Agenda
Ordinary Council Meeting
4 February 2008,
6:30PM
If members of the public are not interested in
any business recommended to be
considered in Closed Session or there is no
such business, Council will ordinarily
commence
consideration of all other business at 7pm.
Notice of Meeting
Dear Councillors
Notice is given of the Ordinary Council Meeting, to be held in the Council Chambers, Lower Ground
Floor,
Yours faithfully
Peter Brown
The Council meeting is chaired by the Mayor,
Councillor Ian Longbottom. Councillors are entitled to one vote on a matter. If
votes are equal, the Chairperson has a second or casting vote. When a majority
of Councillors vote in favour of a Motion it becomes a decision of the Council.
Minutes of Council and Committee meetings are published on Council’s website
wwww.lanecove.nsw.gov.au by 5pm of the Thursday following the meeting.
The Meeting is conducted in accordance with Council's
Code of Meeting Practice. The order of business is listed in the Agenda on the
next page. That order will be followed unless Council resolves to modify the
order at the meeting. This may occur for example where the members of the
public in attendance are interested in specific items of the agenda.
Members of the public may address the Council Meeting
on any issue for a maximum of 3 minutes during the public forum which is held
at the beginning of the meeting. All persons addressing the Meeting must speak
to the Chair. Speakers and Councillors will not enter into general debate or
ask questions.
If you do not understand any part of the information
given above; require assistance to participate in the meeting due to a
disability; or wish to obtain information in relation to Council, please
contact Council’s Manager Governance on 99113525.
Please note 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.
|
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
APOLOGIES
OPENING OF MEETING WITH
PRAYER
Members of the
public may address the Council Meeting on any issue for 3 minutes.
CONFIRMATION
OF MINUTES
1. ORDINARY
COUNCIL MEETING - 17 DECEMBER 2007
Referred Reports
2. Environmental Services Division Report
No. 523
SUBJECT: 52B
3. Environmental Services Division Report No. 48
SUBJECT: 10 Second Avenue Lane Cove
General Managers Reports
4. General Managers Report No. 2
SUBJECT: Submission to NSW Legislative Council Select
Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding
Corporate Services Division Reports
5. Corporate Services Division Report No. 8
SUBJECT: 2nd Quarter Review of 2007-2010 Management
Plan
6. Corporate Services Division Report No. 5
SUBJECT: Councillor Superannuation
7. Corporate Services Division Report No. 6
SUBJECT: Policy RO4004 - Public Liability Insurance -
Civic Centre
Open Space and Urban Services Division Reports
8. Open Space and Urban Services Division
Report No. 1
SUBJECT: Graffiti Removal
9. Open Space and Urban Services Division Report
No. 2
SUBJECT: Lane Cove Parking Permit Policy
Environmental Services Division Reports
10. Environmental Services Division Report No.
10
SUBJECT: Lane Cove Rainwater Tank Rebate Scheme
11. Environmental Services Division Report No. 11
SUBJECT: Draft Enforcement Policy
12. Environmental Services Division Report No. 7
SUBJECT: Earth Hour 2008
13. Environmental Services Division Report No. 13
SUBJECT:
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
|
|
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES DIVISION REPORT NO. 523 |
|
4 FEBRUARY 2008 |
|
|
|
Ordinary Council at the Meeting 4 February 2008
3/12/2007 to Ordinary
Council
Environmental Services
Division Report No. 523
Subject: 52B
Inspection Committee
at its meeting on 02 February 2008 resolved that the matter be referred to the
Ordinary Council meeting to be held on 04 February 2008.
Record No: DA98/287 - 36967/07
Author(s): May Li
Property: 52B
DA No: 287/1998
Date Lodged: 20 September 2007
Cost of Work: $650,000.00
Owner : I
H Rozenauers
Author: May Li
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION |
Section 96 Modification Application to Development Consent No.
287/1998 for a redesign of the dwelling house and the above ground swimming
pool |
ZONE |
2(a2) - Residential |
IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE? |
Yes |
IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM? |
No |
IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA? |
No |
DOES DCP 1- BUSHLAND APPLY TO THE PROPERTY? |
Yes |
BCA CLASSIFICATION |
Class 1a & 10b |
STOP THE CLOCK USED |
Yes – 15 days |
NOTIFICATION |
Neighbours: 46, 48A, 48, 50A, 50, 52, 56, 56A, 56A, 56B Ward Councillors: Councillor Hassarati, Freedman, & Smith Progress Association: Lane Cove Bushland & Conservation Society |
REASON FOR REFERRAL:
The Section 96 Modification is reported to Council because the
development application was determined at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 16
October 2000.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Section 96 application seeks Council’s consent to modify conditions
of the Development Consent No. 287/1998 relating to the design of proposed
dwelling house, the floor space ratio, and the location of the proposed
swimming pool.
- The
proposed FSR is 0.54:1 (0.5:1 approved)
- Extending
the length of the northern wall of the dwelling house by 1m toward the eastern
boundary (the edge of the eastern cliff)
- Relocation
of the above ground swimming pool toward the edge of the eastern cliff.
- Increasing
the finished level of the deck of the above ground swimming pool by 1.35m from
RL 23.5m to RL24.85m.
SITE:
The subject site is a battleaxe block located at the south-eastern side
of
- Gore Creek Reserve to
the east of the site
- A single storey
dwelling house at 50A
- A vacant lot located at
52C
- A two storey dwelling
house located at 52A to the west of the site.
The owner of the subject site owns two of the adjoining properties at
52A and 52C
Notification Plan attached (AT1).
DEVELOPMENT HISTORY:
10 November 1998
Development Application No. 287/1998 for construction of a two storey
dwelling house with basement carpark and storage area and an above swimming
pool was lodged with Council.
2 February 2000
The development application was refused under delegated authority for
the following reasons:
1. The proposal contravenes the objectives of the Lane Cove
Local Environmental Plan 1987.
2. The proposal contravenes Council’s Building Policy Code.
3. The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.
4. The proposal will have a detrimental effect on the amenity
of the neighbourhood.
5. The proposal contravenes State Environmental Policy No. 56.
6. The public interest.
2 March 2000
A Section 82A Review application was lodged
with Council.
24 October 2000
The development application was conditionally
approved by Council.
22 March 2002
An Order was issued by the Land and
The
comparison of the FSR and the pool deck level is summarised in the following
table:
|
Original DA proposal |
S82A proposal |
Development consent |
S96 proposal |
FSR |
0.64:1 |
0.53:1 |
0.5:1 |
0.54:1 |
Pool Deck Level |
RL24.7 |
RL23.5 |
RL23.5 |
RL24.85 |
PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE:
Site
Area (663.8m2)
|
PROPOSED |
CODE |
COMPLIES |
Floor
Space Ratio (max) |
0.54:1 |
0.5:1 |
No |
Soft
Landscaped Area (min) |
No
change to the original proposal |
35% |
N/A |
Side
Boundary Setback (min) |
1m |
1.5m |
No |
Overall
Height (m) (max) |
7.7m |
9.5m |
Yes |
Ceiling
Height (m) (max) |
6.9m |
7.0m
|
Yes |
No
of Storeys |
2 |
2 |
Yes |
Building
Line (max) |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
Cut
and Fill (max) |
3.2m |
1m |
No |
Deck/Balcony
width (max) |
6.5m |
3m
(if elevated by >1m) |
No |
Solar
Access (min) |
More
than 3 Hours |
3
hours to north elevation |
Yes |
SWIMMING POOL
|
PROPOSED |
CODE |
COMPLIES |
Distance
of concourse Edge to Neighbour’s House
(min) |
7m |
3m |
Yes |
Setback
from boundary if concourse is >500mm above natural ground level and
adjoins public open space (min) |
The
concourse of the pool is 2.5m above the natural level. It has a setback more than 1:1 to Gore
Creek Reserve |
1:1
setback measured from concourse edge |
Yes |
Height
(max) |
1.5-2.5m |
1.8m |
No |
Setback
if height is >1800mm (min) |
1m |
1:1
setback measured from concourse edge (2.5m required) |
No |
Screening
of facade where > 1.0m above ground level? |
Screen
planting is sufficient to the eastern boundary No
screen planting is proposed at the northern boundary. However, any screen planting on the
northern boundary will further obscured the view of the adjoining property
at 50A |
Screening
required |
Yes No |
Copy
of the proposed plans attached (AT2).
REFERRALS:
Manager Urban Design and Assets
The Section 96 proposal has been referred to
Council’s development engineer for comment.
No objections were raised and the following additional conditions are
recommended to be imposed:
Excavation greater the 1m Where
there are structures on adjoining properties including all council
infrastructures, located within five meters of the proposed excavation.
The applicant shall:-
(a) Seek independent advice from a suitably
qualified Engineer on the impact of the proposed excavations on the adjoining
properties;
(b) Detail
what measures are to be taken to protect those properties from undermining
during construction;
(c) Provide
Council with a certificate from the engineer on the necessity and adequacy of
support for the adjoining properties;
(d) Provide
a dilapidation report of the adjoining properties and Council
infrastructure. The dilapidation survey must be conducted prior to any site
work. The extent of the survey must cover the likely “zone of influence” that
may arise due to excavation works, including dewatering and/or construction
induced vibration. The dilapidation report must be prepared by a practicing
engineer.
A second dilapidation report, recording structural
conditions of all structures originally assessed prior to the
commencement of works, must be carried out at the completion of the works.
The above matters are to be completed PRIOR TO THE
ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.
All recommendations of the
Geotechnical Engineer are to be carried out during the course of excavation.
The applicant must give at least seven (7) days notice to the owner and
occupiers of the adjoining allotments before the excavation works commence.
Manager Open Space
The Tree Assessment Officer has advised that
the owner of the property has established mulched garden areas and planted a
variety of native tree species at the rear of the site along the back boundary
line and on the top of the ridge. These
garden beds and the trees planted would screen the pool area as the plants
mature from Council’s reserve and the waterway.
No objections are raised to the proposed Section 96 application.
Rural Fire Service
The subject site is located within
The NSW Rural Fire Service recommended that the
following conditions to be imposed in the conditions of the development
consent:
Design and Construction
1. Construction is to comply with Appendix
3 – Site Bush Fire Attack Assessment of Planning for Bush Fire Protection
2006. In this regard the following
design standards for construction are to be incorporated into the development:
a) The building is required to be upgraded
to improve ember protection. This is to
be achieved by enclosing all openings (excluding roof tile spaces) or covering
openings with a non-corrosive metal screen.
This includes any sub floor areas where applicable and eaves.
b) Roofing shall be gutterless or have
leafless guttering and valleys to prevent the build up of flammable
material. Any materials used shall have
a Flammability Index no greater than 5.
Lane Cove LOCAL
Environmental Plan 1987 (Section 79c(1)(a))
The Section 96 proposal does not alter the compliance of the development
with the aims and objectives of the Lane Cove LEP 1987.
Other Planning
Instruments
Lane Cove Code for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and
Outbuildings
The Section 96 application seeks Council’s consent for a redesign of the
approved dwelling house and the swimming pool.
As indicated in the compliance table, the design of the dwelling house
does not comply fully with the requirements of the Code. A number of the variations, such as boundary
setbacks have been approved by Council in determining the original proposal.
Floor Space Ratio
The floor space ratio proposed is 0.54:1 and the gross floor area of the
proposal is approximately 24m2 in excess the maximum permitted floor
area. This calculation excludes the
basement area of 184m2 as it
is less than 1.5m above ground level.
The Council in considering the original proposal required compliance
with the 0.5:1 floor space ratio. This
requirement is reaffirmed.
