†††††††††††

 

 

 

 

 

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††

 

Lane Cove Council

 

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council

 

 

 

AGENDA

 

 

 

DATE OF MEETING:††††††††† 18 June 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 Councilís website www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au.

 


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

18 JUNE 2007

 

 

 

ITEM††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† REPORT CONTENT††††††††††† ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† PAGE

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

 

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

 

ď3.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.Ē

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.††††† ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 4 JUNE 2007

 

 

 

Orders Of The Day

 

2.†††††† Order Of The Day No. 1

SUBJECT: Council and Committee Meeting Schedule - July 2007

Notices of Motion

 

3.†††††† Notice of Motion No. 2

SUBJECT: Amending Council's Practice to allow Members of the Public to Address Council on Agenda Items at the first Council Meeting of the Month

General Managers Reports

 

4.†††††† General Managers Report No. 13

SUBJECT: Little Lane Carpark - Development of Planning Controls

 

5.†††††† General Managers Report No. 14

SUBJECT: 314 Burns Bay Road - Development of Planning Controls

Corporate Services Division Reports

 

6.†††††† Corporate Services Division Report No. 29

SUBJECT: NSROC Annual Conference - Motions of Regional Significance

 

7.†††††† Corporate Services Division Report No. 31

SUBJECT: Request for Funding by Australian Paralympic Committee

Open Space and Urban Services Division Reports

 

8.†††††† Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 24

SUBJECT: Hedging Vegetation & Leighton Green Trees - Policy

 

9.†††††† Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 26

SUBJECT: Traffic and Parking Master Plan for Lane Cove Town Centre and Business Park Traffic and Parking Strategy Study

Environmental Services Division Reports

 

10.†††† Environmental Services Division Report No. 10

SUBJECT: DraftAccess DCP for Exhibition

 

11.†††† Environmental Services Division Report No. 14

SUBJECT: Local Government Carbon Trading Scheme......................... 27

 

12.†††† Environmental Services Division Report No. 15

SUBJECT: Leash Free Areas Review................................................................... 30

Human Services Division Reports

 

13.†††† Human Services Division Report No. 10

SUBJECT: Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) Action Plan (DDAAP) 34

 

14.†††† Human Services Division Report No. 11

SUBJECT: National Men's Sheds Conference.............................................. 35

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

 

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

 

†††††††††


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

ORDER OF THE DAY NO. 1

 

18 JUNE 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 18 June 2007

12 June 2007 to Ordinary Council

Order Of The Day No. 1

Subject:†††††††††† Council and Committee Meeting Schedule - July 2007††

Record No:†††† SU1915 - 14740/07

Author(s):†††††† Myrna Eisenhuth

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council and Committee Meeting Schedule Ė July 2007

 

July 14†††††††††††† Inspection Committee

 

July 16†††††††††††† Ordinary Council

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Planning and Building Committee

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Services and Resources Committee

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

CNL180607OD_1.doc

*****†† End of Order Of The Day No. 1†† *****


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2

 

18 JUNE 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 18 June 2007

13/06/2007 to Ordinary Council

Notice of Motion No. 2

Subject:†††††††††† Amending Council's Practice to allow Members of the Public to Address Council on Agenda Items at the first Council Meeting of the Month††

Record No:†††† SU837 - 14885/07

Author(s):†††††† Councillor Kay Freedman

 

 

Background

 

Council currently permits people who wish to address Council on any issue, to do so at the second Council meeting (third Monday) of each month, which is referred to as the Ďpublic speaking night.í

 

Members of the public take this opportunity to address Council on either a general matter or a matter relating to a specific item on the agenda.If the third meeting occurs after the inspection committee frequently neighbours or the applicant or their representatives will also address Council.

 

I am recommending to Council that the right to address Council be extended to allow members of the public to address Council on the first Council meeting (first Monday) of the month.However this right should be limited to a right to speak only on matters in reports on the agenda for that meeting.(It is noted that many Councils allow anyone wishing to address Council on any agenda item to so and many provide for the address as the item is called during the course of the meeting.)

 

I recommend amendment to Councilís practice for the following reasons:

 

††† To enable Councillors, in their role as elected representatives, a further opportunity to take into account residents and community views in decision making;

 

††† To enable members of the public to address Council on reports on significant policy matters or strategic and consultative plans which come before Council on the first meeting of the month; and

 

††† To provide consistency of procedure as on some occasions at the first meeting of the month standing orders have been suspended to allow Council to be addressed on a particular matter.However this does not occur on all matters and may result in some confusion in the publicís mind as to the application of the rules.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.†††††††† Resolves that at the first Council meeting (first Monday) of each month, people who wish to address Council on any matter in a report on the agenda for that meeting (for a maximum of three minutes) be allowed to do so at the conclusion of Closed Committee or if there is no Closed Committee at the commencement of the meeting.

 

2.†††††††† Confirms its practice established pursuant to a resolution of 13 May 1996 that:

ďAt 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 the Closed Committee.Ē

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Kay Freedman

Councillor Central Ward

Lane Cove Council

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

CNL180607NM_2.doc

*****†† End of Notice of Motion No. 2†† *****

††


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT NO. 13

 

18 JUNE 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 18 June 2007

12/06/2007 to Ordinary Council

General Managers Report No. 13

Subject:†††††††††† Little Lane Carpark - Development of Planning Controls††

Record No:†††† SU2896 - 14782/07

Author(s):†††††† John Lee

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report discusses the development of planning controls for the Little Street Carpark site.

The site has been identified as having a high priority for redevelopment in the draft Major Projects Strategic Plan 2007-2016 which will be submitted to the next meeting of Council in July 2007 as the site has the potential to increase the amount of public carparking available for utilisation by persons visiting the Village and Aquatic Centre.The Major Projects Strategic Plan 2007 Ė 2016 suggests that it would be possible to increase the public carparking on the site from 68 to around 150 spaces with a suitable mix of land uses in addition to public carparking from residential, commercial, community and/or recreational facilities uses.

 

The community consultation process is seen as an important upfront action and will provide the opportunity for the community to have input into the controls for the site.

 

It is intended that the process will result in a preferred building envelope option accompanied by a proposed set of development controls.It will become a supporting document to the draft comprehensive LEP 2007 exhibition process which will be subject to broad community consultation.

 

The report recommends that Council endorse the development of planning controls for the site.

 

Background

 

At its ordinary meeting of 6 November 2006 Council resolved to:

 

1.†† ďAdopt Draft LEP No.63 Ė Little Lane Carpark subject to:-

 

††† Clause 2(ii) be amended to provide for the including a basketball court.

