m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

7 December 2009

The meeting commences at 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 Council Chambers, Lower Ground Floor, 48 Longueville Road, Lane Cove on Monday 7 December 2009 commencing at 6:30pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Yours faithfully



Peter Brown

General Manager

 

Council Meeting Procedures

 

The Council meeting is chaired by the Mayor, Councillor Win Gaffney. 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 www.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.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council 7 December 2009

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

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

 

 

Confidential Items

 

1.       Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 2

SUBJECT: Golf Manager Tender

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret; it further being considered that discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to public interest by reason of the foregoing and Tender details, should they be revealed, may result in commercial disadvantage to parties involved in the tender process.

Some information provided to council by tenderers is provided on the basis that council will treat it as commercial in confidence.  It is not in the public interest to reveal all details of these tenders or the assessment process. Tenderers have provided sensitive information about their operations in the confidence that their details will not be made public by council. The practice of publication of sensitive information provided by tenderers could result in the withholding of such information by tenderers and reduction in the provision of information relevant to council’s decision.
   

 

2.       Corporate Services Division Report No. 69

SUBJECT: Purchase of Rear - 34 Ronald Avenue

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (c) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; it further being considered that discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to public interest by reason of the foregoing and the report includes details of the commerical value Council has placed on the property and disclosure would impact on the possible purchase process.

 

3.       Mayoral Minute No. 5

SUBJECT: Renewal of General Managers Contract    

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret; it further being considered that discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to public interest by reason of the foregoing and Tender details, should they be revealed, may result in commercial disadvantage to parties involved in the tender process.

Some information provided to council by tenderers is provided on the basis that council will treat it as commercial in confidence.  It is not in the public interest to reveal all details of these tenders or the assessment process. Tenderers have provided sensitive information about their operations in the confidence that their details will not be made public by council. The practice of publication of sensitive information provided by tenderers could result in the withholding of such information by tenderers and reduction in the provision of information relevant to council’s decision.
   

public forum

 

Members of the public may address the Council Meeting on any issue for 3 minutes.

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

4.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 16 NOVEMBER 2009

 

 

Notices of Rescission

 

5.       Notice of Rescission No. 5

SUBJECT: Lloyd Rees Bandstand

 

Referred Reports FROM Inspection Committee 05 December 2009

 

6.       Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 62

SUBJECT: Lane Cove Golf Course 17th Green

FROM Inspection Committee 05 December 2009

 

7.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 376

SUBJECT: 7 Holden Street, Northwood

FROM Inspection Committee 05 December 2009

 

Orders Of The Day

 

8.       Order Of The Day No. 18

SUBJECT: Council and Committe Meeting Schedule

 

Notices of Motion

 

9.       Notice of Motion No. 13

SUBJECT: Lloyd Rees Bandstand

 

10.     Notice of Motion No. 14

SUBJECT: Removal of Public Payphones

 

General Managers Reports

 

11.     General Managers Report No. 32

SUBJECT: Lane Cove Market Square Status Report

 

Corporate Services Division Reports

 

12.     Corporate Services Division Report No. 66

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority During the Christmas Recess

 

13.     Corporate Services Division Report No. 70

SUBJECT: Citizenship Ceremony - Australia Day 2010

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Reports

 

14.     Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 1

SUBJECT: Golf Manager Tender

 

15.     Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 60

SUBJECT: Fishing from Wharves

 

16.     Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 61

SUBJECT: Lloyd Rees Bandstand

 

17.     Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 63

SUBJECT: Lane Cove Tunnel Project - Condition of Landscape Works & Handover

 

Environmental Services Division Reports

 

18.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 47

SUBJECT: Heritage Review Stage 2 - Finalisation

 

19.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 49

SUBJECT: Swimming Pool Act Amendments

 

20.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 50

SUBJECT: Delegated Authority Report - November 2009

 

21.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 361

SUBJECT: 4 Church Street, Greenwich - S96 Modification of Consent

 

Human Services Division Reports

 

22.     Human Services Division Report No. 21

SUBJECT: Library Fit-Out Progress Report No 2

 

23.     Human Services Division Report No. 22

SUBJECT: Draft Lane Cove Public Art Strategy and Public Art Master Plan 2009  

 

 

 

 

       


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 December 2009

 

Notice of Rescission No. 5

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Notice of Rescission No. 5

Subject:          Lloyd Rees Bandstand    

Record No:    SU3368 - 46910/09

Author(s):       Councillor Scott Bennison; Councillor David Brooks-Horn; Councillor Ian  Longbottom; Councillor Ann  Smith 

 

 

 

In the event that this Notice of Rescission No. 5 is carried the Councillors have submitted Notice of Motion No. 13 for Consideration.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the resolution in relation to Notice of Motion No. 10 - Lloyd Rees Bandstand of 16 November 2009 for be rescinded.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Scott Bennison

 

Councillor David Brooks-Horn

 

Councillor Ian  Longbottom

 

Councillor Ann  Smith

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

      


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 December 2009

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 62

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 62

Subject:          Lane Cove Golf Course 17th Green

Inspection Committee after considering this matter referred this Report to the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on the 07 December 2009.   

Record No:    SU2932 - 47673/09

Author(s):       Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 16 November 2009, Council resolved to conduct an Inspection Committee on 5 December 2009, at the Lane Cove Golf Course to discuss the staff “Vegetation Management Plan for Bushland adjacent to the 17th Green”.

 

It is anticipated that this site meeting will provide Councillors with the factual information and necessary community feedback to resolve the vegetation management issue.

 

Background

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting of 16 November 2009, Council resolved:-

 

“ 1.         That Council proceed with calling for quotations to undertake the reconstruction of

the 17th green in accordance with the design prepared by Mark Parker Golf Pty Ltd.

 

2.           That an on-site meeting to discuss the vegetation management plan for the bushland adjacent to the 17th green be conducted as part of the next Inspection Committee, to be held on 5 December 2009.”

 

The Inspection Committee meeting is scheduled to commence at 8.30am on 5 December 2009.

 

Discussion

 

It is proposed that Councillors meet at the 17th green of the Lane Cove Golf Course, which is situated in the south-east corner of the site. Discussion will centre on the staff “Vegetation Management Plan for Bushland adjacent to the 17th Green”. Copies of the Vegetation Management Plan are provided as Attachment 1 for Councillors information and consideration.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.         Receive and note the report.

 

2.         Determine whether the staff “Vegetation Management Plan for Bushland adjacent to the 17th Green” is suitable for improving growing conditions of the 17th green without impacting on the integrity of the adjacent bushland.

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

staff proposed work plan  for bushland adjacent to 17th green Nov 2009

2 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 December 2009

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 376

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 376

Subject:          7 Holden Street, Northwood

Inspection Committee after considering this matter referred this Report to the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on the 07 December 2009.   

Record No:    DA09/162-01 - 45626/09

Author(s):       Rajiv Shankar 

 

 

Property:                     7 Holden Street, Northwood

 

DA No:                         D162/09

 

Date Lodged:              6 August 2009

 

Cost of Work:              $825 000

 

Owner:                                    DG & MA Cant

 

Applicant:                    DG & MA Cant

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house, pool and front fence.

ZONE

Residential 2(a2) - Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987

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?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a & 10b

STOP THE CLOCK USED

No

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                  2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 Kelly’s Esp, 4 James St, 2, 4 Bayview St, 2, 3, 5, 9 Holden St.  

Ward Councillors       Clr I Longbottom, Clr D Brooks-Horn, Clr P Palmer, Clr R Tudge

Progress Association Longueville Residents Association, Northwood Action Group.

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL:

 

The application has been called to the Planning and Building Committee by Councillor Palmer because of the concerns raised by the neighbours.

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

·     This site has been subject to a previous application for an additional dwelling house application which was refused by Council. This application addresses many of the concerns raised in the previous application.

·     The proposal is for alterations and addition to an existing two storey dwelling house, and also includes the construction of a pool and a front fence.

·     The proposal was notified and six (6) submissions were received.

·     The objections from two dwelling houses towards the East substantially relate to potential impact upon views.

·     The proposal complies with all the provisions of Council’s Dwelling House Code.

·     The proposal satisfies the requirements of view sharing principles with the adjoining properties towards the east.

·     The proposal is recommended for approval subject to draft conditions which include lot consolidation.

 

SITE:

 

The site is located on the southern side of Holden Street. The site is irregular in shape. The site comprises of lot 54/DP 58263 & lot 550/DP1131387. Lot 54 is rectangular and lot 550 is trapezoidal in shape with a total area of 522.6 m2. The southern side of the site falls substantially and adjoins the unformed portion of Kelly’s Esplanade, which connects with the unformed portion of James Street. The site falls away from Holden Street.

 

The site features a two storey brick and tile dwelling house with a carport towards the front. There is one palm tree towards the rear of the site.

 

Neighbouring to the east are two double storey brick and tile dwelling houses. Towards the west is a double storey brick and tile dwelling house.   Copy of Site Location Plan and Neighbour Notification Plan attached (AT1 and AT2).

 

PROPOSAL:

 

The proposal is for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house which includes the following:

 

·     Demolition of a portion of the existing dwelling house towards the east.

·     A carport towards the front.

·     A two storey addition towards the rear with living areas on the upper floor and bed rooms on the lower floor.

·     A triangular terrace on the upper floor towards the rear, with an obscure privacy screen towards the east.

·     A 900mm high front boundary fence which returns along the eastern boundary.

·     A pool at the lower level within the rock bed towards the rear.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY:

 

D128/07 - Construction of a new two storey dwelling house, double carport and driveway.- Disapproved by Council. An appeal to the decisions- dismissed by Land and Environment Court.

D216/03 -  Alterations and additions to existing dwelling house and construction of double carport.-Approved by Council.

D214/03 - Construction of a new two storey dwelling house with carport and driveway.- Disapproved by Council.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE:

 

Site Area (522.8m2)

 

PROPOSED

CODE

COMPLIES

Floor Space Ratio       (max)

0.5

0.525

Yes

Soft Landscaped Area            (min)

35%

35%

Yes

Side Boundary Setback (min)

East- 1.8m

West- Existing & unchanged

1.5m

1.5m

Yes

NA

Overall Height (m)       (max)

7.2m

9.5m

Yes

Ceiling Height (m)       (max)

6.5m

7.0m

Yes

No of Storeys

2

2

Yes

Building Line    (max)

Existing & unchanged

7.5m

NA

Foreshore Building Line (min)

NA

NA

NA

Cut and Fill      (max)

Max1.0m

1m

Yes

Deck/Balcony width    (max)

3m

3m (if elevated by >1m)

Yes

Solar Access  (min)

3 hours

3 hours to north elevation

Yes

Basix

Provided

Required

Yes

 

CARPORTS IN FRONT OF BUILDING LINE

 

 

PROPOSED

CODE

COMPLIES

Building Line    (min)

3.6m

permitted

Yes

Proportion of Allotment Width

6m

50% or 6m, whichever is the lesser

Yes

Setback of Posts (min)

4.9m approximately

1m

Yes

 

FENCING

 

 

PROPOSED

CODE

COMPLIES

Height (max)

900mm

900mm

Yes

 

SWIMMING POOLS

 

 

PROPOSED

CODE

COMPLIES

Concourse Edge to Neighbour’s House  (min)

10.0m

3m

Yes

Setback if height is >1800mm (min)

1.8m from southern boundary

2.0m from western boundary

1:1 setback measured from concourse edge

Yes

Screening of facade where > 1.0m above ground level?

Screening required as a condition of consent.

Screening required

Yes

 

REFERRALS:

 

Manager Assets

 

No objections were expressed subject to conditions which have been included in the draft conditions of consent.

 

 

 

 

Manager Parks

 

There are no significant trees affected by the proposal. No objection is raised to the removal of the palm. No objections were expressed subject to conditions which have been included in the draft conditions of consent.

 

79 (C) (1) (a) the provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

 

Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987

 

The subject site is zoned Low Density Residential 2(a2) under the provisions of Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 1987.  The proposal is permitted with development consent of Council.

 

Draft Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

There are no additional provisions that need to be considered with respect to the draft LEP that would effect the compliance of the proposal. The Draft LEP provides for a reduced FSR of 0.5:1, which the proposal would still comply.

 

Lane Cove Code for Dwelling Houses – September 2000

 

As indicated in the policy compliance table and matters of consideration, the proposal complies with all the provisions of the Code.

 

Variations to Council’s Codes/Policies - Nil

 

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 (the SREP) and Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan for the SREP (the DCP)

 

Under the SREP, within Part 3, Division 2 sets out Matters for consideration which Council is to consider in assessing new development.  Of the clauses 20-27 listed for consideration, the location and scale of the proposed works would not raise any significant issues.

 

Under the DCP the proposed works would not raise any significant issues in relation to the two relevant sub-sections, i.e. 5.3 (Siting of buildings and structures) and 5.4 (Built form).

 

79C (1) (b)       The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality.

 

Privacy

 

The upper level of the eastern elevation has highlight and obscure windows. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development would provide a reasonable level of privacy between the adjoining properties.