Swimming Pool
A swimming pool concourse and deck was approved in the original
proposal. The Council required that the
structure be located at RL23.5. The
applicant seeks to increase the height to RL24.85.
The pool has been redesigned and located further towards the edge of the
eastern cliff. On the northern side, it
ranges in height from 1.5 to 2.5m above the natural ground level and the
decking area of the swimming pool is 1m from the northern boundary. It is considered that the pool at the
proposed level would create an overlooking impact to the adjoining neighbour at
50A
The decking area and the swimming pool would be clearly visible from the
living room and the southern balcony of the dwelling house at 50A
The applicant states that if the pool area is lowered it would result in
the proposed residence, the pool and the terrace being unworkable. The resultant change would make the basement
level unusable - (no head room), or there would need to be excavation at the
cliff edge to accommodate the pool and further excavation was objected to by
the objectors.
Officer’s Comment
Stepping the pool and deck to the level required would result in
additional excavation and also would reduce the basement area. The area under the deck is designated pool
plant and storage. The basement area is
substantial and remains available for storage and pool plant.
The Statement of Environmental Effects lodged with the Section 96
application states that the dwelling house has been redesigned to meet the
applicant’s engineering advice. The
gross floor area of the basement has been changed from 138m2 to 184m2
and basement has been located further toward the eastern boundary of the
site. The orientation of the swimming
pool has been rotated by 90° parallel with the northern
boundary of the site.
Variations to Council’s
Codes/PolicIes (seCTIONS 79c(1)(a), (1)(b),
and (1)(c))
This has been dealt with in the preceding
section.
RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION
(Section 79C(1)(d))
The Section 96 proposal was notified in
accordance with Council’s notification policy.
Three submissions were received in response to the notification of the
development application. The issues
raised in the submissions can be summarised as follows.
50A
· The height of the pool deck above ground
level and the non-compliance with the
The pool deck was
originally proposed at RL24.7 (ground floor level was RL24.85) but this was
amended and eventually approved at 23.5.
The main reasons for lowering the pool deck by 1.2m were its excessive
height above ground level and the loss of views and privacy to No.50A Cliff
Road, which obtains views across this area towards Woolwich and Balmain,
including the Lane Cove and Parramatta Rivers.
The S96 modification
proposes to increase the height of the pool deck again, to RL24.85. This is a
concern due to the potential for loss of view and privacy.
Officer’s Comment
This objection is supported. It is considered that the pool deck should be
reduced to the approved level to maintain views and privacy to the adjoining
property.
In relation to the variation to the foreshore
building line, Council has previously accepted variation to the foreshore
building line for the deck/ pool structure.
· The bulk and scale of the dwelling that
included an extremely large basement area, storeroom and plant room that was
excluded from the floor space ratio calculations.
The proposed S96
modification increases the overall floor space, which is again of concern given
the size of the proposed dwelling and the size of the proposed basement which
is not included in the FSR. The basement
area has been moved further to the east, closer to the cliff edge down to Gore
Creek, yet and there is no information provided as to whether this requires
increased excavation in this area, or a further geotech report in relation to
this change.
Officer’s Comment
The basement level of the proposed development
is 1.5m lower than the natural ground level.
The basement level is not included in accordance with Council’s Code for
Single Dwelling Houses.
· Side
setbacks
The proposed modification
provides only 1.0m setback from the northern boundary that adjoins to
Officer’s Comment
The setbacks proposed for the dwelling house
are in accordance with the plans approved by Council in 2000.
· The
pool deck
The extensions proposed,
particularly to the pool deck, will add to the adverse environmental aspect of
the building when viewed from Gore Creek Reserve,
Officer’s Comment
Height poles were previously requested for the
Section 82A Review assessment. The
concerns of the height of the pool deck were considered in the previous Section
82A Review application and the pool deck level was conditioned to be at
RL23.5. Given the changes in level of
the site and the location of the building works, it is not considered that the
proposed rear pool and deck at RL 23.5 will be detrimental to the bushland
area. Council’s Tree Management Officer
has not raised objection to the proposal.
· It
is not clear whether further excavations will be required, and we are concerned
that our property could be affected.
Officer’s Comment
The subject site does not share any boundary
with
There is no “existing” 1000mm high guard wall
on the driveway
Drawing 0710 CC 1.01A has
a note stating “Existing safety guard wall 1000mm high to driveway – (not shown
on plan)”.
We object to this notation
calling up a 1000mm high wall as “existing” as there is no wall and there has
never been an existing wall on the edge of the driveway slab which slab was
only concreted recently.
Officer’s Comment
No details of the guard wall have been provided
and this aspect of the proposal is to be deleted from the plans at Construction
Certificate stage.
CONCLUSION
The
assessment of the Section 96 application has been carried out in accordance
with the requirements of Sections 79C and 96 of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979. It is considered
that the increasing of the pool deck level would create an adverse impact to
the amenity of the adjoining property and the proposed floor space ratio should
be reduced to comply. These two issues are to be addressed by the draft
conditions of approval.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning
and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, the Development Consent 278/1998 granted
on 24 October 2000 for construction of
a two storey dwelling house with basement garage and storage area and an
above ground swimming pool at Lot 4, DP625754, known as 52B Cliff Road,
Northwood is amended in the following manner: (1) Condition No.1b to be
amended and read as the follows: “1b. Deleted” (2) Condition 1 to be
amended and read as the follows: “1. The proposal being amended to comply
with the 0.5:1 floor space ratio, the finished level of the decking area of
the swimming pool is to be at RL23.5 and the guard wall to the driveway
deleted. The plans are to be amended
plans prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.” (3) Condition No.10 to be amended and read
as the follows: “10. (20) That the
development be strictly in accordance with drawing number 0710, CC2.01B,
0710-CC2.02D, 0710-CC2.03B, 0710-CC2.04A, 0710-CC3.01B, 0710-CC3.02B,
0710-CC3.03B, and 0710-CC3.04B, dated 04.08.07, prepared by Antonio Caminiti,
except where required to be modified in accordance with Condition 1.” (4) The following
additional conditions be imposed in the conditions of the development: “41. Excavation greater the 1m where there
are structures on adjoining properties including all Council infrastructures,
located within five meters of the proposed excavation. The applicant shall:- (a) Seek independent advice from a suitably qualified Engineer
on the impact of the proposed excavations on the adjoining properties; (b) Detail what measures are to be taken to protect those
properties from undermining during construction; (c) Provide Council with a certificate from the engineer on the
necessity and adequacy of support for the adjoining properties; (d) Provide a dilapidation report of the adjoining properties and Council infrastructure. The
dilapidation survey must be conducted prior to any site work. The extent of
the survey must cover the likely “zone of influence” that may arise due to
excavation works, including dewatering and/or construction induced vibration.
The dilapidation report must be prepared by a practicing engineer. A second dilapidation report, recording
structural conditions of all structures originally assessed prior to
the commencement of works, must be carried out at the completion of the
works. The above matters are to be completed PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION
CERTIFICATE. All
recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer are to be carried out during the
course of excavation. The applicant must give at least seven (7) days notice
to the owner and occupiers of the adjoining allotments before the excavation
works commence. 42. Conditions
from NSW Rural Fire Services - Design and
Construction Construction is to comply with Appendix 3 – Site Bush Fire Attack
Assessment of Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006. In this regard the following design
standards for construction are to be incorporated into the development: (a) The
building is required to be upgraded to improve ember protection. This is to be achieved by enclosing all
openings (excluding roof tile spaces) or covering openings with a
non-corrosive metal screen. This
includes any sub floor areas where applicable and eaves. (b) Roofing
shall be gutterless or have leafless guttering and valleys to prevent the
build up of flammable material. Any
materials used shall have a Flammability Index no greater than 5.” |
Michael Mason
Executive Manager
Environmental Services Division
AT‑1 View |
Notification Plan |
1 Page |
|
AT‑2 View |
Proposed Plans for 52B |
15 Pages |
|
|
|
Environmental
Services Division Report No. 48 |
|
|
|
Reference: Environmental
Services Division Report No. 48
Subject:
Inspection Committee at its meeting on 02
February 2008 resolved that the matter be referred to the Ordinary Council
meeting to be held on 04 February 2008.
Record No: DA07/323-01
- 3486/08
Author(s): Kristy
Wellfare
Property:
DA No: D323/07
Date Lodged: 23
October 2007
Cost of Work: $46,000.00
Owner : B C Hall & S C Scanlan
Author: Kristy
Wellfare
DESCRIPTION OF
PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION |
Construction of a swimming pool |
ZONE |
Residential 2(a1) |
IS THE PROPOSAL
PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE? |
The proposal is permissible within the zone |
IS THE PROPERTY A
HERITAGE ITEM? |
The property is not listed as a heritage item |
IS THE PROPERTY
WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA? |
The property is not located within a conservation
area |
DOES DCP 1-
BUSHLAND APPLY TO THE PROPERTY? |
The provisions of DCP1 apply to the property |
BCA CLASSIFICATION |
Class 10b |
STOP THE CLOCK USED |
Yes, 51 days |
NOTIFICATION |
Neighbours 8, 11, 12 and 13 Second
Avenue Ward Councillors East Ward Progress
Association Other
Interest Groups Lane Cove Bushland and
Conservation Society |
REASON FOR REFERRAL:
This application is being referred to the Inspection
Committee as it has been called by Councillor Tudge given the concerns of the
applicant.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The development
application is for the construction of a swimming pool which has been assessed
against Council's Code for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and
Outbuildings and involves a number of non-compliances with the Code in terms
of:
§ setback from neighbouring dwelling houses,
§ setback from side boundaries, and
§ maximum height.
Council has requested
amendments to the plans which would result in compliance with the maximum
height and side setback controls, and the applicant has declined to amend the
proposal. It is recommended that the application be approved, subject to design
change conditions requiring an increase in the side setback by at least 400mm,
and a lowering of the pool body by 400mm which would result in compliance with
Council's height and side setback controls.
SITE:
The site is located
on the southern side of
Existing development
on the site features a two storey masonry and tile dwelling house which is
currently undergoing renovation work approved under D395/02. Adjoining
properties feature dwelling houses of similar construction. Site Location Plan and Neighbour Notification
Plan attached (AT1 and AT2).
PROPOSAL:
The
applicant seeks consent for the construction of a concrete swimming pool which
is set in-ground at ground level to the northern end and continues at the same
level as the land falls away, resulting in a maximum height of 2200mm at the
southern end.
PREVIOUS APPROVALS:
D395/02: Alteration and additions. Approved under
Delegated Authority on 19 March 2003
HISTORY:
A meeting was held on
site on 5 December 2007, with Council's tree assessment officer and the Manager
of Assessments in attendance. Following that site inspection, Council's advice
of 20 November regarding the proposal's non-compliance was confirmed and
Council suggested amendments to the plans which would result in compliance with
the controls as follows:
1. Increase the setback from the side boundary
by at least 400mm: this would result in at least 900mm setback from the
boundary to the pool concourse and would increase the setback from edge of the
concourse to the neighbouring dwelling house.
2. Lower the level of the pool by at 400mm:
this would decrease the maximum height of the pool to 1800mm which would not
only comply with the maximum height control; it would reduce the required side
setback to 900mm and, subject to the amendment required in point 1 above, would
comply with the side setback control.
The
applicant has declined to alter the plans as requested, and the assessment of
this development application is based on the plans submitted to Council on 23
October 2007.
