Lane Cove Council

 

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council

 

 

 

AGENDA

 

 

 

DATE OF MEETING:        2 October 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

 

2 OCTOBER 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

 

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

 

At the first 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.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 17 SEPTEMBER 2007

 

Orders Of The Day

 

2.       Order Of The Day No. 19

SUBJECT: Meeting in the Plaza - Saturday 27 October 2007

 

General Managers Reports

 

3.       General Managers Report No. 26

SUBJECT: Lane Cove Market Square Development - Proposed Changes to the Commercial Arrangements of the Deed

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Reports

 

4.       Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 34

SUBJECT: Traffic and Parking Master Plan for Lane Cove Commercial Centre and Parking Strategy for Lane Cove West Business Park

 

Environmental Services Division Reports

 

5.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 30

SUBJECT: Waste Service Improvement Payments

 

6.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 31

SUBJECT: Delegated Authority Report - August 2007

 

 

7.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 35

SUBJECT: Draft LEP Amendment No.60 - Rosenthal Avenue

 

8.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 32

SUBJECT: Draft LEP No.66 83 & 85 Kenneth Street

 

Human Services Division Reports

 

9.       Human Services Division Report No. 22

SUBJECT: Lane Cove Village Xpress

  

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

 

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

 

          


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

ORDER OF THE DAY NO. 19

 

2 OCTOBER 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 2 October 2007

25/09/2007 to Ordinary Council

Order Of The Day No. 19

Subject:          Meeting in the Plaza - Saturday 27 October 2007    

Record No:    su1914 - 28090/07

Author(s):      Myrna Eisenhuth 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Councillors are next due to meet with the public in the Plaza on Saturday 27 October 2007 between 10:30am and 12:00 midday.

 

ITEMS TABLED

 

The Pecuniary Interest Register is tabled with all completed forms for 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:-

 

1.         That Councillors nominate whom they wish to attend the meeting on Saturday 27th October 2007.

 

2.         That the tabling of the Pecuniary Interest Register for 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007 be received and noted.

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

CNL021007OD_19.doc

*****   End of Order Of The Day No. 19   *****

    


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT NO. 26

 

2 OCTOBER 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 2 October 2007

11/09/2007 to Ordinary Council

General Managers Report No. 26

Subject:          Lane Cove Market Square Development - Proposed Changes to the Commercial Arrangements of the Deed   

Record No:    SU1460 - 26296/07

Author(s):      John Lee 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Woolworths approached Council in September 2007 seeking Council’s consent to the lodgement of a new Development Application, which would see the residential components of the Lane Cove Market Square development replaced by a gymnasium.  Following recent negotiations, this report outlines proposed changes to the commercial terms of the Deed of Agreement between Council, Fabcot P/L and Woolworths dated 6 July 2004 in the event that Woolworths obtains a Satisfactory Development Consent (ie satisfactory to both parties).

 

The proposed changes to the Deed are:-

 

·    Removal of the residential strata, which would provide for the whole site to remain in Council’s ownership.  HillPDA have calculated this to have a NPV of $68,400. 

·    Woolworths to pay Council $30,000 per space to offset the estimated 45 additional car spaces required for the gymnasium, which would see a reduction in the number of public spaces available.

·    Woolworths to cap Council’s exposure to the building costs for the library shell at $4,070,0000.  This is an increase of $650,000, which is in line with the changes in Building Price Indices since 2004.  Council was previously liable for any additional cost above $3,450,000.

·    Woolworths to pay an increased contribution for the maintenance of the car parking spaces.

 

The Report also notes that early works could commence on the Lane Cove Public School later this year and on the main works by March next year.

 

The changes to commercial arrangements outlined in the report are recommended for Council’s consideration.

 

Background

 

Council at its meeting on 3 September 2007 Council considered General Manager’s Report No 24 in regard to the proposed changes to the Lane Cove Market Square development proposal.  Council resolved to: -

 

a.         Grant landowner’s consent to the lodgement of the proposed new DA for assessment purposes, only making it abundantly clear that any subsequent grant of development consent does not mean that the development can be built and is subject to commercial agreement.   In particular appropriate compensation for loss of surplus car parking spaces; and

b.         At the same time, delegate authority to the General Manager to negotiate recommended changes to the commercial arrangements for Council’s consideration;

 

In regard to point a, owners consent has been granted for the lodgement of a new development application which seeks to include the modifications which are currently the subject of a S96 application and to change the proposed use of the residential component to a commercial use as a gymnasium.

 

In regard to point b, the General Manager, Executive Manager Corporate Services and Director Major Projects met with Woolworths on 4 September 2007 to negotiate changes to the commercial arrangements in the Deed which may arise if consent were issued for the new Development Application and Woolworths acted on the new consent.  The meeting with Woolworths was without prejudice and on the understanding that the negotiations were strictly commercial and that these negotiations  prior to the lodgement of any new DA should not be construed by Woolworths or any other person or company, either associated with it or not, as prejudicing or indicating any predetermination of the matter.

 

This report deals with the proposed commercial arrangements.

 

Definitions

For the purpose of this report:

·    The “original consent” means the consent dated 22 December 2004

·    the “current consent” means the re-granted consent dated 17 July 2006;

·    the “S96 Application” means the application currently lodged with Council which proposes inter alia to relocate the travelator, reduce the retail floor area, enlarge the Library plant room and reduce the residential carparking from 20 to 18;

·    the “new application” means a development application which Woolworths have lodged to change the residential component to a commercial gymnasium and incorporates changes (if approved) proposed in the S96 application;

·    “new satisfactory consent” means a consent issued for the new application and deemed to be a satisfactory consent by both parties; and

·    Deed means the Deed of Agreement between Lane Cove Council, Fabcot P/L and Woolworths dated 6 July 2004.

 

Discussion

Woolworths lodged the new application to change the residential component to a commercial gymnasium with Council on 14 September, 2007.

 

Under the Deed terms, Council’s approval is required for any major variation to the Deed.  This report is pre-emptive on the nature of the commercial terms which would modify the Deed if Woolworths obtained a new satisfactory consent.

 

Attachment 1 is a letter from Woolworths dated 26 September 2007 setting out their acceptance (subject to their Board approval) of the negotiated terms. The following points set out the negotiated position on matters that have a commercial implication on the Deed should Woolworths proceed to develop under a new satisfactory consent. These arrangements have been assessed by Hill PDA which is included in Attachment 2 and has been used as a point of reference.