 

Views

 

An objection to the development from neighbours has been that the proposed development would have an adverse and unacceptable impact on views. 

 

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

 

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

 

2.         Consider from what part of the property the views are obtained.  Also, consider sitting or standing views. Protection of sitting views across side boundaries are more difficult than from front and rear boundaries.

 

3.         Assess the extent of the impact.  This should be done for the whole of the property, not just the view that is affected. Views from living areas (including kitchen areas) are more significant than from bedrooms. While the impact could be assessed quantitatively, it is more useful to look at the issue in a qualitative sense and ask whether the view loss is negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

 

4.         Assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact.  Factors include whether the proposal complies with development standards and whether view loss could be ameliorated by better design. Importantly, the Senior Commissioner said that “where an impact on views arises as a result of non compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable”. View impact from a complying development would probably be considered acceptable, and view sharing reasonable.

 

In assessing the impact on views it is considered that:-

 

1.         The views likely to be affected are not iconic views but are water views and are considered significant.

 

2.         The views from the dwelling houses at 5 and 5A Holden Street being impacted are across the side boundaries rather than from the front or rear of the property and are thus recognised as being difficult to protect.

 

3.         The views taken from the living room towards the south and the upper floor of 5A Holden Street are not significantly impacted. Water views from living rooms and balconies of 5 Holden Street would also be retained. While the impact upon views is considered moderate, the impact has been significantly reduced by the suggested deletion of the obscure privacy screen along the eastern edge of the triangular terrace towards the rear of the proposed development as a condition of consent. (Condition 3) (AT3)

 

4.         The proposal complies with all relevant planning controls and is considered reasonable. The proposed dwelling house is below the maximum ceiling height and maximum overall height requirements. It is not considered excessive in bulk as it complies with the maximum permissible floor space requirements and has a flat roof which follows the profile of the viewing sight lines of the adjoining properties towards the east. The side setbacks are more than the minimum required. In this regard, view impact of the complying development is considered acceptable and view sharing reasonable.

 

In view of the above findings it is considered that the proposal reasonably satisfy the requirements of view sharing principles with the adjoining properties towards the east.

 

Overshadowing

 

Clause 3.4 of the DCP requires that the proposal should:

 

“give reasonable sunlight to the habitable rooms and recreational area of the adjoining properties between 9.0am and 3.0m on 22nd June”

And

“portion of north facing window of the neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours of sun between 9.00am to 3.00pm on 22nd June.”

 

The proposal presents an acceptable level of overshadowing and would not significantly impact on the level of solar access to adjoining developments. The shadow diagrams indicate that private open space & the windows serving habitable rooms in the adjoining dwellings would receive 3 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm. In this regard it is considered that adequate solar access would be retained in accordance with the requirements of the DCP.

 

Access, Transport and Traffic

 

The existing vehicular access from Holden Street is to be maintained. No additional vehicular access has been proposed from Kelly’s Esplanade.

 

Section 79C (1) (c) - The suitability of the site for the development

 

The proposal maintains the residential use of the site. It is considered compatible with the neighbouring dwelling houses, and consistent with the scale and character of the development in the area. Accordingly, the site is considered suitable with respect to the proposed development.

 

Section 79C (1) (d) - Any submissions made in accordance with this Act or Regulations.

 

The proposal was advertised in accordance with Council’s policy of Community Consultation. Six submissions were received. The issues raised in the submissions have been discussed below:

 

Dwelling house at 5A Holden Street

 

Non Compliance with clause 2(a)(i) of the LEP which is as follows:-

 

“To maintain and where appropriate improve the existing amenity and environmental character of residential zones”

 

and clause 2(a)(iii) of the LEP which is as follows:-

 

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

 

Comment

 

The flat inclined roof form follows the line of sight of the adjoining dwelling houses towards the east which would reduce the impact upon the adjoining properties. As discussed in the report above, the proposal maintains the amenity of the surrounding properties. It is considered that the proposal complies with the objectives of Local Environmental Plan 1987.

 

 Non Compliance with the Lane Cove Code for Dwelling Houses.

 

Comment

 

As indicated in the policy compliance table earlier in the report, the proposal complies with all the provisions of the code.

 

Impact upon Views:

 

Comment: As indicated in the report above, the proposal satisfies the requirements of view sharing principles.

 

Impact on Heritage Value:

 

Comment

 

The dwelling house at 5A is not listed as a heritage item.

 

Dwelling House at 5 Holden Street

 

Impact upon views:

 

Comment

 

As indicated in the report above, the proposal satisfies the requirements of view sharing principles.

 

Dwelling House at 9 Kelly’s Esplanade

 

The large roof almost covers the entire length and dominates the site.

 

Comment

 

The proposal complies with the requirement of maximum floor space ratio. The proposed Floor Space Ratio (FSR) is 0.5:1, which is less than the maximum permissible FSR of 0.525:1.

 

Reduction in Soft Landscape Area.

 

Comment

 

The proposal complies with the requirement of minimum soft landscaping, and provides 35% of the site area as landscaped space.

 

Dwelling House at 4 Holden Street

 

Floor Space Ratio and bulk and scale.

 

Comment

 

As indicated in the report above the proposal complies with the requirement of maximum floor space ratio. The height of the proposed extension is less than the maximum permissible. Therefore it is considered that the bulk and scale of the proposal would not be excessive.

 

Energy Efficiently

 

Comment

 

The proposal complies with the requirements of BASIX.

 

The Northwood Action Group

 

Excessive bulk and scale.

 

Comment

 

Already discussed above.

 

Potential for Two Dwellings

 

Comment

 

There is one kitchen and one laundry in the proposed development. The proposed development would not be capable of being used as two dwellings.

 

Consolidation of the Existing Lots

 

Comment

 

Consolidation the two existing lots would be required prior to the issue of Occupation Certificate as a draft condition of consent.

 

Dwelling House at 81 Northwood Road

 

Consolidation of the existing lots.

 

Comment

 

Already discussed above.

 

The Existing Dwelling on the Western Side is Built Very Close to the Western Boundary.

 

Comment

 

The portion of the dwelling house, which is close to the western boundary, is already existing. It would be unreasonable for Council to require demolition of an existing dwelling house to achieve compliance with the setbacks required by the DCP.

 

Impact of Overshadowing on the Adjoining Properties:

 

Comment

 

The shadow diagrams indicate that solar access to adjoining properties would be retained in accordance with the requirements of the DCP.

 

Thermal Efficiency.

 

Comment

 

Already discussed above.

 

Excessive Bulk and Scale

 

Comment

 

Already discussed above.

 

Section 79C (1) (e) - The public interest.

 

The proposed development is considered satisfactory with respect to design objectives and provisions under Council’s Code for Dwelling Houses. The proposed development does not create any major environmental impact. Accordingly it is considered that the proposed development is in the public interest and can be approved subject to appropriate draft conditions.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The application has been assessed having regard to the relevant Planning Instruments and Council’s controls, as well as public good and suitability of the site. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory subject to the following conditions. The matters under Section 79C of the EP&A Act have been considered and are considered to be adequate and satisfactory.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 80(1) (a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the Council grant consent to Development Application D162/09 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house, pool and front fence at 7 Holden Street, Northwood

subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.         (20) That the development be strictly in accordance with drawing number 0801/DA01 to 03 issue A dated 16/06/09, 06 issue A dated 05/08/09 by David Cant except as amended by the following conditions.

 

2.         The two lots (lot 54/DP 58263 & lot 550/DP1131387) shall be consolidated into one lot.  A plan of consolidation prepared by a registered surveyor and six (6) paper copies shall be submitted to Council for signature prior to registration at the Department of Lands (Land and Property Information) (Department of Information and Land Management).  Evidence of consolidation from the Department of Lands (Land and Property Information) shall be submitted to Council or the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of an Occupation Certificate.

 

3.         The proposed obscure privacy screen, along the eastern edge of the triangular terrace towards the rear, is deleted.

 

4.         (1) The submission of a Construction Certificate and its issue by Council or Private Certifier PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION WORK commencing.

 

5.         (2) All building works are required to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

6.         (11) 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.         (12) 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.         (17)  An Occupation Certificate being obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority before the occupation of the building.

 

9.         (35) All demolition, building construction work, including earthworks, deliveries of building materials to and from the site to be restricted to the following hours:-

 

Monday to Friday (inclusive)                     7.00am to 5.30pm

Saturday                                                   7.00am to 4.00pm

No work to be carried out on Sundays or any public holidays.

 

10.       (36) Stockpiles of topsoil, sand, aggregate, spoil or other material capable of being moved by water to be stored clear of any drainage line, easement, natural watercourse, footpath, kerb or roadside.

 

11.       (37) The development shall be conducted in such a manner so as not to interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood in respect of noise, vibration, smell, dust, waste water, waste products or otherwise.

 

12.       (48) Depositing or storage of builder's materials on the footpath or roadways within the Municipality without first obtaining approval of Council is PROHIBITED.

 

Separate approval must be obtained from Council's Works and Urban Services Department PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT of any building waste container ("Skip") in a public place.

 

13.       (49) Prior to the commencement of any construction work associated with the development, the Applicant shall erect a sign(s) at the construction site and in a prominent position at the site boundary where the sign can be viewed from the nearest public place.  The sign(s) shall indicate:

a)         the name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority;

b)         the name of the person in charge of the construction site and telephone number at which that person may be contacted outside working hours; and

c)         a statement that unauthorised entry to the construction site is prohibited.

The signs shall be maintained for the duration of construction works.

 

14.       (50) The cleaning out of ready-mix concrete trucks, wheelbarrows and the like into Council's gutter is PROHIBITED.

 

15.       (52) 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 AS1926.1 – 1993, “Swimming Pool Safety – Part 1: Fencing for Swimming Pools”.

 

      SUCH FENCE IS TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE FILLING OF THE SWIMMING POOL.

 

16.       (53) The filter and pump being located in a position where it will create no noise nuisance at any time or, alternatively, being enclosed in an approved soundproof enclosure.  If noise generated as a result of the development results in an offensive noise Council, may prohibit the use of the unit, under the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

17.       (54) 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".

 

18.       (55) 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".

 

19.       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)         The pier holes/pads before filling with concrete.

b)         All reinforcement prior to filling with concrete.

c)         The dampcourse level, ant capping, anchorage and floor framing before the floor material is laid.

d)         Framework including roof and floor members when completed and prior to covering.

e)         Installation of steel beams and columns prior to covering

f)          Waterproofing of wet areas

g)         Pool reinforcement prior to placement of concrete.

h)         The swimming pool safety fence and the provision of the resuscitation poster prior to filling of the pool with water.

i)          Stormwater drainage lines prior to backfilling

j)          Completion.

 

20.       Standard Condition (57) Structural Engineer's details being submitted PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE for the following:-

 

a)         underpinning;

b)         retaining walls;

c)         footings;

d)         reinforced concrete work;

e)         structural steelwork;

f)          upper level floor framing;

 

21.       (63) All metal deck roofs being of a ribbed metal profile or colourbond corrugated galvanised or zincalume iron, in a mid to dark range colour and having an approved anti-glare finish.

 

22.       Standard Condition (64) A check survey certificate is to be submitted at the completion of:-

 

a          Dampcourse level;

b          The establishment of the first floor level;

c          The roof framing; and

d          The completion of works.

 

Note:    All levels are to relate to the reduced levels as noted on the approved architectural plans and should be cross-referenced to Australian Height Datum.

 

23.       (65) Noise from domestic air conditioners is not to be audible in any adjoining dwelling between the hours of 10:00pm and 7:00am on weekdays or between the hours of 10:00pm and 8:00am on weekends and public holidays. 

 

If the noise emitted from the air conditioning unit results in offensive noise, Council may prohibit the use of the unit, under the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

24.       (66) The removal, handling and disposal of asbestos from building sites being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Construction Safety Act and the Regulations details of the method of removal to be submitted PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY DEMOLITION WORKS.

 

25.       (67) 

(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), the principal certifying authority may approve the use of rock pick machines providing that:-

 

(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.

 

26.       (70) Protection of the dwelling against subterranean termites must be carried out in accordance with AS.3660.

 

27.       (78) The site being properly fenced to prevent access of unauthorised persons outside of working hours.

 

28.       (79) Compliance with Australian Standard 2601 - The Demolition of Structures.

 

29.       All waste generated from the site shall be disposed off in accordance with the submitted Waste Management Plan.

 

30.       (141) 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.

 

31.       (142) BASIX - Compliance with all the conditions of the BASIX Certificate lodged with Council as part of this application.

 

32.       (300)  A Tree Preservation Order applies in the Lane Cove local government area. The Order prohibits the cutting or removal of any tree except with the consent of Council, which must be strictly and fully complied with, and the penalty for contravention of this Order is up to one million, one hundred thousand ($1,100,000).  The co-operation of all residents is sought in the preservation of the bushland character of the Municipality.  All enquiries concerning the Tree Preservation Order must be made at the Council Chambers, Lane Cove.