††† Clause 6. b)(3)a) be amended by replacing ďexisting buildingsĒ with adjoining††† buildings.

††† Clause 6. b)(3)b) be amended by replacing ďexisting buildingsĒ with adjoining buildings

 

2.†† Submit Draft LEP No.63 to the Department of Planning for endorsement to enable exhibition, in accordance with sections 54-66 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

3.†† Inform relevant community organisations of the exhibition of Draft LEP amendment No.63 as part of Councilís Statutory Exhibition Strategy.Ē

 

During discussions with the Department of Planning in March 2007 following suggestions from the Department it was agreed that Draft LEP amendment No.63 should be amalgamated into the draft comprehensive LEP 2007 in order to provide a more efficient process.

 

 

Discussion

 

It is proposed to provide for increased carparking on the site in the order of 150 public spaces.Structural carparking (undercover/underground) will be required as the current surface configuration for 68 spaces is about optimal.

 

The cost of structural carparking is in the order of $30-40k per space. The cost to provide such isbetween $4.5 - $6m.

 

To achieve additional carparking at no cost to Council, it is intended to include a range of mixed uses including residential, commercial/ retail and/or community facilities to generate an appropriate revenue source and/or income stream toward other community projects.

 

Under the draft Comprehensive LEP 2007, the proposed rezoning for the site is Mixed Uses B4 and its provisions include:

 

1.†††††††† Objectives of the Zone:

 

††† To provide a mixture of compatible land uses.

††† To integrate suitable business, office, residential, retail and other development in accessible locations so as to maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

 

2.†††††††† Permitted with Consent are:

 

Advertisements; advertising structures; boarding houses; building identification signs; business identification signs; business premises; car parks; child care centres; community facilities; demolition; drainage; earthworks; educational establishments; entertainment facilities; function centres; hotel accommodation; information and education facilities; multi dwelling housing; office premises; passenger transport facilities; recreation facilities (indoor); registered clubs; residential flat buildings; retail premises; roads; seniors housing; shop top housing; utility installations.

 

The draft comprehensive LEP 2007 for this site also includes a height control of 15m above natural ground level and an FSR of 2:1.These controls were proposed by external consultant, Mr Eric Armstrong, to satisfy the Departmentís requirement that FSR and height controls must be contained in the Comprehensive LEP before the LEP Review Panel will consider it.The independent process intended will utilise external expertise and will have regard to the issues/suggestions raised during the consultation and the matters listed below and will result in a preferred building envelope option accompanied by a proposed set of development controls which will become a supporting document to the draft comprehensive LEP 2007 exhibition process which will be subject to broad community consultation.

 

The independent process will, as a minimum, consider the following:

 

(a)††††††† Urban design planning principles in the Lane Cove planning context;

(b)††††††† The adequacy or suitability of the draft planning controls contained in the Draft Comprehensive LEP 2007 for this site.Should the refinement of the draft planning controls be necessary to achieve a redevelopment of the site that complies with the Village Character of the Lane Cove CBD, Councilís and the NSW Government Planning guide lines, full justification of such proposals will be provided in a detailed planning report;

(c)††††††† Site setbacks;

(d)††††††† The bulk and scale of proposed development including building heights, floor space ratios, proposed building design, including facades, materials;

(e)††††††† Transitions between the adjacent residential and business zones;

(f)†††††††† Pedestrian linkage options between the public car park and Longueville Road;

(g)††††††† Visual lines of sight from adjacent developments, views and overshadowing;

(h)††††††† Accessibility;

(i)†††††††† Landscaping and streetscape;

(j)†††††††† Traffic management including public car parking including loading, waste collection, entry and exit arrangements and private car parking (relative to public car parking);

(k)††††††† Environmental issues; and

(l)†††††††† Sustainability (water saving and energy saving measures and storm water harvesting).

 

 

Community Engagement

 

The consultation in this project is preliminary to a broad consultation to be undertaken as part of the Draft LEP 2007 consultation process. On this basis this initial phase will see the consultation targeted to the Key Stakeholders.

 

Consultation Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to determine the type and scale of development suitable for the site. Comments received will assist in the development of planning controls for the site to be exhibited simultaneously with the Draft LEP 2007 consultation process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Methods of Consultation

 

The methods of consultation proposed are outlined below.

 

 

Involve

Involve

Involve

Inform

Target Audience

Adjacent owners, residents and businesses

Community Reference Groups

Community Leaders

Lane Cove Community

Participants

Adjoining Property Owners and Residents in Little Lane and Little Street

Lane Cove ALIVE

Commercial Property Owners Association, Lane Cove Chamber of Commerce, RASAD, and other Residents Associations

General Community

Proposed Medium

Direct Notification, Briefing sessions and Discussion Forums

Briefing sessions and Discussion Forums

Briefing sessions and Discussion Forums

Website

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.†††††††† Endorse the development of planning controls for the Little Street Carpark site as outlined and hold a Councillors Workshop during the process.

 

2.†††††††† A further report be submitted to Council on the outcome.

 

3.†††††††† Include an explanation of the process on Councilís website with regular updates.

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

CNL180607GM_13.doc

*****†† End of General Managers Report No. 13†† *****


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT NO. 14

 

18 JUNE 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 18 June 2007

13/06/2007 to Ordinary Council

General Managers Report No. 14

Subject:†††††††††† 314 Burns Bay Road - Development of Planning Controls††

Record No:†††† SU2589 - 14794/07

Author(s):†††††† John Lee

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report discusses the development of planning controls for the former RSL Bowling Club site on 314 Burns Bay Road.

 

The site, which is in a deteriorated condition and underutilized, has been identified as having a high priority in the draft Major Projects Strategic Plan 2007-2016 which will be submitted to the next meeting of Council in July 2007.

 

The site provides the opportunity to enhance the recreational opportunities within the area, address key traffic issues associated with Burns Bay Road and provide funds for the development of much needed community facilities.

 

The community consultation process is seen as an important upfront action and will provide the opportunity for the community to have input into the controls for the site.

 

It is intended that the process will result in a preferred building envelope option accompanied by a proposed set of development controls as a supporting document to the draft comprehensive LEP 2007.The process will also examine options to enhance the open space.

 

The report recommends Council endorse the development of planning controls for the site.

 

Background

 

The former RSL Bowling Club ceased operation in mid 1991.Since that time the site has deteriorated significantly with an infestation of rabbits and an unfortunate arson attack that resulted in loss of the disused club building.

 

In the draft comprehensive LEP 2007 the TUTA industrial site and part of the site adjacent to Burns Bay Road as shown in Attachment 1, have been identified for residential redevelopment.