 

Car Parking

The following extract from the recently lodged DA to replace the residential component with a gymnasium sets out the changes in parking requirements and spaces since the application was initially approved.  The analysis below has been checked and while there are different ways in which this data can be presented, for the purpose of commercial considerations, the net change between the “approved scheme” being the original consent and the “amended scheme” being the new application is relevant.   

 

Masson Wilson Twiney have assessed the carparking requirements for a gymnasium with a floor area of 1,875 m2 at 62 spaces (3.3 spaces per 100 m2 of floor area) during peak demand.  After allowances for the changes in the new application, with the spaces previously set aside for residential reverting to public parking, the excess public parking from the original consent decreases from 78 to 33 spaces, a total of reduction of 45 spaces.

 

Woolworths have agreed to pay Council for the reduction in excess public parking from the current consent at the rate of $30,000 per space on the basis of assessed shortfall at 3.3 spaces per 100 m2.  The final change in excess public parking provided as part of the new application will be determined after the traffic generation and parking demand for a gymnasium has been quantified during independent assessment of the new application.  If the parking demand rate is not assessed at the rate of 3.3 spaces per 100 m2 of floor area for the gymnasium further negotiations will be necessary, including providing a rationale for Council’s method of calculation.  Based on 45 spaces, the contribution to Council would be $1,350,000.

 

If Woolworths proceed with the new application, changes to the Major Projects Strategic Management Plan would be required to include the provision of an additional 45 car parking spaces and the funds provided by Woolworths for parking would be placed in the Parking Fund Reserve for provision of the spaces at an alternate location.

 

It is noted that the Woolworths development still will provide an additional 33 public spaces above its peak demand (using the MWT report’s assessment).

 

Removal of Residential Stratum

Woolworths have agreed and accepted Hill PDA assessment of the Net Present Value (NPV) for the future economic benefit to Council from removing the residential stratum is a modest $68,400 as an up front cost to Council.  This is a desirable consequence of the conversion of the residential component to commercial floor space as all of the land will remain unencumbered in Council’s ownership.

 

Amendments to the Retail Stratum Lease

In Hill PDA’s previous assessment, the ground lease was $114,000 reviewed annually with a 3% CPI cap and market review every 10 years.

 

The Deed was based on $200,000 per annum with no reduction in rental any time and adjusted every 5 years in line with increases in market rent for the supermarket component of the leased premises.

 

Woolworths have indicated that they are not prepared to renegotiate the adjustment to the base rent of $200,000 even though the commencement date has been delayed.  They have also declined to accept the change in valuation methodology proposed by HillPDA, which would have seen the indexation calculation expanded to also have regard to commercial floor space rentals, given the inclusion of the gymnasium. 

 

This is the only departure from the recommendations contained in the HillPDA report included as Attachment 1.

 

Carparking Maintenance Cost Sharing

With additional car parking added to the public area, HillPDA recommended that the cost be scaled upwards to reflect the current maintenance cost per car space.  It is proposed to factor the Deed contribution of $26,192 by 321/303 to account for the additional 18 spaces at $27,476 per annum.

 

Library Shell Works

Under the Deed, Woolworths was responsible to construct the Library shell and Council was responsible for all costs incurred by Woolworths in constructing the shell in excess of $3,450,000. Although provision was included for Woolworths to repay to Council in the event that the shell cost less than $3,450,000, with escalation, costs are more likely to exceed $4,000,000. Woolworths have agreed to cap the increase in construction costs at $4,070,000.

 

The Woolworths proposal to cap Council’s exposure for the Library shell including the enlarged Library plant room at $4,070,000 has significant merit.  Under this proposal increase in costs including changes in Building Price Index is limited to $650,000.  This increase has been offset by accrued interest (approx $873,000) from the $3,050,000 Council has set aside as its contribution under the Deed to the car parking.

 

Early Works

Woolworths have advised that they intend to commence early works in November 2007 and that preparation of a detailed construction program is underway. This will be reported to Council separately when it has been received and analysed.

 

This commitment is welcome as an act of good faith to construct the Lane Cove Market Square whether or not the new application is approved.

 

Lane Cove Public School

Mr Bob Lomaro, Lane Cove Public School’s headmaster has agreed to be the school’s liaison officer to address any issues as they arise.

 

Deed Changes

 

Should Woolworths decide to proceed with the Lane Cove Market Square based on the new application, the Deed terms would be modified to reflect these changes.

 

Other changes to the Deed that may be required are foreshadowed as:

a)         Change to the Sunset date

b)         Change to the Date of Practical Completion

c)         Modification to the Transaction Documents

d)         Changes to key milestones

e)         Section 88B instrument, Stratum plan and related documents

f)         Works associated with the Upper Drop Off zone for the Lane Cove Public School

g)         Scope of works relating to Residential vs Gymnasium

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed changes to the commercial terms of the Deed outlined in the report are fair to both parties and are summarised as follows:

 

Issue

 

 

Commercial Adjustment

Carparking

$30,000

45

$1,350,000

Removal of Residential Stratum

 

 

($68,400)

Library Shell now capped

$3,420,000

$4,070,000

($650,000)

Adjustment to Rental

No change

 

$0

Maintenance of Public Carparking

$26,192

1.06

$27,748 pa

 

 

 

The outcome of the negotiations with Woolworths are considered acceptable, within the only departure from the recommendations of the HillPDA report, being no adjustment to the retail stratum lease.  These changes agreed to by Woolworths are recommended to be adopted by Council.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.         Approve the commercial arrangements outlined in this report;

 

2.         Authorise the General Manager to make the necessary changes to the Deed based on these commercial arrangements should Woolworths advise of its intention to proceed with a development which replaces the residential component with a gymnasium

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Letter from Woolworths Commercial Offer in Relation to the proposal to replace residential component Health Club/Gymnasium

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Lane Cove Market Square Woolworths Economic Assessment FINAL Advice

38 Pages

 

 

CNL021007GM_26.doc

*****   End of General Managers Report No. 26   *****

   


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

OPEN SPACE AND URBAN SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 34

 

2 OCTOBER 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 2 October 2007

24/09/2007 to Ordinary Council

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 34

Subject:          Traffic and Parking Master Plan for Lane Cove Commercial Centre and Parking Strategy for Lane Cove West Business Park    

Record No:    SU1361 - 27904/07

Author(s):      Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Traffic and Parking Master Plan for Lane Cove Town Centre and Parking Strategy for Lane Cove West Business Park that was tabled for Council’s consideration in June 2007 has been reviewed and amended.