 

33.       (302)  All existing trees, excepting those shown in the approved plan to be removed shall be protected for the duration of the proposed development.  Irrespective of this consent permission from Council must be obtained for the pruning of any trees, including the cutting of any tree roots greater than 40 mm in diameter.

 

34.       (303)  There must be no stockpiling of topsoil, sand, aggregate, spoil or any other construction material or building rubbish on any nature strip, footpath, road or public open space park or reserve.

 

35.       (308)  Rubbish must be stored in a locked container / cage.  Any building rubbish that is not contained must be cleaned up immediately, including the immediate worksite, surrounding area and/or public open space.

 

General Engineering Conditions

 

36.       (A1) 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.

 

37.       (A2) Materials on Roads and Footpaths: Where the applicant requires the use of Council land for placement of building waste, skips or storing materials a “Building waste containers or materials in a public place” application form is to be lodged. Council land is not to be occupied or used for storage until such application is approved. 

 

38.       (A3) Works on Council Property: Separate application shall be made to Council's Urban Services Division for approval to complete, 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.

 

39.       (A4) Permit to Stand Plant: Where the applicant requires the use of construction plant on the public road reservation, an “Application for Standing Plant Permit” shall be made to Council.  Applications shall be submitted and approved prior to the start of any related works. Note: allow 2 working days for approval.

 

40.       (A5) 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.

 

41.       (A6) 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. All costs associated with the relocation or removal of services shall be borne by the applicant.

 

42.       (A7) 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’.

 

43.       (A8) Council Drainage Infrastructure: The proposed construction shall not encroach onto any existing Council stormwater line or drainage easement. If a Council stormwater line is located on the property during construction, Council is to be immediately notified. Where necessary the stormwater line is to be relocated to be clear of the proposed building works. All costs associated with the relocation of the stormwater line are to be borne by the applicant.

 

44.       (A9) 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.

 

45.       (V8) Car parking. All parking and associated facilities are to be designed and constructed in accordance with AS 2890 Series.

 

46.       (W2) Pool construction stormwater: The stormwater runoff from the new impervious areas surrounding the pool shall be connected to the proposed drainage system in accordance with the requirements of Lane Cove Council’s DCP Stormwater Management.

 

47.       (R1) Rainwater Reuse Tanks:  The proposed rainwater tank is to be installed in accordance with Council’s rainwater tank policy and relevant Australian standards.

            Note:

            Rainwater draining to the reuse tank is to drain from the roof surfaces only. No “on - ground” surfaces are to drain to the reuse tank.  “On - ground” surfaces are to drain via a separate system.

            Mosquito protection & first flush device shall be fitted to the reuse tank.

            The overflow from the rainwater reuse tank is to drain by gravity to the receiving system.

 

48.       (S1) Stormwater requirement Stormwater runoff from all impervious areas shall be collected and disposed of using the following mechanism

            Designated roof areas are to drain to the reuse system with overflow to the street.

            All other areas to drain to the street.

            Environmental pollution control pit is to be installed just prior to the connection to the street system.

            The design and construction of the drainage system is to fully comply with, AS-3500 and Council's DCP-Stormwater Management. The design shall ensure that the development, either during construction or upon completion, does not impede or divert natural surface water so as to have an adverse impact upon adjoining properties.

 

Engineering Conditions to be Complied With Prior to Construction Certificate

 

49.       (D2) Drainage plans amendments: The stormwater drainage plan SW1 & SW2 prepared by Robert A Howard & Associated P/L dated Dec 2008 is to be amended to reflect the above condition titled ‘Stormwater requirement’. The amended design is to be certified that it fully complies with, AS-3500 and Council's DCP-Stormwater management; certification is to be by a suitably qualified engineer. The amended plan and certification shall be submitted to the Principle Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

            The Principal Certifying Authority is to be satisfied that the amendments have been made in accordance with the conditional requirements and the amended plans are adequate for the purposes of construction. They are to determine what details, if any, are to be added to the Construction Certificate plans, in order for the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

50.       (W1) Pool construction The pool design shall ensure that either during construction or upon completion, surface water is not be directed or diverted so as to have an adverse impact upon adjoining properties.

            Council accepts no liability for any damage to the pool as a result of overland flows or high tide inundation. The property owner shall submit written acceptance of liability of any damages prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate

 

 

 

51.       (M3) Engineering certification: A suitably qualified engineer shall design and certify the structure of the proposed swimming pool. The plan is to be submitted to the principal certifying authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

52.       (B1) Council infrastructure damage bond: The applicant shall lodge with Council a $1000.00 cash bond or bank guarantee. The bond is to cover the repair of damage to Council's roads, footpaths, kerb and gutter, drainage or other assets as a result of the development. The bond will be released upon issuing of the Occupation certificate. If Council determines that damage has occurred as a result of the development, the applicant will be required to repair the damage. Repairs are to be carried out within 14 days from the notice. All repairs are to be carried in accordance with Council’s requirements. The full bond will be retained if Council’s requirements are not satisfied. Lodgement of this bond is required prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

53.       (C1) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: 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 Fourth Edition 2004 Volume 1’’ prepared by LANDCOM. The plan is to be submitted to the principal certifying authority to prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

54.       (T1) Design of retaining structures: All retaining structures grater than 1m in height are to be designed and certified for construction by a suitably qualified engineer. The structural design is to comply with, all relevant design codes and Australian standards. The design and certification shall be submitted to the Principle Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate

 

Engineering Condition to be Complied With Prior to Commencement of Construction

 

55.       (C2) Erosion and sediment control: The applicant shall install appropriate sediment control devices prior to the start of any works on the site. The devices are to be installed in accordance with the approved plan satisfying condition ‘(C1) Erosion and sediment control plan’. The devices shall be maintained during the construction period and replaced when necessary.

 

Engineering Condition to be Complied With Prior to Occupation Certificate

 

56.       (M2) Certificate of Satisfactory Completion:  Certificates from a registered and licensed Plumber or a suitably qualified Engineer must be obtained for the following matters. The plumber 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.

            Confirming that the site drainage system has been constructed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and Council’s DCP-Stormwater Management. 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑3 View

Photos on site

6 Pages

 

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 December 2009

 

Order Of The Day No. 18

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Order Of The Day No. 18

Subject:          Council and Committe Meeting Schedule    

Record No:    SU1915 - 47737/09

Author(s):       Kirsty Fleming 

 

 

 

The Council and Committee Meeting Schedule for February 2010 is proposed as follows:-

 

 

February          1          Ordinary Council

                                    Planning and Building Committee

                                    Services and Resources Committee

 

February          15        Ordinary Council

                                    Planning and Building Committee

                                    Services and Resources Committee

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council and Committee Meeting Schedule for February 2010 be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 December 2009

 

Notice of Motion No. 13

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Notice of Motion No. 13

Subject:          Lloyd Rees Bandstand    

Record No:    SU3368 - 46909/09

Author(s):       Councillor Scott Bennison; Councillor David Brooks-Horn; Councillor Ian  Longbottom; Councillor Ann  Smith 

 

 

This Notice of Motion will only be considered if Notice of Recission No. 5 is carried.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council commission its own report into the history and significance of the Lane Cove Plaza and the Lloyd Rees Bandstand having regard to but not limited to the following historical events and documents associated with the construction of both the Plaza and the Bandstand:-

 

a.   Lane Cove Town Centre Township Study (June 1990) - History of Lane Cove Plaza;

b.   Heritage Report (May 2009) for the Lloyd Rees Bandstand;

c.   Information contained in the Classification Report from the National Trust;

d.   Submission made by Councilor Forrest to the National Trust; and

e.   Other Historical documentation dealing with:-

 

i. The construction of the Plaza including the involvement of the Lane Cove Chamber of Commerce;

ii. The involvement of Lloyd Rees in terms of his donation to the construction of the bandstand having regard to his original idea of a water feature in the Plaza and also including copies of his own letters;

iii.      Details of other community members/groups that donated towards the construction of the bandstand including councils own costs;

iv.      Details of the original materials used in the design of the original bandstand including any changes in designs or material since its original construction; and

v.      Details of the original location of the bandstand and reasons for the relocation of the bandstand to its current position.

 

2.   The report be presented back to Council to consider and determine if there are any conflicting Historical information between the National Trust report and Councils own report,

 

3.   Council write to the National Trust advising them of any conflicts arsing form point 2 and request that the National Trust amend its report to take into account any conflict determined in point 2 and that the National Trust provide Council with an amended version of its report.

 

4.   The amended report come back to Council to consider and if Council thinks fit, adopt and receive the report and then circulate the report to the community organisations.

 

Councillor Scott Bennison

 

Councillor David Brooks-Horn

 

Councillor Ian  Longbottom

 

Councillor Ann  Smith

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 December 2009

 

Notice of Motion No. 14

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Notice of Motion No. 14

Subject:          Removal of Public Payphones    

Record No:    SU635 - 47725/09

Author(s):       Councillor Pam Palmer 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Public payphones provide a valuable service to the community. 

 

With this in mind, Council resolved to oppose the removal of payphones from several strategic locations.

 

Despite Council’s submission to Telstra and subsequent appeal to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (and copied to the Minister), removal of three payphones went ahead on 18 November 2009.

 

This motion seeks to express, to Telstra and to the Minister, Council’s strong opposition to the removal of these public payphones from Lane Cove.

 

 

Background

 

In October 2008, Telstra notified Council that it was considering removal of four public payphones: in Helen St, Kenneth St, Lower Serpentine Rd and at Tantallon Oval.

 

Council, by unanimous resolution on 15 December 2008, submitted that the removal of the payphones was unreasonable and not supported.

 

In reply, Telstra advised that a decision in relation to the phone at Tantallon Oval would be deferred for 12 months but the removal of the other three payphones would proceed.

 

Council lodged an appeal with the AC&MA.  That appeal was unsuccessful but Council has asked the AC&MA to provide more information and analysis to support its decision.

 

The public payphones were removed before a reply was received from the AC&MA.

 

 

Discussion

 

The public rely on payphones at strategic locations: school children may use a pre-paid Phonecard to call home from the train station; the elderly or disabled may not be able to use a mobile phone and will look for a phone booth when away from home; indeed, everyone finds at some time that their mobile phone will not work and expects an alternative to be available, especially at transport hubs.

 

Indeed, Council conducted an internal review of the payphones earmarked for removal.  The review looked at the physical, social and access issues and whether an alternative public phone was available close-by.  In summary, the review concluded that the removal of the public payphones in any of the locations would be manifestly unreasonable.

 

Council is therefore deeply dissatisfied with Telstra’s decision and has already expressed to the AC&MA that Council considered its response to be inadequate.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Re-iterate its view, as expressed on 15 December 2008, that the removal of the payphones was unreasonable and was not supported.

 

2.   Write again to Telstra, the AC&MA and the Minister (Senator Stephen Conroy), in terms of the above and seek a full analysis of the reasons for removing these payphones from our community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Pam Palmer

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 December 2009

 

General Managers Report No. 32

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    General Managers Report No. 32

Subject:          Lane Cove Market Square Status Report    

Record No:    su1460 - 47549/09

Author(s):       John Lee 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

With the opening of the Lane Cove Market Square and commencement of trade on Thursday 26 November 2009, this status report concludes the construction phase which commenced with the demolition of the Library extension in January 2008 followed by the construction of the upper drop off zone for the Lane Cove Public School.

 

Background

 

The Lane Cove Market Square has delivered over 200 additional public parking spaces and a 3 fold increase in floor area for the Lane Cove Library as well as a Woolworths supermarket and specialty retail shops.

 

Mainbrace Constructions (NSW) P/L commenced with the demolition of the Library extension during the school holidays in January 2008.   This was followed by the construction of the upper drop off zone for the Lane Cove Public School.

 

Construction on site from April 2008 was staged to allow the construction of the link road providing alternate access between Sera Street and Austin Street and piling around the perimeter and a top down slab – essentially a bridge – to maintain access into the north east service yard.

 

The Library Shell was handed over for fitout on 2 October 2009 and the Supermarket and Retail opened for trade with all levels of the carpark operational on 26 November 2009 under an interim Occupation certificate.

 

Overall, the manner in which Mainbrace undertook their works with the inherent site difficulties, warrants mention as the impact on the community at large has been limited.

 

Official Opening

 

The Supermarket was officially opened with a cutting of the ribbon by the Hon Anthony Roberts MHR, Mayor Win Gaffney and Councillor Ian Longbottom.

 

The Centre was also officially opened with a cutting of the ribbon by Mayor Win Gaffney, Councillor Ian Longbottom, Greg Foran - Woolworths Director Supermarkets and Ralph Kemmler - Woolworths Director Properties.

 

Pictures from both ceremonies are attachments 1 and 2.

 

Plan of Consolidation

 

Council will become the owner of all the lots in the Market square development.  The Plan of consolidation has been lodged with LPI and is expected to be registered shortly.

 

The stratum plan is currently being prepared for lodgement as a subdivision.