PROPOSAL
DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE:
Site Area (759.5m2)
|
PROPOSED |
CODE |
COMPLIES |
Floor Space Ratio (max) |
As approved |
|
No change |
Soft Landscaped Area (min) |
68% |
35% |
Yes |
Side Boundary Setback (min) |
As approved |
|
No change |
Overall Height (m) (max) |
As approved |
9.5m |
No change |
Ceiling Height (m) (max) |
As approved |
7.0m |
No change |
No of Storeys |
As approved |
2 |
No change |
Building Line (max) |
As approved |
|
No change |
|
As approved |
|
No change |
Cut and Fill (max) |
As approved |
1m |
No change |
Deck/Balcony width (max) |
As approved |
3m (if elevated by >1m) |
No change |
Solar Access (min) |
As approved |
3 hours to north elevation |
No change |
NaTHERs Rating (min) |
Not applicable |
Min 3.5 stars |
Not applicable |
SWIMMING POOLS
|
PROPOSED |
CODE |
COMPLIES |
Concourse Edge to Neighbour’s
House (min) |
Approximately 2.3m |
3m |
No |
Setback from boundary if
concourse is <500mm above natural ground level (min) |
Not applicable |
900mm - from internal face of pool 450mm from edge of concourse |
Not applicable |
Setback from boundary if
concourse is >500mm above natural ground level (min) |
500mm from edge of concourse |
900mm from edge of concourse |
No |
Setback from boundary if
concourse is >500mm above natural ground level and adjoins public open
space (min) |
11m from rear boundary |
1:1 setback measured from
concourse edge |
Yes |
Height (max) |
2200mm |
1800mm |
No |
Setback if height is
>1800mm (min) |
500mm |
1:1 setback measured from
concourse edge – 2200mm |
No |
Screening of facade where
> 1.0m above ground level? |
None proposed |
Screening required |
No |
REFERRALS:
Manager Urban Design and Assets
The
proposal was referred to Council's Development Engineer for assessment. No
concerns were raised in respect of this development, subject to conditions.
Manager Bushland
Council's
Bushland Manager has raised concerns throughout the assessment process
regarding the access to the property during construction and excavation works. Upon the
request for further information pertaining to the access of machinery to the
back of
· The size of the machinery that will be used to
excavate the pool area will be approximately 1.50 ton excavator – e.g. a
KabotaKX121.
· Entry and Exit Points will be at the southern boundary
(through the track in the reserve) for the digger and on the western side of
the site through to the front (northern end) for excavated materials.
· Access for the digger will be a SINGLE RETURN journey
only, with the intention to reinstate any damage to the bushland.
· Excavated materials will be removed by small dingo
type machines and loaded onto trucks at the front of the property for immediate
removal.
In response to this information, Council's Bushland Manager had the
following concerns:
Access through
It is estimated that from the
Illegal activities in the past have shown that
movement of machinery through bushland, even once, has impacted an area so much
that years later the impact is still seen and managed. The cost to repair damage to vegetation is
often underestimated with Council having to endure further costs years after
the damage has been done. The good
condition of the bushland has involved decades of bush regeneration in
This reserve is not designated for private
access for neighbouring properties. Neighbours have no legal right to be
granted access over Council reserves for building works and there are alternate
arrangements that can be made to construct the pool without using the
reserve. If the applicant is able to
remove soil through the front of the property using a smaller machine, then a
suitably sized excavator can access the backyard from the front of the property
as they are only allowed to access the backyard from the front of the
property.
Council's Bushland Manager has requested further additional
documentation confirming that they will not use
Rural Fire Service
The proposal was referred to the NSW Rural Fire
Service for comment. No concerns were raised in respect of the application and
no conditions were required.
Lane Cove LOCAL Environmental Plan 1987 (Section 79c(1)(a))
The proposal is for
the construction of a swimming pool, which is ancillary to the main residential
dwelling house on the site. Dwelling houses are permissible in the Residential
2(a1) zone in accordance with Clause 9(3) of the Lane Cove LEP 1987. The
proposal accords with the objectives of the zone and raises no issues with
regard to the provisions of the Lane Cove LEP1987.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANs
Development
Control Plan No 1 – Control of Development Adjacent to Bushland
The proposed swimming
pool is located wholly within the Building Area on the site and does not
encroach on the buffer area as defined by the policy. The original proposal was
submitted without the landscape plan as required by DCP1. This plan was
submitted to Council on 21 December 2007 for assessment and no concerns were
raised in relation to the landscape plan. The proposal did not include any
information regarding the proposed finish for the exposed underside of the pool
shell between the ground level and the pool concourse. A condition has been
included in the recommendation of this report requiring that this area be
appropriately finished and screened in order to harmonise with the natural
environment in accordance with the plan.
As noted in the
Bushland Manager's comments above, concerns were raised regarding the manner by
which machinery and excavated material would be passed through the site and
transported to and from the site. The applicant submitted further information
on 9 January 2008 regarding the site management during the works, particularly
during excavation, which proposed access through the reserve to the rear and
does not accord with the requirements of the DCP. Conditions have been included
in the recommendation of this report prohibiting access to the property via the
reserve to the rear and requiring the submission of a comprehensive Work Plan
outlining the site access and management during construction given the
prohibition on access from the reserve. The proposal, as recommended, is
considered to accord with the objectives of the plan and raises no further
issues in this regard.
Some limited access
for construction is available down the sides of the property.
Other Planning Instruments
State Environmental Planning Policy No 19 – Bushland
in Urban Areas
The site is
immediately adjacent to land which is zoned "Bushland B" under Lane
Cove LEP 1987. The proposal has been assessed with regard to the provisions of
SEPP 19 and, subject to conditions, is considered to be satisfactory in this
regard.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Contaminated
Lands
Clause 7 of the SEPP
requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated. Notwithstanding
the fact that site investigations have not been carried out, the site history
of the site and adjoining sites indicates a history of residential development.
The proposal does not raise any concerns in relation to SEPP55 and further
investigation is not required in this instance.
State Environmental Planning Policy (Building
Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004
The application was
accompanied by a BASIX Certificate and the commitments required to be noted at
the development application stage are shown on the accompanying plans. The
proposal therefore satisfies the policy and raises no further issues in this
regard.
Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (
The proposal raises no issues in this regard.
Variations to Council’s Codes/PolicIes (seCTIONS 79c(1)(a), (1)(b),
and (1)(c))
The preceding policy
assessment table identifies those controls that the proposal does not comply
with. Each of the departures is discussed below.
Code for Dwelling Houses,
Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings: Section 5 - Private Swimming
Pools and Spas
The proposal does not comply
with the following provisions within Section 5 of the Code for Dwelling Houses,
Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings:
a. Setback to neighbouring dwellings
The
plans submitted with the application do not dimension the setback from the
proposed pool to the neighbouring dwelling at
c. Setback to side boundaries for swimming pools more than 500mm
above the existing ground level
The
proposal involves a 500mm setback from the edge of the concourse to the
property boundary, and 900mm from the boundary to the water. As the pool is
greater than 500mm above the natural ground level for much of its length, the
pool is required to be setback from the common boundary by at least 900mm to
the edge of the concourse and the proposal does not comply with this control.
d. Maximum height
The
proposed swimming pool would be a maximum of 2200mm above ground level at its
highest point, with a side setback of 500mm. Whilst Section 5d of the Code for
Dwelling Houses, fences, private swimming pools and outbuildings states that
the maximum height of the concourse shall not exceed 1800mm above natural
ground level at any point, this part does allow for situations where part of
the pool structure is greater than 1800mm above natural ground level, provided
that an appropriate setback from the
property boundary of 1:1 is maintained. In this instance, a 2200mm setback from
the side boundary would be required which is substantially greater than the
500mm proposed.
As
demonstrated above, the pool is substantially non-compliant with respect to a
number of Council's controls. Council has requested that the side setback be increased
by at least 400mm and that the pool itself be lowered by 400mm. If these design
changes were implemented, the proposal would comply with the side setback and
height requirements and the setback from the neighbouring dwelling would be
increased to approximately 2700mm which would present a more favourable case
for the variation of the setback requirements to neighbouring dwellings.
The
applicant has provided the following reasons in seeking Council’s variation to
the controls:
§ concern regarding the
impact of any additional excavation on the trees in the immediate vicinity
§ a desire to avoid the
creation of "dead space" within a compliant side setback
§ a desire to install the
pool at the ground level of the uppermost portion of the rear yard for
aesthetic and safety reasons
§ the slope of the site
does not allow the installation of the pool at ground level
§ the pool will be
appropriately screened from neighbouring dwelling house
Council's
tree preservation officer was present during a site inspection and was
consulted regarding any potential impact that might arise from a lowering of
the proposed pool in the upper tier of the rear yard by 400mm. Due to the
amount of fill present and the tiered nature of the rear yard combined with the
difference in level between the site and the neighbouring site at 8 Second
Avenue, it was not considered that lowering the pool by 400mm would impact upon
the existing trees on the site or surrounding sites. It is not considered that
sufficient justification for the proposed non-compliance with the site setback
and maximum height controls has been provided and it is therefore considered
appropriate that conditions be included in the recommendation of this report
requiring that the pool be lowered by 400mm and the side setback be increased
by at least 400mm.
e. Screening of Pool
Although
the proposal would result in a pool façade of greater than 1.0m above natural
ground level for part of its length, the proposal does not include any
screening/landscaping of the pool's elevation. It is considered that this may
be addressed by way of a condition of consent and is acceptable in this regard.
RESPONSE
TO NOTIFICATION (Section 79C(1)(d))
No submissions were received in
response to the notification of the development application.
CONCLUSION
The Development
Application has been assessed in accordance with matters for consideration
outlined in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act
1979, and having regard to all of the relevant instruments and policies. The
proposal complies with the objectives of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan
1987, and, subject to conditions, would not result in any adverse impacts for
the locality and is not considered to be contrary to the public interest. The matters in the DOP Guidelines in relation to
Section 79C considerations have been satisfied. Accordingly, the
application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions listed
below.
That pursuant to Section 80(1)(a) of the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979, the Council as the consent authority grants development
consent to Development Application No D293/07 for the construction of a
swimming pool on lot 68 Do 19003 at 10 Second Avenue Lane Cove, subject to
the following conditions:- 1. That the development be
strictly in accordance with the details set out in the following table and on
the application form and on any supporting information received with the
application except as amended by the conditions specified hereunder.