 

The main area of conjecture in the June 2007 report was the shortfall in parking provision for the Town Centre. The original theoretical parking demand in the June 2007 report had been determined on a Gross Floor Area (GFA) for the Town Centre of approximately 29,000m2. This was sourced from Council’s Section 94 Plan of 1994. A significantly higher GFA for the Town Centre of approximately 52,000m2 has been subsequently sourced from an internal Council study undertaken in 2000. Maunsell’s have thus recalculated the current maximum theoretical shortfall of car spaces in the Town Centre as approximately 510. Utilisation surveys undertaken by Maunsell’s suggest that the current shortfall is significantly less than 510 spaces, and is due in part to excessive overstaying of prescribed time limits in the public carparks, particularly in Rosenthal Avenue Carpark and the carpark adjacent to the Council Administration Building.

 

With the Woolworth’s Market Square development and an additional 5,000m2 of GFA anticipated in the Town Centre by 2016, a maximum theoretical shortfall of approximately 640 car spaces is expected. However, a practical approach for Council would be to aim to provide in the order of 80% of the 2016 maximum theoretical demand (1764) minus the 2016 proposed parking supply (1572), being an additional 200 or so public parking spaces. Utilising the RTA guide for a mixed use shopping centre, a peak demand of 83% was determined for the Lane Cove Town Centre based on its’ mix of uses. This is similar to the peaks in utilisation observed by Maunsell’s in the Centre’s public off-street carparks. Thus, the use of 80% of maximum theoretical demand is considered appropriate in determining the number of public parking spaces that still need to be provided in the Town Centre in the first instance.

 

Following the provision of these additional 200 or so public parking spaces, Council should undertake further detailed analysis of the parking supply/demand for the Lane Cove Town Centre.

 

The other findings of the June 2007 report with respect to traffic flows on Epping Road, and the parking strategy for the Lane Cove West Business Park remain unchanged in the main in the revised report.

 


Background

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting of 19 June 2007, Council considered the Draft Report prepared by Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd. Council resolved to defer the matter, based on concerns raised by the Lane Cove Commercial Property Owners Association (CPOWA) and a number of Councillors with respect to the parking shortfall in the Commercial Centre. In that report, Maunsell’s advised that there was only a maximum theoretical shortfall of 27 car spaces in the Town Centre in 2006. By 2016, this shortfall only increased to 78 car spaces.

 

These shortfalls were determined on a Gross Floor Area (GFA) for the Town Centre of approximately 29,000m2. This information was sourced from Council’s Section 94 Plan that had been developed in 2004, and was based on research from a consultant’s study of 1990. Thus, the GFA being used for the calculations in the Maunsell’s study was 16 years old. Council staff searched its’ records for a more up to date GFA for the Town Centre. Council’s former Group Manager – Corporate Planning and Support Services, Mr Eric Armstrong, that staff had undertaken a review of the Town Centre GFA in 2000. This study was found and revealed a more accurate GFA for the Town Centre of approximately 52,000m2.

 

Based on this updated figure, Maunsell’s were able to more realistically determine that the current maximum theoretical shortfall of car spaces in the Town Centre was approximately 510 spaces. This theoretical assessment assumes that it would be appropriate to apply current DCP parking requirements and other guidelines to historical developments, some of which are over 50 years old. It is Maunsell’s view that this approach overestimated the maximum requirement for carparking in the Commercial Centre.

 

 

Discussion

 

The updated Traffic and Parking Master Plan for Lane Cove Town Centre and Parking Strategy for Lane Cove West Business Park, dated 18 September 2007 and prepared by Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd, has been provided as Attachment 1 to this report.

 

The updated Maunsell report now highlights an existing need for Council to provide additional public car spaces to the Town Centre to meet an identified shortfall in supply. The details of the analysis undertaken are provided in Section 5.0 Town Centre Car Parking and Section 6.0 Parking Strategy of the report.

 

The report also acknowledges, through Section 4, that the high traffic volumes predicted by Connector Motorways prior to the opening of the Lane Cove Tunnel project have not been achieved and that their use of these figures results in distortions to their traffic analysis of the flows on Epping Road and the resulting traffic impacts on the Town Centre. However, through the sensitivity analysis that Maunsell’s undertook, they have been able to ascertain that due to the lane reduction constraints on Epping Road, west of Centennial Avenue, the intersection of Longueville Road/Epping Road/Parklands Avenue will be about the least affected of all major intersections on the Epping Road corridor. So long as the phasing of the traffic signals at the Longueville Road/Epping Road/Parklands Avenue intersection are not altered in the future by the Roads and Traffic Authority, traffic flow to and from the Town Centre at this crucial intersection, will be a vast improvement to that which existed prior to the opening of the Lane Cove Tunnel.

 

On the parking issues at the Lane Cove West Business Park, it has been identified that the current off-street parking stock is very under-utilised. Maunsell’s has proposed that Council should work closely and cooperatively with the local businesses to obtain better utilisation of this parking, and to investigate initiatives such as car sharing and Business Travel Plans.

 

Conclusion

 

The updated Traffic and Parking Master Plan for Lane Cove Town Centre and Parking Strategy for Lane Cove West Business Park report, prepared by Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd and dated 18 September 2007, is considered to provide a more accurate assessment of the parking shortfall in the Lane Cove Town Centre than the report provided in June 2007. This, in the main, is due to the availability of a more recent study on the Town Centre’s gross floor area (GFA) and development usage breakdown, that enabled Maunsell to reassess the parking shortfall based on Council’s and other relevant parking codes. As a result of this reassessment, Council now has an aim of providing an additional 200 or so public car spaces for the Town Centre by 2016.

 

As stated earlier, following provision of these car spaces, it is considered appropriate that Council would then reassess the parking situation in the Town Centre and undertake further investigation and analysis at that stage.