 

An interim building management statement came into effect on 26 November 2009 being the lease commencement date.

 

Completion

 

There are a number of matters excluding defects and omissions which need to be undertaken before practical completion is certified by Council’s Independent Certifier.  On Practical Completion, defects and omissions will be addressed during the 12 month Defects Liability period.

 

The remaining matters can be dealt administratively, with subsequent reports dealing with specific issues on an as needs basis.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council: -

 

1.   Receive and note the Lane Cove Market Square Status Report; and

 

2.   Note that the lease commencement date for the Supermarket and Retail Lease and the Gymnasium lease was 26 November 2009 for a period of 50 years with a 49 year option to renew.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Att 1 - Opening the Supermarket

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Att2 - Opening the Lane Cove Market Square

1 Page

 

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 December 2009

 

Corporate Services Division Report No. 66

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Corporate Services Division Report No. 66

Subject:          Delegation of Authority During the Christmas Recess    

Record No:    SU1282 - 47521/09

Author(s):       Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

In past years it has been Council’s practice to delegate authority to a Committee comprising of the Mayor and the General Manager to deal with urgent matters arising during the Christmas recess.  In such cases, Council’s policies are applied and if no such policies exist, due caution is exercised.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

 1.        Subject to the provisions of Section 377 of the Local Government Act, 1993, and points 2 and 3 below, Council appoint a Committee comprising of the Mayor and the General Manager, or in their absence a delegate of the Mayor and/or the person acting as General Manager, to deal with and determine, urgent matters arising during the Council recess until 1 February 2010, in such cases applying Council’s policies, or where no such policies exist, exercising due caution.

 

 2.        No SEPP No.1 objections be supported without reference to the Ward Councillors in the normal distribution of Councillor’s mail on Thursdays, and the delegation not be exercised until at least the following Tuesday.

 

3.       No Section 96 or Section 82A reviews of development applications in relation to any matter that has been determined by Council or the Planning and Building Committee.

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 December 2009

 

Corporate Services Division Report No. 70

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Corporate Services Division Report No. 70

Subject:          Citizenship Ceremony - Australia Day 2010    

Record No:    su28 - 48033/09

Author(s):       Ian  Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

An Australia Day Citizenship Ceremony will be held in the Council Chamber on Monday 26 January 2010.

 

A Councillor is required to attend the ceremony and speak to the new citizens about local government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

That a Councillor nominate to attend the Ceremony on 26 January 2010 and speak to the new citizens about local government

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 December 2009

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 1

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 1

Subject:          Golf Manager Tender    

Record No:    su2662 - 47177/09

Author(s):       Susan  Butler 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The current agreement for the provision of services of Golf Manager at Lane Cove Golf Course was an interim arrangement. Therefore Council called for tenders in accordance with Part 7 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 (NSW) for the purpose of managing the playing of golf, providing the services of a Golf Professional and running the Pro Shop and Starter’s functions. A full report on the evaluation of the tender is included in the Confidential Section of this Business Paper. This Report provides details on the tender process conducted for the information of the public.  

 

Discussion

 

Scope of Work

 

Council requires the provision of services to manage the playing of golf, providing the services of a Golf Professional and running the Pro Shop and Starter’s functions at Lane Cove Golf Course. 

 

Contract Period

 

The contract period for this service will be from 1 February 2010 for 5 years.

 

Advertising

 

Council advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald on 14 October 2009 and in the North Shore Times on 17 October 2009. A pre-tender site meeting was held on Friday 30 October 2009 at the Golf Course.

 

Tenders Received

 

Tenders closed at 2 p.m. on 6 November 2009 and Council received 4 submissions. 

 

Assessment

 

Tenders were assessed by a panel consisting of:-

 

Wayne Rylands – Executive Manager – Open Space & Urban Services;

Susan Butler – Manager - Open Space; and

Ian Naylor – Manager – Governance.

 


Each tender was assessed based on the following weighted criteria and ranked accordingly:-

 

Company

Price (50%)

Experience (20%)

Business Plan (20%)

OH&S Program (5%)

Env. Initiatives (5%)

Blue-fit Golf

 

 

Preferred

Equal Preferred

Equal Preferred

Orbrey Golf

Preferred

Equal Preferred

 

Equal Preferred

Equal Preferred

Teed-up

 

Equal Preferred

 

Equal Preferred

 

YMCA

 

 

 

Equal Preferred

Equal Preferred

 

References and the financial viability of the recommended tenderer have been checked and are satisfactory.

 

Recommended Tenderer

 

The recommended tenderer is Orbrey Golf Pty Ltd.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.         The tender from Orbrey Golf Pty Ltd for the provision of services of Golf Manager at Lane Cove Golf Course be accepted.

 

2.         The General Manager be authorised to enter into a contract with Orbrey Golf Pty Ltd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 December 2009

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 60

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 60

Subject:          Fishing from Wharves    

Record No:    SU438 - 47396/09

Author(s):       Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council’s proposed ban on night-time fishing from wharves has proven to be a contentious issue. Various media outlets have run stories and sought public feedback on the proposal. Council itself received over 150 submissions, predominantly objecting to the proposal.

 

A meeting between Council staff and representatives NSW Maritime, the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW, Industry & Investment NSW (Fisheries), the Sydney Coastal Councils Group and the Department of Primary Industries identified a number of alternative solutions that negate the need for any fishing ban.

 

These potential solutions, and a number of pertinent facts, raised at the meeting, form the basis of the recommendations for this report.

 

 

Background

 

At the Council meeting of 17 August 2009, the Open Space & Urban Services Report No 44 on Fishing from Wharves was considered.

 

Council resolved:-

 

“1.   The proposal to investigate restrictions on night time fishing activity from a number of public areas be placed on public exhibition for 12 weeks and community consultation takes place in accordance with the Consultation Strategy outlined in the report and that appropriate signage be installed during the consultation period.

 

2.   A further report be submitted to Council following the exhibition period to determine what future action is to be taken.

 

3.   A report be submitted to Council regarding improvements to lighting on the four wharves.”

 

Council placed the report on public exhibition in the first week of September 2009 for the twelve week period as per the Council resolution and the Consultation Strategy.

 

 

Discussion

 

The public exhibition period was finished on Friday, 20 November 2009. Council received just over 150 submissions, including 128 submissions through our E-Survey service. The majority of the submissions objected to the proposed fishing ban, as detailed in Report No 44. Although most of the responses objecting to the fishing ban were received from people outside the Lane Cove LGA, there were a number from local residents who either enjoy fishing, or even enjoy the recreational aspect of fishing (even by others). Due to privacy reasons, copies of all submissions will be provided separately for Councillors to peruse.

 

In addition to all of the submissions received, Council with assistance from the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW arranged a meeting with a number of parties to discuss the proposed ban and fishing from wharves in general. The meeting was held on Friday, 18 September 2009. Participants included Council’s Executive Manager-Open Space & Urban Services, NSW Maritime, the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW, Industry & Investment NSW (Fisheries), the Sydney Coastal Councils Group and the Department of Primary Industries to discuss the Council’s proposed ban and other possible solutions.

 

It was evident from the range of possible solutions discussed at the meeting, that numerous options existed that would negate the need for Council to continue with consideration of any ban on fishing from wharves.

 

The main issues/solutions discussed in the meeting involved:-

 

            (i)         Legal Aspects of Proposed Ban and Licensing (legalities of fishing);

            (ii)        Education;

(iii)       Compliance; and

(iv)       Facilities.

 

The first issue discussed by participants was regarding the issuing of licenses and the payment of fishing fees. This is conducted by Industry and Investment NSW. It was mentioned that there are no conditions attached to obtaining a fishing licence, but that any person fishing must carry their license at all times.

 

NSW Maritime advised that they are now the owners of the wharves, and the structures are under their care and control. As such, Maritime is responsible for what activities are conducted on the wharves. Council still has responsibility for cleaning of the wharves as per a Service Agreement that has been entered into with Maritime. Council currently conducts a twice a week clean as per the Service Agreement. Maritime is currently liaising with Council about a more regular cleaning program. This has not been finalised at the time of this report. Maritime are also willing to provide delegated power to Council to enforce littering/cleaning issues with respect to the wharves. This is still to be negotiated and enacted.

 

The meeting participants then discussed the effectiveness of education campaigns in controlling noise and waste. Industry & Investment explained that this can be predominantly achieved through the provision of signage in areas where fishing is known to be taking place, and through brochures provided to the anglers. Signage is a good way of informing anglers how to clean up after themselves and leave an area tidy. The Recreational Fishing Alliance representative also advised the meeting participants that they have a good network for informing their members of current issues and they could assist in this respect. Following the meeting, Industry and Investment NSW have forwarded a draft copy of proposed signage they will erect in conjunction with NSW Maritime at the wharves, prior to the end of 2009. The draft copy of the proposed signage is provided as Attachment 1.

 

The Industry and Investment NSW website also provides some interesting information on fishing from Sydney Harbour. Following is an excerpt from this:-

 

“Recreational fishing in the Harbour has not been banned, but fishers are urged to follow dietary advice on the consumption of seafood from the Harbour and to be aware of existing fishing restrictions. Fishers can continue to practice catch and release. An expert panel has recommended that fish and crustaceans caught west of the Sydney Harbour Bridge should not be eaten. You should release your catch. For fish caught east of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, you should generally not eat more than 150 grams per month. Higher amounts of some fish and crustacean species may be eaten.”

 

This interestingly highlights the fact that fishers should not be killing and eating fish caught west of the Harbour Bridge. It should be noted though, that this is only a recommendation and not enforceable by Fisheries Officers or Council.

 

The meeting participants did discuss though how joint patrols between Fisheries Officers and Council’s Regulatory Officers would be the most effective way of enforcing all of the fishing issues that have been raised by concerned residents in the local vicinity of the wharves (i.e. fish/fishing related waste, noise, and obstruction). It was also mentioned that the Water Police could assist with enforcement, as could the NSW Police. Council and Fisheries Officers have commenced communicating on undertaking some joint inspections. It is anticipated that joint inspections will have commenced prior to the end of 2009.

 

The issue of what facilities exist for anglers was also raised in the meeting. The Recreational Fishing Alliance advised that they would be willing to contribute towards any fishing facilities that are constructed into the future, dependent on costs. Maritime advised that they are investigating the construction of a fishing platform at Abbotsford. Maritime is also developing a strategy on fishing facilities. The Maritime representative advised that they are willing to meet with any interested parties to discuss. Lane Cove Council is not in a position to provide any further fishing facilities at this point of time, but will consider the possibilities following further work with Industry & Investment, Maritime and the Recreational Fishing Alliance.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed night time ban on fishing from the wharves in the Lane Cove LGA cannot be enforced by Lane Cove Council, as the wharves are now owned by NSW Maritime.

 

However, representatives of Industry & Investment NSW, NSW Maritime and the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW, the Sydney Coastal Councils Group and the Department of Primary Industries have provided a number of solutions that can minimise the impact of fishing, and other recreational activities, on local residents/commuters in the vicinity of the wharves in the Lane Cove LGA.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Receive and note this Report.

 

2.   Acknowledge that NSW Maritime has legal responsibility for all wharves in the Lane Cove LGA.

 

3.   Support the implementation of the Responsible Fishing signage at all wharves in the Lane Cove LGA, as proposed by Industry & Investment NSW, and detailed in Attachment 1.

 

4.   Continue to work with Industry & Investment NSW (Fisheries Officers) in an enforcement capacity at all of Council’s Wharves.

 

5.   Continue to work with Industry & Investment NSW, NSW Maritime and the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW on the education and compliance of fishers to the relevant fishing regulations, to ensure minimal disruption and inconvenience to nearby residents and commuters using the wharves.

 

6.   Continue to work with Industry & Investment NSW, NSW Maritime and the Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW in providing improved facilities for fishing, and recreation in general, in the vicinity of the wharves in the Lane Cove LGA.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Signage for Responsible Fishing

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 December 2009

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 61

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 61

Subject:          Lloyd Rees Bandstand    

Record No:    SU3821 - 47656/09

Author(s):       Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council resolved at its’ meeting of 3 August 2009, that a voluntary working group would be formed to develop alternative design concepts for the Lloyd Rees Bandstand.

 

The Working Group was formed and met twice to discuss the relevant issues associated with the current Bandstand, the proposal by Richard Goodwin and the concepts developed in the Lane Cove Village Public Domain Master Plan.

 

An alternative design concept has been developed and is tabled for Council’s consideration, in accordance with Council’s earlier resolution.

 

Background

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting of 3 August 2009, a Notice of Motion was raised by Councillors Forrest and McIlroy to add more structure and a time frame to the process of improving access and restoring the Lloyd Rees Bandstand. It was resolved that Council :-

1.   Receive the Dickson Rothschild Heritage Report (May 2009) for the Lloyd Rees    

       Bandstand and note, in particular, that the bandstand is regarded as historically,         

       aesthetically and socially significant for Lane Cove.

