m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

21 March 2011

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 in the Council Chambers on Monday 21 March 2011 commencing at 7:00pm. 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 the Government Information (Public Access)  Act 2009, 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 21 March 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

 

public forum

 

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

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 7 MARCH 2011

 

 

Orders Of The Day

 

2.       Order Of The Day No. 4

SUBJECT: Citizenship Ceremony - Wednesday 13th April 2011

 

3.       Order Of The Day No. 5

SUBJECT: Council and Committee Meeting Schedule - April 2011   

 

 

Notices of Motion

 

4.       Notice of Motion No. 10

SUBJECT: Deferring of Infrastructure Levy

 

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Reports

 

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

SUBJECT: Street Lighting Update - New Energy Australia Luminaires

 

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

SUBJECT: Request to Purchase Unmade Road - 2 Richard Street, Greenwich

 

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

SUBJECT: Request to Purchase Unmade Road - Garling Street, Lane Cove West

 

8.       Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 9

SUBJECT: Mowbray Road Precinct - Traffic & Bushfire Emergency Evacuation  

 

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2011

Order Of The Day No. 4

 

 

Reference:    Order Of The Day No. 4

Subject:          Citizenship Ceremony - Wednesday 13th April 2011    

Record No:    SU28 - 9507/11

Author(s):       Millie  Stephen 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A Citizenship Ceremony will be held in the Lane Cove Council Chamber on Wednesday 13 April 2011 commencing at 7pm when the Mayor will present Australian Citizenship Certificates.

 

A Councillor is required to attend the Ceremony and speak to new citizens about Local Government.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That a Councillor nominate to attend the Citizenship Ceremony on 13 April, and speak to new citizens about Local Government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2011

Order Of The Day No. 5

 

 

Reference:    Order Of The Day No. 5

Subject:          Council and Committee Meeting Schedule - April 2011 

    

Record No:    SU1915 - 9808/11

Author(s):       Kirsty Fleming 

 

 

 

The Council and Committee Meeting Schedule for April 2011 is proposed as follows:-

 

April                             2          Inspection Committee

 

April                             4          Ordinary Council

                                                Planning and Building Committee

                                                Services and Resources Committee

 

April                             18        Ordinary Council

                                                Planning and Building Committee

                                                Services and Resources Committee

 

April                             30        Inspection Committee

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council and Committee Meeting Schedule for April 2011 be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2011

Notice of Motion No. 10

 

 

Reference:    Notice of Motion No. 10

Subject:          Deferring of Infrastructure Levy    

Record No:    SU4162 - 9818/11

Author(s):       Councillor Ian  Longbottom 

 

 

 

I believe that Lane Cove residents are becoming "taxed out". Of recent times we have been told of an impending Flood/Cyclone Tax and a Carbon Tax. Both of these taxes will impact on many of the residents of our Municipality. We do know that the Carbon Tax will increase the cost of most goods consumed and will have major impacts on residents.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council defer its proposed Infrastructure Levy consultation process for two years so that residents may ascertain the impact on them of the two new Federal Government imposed taxes before the implementation of a new Council "tax."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Ian  Longbottom

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

    


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2011

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 6

 

 

Reference:    Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 6

Subject:          Street Lighting Update - New Energy Australia Luminaires    

Record No:    SU2432 - 9544/11

Author(s):       Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

EnergyAustralia has written to all council General Managers in the last few days regarding pricing of the 32W CFL luminaire.  EnergyAustralia is seeking council agreement to its pricing proposal to speed up the Australian Energy Regulator's (AER) pricing approval process. 

 

On balance, the SSROC Street Lighting Improvement (SLI) Program recommends that councils accept this proposal as the most effective way to secure earlier reductions in prices as well as energy and green-house gas (GHG) savings.  Without council support a full AER pricing review would be required, delaying the introduction of this energy efficient lighting choice by a further 

6 - 12 months. 

 

Background

 

In mid-2010, EnergyAustralia proposed replacing the remaining twin 20W fluorescent lights with energy efficient alternatives of either CFL or T5 lighting.  Almost all councils nominated the 32W CFL and 42W CFL luminaires as their preferred defaults.

 

Following requests by the SSROC SLI Program, EnergyAustralia is offering the 32W CFL as the default luminaire for all areas where councils are seeking to meet the minimum level of lighting in the Australian Standard (called P5 and applying to areas with wooden distribution poles).  These areas constitute the vast bulk of residential roadway lighting on EnergyAustralia's network and encompass not just areas with old fluorescent lighting but also the replacement of any old high pressure sodium and mercury vapour lighting that reaches the end of its economic life.  The 42W CFL, the current default luminaire in all LGAs, will remain the default for all residential areas with underground supply where Australian Standard P4 is the minimum accepted lighting level.

 

Discussion

 

The 32W CFL price requires referral to the Australian Energy Regulator for approval as this luminaire is not on the current pricing list.  Pricing for the 42W CFL was approved by the AER in the pricing review completed in April 2010.

 

Councillors should note that as of 1 March 2011, EnergyAustralia’s network company has been renamed Ausgrid. It is the network company that provides all street lighting services to councils apart from retail energy supply. Council’s retail energy supply is currently provided by Momentum Energy until 30 June 2013.

 

Conclusion

 

The SSROC SLI Program recommends that councils accept EnergyAustralia's pricing proposal on the following basis:-

 

1.    Lower Costs Compared to 42W CFL - While the proposed capital and maintenance costs of the 32W CFL are identical to those of the 42W CFL, the 21% lower energy consumption of the 32W CFL results in lower estimated total charges for councils of approximately $4.44/luminaire/year.  This estimated saving varies slightly with the particular energy contract that councils are on.