 

Concurrent to this work being undertaken on the Lane Cove Town Centre, it is considered appropriate that Council should also initiate discussions with the Lane Cove West Business Park owners and operators with respect to their on-street and off-street parking issues, as proposed in Section 7 of the Maunsell report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.        receive and adopt the updated Traffic and Parking Master Plan for the Lane Cove Town Centre and Parking Strategy for the Lane Cove West Business Park dated September 2007;

 

2.         investigate opportunities to provide an additional 200 or so public car spaces to the Lane Cove Town Centre by 2016, with the provision of additional long-term public off-street parking on the Little Lane Carpark site forming part of those considerations;

 

3.         investigate a graded system of parking charges for the Lane Cove Town Centre to encourage turnover of public parking spaces. The parking charges are not to be introduced until after the Market Square development is complete;

 

4.         in parallel with Recommendation 3, investigate the provision of access controls to the public carparking areas; and

 

5.         initiate discussions with the Lane Cove West Business Park owners and operators with respect to their parking issues as proposed in the Maunsell report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Parking Strategy for Lane Cove West Business Park prepared by Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd.

95 Pages

 

 

CNL180607US_34.doc

*****   End of Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 34   *****

  


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 30

 

2 OCTOBER 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 2 October 2007

18 September 2007 to Ordinary Council

Environmental Services Division Report No. 30

Subject:          Waste Service Improvement Payments    

Record No:    SU2345 - 27298/07

Author(s):      Steve Fedorow 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

In July 2006 the NSW Government introduced an additional levy of $6 per tonne for all metropolitan councils on waste disposed to landfill.  Lane Cove Council currently disposes 6190 tonnes of waste to landfill annually.

 

The levy will increase every year by $6 per tonne of waste disposed to landfill for 5 years.  Using the 2006/07 base year of 6190 tonnes, it would be estimated that Lane Cove Council would pay approximately $555,000 in additional levy fees for landfill disposal over 5 years.


The State Government has also proposed an annual partial rebate to Council’s that demonstrate compliance with performance criteria designed to increase overall community participation and awareness of the need to recycle and divert materials from landfill.

 

This report canvasses options available to Council to cost effectively meet required performance outcomes while minimising inconvenience and cost to residents.

 

Background

 

In July 2006 the NSW Government introduced a new Waste and Environment Levy (‘the Levy’) on all waste disposed to landfill.  This levy commenced on 1 July 2006 and incorporated a series of five annual, $6 per tonne increases to the price of disposing of waste to landfill.

 

Revenue generated through the Levy is used by the NSW Government to fund the City and Country Environment Restoration Program which focuses on a range of general environmental initiatives.

 

The levy also includes a partial rebate to councils who can demonstrate compliance with performance criteria set annually by the NSW Government.

 

The rebate pool shared by eligible councils commenced at $3 per tonne of municipal waste collected for disposal in 2006/07, and increases annually by $3 per tonne reaching $15 per tonne in 2010/2011.  The rebate pool is distributed to eligible council in proportion to population.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 2006/07 Lane Cove met the annual performance criteria and received a rebate of $26,061.42.  Assuming static waste generation levels and the same number of eligible councils, the rebate is estimated to increase on an annual basis for Lane Cove as follows:

 

Year

Rebate Amount

2006/07

$26,061.42

2007/08

$52,122.84

2008/09

$78,184.26

2009/10

$104,245.68

2010/11

$130,307.10

Total

$390,921.30

 

 

Discussion

 

The NSW Government has recently published the annual performance criteria for 2007/08 which includes amongst the criteria a requirement for:

1.   All new collection or bin replacement contracts after 30 June 2007 must conform to AS 4123.7-2006; &

2.   From 1 July 2007 all damaged or lost bins/lids must be replaced with bins/lids that conform to AS 4123.7-2006.

 

In practice, AS 4123.7-2007 requires Council’s garbage bins to have red lids.

 

Council’s waste and recycling services currently comply with all of the annual performance criteria except for the requirement that all bins conform to AS 4123.7-2006.

 

There are three options available to Council to respond to the waste service performance improvement 2007/08 criteria.

 

Option 1 – Replace all Damaged or Lost Bins/Lids with Bins/Lids That Comply With AS 4123.7-2006.

 

One option that would enable Council to be eligible for a performance payment in 2007/08 would be for Council to replace all damage or lost garbage bins/lids with bins/lids that have a red lid instead of the current dark green lid.  This requirement would be rolled into the following years performance criteria and therefore become an ongoing requirement for Council.

 

The Lane Cove bin stock is currently owned by URM (it will revert to Council ownership at the end of the contract in 2012) and equates to approximately 8200 garbage (80litre and 240 litre) bins located throughout the municipality.

 

Currently URM are replacing or repairing approximately 550 bins per year due to general wear and tear, vandalism or lost/stolen bins.  At current rates of repair, it would take Council approximately 15 years to replace all garbage bin lids with red lids.

 

Should Council decide to endorse this option, there would be no direct replacement cost to Council.  Council would use the remainder of its bin/lid stock, and thence commence utilising red lids for garbage bins.

 

It is important to note that Council has utilised dark green lids on its garbage bins for over 10 years and has invested significant resources in educating the community in the makeup and use of its waste and recycling services.  This investment has returned a high level of understanding amongst the community about Council’s waste and recycling services and their correct use.

 

Replacing bins/lids on an ad-hoc basis would however, significantly undermine and confuse Council’s ongoing educational strategies, and as such Council would need to develop a new suite of educational material including waste brochures and calendars.

 

The design, production and delivery of such material would impose an additional cost to Council (estimated to be approximately $20-25,000).

 

Option 2 – Change all Garbage Bin Lids at One Time With Bin Lids That Comply with AS 4123.7-2006

 

Alternatively, to remain eligible for a performance payment in 2007/08, Council could consider endorsing a bulk changeover of garbage bin lids.  This would entail Council liaising with URM to replace all 8200 existing dark green garbage bin lids, with red lids over a defined period of time (for example 2-4 weeks).

 

URM have provided an indicative cost of approximately $13.75/per bin to supply and install new, red lids to all garbage bins.  Extrapolated across the entire bin stock of 8200, this would cost Council $112,750 in direct replacement costs.

 

Again, Council has invested significant resources over the last 10 years in educating the community in the makeup and correct use of its recycling services, and any change would need to be carefully considered.

 

To minimise the potential for confusion amongst residents, a tailored community education campaign would be required to be rolled out in association with any bulk changeover of garbage bin lids. 