2.   Improve access around the bandstand and through to the Lane Cove Market Square  development by:-

a)   repositioning the cafe tables and chairs to the west of the bandstand;
b)   relocating any public bench, planter boxes, railings, etc as necessary; and
c)   removing the storage area/planter box to the south of the bandstand.

 

3.   Improve the functionality and appearance of the bandstand (in its current location)      

      through:-

a.   the formation of a voluntary working group that will develop alternative design concept/s for the Bandstand within 8-10 weeks, in line with recommendations of the Dickson Rothschild Heritage Report;

b.   and these be brought back to council with a recommendation, for consideration; and

c.   and the voluntary working group be retained in an advisory capacity to oversee the sketch plan, documentation, public exhibition, and construction, to ensure the heritage integrity of the Bandstand and consultation with representatives of the Bands.

4.     The members of the working group be:-

a)   A representative of the National Trust be consulted;

b)   Architects John Suprun and Barbara Buchanan who have both agreed top participate voluntarily & Richard Goodwin. John Suprun did the original drawings for the Bandstand for Harry Howard. Barbara Buchanan was an associate of Harry Howard. Richard Goodwin, Art Strategy consultant;

c)   A representative of the key Lane Cove band/s that use the Lloyd Rees Bandstand;

d)   Council officers as determined by the General Manager; and

e)   Councillor Forrest. 

5.   Investigate options for safely storing performers' equipment whilst on stage.  

6.         (a) The Working Party report to Council on the cost of any recommendation; 

(b) The Working Party report to Council as to the qualitative and quantitative benefit of this proposal to the community, and 

(c) The Working Party detail how the new design will correlate to the findings in the Attachment 1 from the National Trust.

Discussion

 

The voluntary working group was formed and first met on Wednesday, 30 September 2009. The Group consisted of architects John Suprun and Barbara Buchanan, Clr Shauna Forrest, National Trust representative Bronwyn Hanna, community representatives Judy Mitchell and David Cant, with Wayne Rylands providing administrative support. Richard Goodwin decided against joining the voluntary working group.

 

At the first meeting, the Working Group discussed the modified Bandstand proposal by Richard Goodwin, the Spackman Mossop Michaels options for the Bandstand from the Lane Cove Village Public Domain Master Plan, Dickson Rothschild Heritage Report and the context of the Bandstand to the Plaza layout (particularly as envisaged by Harry Howard – through John Suprun). John Suprun and Barbara Buchanan agreed to provide a draft sketch for consideration by the other Working Group members, but advised all of their busy schedules with other works.

 

John Suprun and Barbara Buchanan developed a draft sketch for an improved Lloyd Rees Bandstand. This sketch plan is provided as Attachment 1.

 

A follow up meeting of the Working Group was then arranged for Wednesday, 11 November 2009. Unfortunately, prior to this meeting being held John Suprun passed away. This was a shock for all of the Working Group members, but the Group decided to proceed with John’s ideas for the revitalised Bandstand as detailed in Attachment 1.

 

The Working Group concurred that the proposal developed by John Suprun and Barbara Buchanan provided the improved functionality and appearance as required in Council’s resolution (Resolution 3). The proposal also considered improving access around the Bandstand by repositioning the café tables and chairs to the west of the Bandstand, removing the low brick wall and railing at the rear of the Bandstand, and removing the planter box to the south side (Resolution 2). The Working Group considered storage for performers equipment whilst on stage, and were of the view that any permanent structure was not really possible without impacting on access and the functionality of the Bandstand (Resolution 5). Consequently, it was decided that this proposal should be referred back to Council for its’ consideration, so that it could then be placed on public exhibition for the community to review and provide feedback on the qualitative and quantitative benefits of this proposal to them.

 

If the community accepts this proposal, and Council adopts it, then in accordance with Resolutions 3(c) and 6(a), the working group will be retained in an advisory capacity to oversee the documentation, costing and construction of the project. Staff will report back to Council once a actual costing is known based on detailed plans and specifications.

 

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to inform and consult the community.  Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with the proposed modifications to the Lloyd Rees Bandstand.

 


Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Involve

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove community

e.g. Key message givers

Lane Cove community

Proposed Medium

Advert in local paper, public exhibition and E-Newsletter

Letters to directly affected businesses

Website exhibition and survey

Indicative Timing

14 December 2009 – 8 February 2010

14 December 2009 – 8 February 2010

14 December 2009 – 8 February 2010

 

 

Conclusion

 

The sketch plan titled “Lane Cove Plaza Bandstand”, prepared by John Suprun and Barbara Buchanan and dated 4 November 2009, has been recommended by the voluntary working group for consideration by Council. The Working Group considers that this proposal should be placed on public exhibition so that the community can be provided the opportunity to review it and provide its’ feedback.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.     The sketch plan for a modified Lloyd Rees Bandstand, prepared by John Suprun and Barbara Buchanan, dated 4 November 2009, be placed on public exhibition in accordance with Council’s Consultation Strategy until 8 February 2010.

 

2.     A report be tabled for Council’s consideration at the conclusion to the public exhibition period, informing Council of the community’s feedback.

                                              

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Lane Cove Bandstand Coloured Sketch JS & BB 25-11-09

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 December 2009

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 63

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 63

Subject:          Lane Cove Tunnel Project - Condition of Landscape Works & Handover    

Record No:    SU1477 - 47705/09

Author(s):       Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council is becoming increasingly concerned that the maintenance program being undertaken with the Lane Cove Tunnel surface works is haphazard, of poor quality and with some issues, non-existent. Weed infested areas are rampant throughout the landscaped areas; vegetation quality is poor, particularly with some of the azaleas and lemon scented gums; and certain areas of the sandstone and concrete walls have either been damaged or vandalised/graffitied.

 

For the past 8-9 months, Council has been seeking a written agreement from the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW (as Project Manager) as to what will be expected of Council when the maintenance control of the landscape and urban design components of the surface works is delegated to Council. The current condition of these landscape and urban design components is considered very poor by Council’s standards. Staff are deeply concerned about the potential future cost to our community to bring these landscape and urban design components up to acceptable industry standards, when a handover occurs.

 

Background

 

Stage 1 of the Lane Cove Tunnel works were officially completed in March 2007, when the Tunnel was opened for traffic. Following the opening of the Tunnel, Thiess John Holland (TJH), on behalf of Connector Motorways, undertook Stage 2 of the project. This involved construction of the landscape and urban design components of the surface works on Epping Road. TJH were then required to undertake a period of maintenance on these works.

 

The majority of the maintenance responsibilities for the landscaping and urban design components finished for TJH in March 2009. All aspects of the ongoing maintenance finish in March 2010. However, Council has never been satisfied that the maintenance obligations of Connector Motorways or Theiss John Holland, have ever been satisfactorily undertaken or completed. The Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW, as the project manager, should have been ensuring this occurred. Council has only ever been able to raise concerns and issues it had with respect to the landscape and urban design components of the surface works. It is Council’s view that following the departure of TJH, the RTA must maintain the landscape and urban design components of the surface works, until such time that an official handover occurs.

 

It is also of note that the contract documentation details that $20.8 million was set aside for landscaping in the Stage 1 (Lane Cove Tunnel and Gore Hill Freeway expansion) works, whilst a further $9.6 million was set aside for Stage 2 (Epping Road surface works). That is, over $30 million should have been spent on landscaping for the project. The photographs provided in Attachment 1 are typical of what the public has received for this money. Council would like to know where the $30 million has been spent.

 

Discussion

 

Council has been pursuing the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) for the provision of satisfactory landscaping and urban design with the Epping Road surface works ever since the concept and design phase of the project was initiated. Council was aware of the poor provision and condition of the landscaping and urban design components when the M2 was constructed back in the 1990’s. Council was keen not to see a repeat with the Lane Cove Tunnel project. John Lee was engaged to ensure Council’s, and the Lane Cove community’s interests were given proper consideration. Mr Lee did a great job in ensuring that the RTA, Connector Motorways and TJH were aware of our concerns and issues. 

 

Although the design and documentation phase indicated that the landscaping and urban design components would be a great improvement on that provided with the M2, the actual implementation and maintenance stages have resulted in some substandard finishes, particularly in relation to the landscaping. It is difficult to see how $30 million has been spent on this component.

 

On 24 March 2009, Council and RTA Officers undertook a complete survey of the Stage 2 (Epping Road Surface) Works. A comprehensive list of items requiring attention was developed, and the RTA indicated that they would provide written confirmation of the follow-up action to be taken. Later that afternoon, Council received an email from the RTA’s Mr Bruce Thomas, relating to this site meeting. This is provided as Attachment 2. It can be seen that this email only provides information relating to; the Pedestrian and Cycleway Design Review conducted by RTA's Regional Operations and Engineering Services Directorate and; the property adjustment at 10 Longueville Road. It does not provide any detail of all the items that were identified with the survey of the route. No other documentation has ever been received by Council in relation to that survey.

 

For the next six (6) months, Council received mounting complaints about the condition of the landscaping and urban design components of the Epping Road surface works. On 30 September 2009, the RTA’s Lane Cove Tunnel Project Manager, Mark Andrew, spoke to Council’s Susan Butler via phone. Mr Andrew advised Ms Butler that as far as he was concerned Council was now responsible for the landscape components of Epping Road. Ms Butler relayed this conversation onto the Council’s Executive Manager-Open Space and Urban Services. As a result of this information, the Executive Manager wrote to the RTA (Mr Andrew) via email to clarify the situation from Council’s perspective. This correspondence is provided as Attachment 3. In essence, it detailed that no formal handover had occurred, and the RTA had not actioned the landscaping and urban design items it had promised to following the survey.

 

Mr Andrew then contacted Council’s Executive Manager-Open Space and Urban Services and arranged a meeting to discuss the outstanding issues. This meeting was held on Friday, 2 October 2009, and was attended by Mr Andrew and Bruce Thomas for the RTA and, Wayne Rylands and Martin Terescenko, for Council. It is the Council’s officers’ recollection that the RTA again gave a commitment to weed all landscape areas, replace dead trees/shrubs and undertake some general maintenance of the urban design components (namely the Bus Interchange and sandstone walls) within a two (2) week period.

 

As of 28 October 2009, nothing had been done and further complaints were being received by Council from the public. Consequently, Council’s Executive Manager-Open Space and Urban Services sent another email to the RTA’s Mark Andrew in an attempt to obtain some action. This email is provided as Attachment 4.

 

No physical action has occurred. Just more commitment’s by the RTA that action will occur. A recurring theme, with a reducing timeframe before the RTA finalise their involvement in the project!

 

Conclusion

 

I am seeking Council’s endorsement to write to both the CEO of the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW-Mr Michael Bushby, and the Minister for Transport- The Honorable David Campbell, to notify them that the Epping Road landscaping and urban design components are in a parlous state, and that Council will refuse to accept any responsibility for their upkeep, until a thorough maintenance review is undertaken and a written agreement is entered into that details the future responsibilities of both parties at the finalisation of the Lane Cove Tunnel project.


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.         Council write to the CEO of the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW-Mr Michael Bushby, and the Minister for Transport- The Honorable David Campbell, advising them of our strong concerns about the lack of care and control of the landscape and urban design components of the Epping Road surface works that has occurred since the Lane Cove Tunnel opened in May 2007.

 

2.         Council also advise both Mr Bushby and Minister Campbell that we will refuse to accept any responsibility for the landscape and urban design components of the Epping Road surface works, until a thorough maintenance review has been undertaken by the Roads and Traffic Authority and a written agreement is entered into that details the future responsibilities of both parties, to finalise the Lane Cove Tunnel project.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Lane Cove Tunnel - Surface Works Landscaping

13 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Shared User Path Safety Report

1 Page

 

AT‑3 View

Fwd: Epping RD landscaping handover

2 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

Fwd: Help needed

6 Pages

 

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 December 2009

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 47

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 47

Subject:          Heritage Review Stage 2 - Finalisation    

Record No:    SU1052 - 44970/09

Author(s):       Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report provides recommendations on amendments to the Lane Cove Heritage Register, in order to finalise Council’s Heritage Review Stage 2. This Review has assessed a series of individual sites, providing recommendations for items to be added to or removed from the Register, following suggestions made in recent years by the community relating to a number of properties and features within the municipality. 

 

These recommendations follow consideration of submissions received during public exhibition in July-August 2009 of the Heritage Review Stage 2 Study, prepared for Council by independent consultants.

 

This report recommends that the majority of the Study’s proposals be adopted and amendments made to the Register, while others not be proceeded with, after consideration of a range of factors discussed below. If Council resolves to amend the Heritage Register to add or remove items, the amendments would be made as part of the LEP 12-month review.

 

The Attachments to this Report are as follows:-

 

AT 1:   Heritage Study: This is available at Council’s offices and on its website. The full set of supporting Heritage Data Forms, which would comprise the new Register listings for any items added by Council to the Register, are to be available electronically to Councillors and the public, with a hard copy at the meeting, due to their size.

 

AT 2:   Submissions Summary: This lists all comments made in submissions and the planners’ recommended responses.