2. Amended Plans are to be submitted
incorporating the following amendments: a) The side setback from the swimming pool to the
common side boundary between the subject site and b) The swimming pool shall be no more than 1800mm above
natural ground level at any point. c) The pool shell between ground level and the pool
concourse shall be appropriately finished and screened to harmonise with the
natural landscape. Any exposed
undercroft is to be painted a dark recessive colour. The amendments are to be provided prior to the issue
of a Construction Certificate. 3. Access to the site for
all vehicles and machinery associated with the development must be gained via
the 4. A Comprehensive Work
Plan must be approved prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The
Work Plan must outline how all vehicles and machinery will access the site in
light of condition 3 above, including entry and exit points, and details of
the site management during excavation and construction works, including
Stormwater and Sediment Control Plans in accordance with DCP1. 5. The submission of a
Construction Certificate and its issue by Council or Private Certifier PRIOR
TO CONSTRUCTION WORK commencing. 6. The approved plans must
be submitted to a Sydney Water Check agent or Customer Centre to determine
whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains,
stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be
met. Plans will be appropriately
stamped. For Quick Check agent details
please refer to the web site www.sydneywater.com.au see Your
Business then Building & Developing then Building & Renovating or
telephone 13 20 92. The
consent authority or a private accredited certifier must:- · Ensure that a Quick Check
agent/Sydney Water has appropriately stamped the plans before the issue of
any Construction Certificate. 7. Approval is subject to
the condition that the builder or person who does the residential building
work complies with the applicable requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building
Act 1989 whereby a person must not contract to do any residential building
work unless a contract of insurance that complies with this Act is in force
in relation to the proposed work. It
is the responsibility of the builder or person who is to do the work to
satisfy Council or the PCA that they have complied with the applicable
requirements of Part 6. Council as the PCA will not release
the Construction Certificate until evidence of Home Owners Warranty Insurance
or an owner builder permit is submitted. THE ABOVE CONDITION DOES NOT
APPLY TO COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION, OWNER BUILDER WORKS LESS THAN
$5000 OR CONSTRUCTION WORKS LESS THAN $12000. 8. An Occupation
Certificate being obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority before the
swimming pool is filled. 9. The retention on site,
without damage, of all existing trees, excepting those shown in the approved
plan, to be removed. The consent of
Council to be obtained for the removal of any trees. 10. A Tree Preservation Order
applies in the 11. The swimming pool being
surrounded by a fence:- a) That forms a barrier between the swimming pool; and i) any residential building or
movable dwelling situated on the premises; and ii) any place (whether public or
private) adjacent to or adjoining the premises; and b) That is designed, constructed and installed in accordance with the
standards as prescribed by the Regulations under the Swimming Pool Act, 1992,
and the Australian Standard 1926-1976, "Fences and Gates for Private
Swimming Pools". SUCH
FENCE IS TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE FILLING OF THE SWIMMING POOL. 12. In accordance with the
requirements of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and Regulations thereunder a
warning notice is to be displayed in a prominent position in the immediate
vicinity of the swimming pool at all times. The notice must be in accordance with the standards
of the Australian Resuscitation Council for instructional posters and resuscitation
techniques and must contain a warning "YOUNG CHILDREN SHOULD BE
SUPERVISED WHEN USING THIS POOL". 13. Fibrecrete Swimming Pool
Shell being constructed in accordance with AS.2783-1985 "Concrete
Swimming Pool Code, AS 3600-1988 - "Concrete Structure" and
"AW1 Fibresteel Technical Manual, November 1981". 14. Standard Condition (56)
Where Lane Cove Council is appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority,
it will be necessary to book an inspection for each of the following stages
during the construction process. Forty
eight (48) hours notice must be given prior to the inspection being
required:- a) Pool reinforcement
prior to placement of concrete. b) The
swimming pool safety fence and the provision of the resuscitation poster
prior to filling of the pool with water. c) Stormwater
drainage lines prior to backfilling d) Completion. 15. Structural Engineer's
details being submitted to Council and approved PRIOR TO ISSUE OF
CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE for the following:- a) underpinning; b) retaining
walls; c) footings; d) reinforced
concrete work; 16. All machinery used on the
site during demolition shall have a noise emission no greater than 75dB(A)
when measured at a radius of 7.0 metres from the specified item. 17. (a) The use of mechanical
rock pick machines on building sites is prohibited due to the potential for
damage to adjoining properties. (b) Notwithstanding the prohibition under
condition (a), consideration will be given to the use of rock pick machines
and may be approved by Council subject to:- (1) A Geotechnical Engineer's Report that
indicates that the rock pick machine can be used without causing damage to
the adjoining properties. (2) The report details the procedure to be
followed in the use of the rock pick machine and all precautions to be taken
to ensure damage does not occur to adjoining properties. (3) With the permission of the adjoining
owners and occupiers comprehensive internal and external photographs are to
be taken of the adjoining premises for evidence of any cracking and the
general state of the premises PRIOR TO ANY WORK COMMENCING. Where approval of the owners/occupiers is
refused they be advised of their possible diminished ability to seek damages
(if any) from the developers and where such permission is still refused
Council may exercise its discretion to grant approval. (4) The Geotechnical Engineer supervises
the work and the work has been carried out in terms of the procedure laid
down. COMPLIANCE
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CONDITION MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUE
OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE. 18. All spillage deposited on
the footpaths or roadways to be removed at the completion of each days work. 19. The site being properly
fenced to prevent access of unauthorised persons outside of working hours. 20. An approved type of
hoarding being erected along the street frontage. 21. Submission of
documentation detailing the destination of materials in accordance with the
Waste Management Plan approved under this application. These details are required PRIOR TO THE
ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE. 22. All overflow water and drainage including
backwash from filter washing from the swimming pool must be directed to the
sewer in accordance with Sydney Water's requirements. 23. Lane Cove Council charges
a fee of $30 for the registration of any Part 4A Certificates (compliance,
construction, occupation or subdivision certificates) issued by an accredited
certifier under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. 24. Long Service Levy
Compliance with Section 109F of the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979; payment of the Long Service Levy
payable under Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long
Service Payments Act 1986 (or, where such a levy is payable by instalments,
the first instalment of the levy) – All building works in excess of $25,000
are subject to the payment of a Long Service Levy at the rate of 0.35%. COMPLIANCE
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CONDITION MUST BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION
CERTIFICATE. 25. BASIX - Compliance with all the conditions of the BASIX
Certificate lodged with Council as part of this application. Engineering Conditions General Engineering Conditions 26. Design and Construction Standards. All engineering plans and work shall be
carried out in accordance with Council’s standards and relevant Development
Control Plans except as amended by other conditions. Engineering Conditions to be complied with
Prior To Construction Certificate 27. Pool Construction Connect to existing system Stormwater The stormwater runoff from the any new impervious areas
surrounding the pool shall be connected to the existing drainage system in
accordance with the requirements of Lane Cove Council’s DCP Stormwater management. Overland Flow around pools: The pool design shall ensure that either during construction or upon
completion, surface water is not directed or diverted so as to have an
adverse impact upon adjoining properties. To
prevent overland flows from entering the pool the coping level must be a
minimum of 150mm above the adjacent finished ground level. The entire outside
perimeter of the pool surround must have overland flow escape routes which
will protect the pool from flooding. 28. Services
Prior to any excavation works,
the location and depth of all services must be ascertained. All costs
associated with adjustment of the public utility will be borne by the
applicant. 29. Excavation greater the 1m Where there are structures on
adjoining properties, including all council infrastructures, located within
five meters of the proposed excavation. The
applicant shall:- (a) seek independent advice from a
Engineer on the impact of the proposed excavations on the adjoining
properties (b) detail what measures are to be taken
to protect those properties from undermining
during construction (c) provide Council with a certificate from
the engineer on the necessity and adequacy of
support for the adjoining properties (d) Provide
a dilapidation report of the
adjoining properties and Council infrastructure. The dilapidation survey must
be conducted prior to any site work. The extent of the survey must cover the
likely “zone of influence” that may arise due to excavation works, including
dewatering and/or construction induced vibration. The dilapidation report
must be prepared by a practicing engineer. A second dilapidation report, recording
structural conditions of all structures originally assessed prior to
the commencement of works, must be carried out at the completion of the
works. The
above matters are to be completed and documentation submitted to Council PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION
CERTIFICATE. All recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer are to be carried out
during the course of excavation. The applicant must give at least seven (7)
days notice to the owner and occupiers of the adjoining allotments before the
excavation works commence. 30. Footpath
Damage Bond. The
applicant shall lodge with Council a $1000 cash bond or bank guarantee
to cover damage to Council's roads, footpaths, kerb and gutter, drainage or
other assets. Lodgement of this bond is required prior to the issue of the
Construction Certificate. 31. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. An Erosion
and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) shall
be prepared by a suitably qualified consultant in accordance with the
guidelines set out in the manual “Managing
Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction“ prepared by LANDCOM ‘Fourth Edition 2004, Volume 1’.These
devices shall be maintained during the construction works and replaced where
considered necessary. The
following details are to be included in drawings accompanying the Erosion
and Sediment Control Plan: · Location and design criteria of erosion and sediment
control structures, · Site access point/s and means of limiting material
leaving the site · Means of diversion of uncontaminated upper catchment
around disturbed areas · Procedures for maintenance of erosion and sediment
controls · Details and procedures for dust control. Engineering Conditions to be complied with
prior to Commencement of Construction 32. Restoration. Public areas must be maintained in a
safe condition at all times. Restoration of disturbed Council land is the
responsibility of the applicant. All costs associated with restoration of
public land will be borne by the applicant. 33. Materials
on Roads and Footpaths. Where the
applicant requires the use of
council land for placement of building waste skips or storage of
materials an application for “Building
waste containers or materials in a public place” is to be made. Council
land is not to be occupied or used for storage until such application is
approved. 34. Works
on Council Property. Separate application shall be made to Council's
Urban Services Division for approval to complete, to Council's standards and
specifications, any associated works on Council property. This shall include vehicular crossings,
footpaths, drainage works, kerb and guttering, brick paving, restorations and
any miscellaneous works. Applications shall be submitted prior to the
start of any works on Council property. 35. Public
Utility Relocation. If any public services are to be adjusted, as a
result of the development, the applicant is to arrange with the relevant
public utility authority the alteration or removal of those affected
services. Any such work being carried out at the applicant’s cost and prior
to the commencement of works. 36. Pedestrian Access Maintained.
Pedestrian access, including disabled and pram access, is to be maintained throughout
the course of the construction as per AS 1742.3, ’Part 3 - Traffic control
devices for works on roads’. 37. Sediment and Erosion Control. The applicant shall install appropriate sediment
control devices prior to any
disturbance of the existing site. The devices are to be installed in
accordance with an approved plan. These devices shall be maintained during
the construction period and replaced where considered necessary. Suitable
erosion control management procedures shall be practiced. This condition is
imposed in order to protect downstream properties, Council's drainage system
and natural watercourses from sediment build-up transferred by stormwater
runoff from the site. Engineering Conditions to be complied with
prior to Occupation Certificate 38. Certificate
of Satisfactory Completion. Certificates from a registered and licensed
Plumber, Builder, or a suitably qualified Engineer must be obtained for the
following matters. The plumber,
builder is to provide a copy of their registration papers with the
certificate. The relevant Certificates are to be submitted to the Principal
Certifying Authority, prior to issue
of any Occupation Certificate. 1) Confirming
that any new element of the drainage system has been constructed in
accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and Council’s DCP
Stormwater management. 2) All
works have been completed in accordance with the issued Construction
Certificate and Conditions of this determination. If Council is
appointed the Principal Certifying Authority then the appropriate inspection
fee is to be paid to Council with the subject documentation. |
Michael Mason
Executive Manager
Environmental Services Division
AT‑1 View |
Site Location Plan |
2 Pages |
|
AT‑2 View |
Neighbour Notification
Plan |
1 Page |
|
|
|
General Managers
Report No. 2 |
|
|
|
Reference: General
Managers Report No. 2
Subject: Submission to NSW
Legislative Council Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party
Funding
Record No: SU3137 - 3574/08
Author(s): Peter
Brown
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to provide a submission
to the Select Committee on Electoral and Political Party Funding for Council’s
consideration.
At the Council Meeting on 17 December 2007, Council
resolved to:-
“prepare a draft submission to the Select Committee on Electoral and
Political Party Funding to candidates seeking office for Local and State
Government and report back to the first Council meeting in February 2008”.
A draft submission has been prepared and is attached
as AT 1. In brief Council’s submission
calls on the banning of political donations by developers as:-
“Lane Cove Council supports a ban on donations from
property developers to candidates seeking office for local government. Developer donations can distort the election
process and, particularly in local government, compromise the availability, transparency
and openness of the Development Application process. The decision making processes within Council
can be unduly impacted by developer donations, hindering the proper exercise of
Council functions as a level of government”.
The deadline for submissions is 15 February 2008.