 

Such a campaign, leveraged off a highly visible change to the garbage bins could be used to reengage with residents & highlight the need to maintain a focus on waste minimisation, recycling, and illegal dumping.

 

The estimated cost of design, production and delivery of such material is estimated at $20-25,000.

 

Option 3 – Maintain Existing Bin Configuration and Forego Future Performance Payments

 

Finally, Council may elect to maintain the existing bin configuration (i.e. dark green lids on garbage bins) and advise the Department of Environment and Climate Change that it is not seeking any performance payment.

 

As the annual performance criteria becomes an ongoing requirement, by electing to maintain the existing bin configuration, Council would preclude being eligible for future annual performance payments.

 

Over the remaining four years of the rebate scheme, this could equate to a total of $365,000 in forgone performance payments.

 

Conclusion

 

As a result of the new waste and environment levy, Council faces additional tipping costs in providing a domestic waste service to residents.  These additional tipping costs have been budgeted for in Council’s 2007/08 budget.

 

Council has the opportunity to recover some of these additional tipping costs by meeting annual performance criteria set by the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change and applying to receive a performance rebate.  Over the 5 year period of the rebate scheme, Council could be eligible for rebates totalling over $390,000.

 

Should Council elect to seek a performance rebate in 2007/08, the only outstanding criterion that council currently doesn’t meet is that garbage bins must have a red lid on them.  

 

There are two options available to Council to comply with this requirement being:-

 

Option 1:        Replace damaged or lost bins/lids on an ad-hoc basis; or

 

Option 2:        To conduct a bulk changeover of garbage bin lids. 

 

The estimated costs for implementing these options range from $20,000 (Option1) to $135,000 (Option 2).  As the performance criteria were not published at the time Council was developing its budgets, the 2007/08 budget does not factor in any costs that would be associated with either option.  Council currently has a Domestic Waste Management Reserve which has adequate funds to fund either option.

 

Although option 1 comes at a significantly lower initial cost, it would undermine Council’s ongoing educational strategies and introduce a level of confusion amongst residents.  It would also add an additional level of complexity to Council’s printed educational materials at a time when Council is seeking to simplify its message.  Accordingly, option 1 is not recommended to Council.

 

Despite its significant capital cost, option 2 - conducting a bulk garbage bin lid changeover is the preferred option.  This would allow Council to receive a performance rebate in 2007/08 and remain eligible for future rebates, whilst minimising the negative impact upon Council’s current educational strategies as all lids would be converted at one time.  Further, such a visible change to the garbage bins would enable Council to engage with residents and highlight the need to maintain a focus on waste minimisation, recycling and illegal dumping.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Convert all garbage bin lids to red in accordance with AS 4123.7-2006;

 

2.   Conduct the garbage bin lid conversion process in the 2007/08 financial year;

 

3.   Develop a tailored educational campaign to be rolled out in association with the garbage bin lid changeover;

 

4.   Allocate additional funds from the Domestic Waste Management Reserve to fund the garbage bin changeover;

 

5.   Seek an annual performance payment for 2007/08; and

 

6.   Write to the Department of Environment and Climate Change advising of Council’s resolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

CNL021007ES_30.doc

*****   End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 30   *****

 


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 31

 

2 OCTOBER 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 2 October 2007

24/09/2007 to Ordinary Council

Environmental Services Division Report No. 31

Subject:          Delegated Authority Report - August 2007    

Record No:    SU1863 - 27884/07

Author(s):      Michael Mason 

 

 

 

During the month of August 2007 a total of 46 Development Applications were determined under delegation by staff.  In addition 16 Construction Certificates and 17 Privately Certified Construction Certificates were issued.  There were 3 Complying Developments approved in August.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report ‘Delegated Authority Report – August 2007’ be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

List of applications determined for August 2007

7 Pages

 

 

CNL021007ES_31.doc

*****   End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 31   *****

 


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 35

 

2 OCTOBER 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 2 October 2007

25/09/2007 to Ordinary Council

Environmental Services Division Report No. 35

Subject:          Draft LEP Amendment No.60 - Rosenthal Avenue    

Record No:    SU2669 - 28723/07

Author(s):      Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

In September 2006, Council resolved to adopt the Public Hearing Report by Commissioner Hill and to seek the gazettal of Draft Local Environmental Plan Amendment No.60 – Rosenthal Avenue. The draft plan aimed to reclassify the site to operational. It also included revisions to update the planning controls, in particular, to add land uses to provide for optimum development of the land for public benefit, including a cultural centre.

 

The Department of Planning has recently determined that Draft LEP No.60 may proceed, but only in so far as it relates to the reclassification of the land. Any other planning matters are to be deferred for incorporation into the Comprehensive LEP.

 

Council is requested to adopt for public exhibition a revised version of Draft LEP No.60 for the sole purpose of reclassifying the land to operational, as attached at AT1.

 

Background

 

On 4th September 2006, Council considered the Public Hearing Report by Commissioner Hill on Draft LEP Amendment No.60 which had been held in July 2006, and resolved as follows:-

 

1.         Council note the Commissioner’s Report on the Public Hearing into Draft Local Environmental Plan Amendment No.60 – Rosenthal Avenue, attached as AT 1 to this Report.

 

2.         Council agree to amend the draft LEP by the addition of “commercial premises” and ”place of public assembly” as permissible land uses.

 

3.         Council adopt as final Draft LEP Amendment No.60, as amended and attached at AT2 to this Report, for submission to the Director-General pursuant to section 68 of the Environmental Planning Act with a request for its gazettal.

 

4.         The Commissioner’s Report be made available for public viewing at Council’s Offices and Library and on Council’s web site.

 

5.       Council, in assessing and determining any future use of the site, consult widely with the broader community before making any such determination, including development standards.

 

 

6.       Such consultation to include (but not necessarily be limited to)

-        use options

-        development controls

-        reassessment of traffic management and parking demand

-        funding options.

 

On 3rd October 2006, Council wrote to the Department of Planning requesting that Parliamentary Counsel’s opinion that the Draft LEP may legally be made, this being the next step necessary in the process after a public hearing to achieve gazettal of the plan.

