of character with surrounding development and is not in accord with existing open streetscape features of the street.

 

 While Council encourages innovative design solutions, the proposed dwelling would have a significant impact on the amenity of adjoining residents due the bulk and scale of the building in close proximity of the boundary and a loss of privacy. Furthermore, the extensive glazing combined with the turret features differs from and impacts on the existing predominantly federation streetscape.

 

For staff to support this dwelling proposal, significant amendment would be required. The proposal is therefore recommended for refusal for the following reasons:

·    Non-compliance with the FSR required in the Councils Code

·    Non compliance with the side setbacks requirements in the Councils Code

·    Loss of privacy for adjoining residences.

·    Bulk and scale of the building as excessive, as expressed through the FSR and setback non-compliance and the interaction between the existing house and the proposed additions.

·    Visual intrusiveness of the building in terms of the excessive use of glass on the front façade, and external features being out of character with the streetscape.

·    The development is contrary to the Public interest as shown by the objections received and the points raised.

·    The application has failed to meet the requirements of the BASIX

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the proposed development for alterations and additions to the rear of the existing dwelling at 8 Cobden Ave be refused for the following reasons.

 

1.         The proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)( a ) as the proposal does not  satisfy the objectives of clause 2(2)(a)(i) and clause 2(2)(a)(iii) of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987 with regard to protecting existing residential character and amenity.

 

2.         The proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)( a ) as the proposal does not  satisfy the objectives of  clause 9 of the Lane Cove Local Environmental plan for the  Residential 2(a1) Zone which are “to retain and where appropriate improve the existing residential amenity of a detached single family dwelling area”

 

3.          The proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)( a ) as the              proposal does not  satisfy the objectives  of  Clause 2 of the Code and Development    Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and     Outbuildings, which requires any development proposed to be built among  existing         dwelling the design to take into account factors beyond the site including  overshadowing,          overlooking, views privacy and street character.

            

4.          The proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)( a ) as the              proposal does not  satisfy the requirements of  Clause 3.1 of the Code and Development              Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and              Outbuildings which requires that Dwellings are to be designed with regard to the amenity of              adjoining properties’.

            

5.          The proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)( a ) as the              proposal does not  satisfy the requirements of  Clause 3.2 of  the Code and Development              Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and              Outbuildings because the proposed development exceeds the  FSR requirements of Clause              3.2.

 

6.          The proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)( a ) as the              proposal does not  satisfy the requirements of  Clause 3.6 of  the Code and Development              Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and              Outbuildings because the proposed development is to be designed and orientated to avoid              overlooking dwellings.

 

7.          The proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)( a ) as the              proposal does not  satisfy the requirements of  Clause 3.8 of  the Code and Development              Application Checklist for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and              Outbuildings because the proposal  is closer than required side setback. Specifically, the               north eastern elevation is setback less than 1.5 metres and the south western setback is less              than 1.2 metres from the boundary.

 

8.          The proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)( b ) because         the proposal  would have  a significant impact on the privacy of the residents at number 6    and 10 Cobden Ave.

 

9.          The proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)( b ) because the              proposed development will impact the ambience and amenity of the area  due to the bulk              and scale of the development.

 

10.        The proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)( c ) because the              proposal is not suitable for the site considering the:

·   The impact on the sense of openness in the area

·   The impact on Streetscape

·   Bulk and scale given sitting of proposed addition on the site

 

11.        The proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(e ) and is not in    the public interest.

 

12.       The proposal is unsatisfactory in respect to the provisions of Section 79C(1)( d ) because the proposal would have an adverse impact on the existing  amenity of  adjoining residences as evidenced by objections raised and the variety of concerns in those objections.

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Notification Plan

1 Page

 

 

CNL070507ES_318.doc

*****   End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 318   *****

 


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 8

 

7 MAY 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 7 May 2007

24/04/2007 to Ordinary Council

Environmental Services Division Report No. 8

Subject:           Comparison of Privately Certified and Council approved Construction Certificates    

Record No:     SU1863 - 9891/07

Author(s):       Michael Mason 

 

 

Background

 

At the meeting of 2 April 2007 Council resolved:

 

            “A report be submitted to Council on the number of applications handled by Private Certifiers compared with the number of applications handled by Council Officers.”