 

An extract of the draft Comprehensive LEP 2007 is Attachment 1 and an aerial view of the site is Attachment 2.

 

Discussion

 

One of the key issues to be addressed with this and the TUTA site is access via the signalised intersection on Burns Bay Road adjacent to 300 Burns Bay Road.A new road is being considered through to the TUTA site and immediately above the upper (disused) bowling green on 314 Burns Bay Road.

 

The subdivided area between this suggested new road and Burns Bay Road is proposed to be zoned as Residential R4 in the draft Comprehensive LEP 2007 and its provisions include:

 

Objectives of The Zone

 

(1)††††††† To provide for the housing needs of the community within a high density residential environment;

 

(2)††††††† To provide a variety of housing types within a high density residential environment; and

 

(3)††††††† To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of the residents.

 

Permitted With Consent

 

Bed and breakfast accommodation; boarding houses building identification signs; business identification signs; child care centres; community facilities; cultural activities; cultural activities structure; demolition; drainage; earthworks; educational establishments; group homes; health consulting rooms; home businesses ; home industries; home occupations; hospitals; hotel accommodation; multi-dwelling housing ; neighbourhood shops; places of public worship; residential flat buildings; roads; seniors housing; shop top housing; utility installation.

 

The draft Comprehensive LEP 2007 proposes for this site an FSR of 1.7:1.The independent process intended will utilise external expertise and will have regard to the issues/suggestions raised during the consultation and the matters listed below and will result in a preferred building envelope option accompanied by a proposed set of development controls as a supporting document to the draft comprehensive LEP 2007.

 

The independent process will, as a minimum, consider the following:

 

(a)††††††† Urban design planning principles in the Lane Cove planning context;

(b)††††††† The adequacy or suitability of the draft planning controls contained in the Draft Comprehensive LEP 2007 for this site.Should the refinement of the draft planning controls be necessary to achieve a redevelopment of the site that complies with the surrounding and proposed land use, Councilís and the NSW Government Planning guide lines, full justification of such proposals will be provided in a detailed planning report;

(c)††††††† Site setbacks;

(d)††††††† The bulk and scale of proposed development including building heights, floor space ratios, proposed building design, including facades, materials;

(e)††††††† Property acquisitions;

(f)†††††††† Pedestrian linkage options between Burns Bay Road and the public open space and foreshore;

(g)††††††† Visual lines of sight from adjacent developments, views and overshadowing;

(h)††††††† Accessibility;

(i)†††††††† Landscaping and streetscape for the residential component;

(j)†††††††† Enhancement of the remaining area of open space and any associated public carparking;

(k)††††††† Expansion of a bicycle path from Burns Bay Reserve through to Burns Bay Road;

(l)†††††††† Traffic management including public car parking including loading, waste collection, entry and exit arrangements and private car parking (relative to public car parking);

(m)†††††† Environmental issues; and

(n)††††††† Sustainability (water saving and energy saving measures and storm water harvesting).

 

Community Engagement

 

The consultation in this project is preliminary to a broad consultation to be undertaken as part of the Draft LEP 2007 consultation process. On this basis this initial phase will see the consultation targeted to the Key Stakeholders.

 

Consultation Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to determine the type and scale of development suitable for the site. Comments received will assist in the development of planning controls for the site to be exhibited simultaneously with the Draft LEP 2007 consultation process.

 

Methods of Consultation

 

The methods of consultation proposed are outlined below.

 

 

Involve

Involve

Involve

Inform

Target Audience

Adjacent owners, residents and businesses

Relevant State Agencies

Community Leaders

Lane Cove Community

Participants

Adjoining Property Owners and Residents in Burns Bay Road

RTA

Residents Associations

General Community

Proposed Medium

Direct Notification, Briefing sessions and Discussion Forums

Meeting

Briefing sessions and Discussion Forums

Website

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.†††††††† Endorse the development of planning controls for 314 Burns Bay Road as outlined and hold a Councillor Workshop during the process;

 

2.†††††††† A further report be submitted to Council on the outcome.

 

††††† 3.†††††††† Include an explanation of the process on Councilís website with regular updates;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Extract of the Draft Comprehensive LEP 2007

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Aerial View of site - 314 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove

1 Page

 

CNL180607GM_14.doc

*****†† End of General Managers Report No. 14†† *****


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 29

 

18 JUNE 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 18 June 2007

 

12/06/2007 to Ordinary Council

 

Corporate Services Division Report No. 29

 

Subject:††††††††† NSROC Annual Conference - Motions of Regional Significance††† ††

 

File No:†††††††††† 14690/07

 

Author(s):†††††† Ian Naylor

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to advise that Council has received correspondence from NSROC calling for motions of regional significance for consideration at their Annual Conference.

 

Discussion

 

Council has received correspondence from NSROC advising that its Annual conference will be held on 2nd August 2007.In addition, NSROC has requested councilís in the NSROC region to consider motions of regional significance that can be debated at the annual conference and if supported by NSROC forwarded as a motion to the 2007 Local Government Association Conference.

 

Two issues of regional significance that could be raised as motions for the NSROC Annual conference are:-

 

1.†† The timeframe for submitting an application to the Department of Local Government for a special variation in Rates above the pegged statutory limit should be brought forward.Currently, the timeframe for submitting and determining applications gives councils very little time in which to plan and implement changes to the first rate notice of the new financial year.In addition, the basis on which special Rate variations may be levied needs to be reviewed so councils can have greater flexibility in structuring special levies having regard to the reasons the increase is sought and the impact on the community. For example, Councilís may wish to apply for a fixed amount levy similar to the Stormwater Charge, which is currently not possible.

 

Proposed Motion

 

That representations be made to the Minister for Local Government to:-

 

a) ††††††† Bring forward the timeframe for submitting and determining applications for special variations in Rates above the pegged statutory limit; and

b) ††††††† review the basis on which special rate variations may be levied, so as to allow councils greater flexibility in structuring special levies having regard to the reasons the levy is sought and the impact on the community.

 

 


 

2.†† The operation of Kingsford Smith Airport has a major impact on the residents in the Region.It is appropriate that prior to the next federal election, commitments be obtained from the major federal political parties in relation to noise sharing, the long term operating plan, expansion of Kingsford Smith Airport and continuation of the Sydney Airport Community Forum.