 

Discussion

 

(i)         Requirement for the LEP to relate to reclassification only

 

In a letter of 29th March 2007, the Department responded to Council’s request for Parliamentary Counsel’s opinion, stating that it would “be appropriate for the reclassification of the Rosenthal Avenue car park to be incorporated into the draft comprehensive LEP” (AT2). 

 

Council staff met with the Department on 2nd May to reiterate its request for Draft LEP 60 to proceed independently rather than being deferred until the comprehensive LEP. This approach was followed up formally by letter of 23rd May from Council to the Department (AT3).

 

As a result the Department, in a letter of 10th August 2007 (AT4) has revised its advice and has agreed to permit Draft LEP 60 to proceed, subject to the following:-

 

·          Draft LEP 60 is to relate only to the reclassification of the land to operational

·          All other matters are to be incorporated in the comprehensive LEP

·          Council is to satisfy itself whether re-exhibition of the draft plan is necessary – this Report recommends that re-exhibition be undertaken (see below)

·          Any trusts, covenants etc would need to be extinguished (not applicable)

·          A revised opinion from Parliamentary Counsel would need to be obtained

 

The letter enclosed the Director-General’s Written Authorisation to Exercise Delegation under section 69 of the Act, that is, to request gazettal of a plan in accordance with the Department’s conditions.

 

A meeting was held with the Department on 13th September to clarify the process by which the Draft LEP was to proceed. It is understood that Council may re-exhibit the amended plan before requesting gazettal, in accordance with section 68 of the Act, without the need to hold a second public hearing.

 

A revised Draft LEP Amendment No.60, relating only to the reclassification of the land to operational, has now been prepared for Council’s consideration. It is recommended for adoption in this more limited form on these grounds:-

 

·          The draft comprehensive LEP (DLEP 2007) is expected imminently for exhibition, which will provide for public consideration of mixed use zoning and height, floor space ratio and other planning matters for Rosenthal Avenue car park

·          The reclassification can only proceed if the Department’s conditions are complied with

·          It is not reasonable to require Draft LEP No.60 to revert to a procedural stage under the Act which it has already undertaken, that is, exhibition prior to public hearing (section 66) stage.

 

(ii)        Process

 

Section 68 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 provides that Council may decide whether it wishes to re-exhibit a draft LEP, if it has revised the LEP after has considering submissions, including those made in a public hearing:-

 

“(3)                        The council shall consider the submissions and the report furnished pursuant to subsection (2) and may make any alterations it considers are necessary to the draft local environmental plan arising from its consideration of submissions or matters raised at any public hearing.

(3A)           An alteration made by a council pursuant to subsection (3) need not relate to a submission.

(3B)           The council may (but need not) give public notice of and publicly exhibit, wholly or in part, a draft local environmental plan that has been altered pursuant to subsection (3). The provisions of this section and sections 66 and 67, with any necessary adaptations, apply to any such exhibition of a draft plan, but not so as to require a further certificate under section 65. ”

 

Having regard to the recent views of the Land & Environment Court regarding the need to re-exhibit a draft LEP so as not to jeopardise its validity after amendments have been made, it is recommended that Council agree to the re-exhibition of Draft LEP Amendment No.60.

 

Consultation Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to publicise the draft LEP’s exhibition to the general public,  property owners and other key stakeholders in the vicinity of the site, to provide input as to whether Council should proceed with the proposed change in the classification of the land.

 

Methods of Consultation

 

The methods of consultation proposed are outlined below.

 

 

Involve

Involve

Involve

Inform

Target Audience

Adjoining Property owners

Relevant Federal and State Agencies

Community Leaders

General Community

Proposed Medium

Direct Notification

Direct Notification

E-mail Mailing List

Public Notice and Website

 

 


Conclusion

 

The Department of Planning has made a determination that Draft LEP No.60 may proceed, but only in so far as it relates to the reclassification of the land.

 

Council is accordingly requested to consider a revised version of Draft LEP No.60 for the sole purpose of reclassifying the land to operational, and to agree to its re-exhibition under section 68 of the Act, as the most appropriate means to finalise the matter.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.         Council resolve to adopt for the purpose of public exhibition, the revision of Draft Local Environmental Plan Amendment No.60, dated 25 September 2007, attached to this Report at AT1 , in accordance with section 68 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

 

2.         Council exhibit the revised draft LEP for a period of 28 days, in accordance with section 68 of the Act and undertake consultation as outlined in the body of the report.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft LEP Amendment No.60 - Rosenthal Avenue dated 25 September 2007

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Department of Planning's letter of 29 March 2007

1 Page

 

AT‑3 View

Council's letter of 23 May to the Department

2 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

Department of Planning's letter of 10 August 2007

3 Pages

 

 

CNL021007ES_35.doc

*****   End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 35   *****

 


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 32

 

2 OCTOBER 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 2 October 2007

24/09/2007 to Ordinary Council

Environmental Services Division Report No. 32

Subject:          Draft LEP No.66 83 & 85 Kenneth Street    

Record No:    SU2670 - 28727/07

Author(s):      Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

In December 2006 Draft Local Environmental Plan 1987 Amendment No.62 – 83 & 85 Kenneth Street (LEP No.62) was gazetted. Council had prepared the Draft Amendment for the purpose of suspending a covenant to permit the development of two houses in accordance with existing development consents.

 

In March 2007, a legal challenge was lodged with the Land & Environment Court. In September 2007, the Court declared LEP No.62 to be invalid on the grounds of procedural error by the Minister.  See judgement attached AT4.

 

It has been confirmed in discussion with legal counsel and the Department of Planning that, in order to achieve the purpose intended in 2006, the required process for Council is to prepare a new LEP amendment for 83 and 85 Kenneth Street and then, subject to consideration of submissions, seek gazettal.

 

A new Draft LEP Amendment specifically relating to 83 and 85 Kenneth Street is now submitted to Council. In order to avoid confusion with LEP No.62 it is named Draft LEP No.66, but has the same wording as the gazetted version of LEP No.62. 

 

The Report recommends that Council resolve to prepare a new LEP in the terms of Draft LEP No.66, as attached at AT1.

 

Background

 

In February 2006, Council resolved to prepare a draft local environmental plan to permit the suspension of covenants applying to 83 and 85 Kenneth Street in order to permit the development of two houses, one on each of two lots created by an approved subdivision. Council is familiar with the history of this proposal, which was detailed in Report No.174 to the Ordinary Meeting of 7th August 2006 as attached at AT2.