That Council consider the Draft submission prepared
for the NSW Legislative Council Select Committee on Electoral and Political
Party Funding. |
Peter Brown
General Manager
General Managers Unit
AT‑1 View |
Submission to NSW
Legislative Council Inquiry into Electoral and Political Party Funding |
3 Pages |
|
|
|
Corporate Services
Division Report No. 8 |
|
|
|
Reference: Corporate
Services Division Report No. 8
Subject: 2nd Quarter Review of
2007-2010 Management Plan
Record No: SU238 - 3568/08
Author(s): Ian Naylor
Executive Summary
The Local Government Act requires Council to report on quarterly progress
of the activities and projects listed in the Management Plan. It is recommended that the report be
received and noted.
Discussion
This report discusses the highlights of the second quarter in 2007-2008
and provides a detailed analysis of the Second Quarter progress against the
performance measurements adopted by Council in the 2007-2010 Management Plan,
shown attached to the report as AT 1. A
new feature of the review is where applicable a cumulative year-to-date figure
for performance measures. Some of the
highlights for the quarter include:-
· Successful
Rotary Fair included launch of
· Synergy
Band Night (October 2007)
· Bushwalk
Guide 7th Edition Launched (October 2007)
· Major
Projects Strategic Plan 2007 – 2016 adopted by Council (October 2007)
· First
Council Vehicle converted to use E85 ethanol fuel (October 2007)
· Upgrade to
4th tee at Golf Course commenced (October 2007)
· Kindy Cove
receives “High Quality” Accreditation Status (November 2007)
· Draft
Local Environmental Plan 2007 adopted for exhibition by Council (December 2007)
· DA and
tender approved for Blackman Park Girl Guides Hall (December 2007)
· Launch of
· Tender
approved for reconstruction of Tambourine Bay Rowing Shed (December 2007)
That the Second Quarter Review of the 2007-2010
Management Plan be received and noted. |
Executive Manager
Corporate Services Division
AT‑1 View |
2nd Quarter Review of
2007 - 2010 Management Plan |
25 Pages |
|
|
|
Corporate Services
Division Report No. 5 |
|
|
|
Reference: Corporate
Services Division Report No. 5
Subject: Councillor
Superannuation
Record No: SU834 - 3450/08
Author(s): Ian Naylor
Executive Summary
This report provides advice
to Councillors on the recent Australian Tax Office ruling on Councillor
Superannuation.
Discussion
The
Local Government Superannuation Scheme has been in discussions with the
Australian Tax Office in relation to an “interpretative decision” that
disallowed the ability for councillors to reduce their assessable income by
forgoing a portion of their fees in lieu of superannuation contributions.
This decision has recently
been withdrawn and a subsequent decision issued.
The subsequent decision
acknowledged that councillors are not employees and that monetary matters (fees
and expenses) are regulated by Division 5 of Part 2 of Chapter 9 of the Local
Government Act 1993.
The effect of this
arrangement is that a councillor can agree to forego part of their fees in
return for contributions made to a superannuation fund for their benefit. In
such a case, contributions made by the council will not be taken to have
been derived by a councillor and will, therefore, not be classed as assessable
income.
Specifically, the
Australian Tax Office Interpretative Decision (ATO ID 2007/205) states that:
“Amounts paid by a local
government council in the form of contributions to a complying
superannuation fund that
are assessable to the fund under section 295/160 of the ITAA 1997, do not
represent assessable income of the councillor for the purposes of the ITAA
1997.”
To reflect the requirements
of Section 252 of the Act, council will provide a
superannuation facility to
councillors whereby part of a councillor’s fees can be paid into a
complying superannuation
fund. Councillors wishing to utilise
these arrangements can contact the Executive Manager, Corporate Services.
That Council note the
interpretative decision of the Australian Tax Office that allows Councillors to make superannuation contributions to a
complying Superannuation Fund out of their Councillor fees. |
Executive Manager
Corporate Services Division
There are no supporting documents for this report.
|
|
Corporate Services
Division Report No. 6 |
|
|
|
Reference: Corporate
Services Division Report No. 6
Subject: Policy RO4004 -
Public Liability Insurance - Civic Centre
Record No: SU1604 - 3451/08
Author(s): Gordon
Hush
Executive Summary
The requirement under Policy R04004 – Public Liability
Insurance – Civic Centre, that all hirers of Council’s facilities obtain
Public Liability insurance is onerous, particularly on individuals and
unincorporated groups wishing to hire a Council facility for an occasional
booking.
It is therefore proposed to abolish Policy No. R04002
– Public Liability Insurance – Civic Centre and replace it with guidelines for
the use of facility booking staff that are more accommodating to individuals
and unincorporated hirers of Council’s facilities.
Background
Council’s Policy No.R04004 requires that “all
users of public facilities are to take out Public Liability cover of $5 million
directly or through a scheme with Council’s insurance brokers”. On this basis it is necessary for individuals
and unincorporated bodies wishing to hire Council’s facilities for one-off
events such as weddings, parties, meetings and the like to take out Public
Liability insurance which can be both difficult and/or expensive to obtain.
To alleviate the situation, Council purchased a class
of insurance called Authorised Users (Casual Hirers) Liability Insurance
(Casual Hirers Liability Insurance), which was taken out on behalf of the
individuals and unincorporated groups i.e. the policy was in the name of the “Casual
Hirers of Council’s Facilities”, and covered the liability of the individuals
or unincorporated groups if an attendee of the function was injured, or their
property damaged, because of the negligence of the organiser of the function.
In 2002 the underwriter declined to offer renewal,
therefore, as cover could not be obtained, all affected hirers were advised
that it would be necessary for them to obtain Public Liability insurance
themselves for their function. This again created difficulties, because it was
difficult to find an insurer that would cover a one-off event and the cost
prohibitive if one could be found that would provide cover.
In 2005 the new Metro Pool insurance broker, Willis
Australia, was again able to arrange Casual Hirers Liability Insurance cover
through Community Care Underwriting Agency and cover was effected by Metro Pool
which absorbed the cost of the insurance in the contributions to the pool
. However, in October, 2007 it was
advised by Metro Pool that the premium for the 2007-2008 had increased
substantially and therefore was no longer financially viable and it was decided
not to renew the cover. It was also advised by Metro Pool that it is proposed
to self insure the Casual Hirers cover but as it would take time to arrange it
would not occur for some time.
Discussion
There is differing opinions between the members of
Metro Pool and its associated pool, Westpool, whether there is a need for
Casual Hirers Liability Insurance at all, with only a few Councils in the pools
affecting the cover.
Lane Cove Council has always arranged the cover
because of its policy that all users of Council’s facilities must have
Public Liability Insurance, however, there is an opinion among some members
that it should not be an impediment to hiring a facility if an individual or
unincorporated group does not have Public Liability Insurance and that it is a
matter for them to take out cover to protect themselves. It is argued that an
Indemnity protecting Council’s interests signed by the hirer would suffice and
that if there is personal injury or damage to property at a function that is
caused as a result of Council’s negligence then Council’s Public Liability
insurance would cover Council’s liability.
Both Metro Pool and Westpool have now determined that
members should not require individuals or unincorporated groups hiring Council
facilities to have Public Liability Insurance.
In this regard, suggested guidelines have been
developed by a combined sub-committee of Risk Managers which state that all
hirers ought to sign a Facility Hire Agreement form with an Indemnity clause
included providing protection for Council against being included in any claims
or law suits arising from the hiring of a facility.
In accordance with the suggestion by Metro Pool that
each member should adopt guidelines on this matter, draft guidelines have been
developed for the use by Council’s facility booking staff which requires only
incorporated bodies and companies etc. to have insurance. All hirers must sign
the Indemnity clause forming part of the Facility Hire Agreement form.
Conclusion
In view of the fact that Casual Hirers Liability
insurance is no longer in effect, and to facilitate the hiring of Council’s
facilities to individuals and unincorporated bodies, it is suggested that the
existing policy No.R04004 – Public Liability Insurance – Civic Centre ought to
be abolished and the draft Insurance and Indemnity Requirements for Hirers of
Council’s Facilities guidelines be introduced together with the Facilities Hire
Agreement form with Indemnity clause included.
That Policy No. R04002 – Public Liability Insurance
– Civic Centre be abolished and the draft Insurance and Indemnity
Requirements for Hirers of Council’s Facilities Guidelines be introduced
together with the Facilities Hire Agreement form with Indemnity clause
included. |
Executive Manager
Corporate Services Division
There are no supporting documents for this report.
|
|
Open Space and
Urban Services Division Report No. 1 |
|
|
|
Reference: Open Space
and Urban Services Division Report No. 1
Subject: Graffiti Removal
Record No: SU1690 - 3556/08
Author(s):
Executive Summary
The Village Graffiti
Reduction Program was requested by the Lane Cove Alive Leadership Group to be
included as a Sustainability Levy Project as part of the Council’s 2007/08
financial budget.
Open Space &
Urban Services is responsible for the maintenance and cleaning of the Village,
and is also responsible for managing graffiti removal throughout the
municipality.
A business case has
been developed by the Open Space & Urban Services Division that details
Council’s in-house capability to manage graffiti removal in the Village. A
Graffiti Management Plan, and draft Policy has also been developed to provide
clear guidance to the community on Council’s plans to reduce graffiti, not only
in the Village, but overall throughout the municipality.
It is recommended
that Council place the draft Policy and the Graffiti Management Plan on public
exhibition whilst implementing the in-house Village Graffiti Reduction Program.
Background
Graffiti has become
an epidemic in today’s society. Where ever there is a surface with public
visibility, graffiti will invariably be found. The
Up to now Council
has removed graffiti from public facilities only. In the Village and its
surrounds, this includes the Library, Rosenthal Avenue Carpark Toilets, Pottery
Green Clubhouse and Storage Facility, and the Council Offices.
Amendments to the Local Government Act 1993, Chapter
6, Part 3, Division 4 (Graffiti Removal Work) Clauses 67A, 67B, 67C, now permit
councils to remove graffiti – with owners’ or occupants’ permission.
The purpose of this report is to further the Lane Cove Alive Leadership Group’s
proposal to introduce a Village Graffiti Reduction Program by Council initiating
agreements with the owners’ or occupants’ to remove graffiti from their
premises.
Discussion
The Village Graffiti Reduction Program was included in the Council’s
successful Sustainability Levy Program, to be undertaken as part of the 2007/08
budget with funds of $40,000 provided.
This program initiative was suggested by the Lane Cove Alive Leadership
Group, and responsibility for developing and then maintaining a program of
graffiti reduction for the Town Centre was allocated to the Open Space &
Urban Services Division (OSUS), as the
responsible division for maintaining the Plaza and its’ surrounds.
To assist in determining the best solution for graffiti reduction in the
Village, OSUS investigated a number of options. This included liaison with a
number of our neighbour councils,
It was identified that Willoughby City Council utilises the services of
graffiti removal company, Graffiti Clean, whilst
For the Village Graffiti Reduction Program, it is considered that a
choice needs to be made between whether Council has the capability in-house to
undertake graffiti removal and how this compares with specialist graffiti
removal contractors on an financial basis.
At present, larger graffiti removal projects on Council’s facilities
have been outsourced to Graffiti Gone due to the fact that Council did not have
the equipment to manage larger graffiti removal jobs. However, Council has
recently purchased a truck and a high-pressure water equipment system that will
be utilised for the maintenance of our stormwater system. This high-pressure
water equipment is the same as that used by graffiti removal contractors for
the removal of graffiti. As such, it was considered appropriate to investigate
what additional capability would be required for Council staff to be able to
utilise this equipment for graffiti removal.