 

Proposed Motion

 

That the major Federal political parties commit to the following matters in relation to aircraft noise and Sydney Airport:-

 

a.†† No further increase in aircraft movements over the NSROC region;

b.†† the aircraft noise sharing plan being rigorously enforced including the application of appropriate fines and penalties to strengthen compliance;

c.†† the dissemination of information in a timely manner by the operator of Kingsford Smith Airport in relation to noise and traffic data and ongoing operational issues;

d.†† the implementation of the Long Term Operating Plan;

e.†† the implementation of strategies to encourage all aircraft operators to utilise newer quieter aircraft;

f.††† the expansion of Kingsford Smith Airport in a manner which will not result in an increase in aircraft noise; and

g.†† the continuation of the Sydney Airport Community Forum.

 

Councillors may also wish to propose additional motions for submission to NSROC.The closing date for motions to be submitted is 13 July 2007.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1.†††††††† That Council give consideration to adopting motions of regional significance for submission to NSROC for consideration at its Annual Conference on 2 August 2007.

 

2.†††††††† That a detailed supporting case for each adopted motion be submitted to NSROC by the closing deadline.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

CNL180607CSD_29.doc

*****†† End of Corporate Services Division Report No. 29†† *****


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

CORPORATE SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 31

 

18 JUNE 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 18 June 2007

12/06/2007 to Ordinary Council

Corporate Services Division Report No. 31

Subject:†††††††††† Request for Funding by Australian Paralympic Committee††

Record No:†††† SU2812 - 14733/07

Author(s):†††††† Ian Naylor

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to outline correspondence received by the Mayor from the Australian Paralympics Committee.

 

Discussion

 

The Australian Paralympic Committee is currently preparing for the Beijing Paralympic Games to be held in 2008.The Committee has written to Council seeking financial support to assist in sending the athletes to the 2008 Paralympic Games.In September 2005, Council donated $250 to the Australian Paralympic Committee to support the sending of athletes to the 2006 Paralympic Winter Games.The Committee has advised that a donation of $350 would cover the cost of opening and closing ceremony uniforms for one athlete.

 

If Council were to make a donation to the Australian Paralympic Committee, it would need to advertise its intention to do so in accordance with Section 356 of the Local Government Act, 1993.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.††† Consider a donation of $350 to the Australian Paralympic Committee to support the sending of athletes to the 2006 Paralympic Winter Games.

 

2.††† Subject to Resolution 1 above, give Public Notice of the proposed donation in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, and subject to no objections being received, grant the donation.

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

CNL180607CSD_31.doc

*****†† End of Corporate Services Division Report No. 31†† *****


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

OPEN SPACE AND URBAN SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 24

 

18 JUNE 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 18 June 2007

12/06/2007 to Ordinary Council

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 24

Subject:†††††††††† Hedging Vegetation & Leighton Green Trees - Policy††

Record No:†††† SU241 - 14767/07

Author(s):†††††† Wayne Rylands

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The cultivation of hedge type vegetation, including Leighton Green trees and the like, are becoming an increasingly contentious issue for the Lane Cove community.

 

These plants can form a Ďsolid wallí that can quickly reach in excess of 5 metres. The result is that sunlight to adjoining properties can be blocked to and views severely restricted from adjoining properties. This creates both amenity and health issues for adjoining neighbours of properties that cultivate this type of vegetation.

 

This policy has been developed to provide Council with some control in respect of the planting and cultivation of this type of vegetation.

 

Background

 

The use of Leighton Green trees and other similar vegetation is increasingly being used by property owners as a means of obtaining additional privacy from adjoining properties. The side effect though is that the amenity of neighbouring properties is adversely affected as detailed above.

 

This is a universal problem, and Councillors may be aware of the Leighton Green tree issue that occurred in the Mosman Council area of recent times.

 

Discussion

 

The regulation of Leighton Green trees and like hedging vegetation is considered in the main to be a legal issue. As such, Councilís in-house lawyer was requested to provide some advice as to how Council could regulate the cultivating of hedging vegetation on private property. The advice, in essence, is as follows:-

 

ď1. Council can, by way of and pursuant to an EPI, control (including but not limited to regulate, restrict and/or prohibit, either conditionally or unconditionally, including by way of requiring consent) the subject-matter of trees and vegetation with a view to their protection or preservation.

 

2.Council can, by way of and pursuant to an EPI, control (including but not limited to regulate, restrict and/or prohibit, either conditionally or unconditionally, including by way of requiring consent) the subject-matter of the environment with a view to its protection, improvement or utilisation to its best advantage.

 

Thus, I am of the opinion that Council can ONLY do what it seeks to do if it amends its LEP and/or includes in the proposed new LEP so as to include a provision that requires development consent to be obtained in respect of what is set out in (but not legally required by) Policy No. F01001, namely, a dividing fence within the meaning of the Dividing Fences Act 1991 between private properties that exceeds 1800mm in height from the building alignment of the premises.

 

I suggest that any clause to be inserted in the LEP (whether the existing LEP or the proposed new one, or both) be along the following lines:

________________________________

 

Dividing Fences

 

(1) With a view to ensuring access to adequate sunlight and avoiding or minimising the loss of views, and otherwise protecting, improving and utilising, to the best advantage, the environment, a person must not, without the consent of the Council:

 

(a) carry out fencing work between private properties that exceeds 1800mm in height, or

 

(b) cause, permit or allow, whether by act or omission, fencing work (including but not limited to fencing work in existence immediately before the commencement of this clause/Plan) between private properties to exceed 1800mm in height,

 

as measured from the building alignment of the premises.

 

(3) For the purposes of this clause, "fencing work" means fencing work within the meaning of the Dividing Fences Act 1991

________________________________

 

For Councilís information the definition of a fence in the Dividing Fences Act 1991 is as follows:-

 

Fence means a structure, ditch or embankment, or a hedge or similar vegetative barrier, enclosing or bounding land, whether or not continuous or extending along the whole of the boundary separating the land of adjoining owners, and includes:

 

a.†††††††† any gate, cattlegrid or apparatus necessary for the operation of a fence, and

b.†††††††† any natural or artificial watercourse which separates the land of adjoining owners, and

c.†††††††† any foundation or support necessary for the support and maintenance of the fence,

 

but does not include a retaining wall or a wall which is part of a house, garage or other building.

 

Conclusion

 

As Council does not have regulatory control under the Dividing Fences Act 1991, it would appear that the best course of action with respect to controlling the use of hedging vegetation would be to amend itsí LEP as suggested by the Councilís in-house lawyer.

Open Space & Urban Services will work with the Strategic Planning section to incorporate this information into the existing LEP, which will subsequently be included in the new LEP, when approved by the State Government.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council incorporate into the existing LEP, the following section on Dividing Fences that will better regulate the use of hedging vegetation: -

 

Dividing Fences

 

(1) With a view to ensuring access to adequate sunlight and avoiding or minimising the loss of views, and otherwise protecting, improving and utilising, to the best advantage, the environment, a person must not, without the consent of the Council:

 

(a) carry out fencing work between private properties that exceeds 1800mm in height, or

 

(b) cause, permit or allow, whether by act or omission, fencing work (including but not limited to fencing work in existence immediately before the commencement of this clause/Plan) between private properties to exceed 1800mm in height,

 

as measured from the building alignment of the premises.