 

AT 3:   Summary Schedule of Recommendations - Column 6: This compiles the full list of:-

(i)         items recommended to be added

(ii)        items recommended to be deleted and

(iii)       items recommended not to be changed in the Register. 

 

The format of the report below is as follows:-

 

*           The recommendations regarding each issue raised in the submissions, as discussed below, are grouped together as to whether or not to add the items to the Register.

*           For items not raised in submissions, it is recommended that the heritage consultants’ recommendations be followed, as summarised also in AT 3.

*           An overview summary of all recommendations, as to whether or not to proceed with amending the Register, is provided in the Summary Schedule of Recommendations - Column 6 in AT3. 

 

Background

 

In 1995 Council adopted its local Heritage Register within LEP 1987. The Register was based on a study completed in the late 1980s, and contains approximately 350 local items of built, landscaping and archaeological significance (5 of these items are also on the State Heritage Register, but the review does not relate to any of these).

Stage 1 of the Heritage Review consisted of an assessment in 2006 by heritage consultants of the potential for Northwood to become a conservation area, and to propose controls for the existing Greenwich Conservation Area. Following a public meeting, Council resolved in December 2006 not to proceed with the Northwood proposal. However elements of the proposed Greenwich controls have now been incorporated into the Comprehensive Development Control Plan finalised by Council in October this year. 

 

The Heritage Review comprises an assessment by heritage consultants of twenty-three items (some including multiple sites, such as boatsheds). The initial list of sites was compiled during the preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan as a result of public submissions, with the additional assessment of the Lloyd Rees Bandstand proposal in the Lane Cove Village mid-this year.

 

The methodology for the consultant’s Stage 2 study was to undertake historical research with the assistance of the Lane Cove Local History Library, conduct site inspections and hold discussions with owners where additional information was sought. Statements of Heritage Significance have been prepared for items considered to have heritage merit. The methodology is based on the internationally-recognised Burra Charter principles, NSW Heritage Office Guidelines for Assessing Heritage Significance and the Heritage Office Guidelines for preparing listings in accordance with the State Heritage Inventory format for heritage and conservation assessment.

 

All property owners of nominated sites were advised in writing of the exhibition, and site meetings held by the consultants with all owners who requested them. It is noted that Council is not required to obtain the owners’ consent in order to add items to the Heritage Register.

 

Stage 2 also included a clerical review by staff of the 350 items to update property descriptions and subdivision sites, delete items where demolition has been permitted for such reasons as deteriorating condition, and other editing matters. Some items have been added during the DA process over years following consultation with the owners.

 

On 6 July 2009 Council adopted the consultants’ study for exhibition, which was undertaken for the six weeks from 10 July to 21 August 2009.

 

Discussion

 

A total of 32 submissions was received in response to the exhibition. The individual sites which were the subject of submissions are discussed below, and recommendations made are listed in full in AT 3.

 

Submissions and Responses - Sites Proposed to be Added to the Heritage Register

 

Cenotaph & War Memorial, 139A Longueville Rd (Study page 35, submission no.30)

 

The RSL submission does not object to the listing of these items, but requests that they be able to be relocated. This is due to the increased space that has become necessary for Anzac services, these having been held in the Plaza in recent years to accommodate expanding numbers of participants. This is supported, since the importance of listing these items would be enhanced by enabling the maximum number of the community to participate in important cultural events related to them, a more important aim than retaining their current prominent location on Longueville Road. Sensitive relocation would enable their social significance, as highlighted in the heritage report, to be replicated elsewhere in the Village.

 


Recommendation: Add listing, subject to flexibility in relocating the items.

 

Kelly’s Esplanade (Study page 31, submission no.29)

 

The Northwood Action Group states its support for this addition of streetscape features (see also Other Proposals below, relating to James Street).

 

Recommendation: Add listing.

 

4 James St, Northwood (Study page 30, submission no.30)

 

The owners support for this listing of their 1920s Californian bungalow, stating their aim of assisting in Council’s efforts to maintain the existing amenity of Northwood, is noted and welcomed.

 

Recommendation: Add listing.

 

38-44 Lower Serpentine Rd, Greenwich (Study page 28, submission no.26)

 

This submission, by the solicitor for the owner of No.44, does not object to the listing of the seawall, but requests that “boat repair facilities" should not be included as a heritage item here, since the boat repair business lease would be terminated on 30 September 2009. A development consent for a new boatshed had been granted in 2002, but had not obtained a construction certificate until July 2008, after the heritage consultant’s investigation. In view of Council’s inability to require the continuation of the business operation, and the recent revival of the boatshed development, it is understood that the listing of the boat repair facility could constrain the property’s use in a residential zone.

 

It is recommended that listing not proceed, but that the owner be requested in writing to discuss the potential retention of at least some of the artefacts as a contribution to the historic working waterfront character of the area.  

 

Recommendation: Add listing of sea walls.

 

33 Upper Cliff Rd/ 35-47 Cliff Rd, Northwood (Study page 29, submission no.32)

 

The front walls only are proposed for retention. The owners of 33 Upper Cliff Rd (not 35-47 Cliff Rd) submitted an objection to the listing, providing a consultant report which refers to walls as follows:-

 

*          “Use of sandstone… is largely aesthetic-based analysis not necessarily related to heritage value”: The heritage report’s proposed listing is based on other considerations than just the sandstone material, referring to the wall as a whole group having rarity of patterning and historic significance within Northwood’s development.

 

*          "Fencing styles and materials are important in all areas and can be adequately addressed in existing planning documents without the need for the adjoining zoning implications of conservation areas". The LEP and DCP do not address the issues relevant to this item, of wall grouping or the distinctive construction, which would be covered in the heritage listing. The review’s proposed listing is supported by staff to retain the wall's consistency within the streetscape extending westwards. (Note: The owners' attached consultant report related to a matter which did not proceed, i.e. the whole property's proposed status within a possible conservation area in 2006 as a "contributory item".)

 

At a site inspection since the exhibition this year it was emphasised that the wall’s listing would not

prevent the redevelopment of the houses in the group. The preservation of features such as these

walls are considered to add to Northwood’s special appeal blending historic and modern visual

characteristics which contribute to, rather than detract from, the area’s values.

 

(33 Upper Cliff Rd comprises two allotments on the bend where Cliff Road and Upper Cliff Road merge, with its sandstone wall forming a continuum with the other walls along 35-47 Cliff Road. The Study refers to it as 33 Cliff Road and a notification letter was originally sent to that address. However all Council records have been amended now for consistency with their preferred address of 33 Upper Cliff Road, and this would be the appropriate one if listing proceeds.)

 

Recommendation: Add listing of walls.

 

Lloyd Rees Bandstand

 

The majority of submissions (Study page 36, 25 of the 32) related to this item. These all supported the Bandstand’s addition to the Register, with the principle views being:-

 

*          Lloyd Rees, an important historical artist of Lane Cove, Australia and internationally, sponsored and substantially funded the design of this community focal point for the Village and it bears his name.

 

*          It is an early modernist public artwork designed by renowned architect Harry Howard; modern items should be listed as well as older styles.

 

*           It contributes to the historic and aesthetic quality of Lane Cove Plaza.

 

*          The Bandstand characterises Lane Cove values of community, through its performances, celebrations, festivals, play area, social meeting place for youth and older residents etc.

 

*          It should be restored to its original height as a focal point of the Plaza, freed of storage/ planter boxes and retaining steps as elevation for its function as a performance space.

 

The submissions indicate also the far larger numbers within the community for whom the Bandstand is a valued focal point for cultural activities and social interaction.

 

Having regard to the consistency of views submitted, it is recommended the Bandstand be added to the Register. In view of the Bandstand’s diverse roles within the Village’s activities, though, it is recommended that its location not be fixed, in particular as the Public Domain Master Plan for the Village has not yet been finalised. The consultant’s Heritage Data Form (see the last page of the set) contains Recommended Guidelines for the Lloyd Rees Bandstand which include:-

 

*           The Bandstand is to be located in the Lane Cove Plaza.

 

*          The Bandstand may be relocated from its current position in the Plaza area as it is not sited in its original location.

 

*          Structures abutting the original Bandstand which were not part of the original design (such as storage area, tiled platform and steps and the more recent landscape additions) may be removed.

 

The Bandstand’s flexibility in location and use may in fact contribute to its enduring value in response to the community’s changing activities over time. This approach was noted by Council’s consultant for the Public Art Master Plan in relation to the bandstand’s “umbrella-like” design.

 

Comment

 

A letter from the National Trust of Australia dated 1 October 2009 relating to the Bandstand has formerly been circulated to Councillors. The letter advises that the Lloyd Rees Bandstand and Lane Cove Plaza have been classified by the Trust. As the letter states, “classification by the Trust does not have any legal force. It is, however, recognised as an authoritative statement of the historical and architectural importance” of an item. Only items in a State or local (LEP) heritage register have legal force under the NSW Environmental Planning & Assessment Act. The Trust’s views on the Bandstand’s heritage significance nevertheless are consistent with those of the consultants and the community and, if Council resolves to add the Bandstand, the Trust’s letter would be appropriately held within the Register as supporting material to the listing. (In relation to the Plaza, see comments below under Other Proposals.)

 

Recommendation: Add listing.

 

Submissions and Responses - Sites Not Proposed to be Added to the Heritage Register

 

39 Mary St, Longueville (Study page 33, submission no.27)

 

The owners’ grounds for objecting to the listing, detailed in the submissions summary, include the substantial alterations made to the original house in past decades, and their concern at possible constraints on extending the home to meet the needs of their growing family. The review consultant's site assessment was thorough and he advised the owners that significant features (including the walls, windows and front door) remain to merit heritage listing, but nevertheless that redevelopment to increase the floor space while respecting those features would still be acceptable. The consultant’s aim of retaining as much historic streetscape as possible is supported in principle.

 

Nevertheless, additional factors indicate that this listing should not proceed. A 2005 DA, due to lapse shortly, had not been proceeded with by the previous owners who had obtained it, nor by the current owners. Heritage listing was proposed in the 2005 DA process, but not proceeded with after assessment by Council's heritage consultant, Mr Dawbin, although he did not favour the DA itself as it "will not achieve a sympathetic extension".  The owners advise however that they would construct this DA, rather than submit a new DA more sensitive to the original house, if heritage listing is imposed.

 

The owners' intention of submitting a s.96 DA amendment respecting the original house where possible, provided that heritage listing does not proceed, is welcomed. In this situation a preferable outcome would, unusually, appear likely to result from not proceeding with the listing.

 

Recommendation: Do not add listing.

 

Other Proposals Made Since the Report

 

*           Lane Cove Plaza (several of the submissions no.1-25): The suggestion that the Plaza be added to the Register reflects the Plaza’s popularity since it opened as Australia’s first retail mall formed by road closure in the late 1970s. In view of certain practical and planning considerations involved other than heritage, this proposal is not recommended, as a listing would severely restrict the use of the Plaza. Owners, including Council, may have to submit a heritage impact statement with each development application for a change of shop use, awning, signage/ advertising, driveway etc unless this were permitted under the State Exempt & Complying Code’s standards, which are subject to changes beyond Council’s control. The high frequency of these types of changes in a business environment may make normal development activity unfeasible and economically onerous. It is not necessary to list the Plaza as heritage in order to prevent its future reopening as a road, because if the heritage listing of the Bandstand proceeds, its location would prevent the reopening of Burns Bay Road through the Plaza.

 

If, however, Council wishes to consider the proposal to add the Plaza, it is recommended that this be the subject of a separate heritage assessment as it has not been included in the consultants’ brief to date.

 

*          20 Wilona Avenue (submission no.28): This submission, by an adjacent owner, suggests that the house should be listed as well as the garage. This involves no change, as the entire property is already listed on the Lane Cove Heritage Register.

 

            Recommendation: No change.

 

*                       Northwood conservation area (submission no.29): Northwood Action Group submitted that Northwood should be reconsidered by Council for a conservation area status. This proposal was the subject of Heritage Review Stage 1, undertaken in 2006 by the heritage consultants Godden Mackay Logan, who recommended that Northwood be designated a conservation area in the LEP. A considerable number of submissions was received both for and against; however Council resolved in December 2006 not to proceed. At the time it was resolved however that development controls should be added to the DCP for the existing Greenwich Conservation Area, which has been done.

 

Recommendation: Council is requested to indicate its position with regard to possible DCP controls for Northwood, and whether the matter should be discussed with the community within the 2010 DCP review, to enable the issues raised by parts of the community to be thoroughly considered.

 

*          James Street (submission no.29): Northwood Action Group has requested that James Street be added to the Kelly’s Esplanade listing of streetscape elements.

 

Recommendation:    Obtain heritage assessment of James Street streetscape

elements for consideration in 2010 LEP review.

 

*           Vistas/ critical view corridors: Northwood Action Group requested that there should be an assessment of these as heritage. This would potentially be appropriate for heritage consideration within the preparation of locality character statements in the DCP reviews in 2010.

 

Recommendation: Undertake community consultation regarding view retention within possible locality character statements in the 2010 DCP review.