To be able to assess the cost effectiveness of Council undertaking
graffiti removal in-house opposed to utilising contract graffiti removal services,
a business case was developed for the supply of an in-house service, and quotes
were requested from two graffiti removal contractors. The OSUS business case
for in-house graffiti removal is attached as Annexure 2.
In the development of the OSUS business case, it was considered that
additional labour will be required in the first three (3) months whilst all the
existing graffiti is identified and removed from the Village Centre. For this
reason, the cost for labour is higher during this period, about $7200 per
month. It was estimated that the cost of graffiti removal by Council would
equate to about $15/m2. Following this initial period, it is
envisaged that the amount of labour and materials required to remove the
graffiti will decrease as all pre-existing graffiti will be removed and only
fresh graffiti will be required to be removed from that point within the Town
Centre. However, it will still remain at a slightly higher level for the next
three (3) months (about $3000 per month) than that required thereafter (about
$1800 per month). The reasoning behind this is that the graffiti taggers will
likely intensify their efforts to ‘take over’ the Town Centre in this period.
This analysis of graffiti removal resources equates to 60 hours labour
per month initially, 25 hours labour per month (in the 4-6 months period) and
then 15 hours per month thereafter. This analysis will be reassessed following
the first 3 months of the program to determine whether the initial
considerations have been accurate and will allow a determination as to whether
to continue with the in-house option.
Reviewing one of the graffiti contractor’s options it was found that
their proposal actually involves a fully equipped graffiti removal unit with a
full-time contractor working solely within the whole Local Government Area from
Monday to Friday, for 8 hours each day. This contractor’s proposal costs
$12,915 + GST. This actually equates to over $170,000 per annum, but does
provide a municipal wide service. The contractor’s proposal does not provide a
per metre rate or per hour rate nor does it allow for any reduced service. That
is, the contractor would not consider just providing a service to the Lane Cove
Town Centre. The other contractor that provided a quote, charges out their service
at a rate of $18/m2. This is
comparable with Council’s estimated cost per square metre to remove graffiti.
The OSUS proposal allows for an initial service which will be
concentrated in the Village. It also ensures that expenditure on graffiti
removal will remain within the budgetary constraints detailed above. In saying
this, OSUS also envisages that once the initial six (6) month clean-up is
undertaken in the Village, that a wider service will be provided by our
in-house labour and still remain within the existing budgetary constraints.
To supplement the business case for the Village Graffiti Reduction Program, it was identified
that Council should also have a Graffiti Policy and Graffiti Management Plan
that define the Council’s objectives and strategies with respect to graffiti
removal and control to cove the whole municipality. A draft Graffiti Policy is
included as Attachment 3. A draft Graffiti Management Plan is included as
Attachment 4. Council should seek feedback from the community in accordance
with the following Community Consultation Plan on these documents prior to
adopting them.
Consultation
Statement of Intent
The consultation is designed to gather community
feedback and comment on the draft Graffiti Policy and draft Graffiti Management
Plan. Any comments received will be
utilised to amend these documents as required prior to Council adoption.
Method
Graffiti Policy Management Plan |
||
Level of
Participation |
Inform |
Consult |
Form of
Participation |
Open |
Open |
Target Audience |
Whole Community |
Whole Community |
Proposed Medium |
Advertisement, Public
Exhibition at Civic Centre, E-newsletter and Website
Exhibition |
Web-Based Survey |
Conclusion
In summary, in-house implementation of the Village Graffiti Reduction Program is the most favourable option. The
draft Graffiti Policy and draft Graffiti Management Plan should be placed on
public exhibition in accordance with the Community Consultation Plan.
That:- 1. Council
adopt the Draft Village
Graffiti Reduction Program Policy and draft Graffiti Management Plan
dated 29 January 2008 for the purposes of public exhibition; 2. At the conclusion of the public exhibition period, a
further report be submitted to Council advising of the results of the public
exhibition; and 3. Council implement the Village Graffiti Reduction Program as
outlined in the report. |
Wayne Rylands
Executive Manager
Open Space and Urban Services Division
AT‑1 View |
Village Graffiti Pictures
- 22 January 2008 |
4 Pages |
|
AT‑2 View |
Graffiti Reduction -
Business Case |
1 Page |
|
AT‑3 View |
Draft Graffiti Policy |
4 Pages |
|
AT‑4 View |
Graffiti Management Plan |
6 Pages |
|
|
|
Open Space and
Urban Services Division Report No. 2 |
|
|
|
Reference: Open Space
and Urban Services Division Report No. 2
Subject: Lane Cove Parking
Permit Policy
Record No: SU2491 - 3594/08
Author(s): Nick
Karahlis
Executive Summary
Council has resident
Parking Schemes in approximately 30 streets, the majority being situated around
the
Lane Cove Council’s
existing Resident Parking Scheme provides Permits for Residents and their
visitors (including tradespeople) which exempt them from parking in streets
which are signposted in accordance with the Roads and Traffic Authority’s (RTA)
Manual for Permit Parking. It should be noted that the procedures in the RTA’s
Permit Parking Manual are mandatory.
The current Permit charges,
which are part of Council’s 2007-2008 Financial year Fees and Charges have been
introduced for the Parking Permits, which are valid from the 1st of
February 2008 to the 31st of January 2009.
Resident Parking fees have been introduced for the
first time. However, last year there was a $30 charge for a yearly Visitor’s
Parking Permit. Council has been receiving complaints this year related to
charges mainly for the Visitor Parking permits. Council’s current fees and
charges provide only for daily or weekly Visitor Parking permits. Community
feedback suggests that the fees for Visitor Permits are high, particularly for
some residents who have requested long term Visitor Parking permits. Combined
with this is the fact that some residents do not find it practical to seek
these permits in time when they require them. Currently, the daily or weekly
charges for visitor parking permits are not practical for regular long-stay
visitors.
Therefore, it is recommended that in addition to the
above daily or weekly permits, that Council also issue a 3-monthly permit, to
be introduced at a fee which is relative to the other Visitor Parking permits.
In order to provide Council and Permit Holders with an
official guide, a Permit Parking Policy has been developed for Council
consideration and adoption. This is detailed in Attachment 1. This Permit
Parking Policy is in accordance with the RTA’s latest Permit Parking Manual and
its procedures which are covered by Legislation and are mandatory. This Parking
Policy will be incorporated into Council’s existing Permit Parking Schemes and
for any future extension of the existing Schemes.
Background
The RTA, through
Legislation pertinent to Permit Parking allows Council’s to implement the
following types of Permit Parking Schemes;
Business Parking Scheme
(BPS)
Commuter Parking Scheme
(CPS)
Resident Parking Scheme
(RPS)
Residents Visitors Parking
Scheme (RVPS) and
Special Event Parking
Scheme (SEPS).
There are five (5) classes
of permits, which correspond to the above parking schemes. They are; Business,
Commuter, Resident, Residents Visitors and Special Events.
Lane Cove provides Permit
Parking for the following Schemes:
· Resident Parking Scheme
(RPS)
· Residents Visitors Parking
Scheme (RVPS)
· Business Parking Scheme
(BPS)
· Senior’s Permit Parking
Scheme
The above Schemes except
the Seniors Permit Scheme are in accordance with RTA’s Permit Parking Manual.
The Seniors Permit Parking Scheme relates to a few parking spaces in the Town
Centre which facilitates for the needs of Senior Citizens.
The Lane Cove Resident
Parking Schemes are part of Council’s management strategy in the St
Leonard’s/Greenwich and Lane Cove West areas, which experience very high
parking demand due to rail interchange facilities, education, commercial and
retail activity and the nearby hospital. The high parking demand and minimal on
street parking available creates a real parking problem for the residents,
which requires to be continuously monitored. The current projects on the
Legislation
The Road Transport (Safety
and Traffic Management) (Road Rules) Regulation 1999 (STMR) is the legislation,
which covers the Permit Parking Schemes and the issuing of Permits. Specific
clauses in the above legislation, empowers the RTA and Council’s to establish
and operate Permit Parking Schemes subject to certain conditions of approval.
For example, STMR clause 124(1) provides that a parking authority may issue a
parking permit authorising the parking of a vehicle without charge or
time. STMR clause 124(4) provides that
the parking authority issues Parking Permits only in accordance with RTA’s
Permit Parking Manual. The Procedures in RTA’s Permit Parking Manual
are mandatory.
Council must also bear all
costs with PPS including administration, enforcement and the provision of the
maintenance of all signs related to Permit Parking Schemes.
Common Features of Permit Parking Schemes (PPS)
There are common features
in all Permit Parking Schemes in accordance with RTA’s Permit Parking Manual.
Some of these features are:
· There are no areas set
aside exclusively for the permit holders
· PPS can only be introduced
with permissive Parking Schemes or pay parking schemes
· Only Parking Authorities
may issue a permit
· The holder of a Permit is
not guaranteed a parking space within the PPS
· Information on the Permit
Parking Signs and on the Permits must be in accordance with RTA’s Manual.
· There are minimum
eligibility criteria’s for each type of Permit, which is described in RTA’s
Permit Parking Manual; for example permits cannot be issued to specific types
of vehicles, such as a truck, bus, tram or tractor.
Discussion
Resident and Residents’ Visitors Permits -
proposals
The most common and
contentious types of permits that are issued are to Residents and their
visitors. Residents are often challenging Council and Council’s Officers issues
related to the eligibility criteria related to parking permits. Especially, the
eligible number permits and the fees associated with the issuing of the
Permits.
RTA’s Permit Parking Manual,
the number of Parking Permits allowed to be issued is: One Permit per
bedroom in a boarding house or two (2) per permits per household and in
exceptional circumstances three (3). This number is off-set by the number of
off-street parking spaces available at the specific property. For example; if
property has two cars and one off-street parking space, only one parking permit
is allowed to be issued.
In relation to the
Residents Visitor’s Permits, the RTA describes Residents Visitor’s as: Family
members, friends, carers, tradespersons or, any person, whom the resident
confirms as being a legitimate visitor.
The Resident applies for
the Permits and can issue the Permit to the visitor and retrieve it. In the
case of regular visitors for a long period, the Resident requires to provide
Council with the vehicle’s registration number. This minimises the risk of
abuse. There have been
instances, where visitor’s permits have been sold to unauthorised users in
Permit Parking Schemes within Sydney Metropolitan area, where similar permit
parking schemes exist. Therefore, visitor’s permits that are issues more than
one day require the visitor’s registration number to assist Council to monitor
the use of the Permits. This is not possible in all cases.
Following Lane Cove
Council’s introduction of Permit Parking Fees (2007-2008 financial year),
complaints have been received by some residents, which relate mainly to the
Residents Visitor’s Permits. This is due to practical reasons where it is not
possible for some residents to obtain daily or weekly Visitor Permits as they
are not able to establish the exact day when they will have visitors. In the
case of regular visitors, or visitors staying for a long period the daily and
weekly fees appear excessive. The one day and weekly fees are more suitable for
Trades people or for Visitors on a one-off basis. There are residents who
cannot obtain a Parking Permit when they required as they do not have enough
notice from their visitors regarding the exact day or time of attendance.
Residents Objections
The following comments are
from an e-mail (24 / 01 / 2008) forwarded to the Mayor from Mr and Mrs Ryan
from
“We strongly protest against the changes to the Visitor
Parking Permits which Lane Cove Council has introduced without notice to
residents.
To increase last year's annual fee of $30 to a daily fee of $10 (with
the permit not being interchangeable between vehicles) is quite unacceptable in
our residential area and the Parking Survey, carried out before the Resident
Parking Scheme was introduced, certainly gave no hint of such a measure. The
resulting increased revenue to Lane Cove Council will surely be negated by
greater administration costs… What happens when?