 

(3) For the purposes of this clause, "fencing work" means fencing work within the meaning of the Dividing Fences Act 1991.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

CNL180607US_24.doc

*****†† End of Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 24†† *****


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

OPEN SPACE AND URBAN SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 26

 

18 JUNE 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 18 June 2007

12/06/2007 to Ordinary Council

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 26

Subject:†††††††††† Traffic and Parking Master Plan for Lane Cove Town Centre and Business Park Traffic and Parking Strategy Study††

Record No:†††† su1361 - 14780/07

Author(s):†††††† Wayne Rylands

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Further to the Open Space & Urban Services Divisional Report No 37 of October 2006, and following the workshop with Councillors on Monday, 14 May 2007, the Traffic and Parking Master Plan for Lane Cove Town Centre and Business Park Traffic and Parking Strategy Study has been updated by Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd for adoption by Council.

 

Discussion

 

At the workshop of Monday, 14 May 2007, a number of issues were raised with respect to the Draft Report that had been issued to Council in October 2007. The main issues were regarding clarification of the Levels of Service of traffic signals, and the breakdown of parking spaces in the off-street carparks. Both of these issues have been addressed in the updated report tabled for Councilís consideration.

 

The Traffic and Parking Master Plan for the Lane Cove Town Centre identifies that there is a small shortfall of off-street parking (27 car spaces) for the existing development in the Town Centre. If the Town Centre is developed with another 5000m2 by 2016, without a Cultural Centre, a total shortfall of 78 off-street carspaces occurs. A Cultural Centre, with a 500 seat auditorium, would require an additional 83 off-street carspaces, meaning a total possible requirement of 161 off-street carspaces. This amount of additional off-street parking would not have any undue impacts on traffic flow into/out of the Town Centre.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd ĎTraffic and Parking Master Plan for Lane Cove Town Centre and Business Park Traffic and Parking Strategy Studyí, dated June 2007.

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Traffic and Parking Master Plan for Lane Cove Town Centre and Business Park Traffic and Parking Strategy Study

76 Pages

 

CNL180607US_26.doc

*****†† End of Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 26†† *****


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 10

 

18 JUNE 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 18 June 2007

14/05/2007 to Ordinary Council

Environmental Services Division Report No. 10

Subject:†††††††††† DraftAccess DCP for Exhibition††

Record No:†††† SU2942 - 11688/07

Author(s):†††††† Stephanie Bashford

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council is requested to adopt Draft Access Development Control Plan for the purpose of public exhibition. The Access & Mobility DCP No.5 was reviewed by an access consultancy and staff to ensure that is meets best practice and legal requirements.A copy of the Draft Access DCP is attached at AT1.

 

The purpose of undertaking the revision was to ensure that the DCP is legally up-to-date under the Disability Discrimination Act, during the current interim phase while the Federal Government is reviewing its legislation and policies.

 

The Access DCP is the first DCP to be reviewed for the future Comprehensive DCP which Council is required to complete following the Comprehensive LEP Review.

 

Background

 

The Lane Cove Access & Mobility Development Control Plan was adopted on 1st March 1999. A copy of the current plan is attached at AT2. Since that time there have been legal and technical developments, and changes to community expectations, which require that the DCP be updated in accordance with best practice. The Olympic Coordination Authority Access Guidelines prepared in 2000 have been influential in these changes.

 

In early 2006 Council prepared a working draft Access Development Control Plan revision, in consultation with the Lane Cove Access Committee, and after consideration of a sample of other councilsí access plans.

 

In May 2006 Council obtained the services of a professional access consultant, Access Australia, to review the working draft DCP. In July 2006, Access Australia consulted with staff on the working draft DCP. In September the recommended Draft Access DCP was presented to the Access Committee. Reports by the consultants which detail the DCP review process are attached at AT3 and AT4.

 

Discussion

 

1.†††††††† Options For The Review

 

The consultant advised that in April 2000, as a result of an amendment made to strengthen the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), the Federal Government had prepared the Draft Disability Standards for Access to Premises (known as the Premises Standard) in order to clarify accessibility requirements under the DDA. The Premises Standard is eventually to be included in the Building Code of Australia and this will have implications for the content of the Access DCP. However, the timeframe of that process is uncertain.

 

Therefore, in considering a review of Councilís DCP, three Options were considered:

 

1.†††††††† Leaving the Access DCP in its current form until the Premises Standard is finalised: Staff were concerned however that the DCP should be reviewed to ensure that it remained legally up-to-date.

 

2.†††††††† Updating the current DCPís legal references but otherwise leaving it in its current format: Staff were reluctant to continue using a document based on a cumbersome and outdated model (see below).

 

3.†††††††† Modernising the DCP in terms of legal references, access requirements and user-friendly format: This would then be further revised once the APS was finalised.

 

Option 3 was chosen in order to ensure that the Lane Cove DCP satisfied best practice for the foreseeable future pending the release of the final Premises Standard.

 

2.†††††††† Issues Considered In The Review

 

(i)†††††††† Effectiveness of DCP

 

Development applications are currently required to comply with mandatory requirements under Australian Standard 1428.1 (General Requirements for Access Ė Buildings). The requirements in AS1428.1 are based on research on the capabilities of 80 percent of people with disabilities in Australia who use wheelchairs, together with some recognized needs of other disability groups.

 

Based on the relatively high aged population within the municipality, the Lane Cove Access Committee with the Human Services staffís support have recommended that the DCP not only to comply with AS1428.1, but also AS1428.2 (Enhanced and Additional Requirements).The requirements of AS 1428.2 are based on research on the capabilities of at least 90 percent of people with disabilities comprising both people who use wheelchairs and ambulant people. In particular the Committeeís recommendations are to:-

 

††††††††††††††††††††† Increase disabled parking space from 1 space per 100 spaces to 1 space per 50 spaces in Class 6 shop and retail, Class 9a hospitals and clinics, and Class 9b assembly buildings;

††††††††††††††††††††† Increase the requirement for adaptable housing from 1 in 10 to 1 in 5 new medium or high density dwellings.An ďadaptable housingĒ unit means a dwelling designed in such a way that it can be modified easily in the future to become accessible to both occupants and visitors with disabilities or progressive frailties. It does not involve the detailed internal fitouts required forďaccessible housingĒ;

††††††††††††††††††††† Clearly state in the DCP that equal access is an issue for everybody Ė not just people with a disability.