 

In summary, the Department of Planning had permitted Council to exhibit a draft LEP only if it related to a generic power to suspend covenants throughout the municipality, not being limited to the specific sites in Kenneth Street. Draft LEP Amendment No.62 was exhibited in this form from 26 May to 31 July 2006. In view of the number of public submissions received, expressing the widespread views of the community opposing a generic suspension of covenants, Council resolved at that meeting to:

 

“1.       Advise the Department of Planning that Council does not support the imposition of a generic clause in the LEP that suspends covenants generally.

 

1.         Request the Department of Planning to proceed with the original form of the draft LEP to suspend covenants affecting 83 Kenneth Street (formally Lot 17, DP 29396) only.”

 

A summary of actions between 7th August 2006 and gazettal of the LEP in December 2006 follows:-

 

·          17th August: Council wrote to the Department requesting it “to review, at the earliest opportunity, its former decision of 30th March, and to issue written authority to Council to exercise delegation to place on public exhibition Draft LEP Amendment No.62 in its original version, that is, relating only to 83 and 85 Kenneth Street, Longueville”. The aim of seeking to re-exhibit the draft LEP was to allow for the possible view that the draft plan was significantly different from the generic plan formerly exhibited. 

 

·          22nd August: The Department of Planning responded by email that “it is recommended that Council should proceed to submit a section 68(4) report to the Director-General”.  Section 68(4) is the stage at which a report is made to the Department after exhibition of a draft LEP. As advised in the email, council was to consider the submissions made on exhibition and was able, under section 68(3) (see AT3), to make any alterations it considered necessary after exhibition, without being required to re-exhibit the draft LEP prior to submitting it to the Department. Council consequently submitted copies of the documentation prepared up to that time to the Department for them to be considering for the section 68(4) stage.

 

·          3rd October: The Department’s emailed advice was confirmed by letter.

 

·          12th October: Council wrote requesting Parliamentary Counsel to give the opinion that the LEP could legally be made.

 

·          23rd November: Following receipt of Parliamentary Counsel’s opinion of 31st October, Council formally submitted the section 68(4) letter and section 69 Report requesting gazettal.

 

·          22nd December 2006: LEP Amendment No.62 was gazetted.

 

Discussion

 

On 23rd March 2007 Mrs N. Bryan, the owner of No.3 Amalfi Place and a party to the covenant affecting 83 and 85 Kenneth Street, applied to the Land and Environment Court for an order that LEP No.62 was invalid. The matter was heard on 4-5th September 2007, with Council and the Department of Planning as the respondents.

 

The decision by Justice Jago that the LEP was invalid was published on 17th September 2007.  A copy of the judgment with accompanying letter of 18th September 2007 from Pike Pike & Fenwick, Council’s solicitors in the case, is attached at AT4.

 

 

The principal reasons given in the decision were that:-

 

·          LEP No.62 was invalid because it had never been exhibited in its narrow form relating specifically to 83 and 85 Kenneth Street. It had been exhibited only in the generic form permitting Council to suspend covenants throughout the Lane Cove local government area.

·          “Amendment No.62 as made involved differences of such significance that the plan made by the Minister could not be said to be an outcome of the [section 68] process” (page 17). 

·          An important issue was that: “The applicant ended up with a plan that left her with the covenant burdening her own land but removed the covenant benefiting her land to the extent necessary to enable her neighbour’s land to be developed” (page 18). A covenant currently applies to 3 Amalfi Place restricting its development to one storey.

·          Therefore “Amendment No.62 was never exhibited as required by s66 of the EPA Act. This involved a breach of an ‘essential’, ‘imperative’ or ‘inviolable’ limit or restraint in the EPA Act” (page 19). This is the case notwithstanding that Council had twice, in February 2006 and August 2006, requested permission from the Department of Planning to exhibit the draft LEP relating specifically to 83 and 85 Kenneth Street.

 

Council had made its best endeavours to exhibit the Draft LEP in its narrow form, relating specifically to 83 and 85 Kenneth Street, through its two requests to the Department of Planning to permit it to exhibit the draft LEP in that form. The judgment contains no criticism of Council’s process. (The issue of costs may be argued, as advised in the judgment, but has not been determined as yet.)

 

In order for Council to gain the outcome it had sought in 2006 of achieving gazettal of an LEP to suspend a covenant relating to 83 and 85 Kenneth Street, it is necessary to resolve to prepare a new local environmental plan. This has been advised in discussions with legal counsel and the Department of Planning.

 

The Department has confirmed, in a letter of 4th September 2007 (AT 5), that it would now support the process for a new site-specific LEP, relating only to 83 and 85 Kenneth Street, to be processed from its preparation under section 54 to gazettal under section 70.

 

The right would continue to be available to the parties to the covenant affecting 83 and 85 Kenneth Street, including the owner of 3 Amalfi Place, to request Council to prepare an LEP to suspend the covenant applying to their properties should they wish to apply for Council do consider such action.

 

Consultation Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to publicise the draft LEP’s exhibition to the general public,  property owners and other key stakeholders in the vicinity of the site, to provide input as to whether Council should proceed with the proposal to suspend a covenant relating to 83 and 85 Kenneth Street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Methods of Consultation

 

The methods of consultation proposed are outlined below.

 

 

Involve

Involve

Involve

Inform

Target Audience

Adjoining Property owners

Relevant Federal and State Agencies

Community Leaders

General Community

Proposed Medium

Direct Notification

Direct Notification

E-mail Mailing List

Public Notice and Website

 

Conclusion

 

Council resolved in February 2006 to prepare a draft LEP to suspend the covenant relating to 83 and 85 Kenneth Street. It confirmed that intention in August 2006. The LEP has been declared invalid by the Land & Environment Court, for reasons beyond the control of Council.

 

It is recommended that, in order to fulfil its intentions of 2006, Council resolve to prepare a new LEP amendment, limited to those specific properties, in the terms which were gazetted.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.    Resolve to prepare Draft Local Environmental Plan Amendment No.66, dated 25 September 2007, in the terms attached at AT1 to this Report, in accordance with section 54 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

 

2.  Submit the Draft LEP Amendment No.66 to the Department with a request for Written Authorisation to exhibit the draft plan, in accordance with section 54 of the Act.