 

General Comments

 

The consultants’ general objective has been to identify items with the potential to contribute to Lane Cove’s historic character so that, without preventing a modern lifestyle, the original “fabric” of the site would remain available and be a visible reminder of our collective heritage at least to some extent. Comments are sometimes raised by submitters that property values may be affected, but evidence relating to the local area is not presented. 

 

The principle of heritage listing has been supported by the Lane Cove community over the decades since the NSW government required councils to prepare heritage registers, with input by professional heritage architects. The current review has been undertaken in response to wide-ranging proposals put forward by the community. The recommendations endorsed in this report are considered to enhance Lane Cove’s cultural and physical heritage, while responding to documented individual economic, legal or procedural constraints.

 

Process

 

The process for adding to or deleting items from the Heritage Register is the same as for any LEP amendment. If Council resolves to amend the Heritage Register to add or remove items, the amendments would be made at the time of the LEP 2010 review. The implications of heritage listing include:-

 

(i) NSW Housing Code (“State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008”): This was introduced in February 2009, that is, since the heritage review’s commencement in 2008.

 

(a)   Exempt development: Exempt development is permissible on a heritage property.

(b)   Complying development: Houses are not permitted as complying development on a

       heritage-listed property, but a development application may be lodged as for 

       houses generally under the LEP.

 

(ii) DA process: A heritage impact statement would be required to be submitted with a development application.

 

Conclusion

 

The Heritage Review Stage 2 Study, which makes recommendations on potential amendments to the Lane Cove Heritage Register, has been prepared by independent heritage consultants in accordance with the international Burra Charter principles and NSW Heritage Office Guidelines for heritage and conservation assessment. The Study has been exhibited in accordance with Council’s Consultation Policy.

 

The assistance of Lane Cove Library’s staff with the consultants in the preparation of the Study is appreciated.

 

Council is requested to finalise the amendments to the Lane Cove Heritage Register, including variations from the consultants’ recommendations where appropriate on the basis of submissions received, in accordance with the recommendations listed in Column 6 of the Schedule at AT3. The appropriate process would be to amend the LEP Heritage Schedule No.5 within the 2010 LEP review.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.         The Report on the Heritage Review Stage 2 Study be noted.

 

2.         The recommendations of the Heritage Review Stage 2 Study dated November 2009 be adopted for amendment to Schedule 5 of the Lane Cove Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan/ Heritage Register during the 2010 LEP Review, subject to the following variations (as described in Column 6 of the Summary in AT 3):-

 

a.         38-44 Lower Serpentine Road: add “sea walls” to the Register, but not “boat repair facilities”;

b.         39 Mary Street: do not add to the Register;

c.         Village War memorial and Cenotaph: add as recommended, but permitting relocation of these items; and

d.         Lloyd Rees Bandstand: add as recommended, but permitting relocation of this item.

 

3.         The NSW Heritage Office, the Lane Cove Historical Society and other community associations and relevant property owners be advised in writing of the resolution to amend the LEP.

 

4.         The owner of 44 Lower Serpentine Road be requested in writing to discuss options for retention of elements of the former boat repair facility.

 

5.         Council obtain heritage assessment of James Street streetscape elements for consideration in 2010 LEP review.

 

6.         Council indicate its position with regard to whether possible development controls for Northwood should be discussed with the community within the 2010 DCP review.

 

7.         Council undertake community consultation regarding view retention within possible locality character statements when consultation is undertaken for the 2010 DCP review.  

           

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Heritage Study November 2009

41 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Submissions Summary

5 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Summary Schedule of Recommendations

2 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 December 2009

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 49

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 49

Subject:          Swimming Pool Act Amendments    

Record No:    SU1440 - 47578/09

Author(s):       Peter Thomas 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

·     The NSW State Government has advised that changes are proposed to the Swimming Pool Act 1992.

·     The changes relate to pool fencing requirements and the removal of current exemptions from the need for pool fences.

·     The amendments also increase powers of Council to enter and render pools safe in certain circumstances and also penalties for non compliance are also proposed to be increased.

·     It is recommended that Council support initiatives to raise awareness of pool safety.

 

Discussion

 

The Swimming Pool Act 1992 is the statute that covers private swimming pools in relation to safety and construction standards.

 

On 21 October 2009, proposed changes to the Swimming Pool Act 1992 were outlined by the Minister for Local Government. (See AT1).

 

These included the removal of automatic exemptions from four sided barriers for new pools on large (>2ha), small (<230sqm) and waterfront properties.

 

The other proposed changes outlined include:-

 

·     An increase in the maximum on the spot fine for pool owners if their backyard pool fence fails to meet safety requirements from $220 to $550 with the maximum court imposed penalty increasing from $1100 to $5500.

·     Allowing Councils to urgently fix pool fencing where there is an immediate risk to public safety and the owner refuses to fix the problem.

·     Mandatory investigation by Councils of any complaint received about a potential breach of backyard pool safety.

 

Current Practice

 

In assessing development applications for pools, Council staff have regard to the legislation and if approving a pool, apply conditions that require compliance with the Swimming Pool Act, particularly in relation to fencing and the display of a resuscitation chart.

 

Pool safety is a major issue for all Councils and in relation to the above matters, all Council  Environmental Services staff on unrelated routine site inspections deal with pool fencing and safety issues when they are observed.  In addition to this, Council’s Building Surveyors respond to pool safety/ fence complaints as a priority, raising awareness, discussing problems with pool owners and where necessary issue emergency orders.

 

An additional issue can relate to the non display of a resuscitation chart, as required by the Swimming Pool Act and Council’s conditions for swimming pools.  If a sign is not observed at a pool, pool owners are advised that these signs are readily available from Pool Shops or from Council’s Customer Service Counter.

 

It is proposed to continue current practice, however, given the significant threat an unsecured pool can pose to the public, particularly children, in the event of a pool fence not being correctly fenced and posing a threat to public safety the following is to occur:-

 

1.         Initial discussion/ verbal advice to the pool owner.  A time frame for work to be completed agreed upon.  This period is to be generally 24 hours, with the pool being made as secure as possible in the interim.  The discussion would include the process if the work is not carried out (an emergency notice and possibility of fines of $550).  The incident, photos and Council’s directions to be file noted in Trim.

 

2.         If the work to secure the pool is not carried out within the time frame an emergency notice would be served requiring the work to be carried out with a 24 hour time frame.  A proforma draft order is available for use.  The accompanying letter is to advise the repercussions of non-compliance relating to maximum fines.

 

3.         Fines are to be issued for non compliance.

 

In addition to this all Environmental Services staff who carry out inspections will be provided with a checklist and additional awareness training in relation to pool safety and what to look for at sites. 

 

A link on Council’s web site has been made to the “Home Pool Safety Checklist” at www.homepoolsafety.com.au.  (See AT2).

 

Conclusion

 

Every year the lives of children are placed at risk due to poorly maintained or inadequate pool fencing.  It is important that all swimming pools and their surrounds are of a standard where they are safe and pose no risk to children.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.         Receive and note this report.

 

2.         Advise the Minister for Local Government that it supports the need to raise awareness of pool safety and the visible display of a resuscitation chart for all swimming pools.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Proposed changes to the Swimming Pool Act 1992,  Barbara Perry, MP

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Lane Cove Council's website page

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 December 2009

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 50

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 50

Subject:          Delegated Authority Report - November 2009    

Record No:    SU1863 - 47668/09

Author(s):       Michael Mason 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

During the month of November 2009 a total of 35 Development Applications were determined under delegation by staff and 1 by Council.  In addition 7 Construction Certificates and 9 Privately Certified Construction Certificates were issued.  There were 7 Privately Certified Complying Developments.

 

Developments under the new SEPP in November were:-

 

25 Sofala Avenue, Riverview                          -           Swimming Pool

80-92 Cullen Street, Lane Cove                    -            Communal School Hall and covered outdoor learning  area and Canteen

            9/303 Pacific Highway, St Leonards               -           Swimming Pool

            40 King William Street, Greenwich                 -           Dwelling and Pool

            154 Pacific Highway, St Leonards                  -           Office Fitout

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

List of applications determined for November 2009

5 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 December 2009

 

Environmental Services Division Report No. 361

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 361

Subject:          4 Church Street, Greenwich - S96 Modification of Consent    

Record No:    DA08/249-01 - 44565/09

Author(s):       May  Li 

 

 

Property:                     4 Church Street, Greenwich

 

S96 Application No:     DA08/249

 

Date Lodged:              6 October 2009

 

Cost of Work:              No change to the value of the approved development proposal

 

Owner:                                    G J Irving

 

Applicant:                    Haviland Architects

 

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

The proposal is a Section 96 application seeking to modify DA 08/249.  The modification seeks the deletion of Condition 1A (ii) relating to building height of the approved dwelling house.

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?

Yes

DOES DCP 1- BUSHLAND APPLY TO THE PROPERTY?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a

STOP THE CLOCK USED

Yes – 4 days

NOTIFICATION

The Section 96 proposal was notified in according to the notification of the development application and all previous objectors.

 

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

 

This application was deferred at the applicant’s request at the Council meeting of 16 November 2009 and is now presented for determination.

 

The applicant has also lodged an Appeal to the Land and Environment Court against  Council’s original decision to require the lowering of the building to RL 29.81. 

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL:

 

·     The development application was determined by Council on 17 August 2009. Refer to AT1 for the report of 17 August 2009.  The Section 96 application seeks to delete a condition from the development consent, which was imposed by Council at its meeting of 17 August 2009.

·     The Section 96 application is submitted to Council for determination. 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

·     The Section 96 application requests Council delete Condition 1A(ii) in the development consent.  The condition states “1A (ii) The building be lowered by 0.5m to RL 29.81.”

 

SITE:

 

Please refer to the original report in AT 1.

 

PROPOSAL:

 

The Section 96 application seeks to modify the development consent in the following manner:

 

Deletion of condition 1A (ii), which reads as follows:

 

“1A (ii)             The building be lowered by 0.5m to RL 29.81.

 

There is no design change relating to the dwelling house as shown in Revision G (approved plan).

 

The owner of the property has stated in support of the modification that the proposed development (as shown in Revision G), met the view share principle of the Land and Environment Court Planning Principles.  The owner has requested Council inspect the adjoining properties prior to the determination of this Section 96 application.  Refer to AT2.

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY:

 

On 28 August 2008, DA 08/249 was submitted for the demolition of the existing two storey dwelling house and garage, and the construction of a two storey dwelling house with a garage. 

 

During the development assessment, the applicant amended the design 6 times to address the non-compliances with Council’s requirements and having regard to the objections raised by  adjoining neighbours.  The application was the subject of unsuccessful mediation between the various parties.

 

The major objections related to the loss of water views from adjoining properties at 2 Church Street and 9 Robert Street, Greenwich.

 

Council approved the development application (Revision G) on 17 August 2009.  At the meeting the Council imposed an additional condition 1A(ii).  The additional condition required the building height be lowered by a further 0.5m from the proposed building height at RL30.31 to RL29.81.

 

The approved building height would be 0.32m higher that the maximum ridge of the existing dwelling house. 

 

The Section 96 application seeks deletion of this condition (1A(ii)).

 

The application was deferred at the applicant’s request from the Council meeting of 16 November 2009.

 

The applicant has also now lodged an Appeal to the Land and Environment Court against the Council’s decision to require the lowering of the building to RL 29.81. 

 

 

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE:

 

As stated in the previous report.  Refer to AT1.

 

REFERRALS:

 

The nature of the section 96 modification did not generate the need for additional referrals.

 

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

 

The Section 96 proposal does not alter the compliance to the provisions of the LEP.

 

Lane Cove draft LOCAL Environmental Plan 2008

 

The Section 96 proposal does not alter the compliance to the provisions of the DLEP.

Other Planning Instruments

 

Code for Dwelling Houses, Fences, Private Swimming Pools and Outbuildings

 

The Section 96 proposal does not alter the compliance to the requirements of the Code.  The attached report contains the details of any variations, which were accepted by Council.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT

 

Having regard to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, the proposal remains substantially the same development and can be considered as a Section 96 modification.

 

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.

 

The owners of three adjoining properties at 2 Church Street, 9 and 11 Robert Street, Greenwich raised objections to the Section 96 proposal.  The objectors remain of the view that the section 96 modification results in a building that is too high and would create an unacceptable loss of water views from their properties.

 

The submissions requested Council to stand by its decision on 17 August 2009. 

 

Officer’s Comment

 

View impact has been a major issue for neighbours to this development proposal.  The report to Council meeting of 17 August 2009 detailed an assessment on the view issue of the plans contained in Revision G.

 

The Council has inspected the site and viewed the impact from the objector’s properties.  This resulted in the imposition of the additional condition 1A(ii) as a number of Councillors remained concerned at the level of adverse impact to the neighbouring properties.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The matters in relation to Section 79C and Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 considerations have been satisfied.