 

It is intended that these proposals would be specifically discussed with key stakeholders, such as the Housing Industry Association and others during the DCPís exhibition.

 

(ii)††††††† Usability of the DCP by Council and the Public

 

The current DCP is based on an early NSW model which restates extensive sections of the technical data from the BCA and Australian Standards. This has the disadvantages that:-

 

††††††††††††††††††††† it only partially lists the legal requirements

††††††††††††††††††††† it does not accord with the Department of Planningís preferred approach of referencing, rather than quoting, legislation

††††††††††††††††††††† it is difficult for Council to maintain the latest version of documents prepared at State or Federal level

††††††††††††††††††††† it is an unnecessarily cumbersome document.

 

It is therefore recommended that the Draft DCP no longer include detailed sections of AS 1428 and other Standards. An applicant would be directed to obtain the relevant Standards and assess requirements in preparing a development application.This also would ensure reference to the latest Standards.

 

The revised Draft DCP provides clear guidance to applicants to the relevant legislation in a more user-friendly format which, though shorter, satisfies Councilís responsibilities:-

 

††††††††††††††††††††† The references to legislation and policies have been updated and streamlined, removing those routinely provided in the DA process (e. the Bushland DCP)

††††††††††††††††††††† Clearer tables list the classes of development to which the various standards apply

††††††††††††††††††††† The DA and CC process, and Council contacts, are stated upfront.

(iii)†††††† Legal Status

 

Responsibility for understanding and complying with the intent of the Disability Discrimination Act is a relatively untested area of law. The draft DCP includes a clause on liability, namely that: ďApplicants, property owners and/or occupants are responsible for understanding and complying with the intent of the Disability Discrimination Act, in relation to the Access DCP.Ē

In explanation of this approach, the advice from HREOC itself (see Access to Buildings and Services Draft Guidelines and Information) is attached at AT5 to the effect that the onus is on the applicant to determine compliance with the legislation. The DCP also refers applicants to Councilís Disability Action Plan.

Community Engagement

 

Council has already consulted the Access committee throughout the drafting of the DCP and this consultation is to obtain the views of the public and gather feedback on the plan.On this basis the consultation will be targeted to the key stakeholders such as people with disabilities and the development industry.

 

 

Consultation Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to determine the relevance of the DCP to the key stakeholders and gain feedback on the affect the DCP may have on them.Comments received will assist in developing the DCP to balance the needs of the Lane Cove community.

 

Methods of Consultation

 

The methods of consultation proposed are outlined below.

 

 

Involve

Involve

Involve

Inform

Target Audience

People with Disabilities, Development Industry and Architectural Industry

Relevant Federal and State Agencies

Community Leaders

Lane Cove Community

Participants

People with Disabilities, Access Committee, Housing Industry Association and Royal Institute of Australian Architects

HREOC, NSW Anti-Discrimination Board

Residents Associations

General Community

Proposed Medium

Public Notice, Direct Notification and Discussion Forums

Direct Notification

E-mail Mailing List (Monthly Newsletter)

Public Notice and Website

 

 

Conclusion

 

The Draft Access DCP has been reviewed to ensure that it is up to date in accordance with current legal and technical requirements. This has been undertaken by a professional access consultant in consultation with the Lane Cove Access Committee and Council staff. It is appropriate for the Draft DCP to be adopted by Council for public exhibition as the first stage of the Comprehensive DCP Review.

 

 

 


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.†††††††† Adopt the Draft Access Development Control Plan as attached at AT1, in accordance with s.74(C) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, for the purpose of public exhibition.

 

2.†††††††† At the conclusion of the public exhibition submissions are to be evaluated and included in the final report to Council.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Access DCP

11 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Access & Mobility DCP 1999

41 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Access Australia Report No.1

17 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

Access Australia Report No.2

14 Pages

 

AT‑5 View

HREOC Guidelines

1 Page

 

CNL180607ES_10.doc

*****†† End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 10†† *****


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 14

 

18 JUNE 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 18 June 2007

7/06/2007 to Ordinary Council

Environmental Services Division Report No. 14

Subject:†††††††††† Local Government Carbon Trading Scheme††

Record No:†††† SU1976 - 14271/07

Author(s):†††††† Steve Fedorow; Nathan John

 

 

Executive Summary

 

As part of this Councilís commitment to addressing climate change, Lane Cove Council has adopted a 50% greenhouse gas emission reduction target to be achieved within a period of 10 years.Staff are currently working to prepare a greenhouse gas action plan to enable Council to meet this emission reduction target.

 

This report discusses greenhouse gas emissions trading schemes, particularly the Local Government Emissions Trading Scheme (LGETS) that is currently being developed, and recommends that Council support and participate in the LGETS as part of its response to climate change.

 

Background

 

As part of its commitment to addressing climate change, at its meeting of 19 March 2007, Council resolved to adopt a greenhouse gas emission reduction target of 50% below 2000/01 baseline levels for both corporate and community sectors by 2017.

 

Discussion

 

Recently council staff along with Councillor Ian Longbottom, Mayor of Lane Cove attended a number of workshops relating to carbon or emissions trading schemes as follows:

 

Principal Voices

 

In February Councillor Ian Longbottom and the Manager, Environmental Health attended the Principal Voices round table discussion on global warming and carbon trading.Principal Voices is a project aimed at stimulating discussion on major challenges facing the world today.It consists of a series of round-table discussions presented by CNN & Time/Fortune in association with Shell and brings together international experts to discuss various issues.

 

A round-table discussion was held in Sydney in February and discussed measures to address global warming through reducing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly through carbon trading.

 

The discussion highlighted potential benefits and difficulties relating to carbon trading schemes (such as the European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) & the Chicago Climate Exchange).

 

A white paper of the discussion is included as an attachment to this report (AT1).A full transcript can also be found at http://www.principalvoices.com/2006/debates/sydney/transcript.html#one.

Local Government Emissions Trading Scheme (LGETS).

 

Councillor Ian Longbottom and the Waste and Environmental Education Officer recently attended a meeting of NSW Councilís interested in setting up a Local Government Emissions Trading Scheme (LGETS).

 

The meeting was hosted by Randwick City Council and held at the University of New South Wales.About 40 representatives of mostly metropolitan Sydney councils attended the workshop including representatives from the majority of NSROC councils.

 

LGETS is the first proposed greenhouse gas emissions trading system for local government in Australia and is expected to be trialled by the end of 2007.