 

3.   Subject to receiving the Written Authorisation to exhbit the draft plan, resolve to exhibit the draft plan for the purposes of public exhibition and undertake consultation as detailed in the body of the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft LEP Amendment No.66 - 83 and 85 Kenneth Street 2007, dated 25 September 2007

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Ordinary Council Meeting Report No 174 dated 7 August 2006

4 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Section 68 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

2 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

Judgement of 17 September 2007

24 Pages

 

AT‑5 View

Department of Planning's letter dated 4 September 2007

1 Page

 

 

CNL021007ES_32.doc

*****   End of Environmental Services Division Report No. 32   *****

  


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 22

 

2 OCTOBER 2007

 

 

 

 

Ordinary Council at the Meeting 2 October 2007

26/09/2007 to Ordinary Council

Human Services Division Report No. 22

Subject:          Lane Cove Village Xpress    

Record No:    SU1697 - 28740/07

Author(s):      Jane Gornall 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council at its meeting of 19 February 2007 resolved to:

 

1.         Assess the outcome of the pilot advertising project and subject to the Market Square         development commencing reassess route using details collected by the pilot project;

 

2.         Advise the bus provider that if an appropriate accessible bus is purchased prior to 30 June            2007, the service will continue for a minimum of 1 year whilst an independent study is          conducted looking at the range of services that could be offered;

 

3.         Extend the coverage of the Shuttle to include other areas of poor regular bus services        necessitating removing some services from either the Route A or Route B;           and;

 

4.         Impose a small charge for the bus to assist in defraying the costs from 1 July 2007.

 

A number of factors have impacted on the implementation of the recommendations.  These include the delay in the commencement of the pilot advertising project and the expressed unwillingness due to cost of the current service provider to purchase an accessible bus.

 

Discussion

 

Advent8

 

The Council Report of 19 February 2007 discussed the offer of Advent 8 to undertake a marketing plan to promote the Shuttle.  The Shuttle brochure has recently been completed.  Copies have been circulated separately.

 

The trial was due to commence in early 2007 with the brochure as part of the commencement of the trial. However, the brochure has only recently been released.  As such, an assessment of items listed in the Advent8 Marketing plan listed below are still not able to be assessed.

 

The marketing plan objectives include:

·    Increase current commuter numbers

·    Sell a minimum of 20 ads per week

·    Increased community awareness of the Shuttle

·    Increased business activity

·    Possible subsidy to the Shuttle provided by Electronic Community News

·    Advent 8 will take the lead in sales and marketing for its Community News and Advertising system, seeking advice from the Lane Cove Chamber of Commerce; and

·    Lane Cove ALIVE will take the lead in promoting the Village Xpress, with production and distribution of promotional material being funded by Advent 8 from the advertising sales income.

 

Route Variations

 

The Executive Manager, Human Services,  after discussion with Council’s Manager, Traffic (John Begley) wrote to the Ministry of Transport to commence discussions regarding adding additional routes to the current A and B routes.  The original letter outlined a new route including some of Northwood and Greenwich.

 

As no response has been received, a follow-up letter has been sent.

 

One of the difficulties with the delay in the publication of the brochure has been that details from the pilot study are not yet available to assist with future planning. A full review of the service is expected to commence at the end of 2007.

 

Imposition of Charge

 

It was intended that the cost be introduced as of 1 July, 2007.  The operator has advised that it is able to collect a ‘donation’ for travel, rather than a set fee – due to Ministry of Transport requirements.

 

The above listed issues have delayed the introduction of this ‘donation’.  This Report recommends that a donation be introduced as of 1 November, 2007.

 

Usage of Service

 

While it is still too early to assess the impact of the new brochure and marketing of the Service, the current operator has noted:-

 

·          “The service continues to expand.  The “B” run is now almost all residential and steadily increasing.  This service has gained a number of elderly daily users who rely on the shuttle to access the shopping facilities and services in Lane Cove.

 

·          The “A” run continues to carry a much larger volume with some services reaching close to full capacity.  On certain days we are running a larger bus to cope with demand”.

 

Accessible Bus

 

Council wrote to the North Shore Shuttle Service outlining the requirements for the coming year.  While across the course of some years’ discussions there was an understanding that an accessible bus would be purchased if required by Council.

 

The North Shore Shuttle Service has advised that:-

 

“The cost of purchasing a (25 seat minimum) bus with disabled facilities was available at $80,000.  Due to a 1 year operating guarantee for the Village Xpress this acquisition was not financially viable.”

 

The response is disappointing. Council has the opportunity to discontinue to the service with this provider– however, it may wish to have an alternative service in place before taking this action. The timing of an overall review is listed below. Council may also wish to write to the current provider, expressing its dissatisfaction and requesting that they reconsider their response to this request.

 

Access Committee

 

The Access Committee at its meeting of 24 September, 2007 was requested to comment on the value of the Service.  Its comments are listed below:

 

The Committee is very pleased with the continuation of the service. The Committee also commented that although the usage is improving - more residents could be made aware of the service. They feel that the timetable will go some way to promote the bus service, but would like to see signage to indicate to residents that they can catch the bus from particular stops - the area outside Moirs bookstore was specifically mentioned. There was concern that the bus is still not wheelchair accessible - given that the Committee was informed last year that funding for the requested 12 months was conditional on the company supplying a wheelchair accessible bus.

 

Generally, the consensus was that the service was popular and necessary.

 

Investigation of the future of the Service

 

One of the activities in the 2007-2010 Management Plan is to:

Review the operation of the Village Express Shuttle Service with a view to increase usage and value to Lane Cove. It is intended that this review will commence in late 2007 -  after the commencement of the Manager, Traffic.  The issues to be addressed include:

·    Routes

·    Cost

·    Accessible requirements

·    Options for service provisions.

The information about the current service and the trial will be utilised.  It may well be that at the end of the review – Council advertises for expressions of interest for a provider.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.         Council receive and note the Report.

 

2.         A Report on the outcome of the Advent8 trial be presented to Council when the results can             be assessed.

 

3.         A gold coin donation be introduced as of 1 November, 2007.

 

4.         Council write to the current operator expressing their disappointment with their ability to             purchase an accessible vehicle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

CNL021007HS_22.doc

*****   End of Human Services Division Report No. 22   *****

      

 


ORDINARY COUNCIL

 

2 OCTOBER 2007

 

 

 

 

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