• Friends call unexpectedly
and we'd like to invite them to stay for lunch.
They'll be parked more than the mandatory 2 hours - are we expected to
travel to Lane Cove Council Chambers for the necessary $10 permit, dated as
valid for that day?
• A sick or elderly resident
suddenly requires a carer for more than 2 hours
• Painters (or other tradesmen)
are engaged to work for several weeks
• Maintenance or service people
arrive the day after their anticipated call
• The man who comes fortnightly
to help in the garden alters his regular day
In any of these contingencies, the Visitor Permit we had last year would
have been satisfactory”.
Another typical example of the
need of longer term permits is the case of a resident from
The proposal below for 3-
monthly visitors Permits are aimed to improve the administration of issuing of
Visitors Permits and satisfy Residents Parking needs for the high parking
demand areas.
Number of permits Issued versus fees
Council at its meeting on 7
March 2005 adopted Urban Services Division Report No. 13, Permit Parking, which
set new fees and charges for application from 1 January 2006, however there was
a delay in their implementation. The Resident Parking fees were actually
introduced for the first time in 2007. Subsequently, Council Officers have
received complaints on a daily basis related to the Resident Parking charges
mainly for the Visitor Parking permits. Council’s current fees and charges
provide only for daily or weekly visitor parking permits. The current fees are:
Resident permit fees
1st Permit: $30 per
vehicle
2nd Permit: $50 per
vehicle
3rd Permits or for
trailers boats and Caravans $100 per permit
Pensioners receive a discount of 50%
Visitors Permits current fees are:
1ST Permit: $ 10 per day or
$ 20 per week
2nd Permit: $ 20 per day or
$ 40 per week
3rd and subsequent permit: $ 40 per
day or $ 100 per week
There were a total of 239
permits issued last year (2007) including 88 Visitors permits and 4 business
parking permits. The total number, of applications made for parking permits,
this year (2008) are 90 for Residents Permits and 2 Business parking permits.
Residents have made only enquiries at this stage for their visitors parking
permits (as they require them after the 1st of February) there have
been no Visitors permits at this stage. (There was a $30 fee attached only to
Visitor Parking Permits in 2007).
The above figures confirm
that the fees associated with the parking permits directly impact the number of
permits requested and issued. This is due to the fact that a suitable
fee attached to the Permit allows Residents Eligible to obtain only the
exact number of permits required for themselves and their visitors. Evidence
from other Sydney Local Government areas show that if the fees are low or were
visitor permits are free, there has been an abuse to the system. This is mainly
due to the fact that parking is at a premium in the areas where Parking Permits
are issued and Residents in these areas have either used Visitors permits for
their own cars or there have been instances where these Visitor Permits have
been sold to motorists who do not reside in the area but catch public
transport.
The costs associated with
the administration and the staff resources required to operate Permit Parking
Schemes should not be underestimated. Printing expenses only for issuing
Permits in 2008 cost approximately $2500. The maintenance of parking signs for
the Permit Parking Schemes is not covered by RTA’s yearly signage maintenance
funds.
Quarterly- year Visitor’s Permit Proposal
For the reasons above and
in order to provide flexibility to Residents, within RTA’s Permit Parking
Manual, it is proposed to allow for a 3-monthly Visitor’s Parking Permit at a
cost of $50 per Visitor Permit. This new permit will be issued to residents who
provide proof of Registration of the Visitor’s Vehicle. This Permit will be
available for a maximum of no more than one at a time, but can be issued
consecutively for more than one term (3-months).
The fees and charges for
Residents, Businesses and Residents Visitors Parking Permits are recommended to
be maintained as there are costs associated with the administration of the
schemes, such as, printing, staff resources, and maintenance of signs,
enforcement, monitoring and renewal of new Permit parking Schemes.
Consultation
Statement of Intent
The consultation is designed to gather community
feedback and comment on the draft Permit Parking Policy. Any comments received will be utilised to
amend these documents as required prior to Council adoption.
Method
Permit Parking Policy Consultation |
||
Level of
Participation |
Inform |
Consult |
Form of
Participation |
Open |
Open |
Target Audience |
Whole Community |
Whole Community |
Proposed Medium |
Advertisement, Public
Exhibition at Civic Centre, E-newsletter and Website
Exhibition |
Web-Based Survey |
Conclusion
Council’s current Resident parking Scheme provides the
privilege to Residents and Business operators who are located in high demand
parking areas, affected by public transport facilities, education, Hospitals and or commercial and retail activity
to park on-street with no time limits.
The operation of Permit
Parking Schemes should be in accordance with current Permit parking Legislation
and is guided by RTA’s latest Permit Parking Manual. The introduction of
current permit fees, are designed to provide better control to genuine requests
for Permits and to reduce the abuse of Permits at the expense of other
on-street parkers. Current applications and enquiries made to Council show that
there is a need to introduce a longer term Resident Visitor Parking Permit. A
3-monthly Resident Visitor’s Parking Permit is proposed to improve the scheme
and provide a practical solution for Residents parking needs. The Local
Government Act requires that this new fee be advertised prior to implemtation.
The existing Resident
Parking Schemes will be continuously monitored for further improvements and
reviewed as the need arises to do so.
That:- 1. Council
adopt the Draft Lane Cove Permit Parking Policy dated 29 January 2008
for the purposes of public exhibition; 2. At
the conclusion of the public exhibition period, a further report be submitted
to Council advising of the results of the public exhibition; and 3. Subject to the proposal being
advertised and no objections being received, Council introduce a 3-monthly
Residents Visitors ‘Parking Permits at a fee of $50 for the 2007-2008
financial year. |
Wayne Rylands
Executive Manager
Open Space and Urban Services Division
AT‑1 View |
Draft Lane Cove Permit
Parking Policy |
9 Pages |
|
|
|
Environmental
Services Division Report No. 10 |
|
|
|
Reference: Environmental
Services Division Report No. 10
Subject: Lane Cove Rainwater
Tank Rebate Scheme
Record No: SU727 - 3452/08
Author(s): Steve
Fedorow
Executive Summary
Following
investigation of different schemes to reduce the cost to our residents to
purchase and install rainwater tanks, staff have recommended that Council
establish a Rainwater Tank Rebate Scheme, with rebates of up to $500 available
to residents to purchase, install and plumb the tank for internal reuse. This scheme would compliment existing Sydney
Water rebates and provide flexibility for residents to select the tank/plumber
that best suits their needs.
Background
The issue of Rainwater Tanks was discussed at
the corporate planning weekend in February 2007, with an action arising to hold
a workshop and further report to Council.
Subsequent to the corporate planning weekend,
Council undertook widespread consultation with the community regarding the
Sustainability Levy including identifying the projects to be funded out of the
Levy. Further, Council advertised two
Management Plans & Budgets (both with and without the Sustainability Levy).
One of the key Sustainability Levy projects was
to introduce a Community Water Tank Purchasing Scheme with the overall aim of
reducing the cost to the resident to install a Rainwater Tank. A total of $50,000 has been allocated in the
2007/08 budget to fund this program.
Discussion
Staff have researched a number of options
available to Council to reduce the cost to our residents to purchase and
install rainwater tanks for private use.
Following a review of current schemes, staff have recommended that the
most efficient way for Council to reduce the cost of purchasing and installing
rainwater tanks would be for Council to offer a system of rebate’s to
residents. This system would compliment
existing State Government rebates and provide flexibility for residents to
select the tank that best suits their needs.
Proposed Lane Cove
Rainwater Tank Rebate Scheme
The Proposed Lane
Cove Rainwater Tank Rebate Scheme will encourage residents to install rainwater
tanks at their premises by:
· Offering
rebates of up to $500 for installing a rainwater tank and ensuring that the
tank is plumbed for internal water use;
· Partnering
with Sydney Credit Union to provide interest free loans (up to $3000) to
residents to install a Rainwater Tank;
· Partnering
with the EnviroPlumber arm of the Master Plumbers Association to provide free
information workshops for residents; &
· Scheme
information package mail-out to all residents (including Council planning
controls) and publicising the Sydney Water rebates.
Proposed Lane Cove Rebate Structure
Rebate |
Amount |
Eligibility
Criteria |
Rainwater Tank |
$100 |
Tank must be greater than 5000L and connected to
either the Toilet or Washing Machine. |
Toilet Connection |
$200 |
Tank must be connected to the Toilet. |
Washing Machine Connection |
$200 |
Tank must be connected to the Washing Machine. |
This rebate
structure:
· Places a
greater emphasis on connecting the tank for internal use as:
o The
tank rebate is dependant on the tank being internally plumbed (to toilet and/or
washing machine).
o The
internal plumbing rebates are greater than the tank rebate
· Ensures a reasonable
size tank
o By
only offering the tank rebate on 5000L + tanks
o A
tank size of 5000L + also ensures a considerable rebate ($400) from Sydney
Water
· Rebates
would only be payable to the resident once Sydney Water have completed a final
inspection of tank installation and a copy of this certification provided to
Council.
Interest Free Loans
As part of the proposed scheme, Sydney Credit Union will partner with
Council to provide 12 month, interest free loans of up to $3000 for residents
who install a rainwater tank under the program.
Education/Promotion
The proposed scheme will be communicated to residents through the
following means:
· Information package
mailed to all ratepayers;
· Deliver free information
workshops/trade displays in association with Enviroplumbers/Master Plumbers
Association. These workshops would
include:
- A presentation from the
Master Plumbers Association;
- Council specific
requirements;
- Trade display of 4-5 local
rainwater tank suppliers; &
- Display by Sydney Credit
Union regarding the interest free loans.
· Advertisements in
the local press; &
· Information on
Council’s website;
Note:
· Enviroplumbers/Master
Plumbers have undertaken additional training in sustainable practices and can
provide advice and installation services for Rainwater Tanks, Recycled Water,
Grey Water Systems, Solar Hot Water Systems & Aerated Wastewater Treatment
Systems.
Indicative Rainwater Tank
Pricing
Approximate tank prices
(for tanks greater than 5,000L)
Type of Tank |
Tank Cost |
Footing Cost |
Internal Plumbing Cost |
Total |
Bladder (5,200L) |
$1958 |
$593 |
$1500+ |
$4051+ |
Slim Steel (5,200L) |
$3549 |
$1445 |
$1500+ |
$6494 |
Slim Steel (2 x 2,800L) |
$3640 |
$1914 |
$1700+ |
$7254 |
Round Plastic (6,200L) |
$1856 |
$2001 |
$1500+ |
$5357+ |
Slim Plastic (5,000L) |
$3053 |
$1445 |
$1500+ |
$5998+ |
Slim Plastic (2 x 3,000L) |
$4036 |
$1914 |
$1700+ |
$7650+ |
Round Plastic (5,675L) |
$1374 |
$2001 |
$1500+ |
$4875+ |
Note:
· Total price would be
less the Sydney Water $1,400 rebate and less the Lane Cove Council rebate.
Plumbed in tanks must be inspected by Sydney Water;
· An additional
$300-$400 could be necessary to install a tank for non-gravity-fed systems.
As can be seen from
the above analysis, purchasing and installing a rainwater tank (greater than
5000L in size) can cost our residents upwards of $4000. Whilst many residents have indicated that
they would like to install a rainwater tank, the cost to purchase and install
could be a prohibitive factor in some residents’ decision to proceed.
Conclusion
The proposed Lane
Cove Rainwater Tank Rebate Scheme addresses this concern, with rebates of up to
$2000 available (up to $500 through the proposed Lane Cove Rebate Scheme and up
to $1500 through the current Sydney Water Rebate Scheme) to our residents,
whilst providing full flexibility to our residents to choose that tank/plumber
that best suits their specific needs.