 

The LGETS is likely to modelled on existing emissions trading systems such as the European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS).A pilot trading system is expected to be finalised within two to three months.

Presently, about a dozen councils have indicated that they would like to be involved in running a pilot of the emissions trading system with Randwick Council likely to administer the scheme.This was viewed as a suitable number for the schemeís start-up phase, given it would result in a manageable number of trades.

At the pilot stage it is not envisaged that emissions trading would involve a financial cost to Councilís, however this may change in the future to increase the schemes relevancy.

The LGETS trial would involve participating Councils setting an overall reduction target for the scheme. Participating Councils would then be able to trade emission credits to reach their individual contributions to the schemes overall abatement target.

The LGETS scheme has the potential to increase overall greenhouse gas abatement by NSW Councils by placing a value on Carbon and giving Councils with a smaller capacity to offset their own emissions the ability to obtain credits from other Councils who are well resourced to offset emission in excess of their allocated target.

A further meeting of councils interested in participating in the emissions trading scheme is scheduled to occur at Randwick Council towards the end of June.

At this stage as Council is currently developing its greenhouse gas action plan rather than implementing concrete actions to reduce its emissions and as such it may be premature for Lane Cove to participate in the pilot emissions trading scheme.It is however considered that the LGETS has the potential to introduce a market based trading scheme that, when established and operating would encourage and provide a mechanism for Councils to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the most cost effective manner.

Accordingly whilst not participating in the pilot scheme at this stage, it would be invaluable for Lane Cove Council to support this initiative and to have input into the development of the LGETS.

 


Conclusion

 

As discussed earlier Council has demonstrated its commitment to addressing climate change through its adoption of a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target, and is presently working to prepare a greenhouse gas action plan to meet this target.As part of developing this plan it is important that Council be aware and investigate all options available to meet our chosen target and support new initiatives such as the LGETS.

 

Executive Managers Comments

 

By supporting the Local Government Emissions Trading Scheme (LGETS) this Council would not only be able to monitor developments in the new LGETS but also help raise awareness of the imperative of setting and meeting carbon reduction targets among other Councilís and in our community.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.†††††††† Receive and note this report.

 

2.†††††††† Support the development of the Local Government Emissions Trading Scheme.

 

3.†††††††† Be kept informed of developments in the Local Government Emissions Trading Scheme.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Principal Voices Sydney Roundtable White Paper

4 Pages

 

CNL180607ES_14.doc

*****†† End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 14†† *****


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 15

 

18 JUNE 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 18 June 2007

7/06/2007 to Ordinary Council

Environmental Services Division Report No. 15

Subject:†††††††††† Leash Free Areas Review††

Record No:†††† su677 - 14362/07

Author(s):†††††† Steve Fedorow

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Harlock Jackson were commissioned by Council in 2006 to conduct a review of its leash free areas for dogs.This review is now complete and included facilitating a public consultation session.Key recommendations of the final report include: Retention of 12 existing leash free areas; removal of 2 existing leash free areas; and the addition of 5 new leash free areas.

 

Background

 

In 2006 Council commissioned Harlock Jackson Pty Ltd to conduct a review of its leash free areas for dogs.The review aimed to determine: Councilís compliance with current legislation and guidelines; the suitability of existing leash free areas; best practice management of competing uses at leash free areas; the adequacy of current signage; and the adequacy of dog friendly facilities at leash free areas.

 

Discussion

 

Methodology

 

Harlock Jackson Pty Ltd have conducted a review of Councilís leash free areas for dogs.This review has included:

 

-††† Inspection of all existing off leash areas;

-††† Discussions with Council staff;

-††† Review of relevant plans and guidelines;

-††† Review of park bookings;

-††† Facilitation of a public meeting on 14th November 2006;and

-††† Review of public submissions received.

 

Following their review, Harlock Jackson prepared a report that outlines their recommendations for Councilís leash free areas.In making their recommendation each park has been assessed against set criteria including (but not limited to) considerations of: park usage (existing use by dog owners and other users); environmental values; safety; fencing; accessibility; park master plans etc.

 

Key Recommendations

 

Broadly, the Harlock Jackson review found that the number of leash free areas currently provided by Council exceeds the minimum legislated requirements and that they are well distributed throughout the municipality.This is seen as a strong positive by offering a choice of areas.

Key recommendations of the review include:

 

-††† Retention of 12 existing leash free areas;

-††† Removal of 2 existing leash free areas;

-††† Addition of 5 new leash free areas;

-††† Inclusion of a designated dog swimming area;

-††† Development of a Code of Conduct for leash free areas;

-††† Installation of updated signage in leash free areas;

-††† Installation of dog poo bins at all leash free areas; &

-††† Installation of dog drinking facilities at all leash free areas;

 

Table 1 below includes a summary of recommendations.

 

Existing Leash Free Areas to be retained

Bob Campbell Oval, Greenwich (open playing fields only)

Kingsford Smith Oval, Longueville

Ronald Park, Greenwich.

Pottery Green, Lane Cove

Tambourine Park, Riverview

Blackman Park, Lane Cove West

Stringybark Reserve, Lane Cove (open field areas only)

Tantallon Oval, Lane Cove West

Cunninghams Reach, Linley Point

Lloyd Rees Reserve, Northwood

Newlands Park, St Leonards

Gamma Road Reserve, adjacent to Lane Cove Golf Course

Existing Leash Free Areas Proposed to be Removed

Greendale Park, Greenwich

Woodford Bay Park, Longueville

Leash Free Areas proposed to be added

Burns Bay Reserve, Riverview

Helen Street Reserve, Lane Cove

Ludowici Reserve, Lane Cove West

Shell Park, Greenwich

Manns Point Park, Greenwich

Other Parks considered but rejected as new Leash Free Areas

Hands Quarry Reserve

Ventemans Reach, Lane Cove West

College Road South, Riverview

 

Existing Leash Free Areas Proposed To Be Removed/Other Parks Considered But Rejected As New Leash Free Areas

 

A number of parks are recommended for removal as leash free areas or not recommended for inclusion due to the environmental values that Council is seeking to promote.These parks are predominantly bushland parks such as Greendale Park, and Hands Quarry Reserve and are considered inappropriate for dogs to be allowed off leash in these areas given the potential for conflict with native flora and fauna.

It is important to note that this recommendation would however allow dogs to be exercised in these parks provided the dog remained on leash.

 

A copy of the Harlock Jackson report has been attached to this report as AT1.

 

Financial Implications

 

A number of the recommendations of the review if adopted would have a financial implication to Council.This primarily relates to the installation of updated signage, dog poo bins and drinking facilities and communication of any changes to the leash free areas as a result of the adoption of a new policy.