 

The Section 96 proposal would not change the nature of the approved development and it would be substantially same development as that approved, should Council support the application.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council consider and determine the Section 96 application.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

ESD Report No. 242 of 17 August 2008

15 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Supporting Statement

2 Pages

 

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 December 2009

 

Human Services Division Report No. 21

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Human Services Division Report No. 21

Subject:          Library Fit-Out Progress Report No 2    

Record No:    SU1459 - 47556/09

Author(s):       Jane  Gornall 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This is the second report outlining the progress of the fit-out of the Lane Cove Library. The Report updates Council and the Community as to progress so far in terms of fit-out of the building.

 

Background

 

Council will recall that the Stage 1 fit-out works to be undertaken by Buildcorp include the installation of all plumbing, electrical and cabling works, wall linings, ceiling and air-conditioning, fire sprinklers and fire services, lift, carpets, and built in furniture.

 

Stage 2 includes the refitting of the existing Library building at 139A Longueville Road, Lane Cove.

 

Mainbrace handed the Library shell to Council on the 2nd October, 2009.  Buildcorp took possession of the site on the 12th October, 2009.

 

Discussion

 

Although the shell was to have been completed by Mainbrace for the handover there was a number of outstanding items not completed. Items included completion of the fire stairs, the reinstallation of the eaves from the original building, relocation of the siphonic drainage, relocation of fire hydrants that were incorrectly placed, lack of condensate dishes (tundish), and missing conduits for cabling.

 

Since the last Report to Council the following items have been resolved:

relocation of the siphonic drainage, relocation of fire hydrants that were incorrectly placed, lack of condensate dishes (tundish), and missing conduits for cabling.

 

The other issues are being resolved slowly. Now that the majority of the Market Square Development has been completed it is to be hoped that the outstanding items will be completed shortly.

 

Buildcorp also has had limited access to the site for delivery of materials. It was expected that the ramp from Longueville Road to the Library entrance would be completed by the time that Buildcorp took possession of the site. The ramp was only completed on the late evening of the 26th November – in time for the opening of Market Square.

 

In the time since the last report, the Library at 139A Longueville Road has been closed from

10.00 am (normal opening) period until 1.00pm. each weekday to allow for the builders to deliver materials- carpet tiles; gyprock; timber, etc into the Library and to allow for rubbish to be removed.

 

With the completion of the ramp, it is proposed to utilise half of the ramp for the use of Buildcorp to bring larger materials into the Library. The fit-out is at the stage for large furniture items – desk components, etc being delivered – these items are too large to go through the doors of the existing Library building (139A Longueville Road). A temporary fence will be constructed to ensure the safety of pedestrians. When the ramp is not in use by Buildcorp all of the ramp will be available for the public use.

 

The ramp will need to be closed completely when the Library eaves on the old building are reinstated. The current condition of the eaves makes them unstable and the area underneath in Library Place is a seating area for the public. The replacement of the eaves is a Mainbrace responsibility.

 

Cranage

 

On Monday 30th November, Buildcorp arranged for a second and hopefully final crane lift for Library equipment. Austin Street was closed for three hours to allow for the lifting of materials. The crane lift included – the airhandling units; solar panels and the rest of the solar collectors for the hot water systems.

 

Signage

 

Library staff have met with the architects – Stephenson and Turner to devise the signage layout for the Library. It is intended to utilise some of the photographs from the Captured Photography competitions as banners in the building. They will highlight specific parts of the collection, e.g. fiction; non-fiction and the Junior Library.

 

Current Progress

 

Photographs are attached to show progress on the building as at November 26, 2009.

 

As at the meeting of 26th November, 2009 the following work had been undertaken:

 

·           Sprinkler installation is 80% complete;

·           Electrical services are 70% complete;

·           Hydraulic services are 80% complete;

·           Mechanical Services are 65% complete;

·           Fire detection installation is 80% complete; and

·           Gyprocking is 60% complete.

 

There are a number of tallowwood walls and features within the building. Some concerns have been expressed about the quality of the milling of the timber. The timber supplier has been on-site and some of the timber is being replaced.

 

Staging of Works

 

As noted in the previous report – the Library will not now be ready for handover of Stage 1 – until the 25th January, 2010. This means that the Library will close for ten days from the 25th January and reopen in early February, 2010. The library is liaising with furniture suppliers regarding rescheduling deliveries.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.         Council receive and note this report.

 

2.         A further report be presented to Council at the next Council Meeting.

 

Jane  Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Photos of Ceiling and Acoustic Installation and air-conditioning ducts and electrical cabling at the Lane Cove Library

2 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 7 December 2009

 

Human Services Division Report No. 22

 

 

 

 

 

Reference:    Human Services Division Report No. 22

Subject:          Draft Lane Cove Public Art Strategy and Public Art Master Plan 2009    

Record No:    SU2509 - 47822/09

Author(s):       Jane  Gornall 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

In June 2009 Council resolved to adopt the Draft Lane Cove Public Art Strategy and Public Art Master Plan for approval to place on public exhibition.  The exhibition period has now concluded and the Strategy and Master Plan are now brought to Council for adoption.

 

Discussion

 

The Public Art Strategy and Public Art Master Plan was designed to form a vital component of the Public Domain Master Plan. 

 

Council began the Public Domain Master Plan process in November 2008, with the appointment of the urban planning consultants Spackman Mossop Michaels. In January 2009, Council advertised for a Public Art consultant to research opportunities for the development of art themes and contributions to the layers, elements and details of the public domain. Critical to the success of this project was the ability to work collaboratively with the Village Public Domain Master Plan consultants.

 

As a result of the Expression of Interest process (advertisement and interviews), Richard Goodwin was appointed. Richard Goodwin has been an exhibiting artist since 1974. He trained as an architect, graduating in 1977, and has a Master of Architecture. He was awarded his PhD in 2008.  He currently holds the position of Professor at the University of New South Wales College of Fine Arts. 

 

The Public Art Strategy and Public Art Master Plan is based on the same sites as the Public Domain Master Plan sites, however, Richard Goodwin also included a small number of additional sites outside the Public Domain Master Plan area. These sites are included in Chapter 7 in the Public Art Master Plan and include the azaleas; the Northwood plaques; the Library cultural blades and the Lloyd Rees Memorial.

 

The Public Art Strategy and Public Art Master Plan is in two parts, the first being the Lane Cove Public Art Strategy which discusses the philosophy; background; and ways of procuring art as well as maintaining the artworks. The second part of the Report looks at individual sites; discusses the qualities and issues for each site and then suggests the form of artwork that could be commissioned for the site.  An indicative budget is also suggested for each site. The Public Art Strategy and Public Art Master Plan also included in the Appendices a summary of meetings regarding the formulation of the Strategy – this summary will be removed from the finalised document. 

 

Consultation Strategy

 

As part of the preparation for The Public Art Strategy and Public Art Master Plan, consultations were held with Lane Cove ALIVE Leadership Group; with Lane Cove ALIVE and local businesses; and with a group of locals active in the arts.  The feedback was positive and supportive from all of these groups.

 

In the public exhibition period, Council has received a number of comments and submissions. The comments were submitted via Council’s online survey instrument (13 people viewed and 5 submitted comments – one of which did not seem to be a comment on the Public Art Strategy) and also via specifically written submissions (5).

 

The majority of the comments (7) were positive about The Public Art Strategy and Public Art Master Plan. The issues raised are summarised below:

 

Comments

1.         (a)        Plaza and Public Art two separate issues and Plaza upgrade should not be funded                         from Public Art funds

      (b)        Would like see public art in Lane Cove – including outside the shopping centre                        area

2.         Congratulates Council on utilising someone of the calibre of Richard Goodwin;  would like             to see children involved in public art and would like to be involved in the Public Art Advisory Committee

3.         Proposals comprehensive – suggests that care should be taken to ensure that the Plaza             is still enjoyed by all; Bandstand could become more serviceable but needs to be             protected; The water feature MUST have a healthy ongoing maintenance budget

4.         Public Art should be child –friendly and interactive

5.         Congratulates Council on the Strategy document – recommends the addition of Bicycle             racks to the strategy – examples supplied

6.         The Lane Cove ALIVE submission – which commends Richard Goodwin on the breadth of             vision in the Plan; suggests that the Robert Woodward water feature be given first priority;             comments that public art will assist in the revitalisation of the Village.

7.         Thanking Council for the opportunity to be involved in the process and hoping that Council             can implement some of the ideas – including the design for the fountain.

 

The two negative comments are summarised below:-

 

One resident commented that she suggested a very limited commitment if at all, with a probationary period to allow a cut off if there is strong adverse community reaction.

 

The Lane Cove Music and Cultural Association have submitted their comments and have requested that their comments be attached to the Report (attachment 1). Their comments can be summarised by the sentence – “whilst supporting the concept of “Public Art” within any community, we would like to stress that implementation must be a second priority to the long awaited “improvements to existing cultural facilities”.

 

Council is preparing to workshop the Cultural Needs study in December, 2009.

 

Public Domain Master Plan

 

Council has delayed the exhibition of the Public Domain Master Plan until after the opening of the Market Square Development. The major impact at this time has been that the Plaza redevelopment has been delayed until the Master Plan has been adopted by Council.

 

One of the possible impacts of the delay of the Public Domain Master Plan exhibition is the possibility that the Library forecourt (Library Square) refurbishment cannot be fully planned until the adoption of the Plan. Council requested funding from the last round of the Federal Infrastructure funds to assist with the upgrade of the area. It is intended that the area would be upgraded after the Library refurbishment is completed. Areas for seating and for some additional tree planting have been discussed. While the Master Plan had only brief outlines of what should be installed – any design would need to keep in mind the overall intent of the Public Domain Master Plan.

 


Art Hanging Project - Banners

 

Council has trialed one of the ideas of the Public Art Master Plan with the installation of hanging banners at the Community Centre. These banners utilised the pictures from the annual Captured Photography competition. Feedback from residents has been positive about the banners. It is intended that Council consider a quarterly or six-monthly change of the banners.

 

Lane Cove ALIVE have suggested that banners also be included in the Plaza – with the dual purpose of enhancing space and promoting local events. Council may wish to further consider this when it assesses the opportunities for the Public Domain Master Plan.

 

Street Furniture

 

One of the recommendations of the Public Art Strategy and Public Art Master Plan was that Council consider commissioning street furniture – p.30. The recommendation was made for the Burns Bay Road area, but the idea of Lane Cove specific street furniture is applicable throughout the Village area.  One of the comments on the Plan suggested that bicycle racks also be included. Council may also consider the inclusion of bollards.

 

It would be feasible for Council to hold a design competition for street furniture – seats, benches, bicycle racks and bollards. Lane Cove ALIVE have also as part of their comments wrote that they would support this concept. It is suggested that Council hold such a design competition in the first quarter of 2010.

 

Woodward Fountain

 

The most expensive commission recommended in the Public Art Strategy and Public Art Master Plan was for the Water Sculpture at the western end of the Plaza. Richard Goodwin suggests that this Fountain be designed by local artist – Robert Woodward. Robert Woodward is an internationally renowned architect/sculptor whose works include the El Alamein Fountain; the Fountain sculpture at New South Wales Parliament House; the Convention Centre Water Feature at Darling Harbour, and the Forecourt and Senate Entry Fountains at the new Parliament House in Canberra. He has designed numerous fountains around the world. The estimate for this work is $350,000 (ex GST) – it is anticipated that Council may choose to look at sponsorship for this project to be brought to fruition.

 

In the interim, Council might wish to commence discussions with Robert Woodward about the process of commissioning him to design such a fountain. The first step in this process would be the detailed design of the fountain. Once the design is obtained, Council would then have the required information to more accurately determine the funding required. In addition the design could be provided for the next stage of the Public Domain Master Plan to ensure that any design was compatible with the redesign of the Plaza.

 

Conclusion

 

This Report recommends that Council adopt the Public Art Strategy and Public Art Master Plan developed by Richard Goodwin Pty Ltd. There are many options available to Council to pursue within the Plan. The following priorities are put forward for Councils consideration:-

 

·     Commence discussions with Robert Woodward about designing a fountain for the Plaza – with a view to commissioning him to prepare detailed drawings for the fountain.

·     Continue the banner hanging project at the Lane Cove Community Centre – with at least one additional banner hanging project before June 2010.

·     Investigate the potential for a public design competition for street furniture – seats; benches; bicycle racks and bollards.

 

There is an amount of $40,000 available in the 2009/2010 budget to facilitate the above works to be undertaken.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.         Adopt the Draft Lane Cove Public Art Strategy and Public Art Master Plan dated     April 2009.

 

2.         Commence discussions with Robert Woodward about designing a fountain for the Plaza           with a view to commissioning him to prepare detailed drawings for the fountain.

 

3.         Continue the Banner Hanging Project at the Lane Cove Community Centre with at least one             additional banner hanging project before June 2010.

 

4.         Investigate the potential for a public design competition for street furniture - seats; benches;             bicycle racks and bollards.

 

 

 

 

 

Jane  Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Response to Public Art Strategy Document from Lane Cove Music and Cultural Association

1 Page