 

The following table compares these statistics for the period January 2006 – December 2006:

 

 

 

Council

 

Private Certifiers

Construction

Certificates

 

97

 

165

Complying

Developments

 

15

 

21

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

CNL070507ES_8.doc

*****   End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 8   *****

 


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

7 MAY 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 7 May 2007

1/05/2007 to Ordinary Council

Environmental Services Division Report No. 9

Subject:           Passive Smoking Policy    

Record No:     SU1831 - 10405/07

Author(s):       Steve Fedorow 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council at its ordinary meeting of 19 February 2007, resolved to endorse the draft Passive Smoking Policy dated 14 February 2007 for the purposes of public exhibition, and to place the draft policy on public exhibition for a period of 28 days.  At the ordinary Council meeting of 14 March 2007, Councillor Ann Smith put forward a Notice of Motion to extend the period of public exhibition until 27 April 2007. 

 

The exhibition period has expired with a total of 8 submissions (including a petition with 325 signatures) received.  Of these, 5 submissions including the petition were in support of the draft Policy, 2 were opposed to the draft Policy, and 1 drew Council’s attention to problems surrounding smoking on unit balconies.

 

The draft policy seeks to:-

 

1.   To protect members of the community from the health and social impacts of passive smoking.

 

2.   To reduce littering and protect the environment from the impacts of discarded cigarette butts.

 

3.   To provide a framework for the enforcement of smoking bans in the following locations:

 

a.   All Council owned alfresco dining areas;

b.   Within the Lane Cove Plaza area (between Burns Bay Road & Longueville Road);

c.   Within Council owned arcades;

d.   During public events on Council Land;

e.   Within the grounds of all Council owned sporting facilities, childcare centres, community centres, youth related facilities, neighbourhood centres, libraries and leased commercial premises;

f.    All bushland on public land within the Lane Cove Local Government Area;

g.   All sportsfields including grandstands and change rooms.  A condition of hiring Council sportsfields shall be that the above areas be smoke-free;

h.   Within 10 metres of children’s playgrounds or play equipment;

i.    All foreshore areas on public land within the Lane Cove Local Government Area;

j.    All parks within the Lane Cove Local Government Area.

 


Discussion

 

The Draft Passive Smoking Policy was placed on public exhibition for a period of 56 days with Lane Cove ALIVE & the Chamber of Commerce being notified, and notices being placed in the North Shore Times, North Side Courier, on Council’s website, and in Council’s Administration Centre & Libraries.  At the conclusion of the public exhibition period, Council had received a total of 8 submissions regarding the draft Policy:-

 

-    5 of these submissions, including a petition with 325 signatures, were in support of the draft Policy.

-    2 of the submissions were opposed to the draft Policy.

-    1 submission sought to draw Council’s attention to the impact of passive smoking on unit balconies to others dwelling in multi unit dwellings.

 

It is important to note that Council’s draft passive smoking policy does not extend to privately owned open space such as unit balconies or common areas/airspace within multi unit dwellings.  Further, Council does not have the authority to endorse a policy that would restrict smoking in these areas.  This issue would be best addressed by the owner’s corporation of each multi unit dwelling on an individual basis.  Accordingly the submission relating to this aspect of passive smoking has not been considered further for the purposes of this report.

 

Submissions were received from two individuals who opposed to the draft Policy on the grounds that those who wish to smoke should be able to do so in open air where the impact on others is minimized; that such a ban would be ‘Big Brother’ like & have a negative financial impact upon Lane Cove businesses; and that such ban would be too difficult for Council to enforce.

 

Submissions in support of the draft Policy were received from:-

 

-    The Lane Cove Bushland & Conservation Society Inc;

-    Residents and Shopkeepers for Appropriate Development (RASAD);

-    Osborne Park Progress Association Inc;

-    Lane Cove ALIVE; &

-    A petition of 325 signatures organised by Martin Palin & Professor Peter Carroll.

 

Copies of all submissions have been forwarded to Councillors under separate cover.

 

Conclusion

 

Having regard to the period of public exhibition and the general support received for the draft Policy, it is recommended that the Draft Passive Smoking Policy be adopted by Council as exhibited.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Receive and note the report;

 

2.   Adopt and implement the Passive Smoking Policy dated 14 February 2007 and include the Policy in Council’s Policy Register.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

CNL070507ES_9.doc

*****   End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 9   *****

       

 

 

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