 

Council has allocated $5000 in its 2007/08 budget to implement the recommendations of the Leash Free Review.Whilst new signage, dog poo bins and drinking facilities have not been costed, it is envisaged that such would cost significantly more than that currently allocated in the 2007/08 budget.

 

Should Council adopt the recommendations of the Harlock Jackson report it is suggested that a report back to Council outlining anticipated costs involved in fully implementing all/part of the recommendations, at which stage Council can consider its financial and timing priorities in implementing such recommendations and whether additional funds should be allocated to this task.

 

Conclusion

 

Harlock Jackson have made a number of recommendations relating to leash free areas in Lane Cove.Council staff have reviewed and support these recommendations, however would note that if adopted, due to limited funding being allocated within the 2007/08 budget that Council would be constrained in implementing the recommendations in this financial year.

 

Executive Managers Comment

 

The Lane Cove Community has strong practice of sharing open space with all in the community and that includes dogs and their owners/controllers.This report acknowledges such by endorsing many of the existing off leash areas and proposing 5 new areas for inclusion.The report also recommends Greendale Park at Greenwich and Woodford Bay Park at Longueville be removed from the off leash area classification due to potential conflicts with the environment and other users.

 

The potential for unwarranted or dangerous interaction between dogs and people (particularly children) is increased in an off leash area. However, with adequate signage, responsible behaviour by dogs and their controllers and Council actively promoting the community expectation the benefits are significant.

 

I would add that Council staff take a firm approach to dogs and their controllers in our parks and there is an overarching responsibility on the controller that dogs must be under effective control at all times irrespective if they are leashed or unleashed.

 

This report considers the need to share our parks with all sections of the community and I fully support the recommendations.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.†††††††† Receive and note the report.

 

2.†††††††† Adopt the recommendations of the Harlock Jackson Pty Ltd Leash Free Areas Review.

 

3.†††††††† Investigate the costs involved in fully implementing all recommendations of the review, and return a further report to Council outlining these costs.

 

4.†††††††† Notify all those who forwarded a submission to Council, and participants who attended the public meeting of the recommendations of the review.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Harlock Jackson (Leash Free Areas Final Report) June 2007

23 Pages

 

CNL180607ES_15.doc

*****†† End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 15†† *****


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 10

 

18 JUNE 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 18 June 2007

7/06/2007 to Ordinary Council

Human Services Division Report No. 10

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

Record No:†††† SU100 - 14224/07

Author(s):†††††† Eric Poulos

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This Report is to advise that the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) Action Plan (DDAAP) has been distributed separately in hard copy to all Councillors and Executive Staff.

 

Council has now lodged the Plan with the Disability Discrimination Commissioner of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) and distributed it to key stakeholders, including the Access Committee.

 

Discussion

 

Council will recall that in March 2007, it adopted the DDAAP following an extensive consultation process.After the Plan was adopted by Council, it was professionally desktop published and placed on Councilís website as a PDF.The Plan adds to the suite of plans starting from the Cultural, Social and Sustainability Plans that are in distinctive colours and familiar landscape format.These formats in both soft and hard copy allow for its general distribution to interested parties.

 

Conclusion

 

The Plan assists Council to meet its obligations under the DDA and improve our services.It raises Councilís profile as being a leader in the inclusion of people with disabilities and assists in our breaking down the barriers to their participation.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the Report.

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Lane Cove Council Disability Discrimination Act Action Plan

36 Pages

 

CNL180607HS_10.doc

*****†† End of Human Services Division Report No. 10†† *****


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

18 JUNE 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 18 June 2007

8/06/2007 to Ordinary Council

Human Services Division Report No. 11

Subject:†††††††††† National Men's Sheds Conference††

Record No:†††† SU166 - 14615/07

Author(s):†††††† Eric Poulos

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This Report is to place before Council a request from the Lane Cove Community Menís Shed for funding towards the 2nd National Community Menís Sheds Conference to be held in Manly from 12 - 14 September 2007.The Conference is to be hosted by UnitingCare through the Lane Cove Community Menís Shed in collaboration with AMSA (Australian Menís Shed Association).Sponsorship has been limited despite the concerted efforts of the organizing committee to canvas the widest possible range of sources.It is recommended that Council support the call for assistance given the lead role taken by the Lane Cove Community Menís Shed and the involvement of Council staff in the organizing of the Conference and the very positive impact that the Conference has within the field.

 

Background

 

As Council would be aware, Lane Cove Menís Shed was one of the first in Australia.Menís Sheds were instigated to promote the health and well being of older men in the community.The Shed provides a place for men to meet each other, to network and to make friends benefiting both the individual and the community.There are now about 200 Menís Sheds nationally.For more background information a recent article written by the Mayor, Councillor Ian Longbottom which appeared in the LGSAís Local Agenda, My Say column, is attached (See Attachment 1).

 

The first National Menís Shed Conference was held in Lakes Entrance in November 2005.Lane Cove Menís Shed has the honour of hosting the Second Menís Shed Conference to be held in September 2007 in Manly.The Coordinator of Lane Cove Community Menís Shed, Ruth Van Herk, has recently written to Council asking for a financial contribution towards the conference (see Attachment 2).

 

Discussion

 

The Conference is expected to attract over 300 delegates and aims to promote the spread of Menís Sheds throughout Australia by raising the awareness of the benefits of Menís Sheds to men and the community.As many delegates are retired, and from a variety of places in Australia, some will require assistance and to be subsidised in order to attend.It was anticipated that more sponsorship would have been secured by this stage.

 

Already, Lane Cove Council staff and the Mayor have made concerted efforts to ensure the conference is a success.Full registration costs $400 and it is suggested that Lane Cove Council sponsor up to ten (10) places for participants to attend.

 

Conclusion

 

The Conference should be further supported by Lane Cove Council given the leading role played by the Lane Cove Menís Shed and the input made by representatives of Lane Cove Council.Financial assistance of up to $4,000 is suggested to fund up to ten (10) registrations.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.†† Consider funding of up to ten (10) places, being $4,000 for the Menís Shed Second National Conference to be held in Manly on 13 Ė 14 September 2007.

 

2.†† subject to Resolution 1 above, give Public Notice of the proposed donation for the Lane Cove Menís Shed in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, and subject to no objections being received, grant the donation.

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Article from the LGSA Your Say Magazine 2007 Women are from Venus Men are from the Shed

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Letter from Lane Cove Community Men's Shed dated 15 May 2007

1 Page

 

CNL180607HS_11.doc

*****†† End of Human Services Division Report No. 11†† *****

††††

 

 

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