That Council:- 1. Receive and note the report
and; 2. Endorse the proposed Lane
Cove Rainwater Tank Rebate Scheme as detailed in this report. |
Michael Mason
Executive Manager
Environmental Services Division
There are no supporting documents for this report.
|
|
Environmental
Services Division Report No. 11 |
|
|
|
Reference: Environmental
Services Division Report No. 11
Subject: Draft Enforcement
Policy
Record No: SU1182 - 3453/08
Author(s): Steve
Fedorow
Executive Summary
In July 2007, the Department of Local Government
recommended that Council develop a formal Enforcement & Prosecutions Policy
as soon as practicable.
This report tables a Draft Lane Cove Council
Enforcement Policy that has been based upon the model enforcement policy
developed by the NSW Ombudsman.
Background
In July 2007, the results of a ‘Promoting Better Practice’
Review conducted by the Department of Local Government were received and noted
by Council.
One of the recommendations of this report was that
Council should develop a formal Enforcement and Prosecutions Policy as soon as
practicable.
Discussion
In June 2002, The NSW Ombudsman released “Enforcement
Guidelines for Councils” which were designed to help councils to act promptly,
consistently and effectively when responding to allegations of unlawful
activity.
The Draft Lane Cove Enforcement Policy has been based
on the model enforcement policy that was developed by the NSW Ombudsman and
included as part of these guidelines.
Consultation
Statement of Intent
The consultation is designed to inform the community
of the draft enforcement policy. Any
comments received will be utilised to determine whether or not to proceed with
the enforcement policy.
Method
Draft Enforcement Policy |
||
Level of
Participation |
Inform |
Consult |
Form of
Participation |
Open |
Open |
Target Audience |
Whole Community |
Whole Community |
Proposed Medium |
Advertisement, Public
Exhibition at Civic Centre, E-newsletter and Website
Exhibition |
Web-Based Survey |
Indicative Timing |
February/March 2008 |
February/March 2008 |
Conclusion
The Draft Lane Cove Enforcement Policy will serve as
an important tool, providing staff with guidelines on:
· How to
assess whether complaints of unlawful activity require investigation;
· Options
for dealing with unlawful activity; &
· How to
decide whether enforcement action is warranted.
That Council:- 1. Receive and note the report; 2. Adopt the Draft Lane Cove
Council Enforcement Policy dated 29 January 2008 for the purposes of public
exhibition; and 3.
At the conclusion of the public exhibition period, a further report be
submitted to Council advising of the results of the public exhibition. |
Michael Mason
Executive Manager
Environmental Services Division
AT‑1 View |
Draft Lane Cove
Enforcement Policy ( 29 January 2008) |
8 Pages |
|
|
|
Environmental
Services Division Report No. 7 |
|
|
|
Reference: Environmental
Services Division Report No. 7
Subject: Earth Hour 2008
Record No: SU2817 - 3578/08
Author(s): Rob
McKenna
Executive Summary
Earth Hour was started in
Background
The idea behind Earth Hour 2007 was to reduce
Lane Cove Council participated in Earth Hour
2007 as did numerous other Councils, including both Sydney and North Sydney
Councils, and schools, like St Ignatius College and
In the Sydney CBD the demand on the
electricity grid dropped an average of 10.2% during Earth Hour ’07 according to
Energy
Discussion
Signing up to Earth Hour 2008 commits Council
to turning our lights off for an hour, and confirms Council’s commitment to a
sustainable future.
Conclusion
Earth Hour occurs this year at 8pm on
Saturday 29 March, 2008 and it would be a very positive public message for Lane
Cove Council to sign up.
That Council support Earth Hour 2008. |
Michael Mason
Executive Manager
Environmental Services Division
There are no supporting documents for this report.
|
|
Environmental
Services Division Report No. 13 |
|
|
|
Reference: Environmental
Services Division Report No. 13
Subject:
Record No: DA05/357 - 3677/08
Author(s): Michael
Mason
Executive Summary
Council at its meeting dated 17 December 2007 resolved
the following:
“That the matter be deferred until the 1st meeting in
February 2008 and that the discussions be held with the applicant regarding the
following amendments to the design:-
1. The
Roof Top Viewing Terrace be eliminated from the application design;
2. The minimum standard of solar access
should be maintained as it relates to the property at 80A
3. The
overall finished roof height of the building be lowered by 500mm.”
The Mayor
declared the motion carried unanimously.
Background
The above actions
have been referred to the applicant and his response submission presented in
this report. The development proposal for
Resolution 355 dated
17 December 2007
1. The
Roof Top Viewing Terrace be eliminated from the application design
Applicant’s
Response
The
applicants agree to the removal of this element – see AT1.
2. The minimum standard of solar access should be maintained as it relates
to the property at 80A
Applicant’s Response
The applicant has
provided pictorial sun studies that articulate the anticipated solar impacts to
the north facing windows and the ground of property 80A Northwood Road (Mr
& Mrs Berry) including 3D views at half hourly intervals at the winter
solstice (22nd June) – see AT2. The broader issue of what one would
expect as reasonable solar access for 80A Northwood Road, having regard to the
criteria set out in the Parsonage vs Ku-ring-gai Council judgement, is
addressed by the Land and Environment Court certified expert witness, Mr Kerry
Nash, in his letter dated 15 January – see AT3.
Comment
The letter
of response by Mr Nash refers to the solar access review by Mr Steve King,
Architect and Land and
Mr King:
“……….
· The amount
of sunlight lost should be taken into account, as well as the amount of
sunlight retained.
· Overshadowing
arising out of poor design is not acceptable, even if it satisfies numerical
guidelines. The poor quality of a
proposal’s design may be demonstrated by a more sensitive design that achieves
the same amenity without substantial additional cost, while reducing the impact
on neighbours.
I draw
particular attention to the last two of the dot points above. In my considered opinion, neither of the
conditions implied by the Senior Commissioner’s test is satisfied by the
proposed design of the dwelling at
Mr
Nash:
“Mr King makes
reference to the planning principle embodied in Parsonage vs Ku-ring-gai
Council (2004 NSW LEC347) and provides his considered opinion, neither of the
conditions implied by the Senior Commissioner’s test (in the planning
principle) is satisfied by the proposed design of the dwelling at 16 Private
Road.
However, Mr King fails
to take into account a clear qualification in the planning principle on the
impact of solar access of neighbours in respect to the following:
“7. The Court must, of course, take into
account whatever guidelines are relevant to an application. However, numerical guidelines should be
applied with a great deal of judgement.
Consider a dwelling that now receives sunlight all day. Taking away that sunlight from 9am til noon
would satisfy most guidelines; and yet the occupants of such a dwelling are
likely to perceive it as a devastating impact on their dwelling’s amenity. The other side of the coin is that the impact
on a neighbour’s sunlight must be assessed in the context of the reasonable
development expectations of the proposal and the constraints imposed by the
topography and the subdivision pattern.
Preserving 3 hours of sunlight on a neighbouring site may require an
unreasonable reduction in the development potential of the proposal.”
Mr Nash, interalia,
sums up:-
“The applicants and
their architect have modified the design to respond to each of the concerns of
the seven (7) adjoining neighbours. To
move the proposed dwelling further north to satisfy the
Mr King, interalia,
concludes:
“In my considered
opinion , it is reasonable to apply the principles set out by Roseth SC in
Parsonage vs Ku-ring-gai (2004) NSWLEC347 to the determination of this
application, because it fails both the relevant critical tests in those
principles:
· The amount
of sunlight lost should be taken into account, as well as the amount of
sunlight retained.
· Overshadowing
arising out of poor design is not acceptable, even if it satisfies numerical
guidelines. The poor quality of a
proposal’s design may be demonstrated by a more sensitive design that achieves
the same amenity without substantial additional cost, while reducing the impact
on neighbours.” Refer page 4 of AT4.
Additional
Submission
Ms Amanda
Berry of North Shore Lawyers on behalf of Mr J and Mrs J Berry, have submitted
their views and concerns in relation to the proposal and the expert view of Mr
King and the related Parsonage vs Ku-ring-gai appeal by the Land and
Environment Court – AT5.
Comment
The legal
opinion, interalia, by North Shore Lawyers, supports the views of Mr King with
regard to the Parsonage Principle and is critical of Mr Tyrril, the Council
appointed mediator’s comments.
3. The
overall finished roof height of the building be lowered by 500mm
The
Applicant’s Response
The
applicant has advised (AT1) that
Council’s new drainage code has enabled greater flexibility in addressing on
site disposal issues. The applicant
states that “…. It is possible to lower the top water level and consequently
the pool concourse and upper floor level [by] 150mm whilst maintaining the
level of the base of the tank to ensure clearances from tree roots and Sydney
Water Board sewers.” Refer page 2 of AT1.
Review of
proposed on-site drainage amendment
Council’s
Development Engineer has endorsed the proposed on site drainage amendment as
feasible (AT6).
Comment
The
applicant has proposed a reduction of overall building height by 150mm in
response to the request by Council to lower the overall finished roof height of
the building by 500mm. The applicant has
advised that to lower the building further would result in further rock
excavation and add expense to the project.
Executive Manager’s Comments
This development
application has clearly been contentious and problematic for the applicant and neighbours
alike. The site is irregular in shape,
uneven in slope, constrained by utility infrastructure, existing trees and
orientation. Add to this the reasonable
expectations of eight neighbours that adverse impacts be minimised. Notwithstanding the views of some neighbours,
the applicant is of the view he has accommodated the issues and concerns of all
neighbours and the final proposal reflects, within reason, not only those
concerns, but also the Parsonage principle with regard to solar access to the
dwelling house located at 80A
Item 1 of Resolution
355 requesting the deletion of the roof top terrace has been agreed to and
amended plans would follow if Council is of a mind to approve the application.
Item 2 of Resolution
355 has been addressed by Mr Nash, Land and
Item 3 of Resolution
355 calls for the overall building to be reduced in level by 500mm. The applicant has reviewed the proposal and
advises he can only accommodate a drop of 150mm and any further reduction would
have fundamental implications for the building and would incur further
excavation expense.
Notwithstanding the
applicant’s response to the three issues detailed by Resolution 355, Council
must also consider all previous information and reports together with the
submission by Mr King and Ms Berry. Council
reports of 6 August, 3 December and 17 December are provided as background to
this final report – (AT7).
Options
open to Council include the following:
A. Having regard to the
response and additional concessions by the applicant to the requests contained
in Resolution 355 and considering all relevant information, Council approves
the development proposal as finally proposed, subject to conditions – see (AT8).
B. Having regard to the
response and additional concessions by the applicant to the requests contained
in Resolution 355 and considering all relevant information, Council refuses
the development proposal as finally proposed for the following reasons [to be
provided by Council.
That Council determine the matter. |
Executive Manager
Environmental Services Division
AT‑1 View |
Response from Cant Dibden
Pty Ltd |
2 Pages |
|
AT‑2 View |
Pictorial sun studies of
anticipated impact to 80A |
5 Pages |
|
AT‑3 View |
Solar Access Review by Mr
Kerry Nash |
4 Pages |
|
AT‑4 View |
Expert Solar Review -
Steve King |
11 Pages |
|
AT‑5 View |
Legal opinion by Ms
Amanda Berry of North Shore Lawyers |
4 Pages |
|
AT‑6 View |
Review of proposed OSD
amendment |
1 Page |
|
AT‑7 View |
ESD Reports of 6 August,
3 December, 17 December |
28 Pages |
|
AT‑8 View |
Recommended conditions of
consent |
14 Pages |
|