 

2.    21% Energy & GHG Savings - As per above, the 32W CFL uses 21% less energy than the current default, the 42W CFL, and hence its use results in 21% lower GHG emissions. See technical data from Sylvania Lighting on the 32W CFL, provided as Attachment 1.

 

3.    Equivalent Compliance Distance - The 32W CFL complies with AS1158 P5 over more than 80m in typical roadway geometries, the same distance achieved by the 42W CFL.  SSROC sought independent confirmation of this equivalent performance from the luminaire manufacturer, Sylvania Lighting, which is shown in Attachment 1.

 

4.    Council Support May Facilitate Rapid AER Approval - Without Council support a full AER pricing review would be required lasting at least 6 months and possibly 12 months.  Given that the AER has only recently completed a detailed review for the 42W CFL, it appears highly unlikely that the AER would reach a fundamentally different view on pricing than that proposed by EnergyAustralia as the luminaire is identical to the 42W CFL luminaire in almost all respects except lamp choice.  In the interim, the delay caused by a full AER pricing review would result in many thousands of 42W CFL luminaires being installed where 32W CFLs would suffice.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.    Accept the EnergyAustralia (Ausgrid) pricing proposal for 32W CFL luminaire; and

2.    Write to the AER and SSROC advising them of our decision to accept the EnergyAustralia (Ausgrid) pricing proposal for 32W CFL luminaire.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Sylvania Lighting Letter

4 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2011

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 7

 

 

Reference:    Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 7

Subject:          Request to Purchase Unmade Road - 2 Richard Street, Greenwich    

Record No:    SU1691 - 9695/11

Author(s):       Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The owner of 2 Richard Street, Greenwich has made a request to purchase a portion of Richard Street that adjoins their property.

 

It is unclear at this point whether the subject land is owned by Council or is Crown Land, under the care and control of Council. Council would need to undertake further investigations through the Department of Lands to ascertain the legal status of the land.

 

In the interim, Council could consider leasing the land to the owner of 2 Richard Street, for a period of up to 5 years or until such time that the status of the road is clear. The proposed lease could allow the owner to undertake landscape modifications, within limits imposed by Council.

 

Council could then determine, at a future date, whether there would be any benefit in selling the land to the owner of 2 Richard Street.

 

Background

 

A request has been received from Duncan Cotterill Lawyers, on behalf of the owner of 2 Richard Street, Greenwich, who wishes to accept responsibility for the parcel of Council land adjoining their property.  The resident has the intention of properly landscaping and maintaining the area.

 

The letter from Duncan Cotterill Lawyers and a sketch detailing the subject land are provided as AT-1. The owner has stated an intention to purchase the land, and is happy to accept any condition that requires the landscaping to not exceed the height of the adjoining hedge, thereby preserving existing views.

 

Discussion

 

Initial investigations into the status of the subject parcel of Richard Street identified that it was created prior to 1920. Some roads created prior to 1920 may not be public roads that can be closed under the Roads Act 1993. If the road has not been dedicated to Council, then Council will need to consult with the Department of Lands prior to taking action for the dedication of the road under the Roads Act 1993.

 

Council will need to undertake further investigations before identifying whether the subject parcel of Richard Street is dedicated Council public road. Once this is known, a further report will be tabled for Council’s consideration on any possible closure of, and subsequent sale of the road.

 

In the interim, Council may wish to consider providing a lease of the land to the owner of 2 Richard Street, for a period up to 5 years. This will allow the owner to undertake landscape works, as agreed to by Council, whilst further research is undertaken on any future sale.

 

 


Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

Should Council wish to proceed with any possible sale, then the consultation process to be followed would be in accordance with the Department of Lands guidelines. Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with a land sale as per the requirements of the Department of Lands. This would be determined when a follow up report is tabled for Council’s consideration.

 

However, in the interim, if Council wishes to proceed with a lease of the subject land, then it is considered that minimal community consultation is required. Council could notify other nearby landowners and the Greenwich Community Association of the decision to provide a short-term lease.

 

Further in-depth consultation would take place if any future road closure and sale is considered by Council.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Form of Participation

Targeted

Target Audience

Adjoining landowners and the Greenwich Community Association

Proposed Medium

Letterbox drop

 

Indicative Timing

Within 2 weeks.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.    Council commence discussions with the land owners of 2 Richard Street with respect to a short-term lease arrangement of that section of road reserve in Richard Street, requested for purchase.

2.    A report come back to Council after the land title status of Richard Street has been determined, to assist Council in the consideration of any future sale of the subject parcel of road reserve.

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Request Purchasing Parcel of Land Adjacent to the Richard Street Pavement

2 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2011

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 8

 

 

Reference:    Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 8

Subject:          Request to Purchase Unmade Road - Garling Street, Lane Cove West    

Record No:    SU4043 - 9875/11

Author(s):       Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The owner of 48 Garling Street, Lane Cove West has made a request to purchase a portion of Garling Street that adjoins their property.

 

It is unclear at this point whether the subject land is owned by Council or is Crown Land, under the care and control of Council. Council would need to undertake further investigations through the Department of Lands to ascertain the legal status of the land.

 

In the interim, Council could consider leasing the land to the owner of 48 Garling Street Street, for a period of up to 5 years or until such time that the status of the road is clear. The proposed lease could allow the owner to undertake modifications to allow off-street parking, within limits imposed by Council.

 

Council could then determine, at a future date, whether there would be any benefit in selling the land to the owner of 48 Garling Street, and possibly other adjoining landowners.

 

Background

 

A request has been received from the owner of 48 Garling Street to purchase the adjoining road reserve to allow for the provision of off-street parking for guests/visitors.  In addition to the owner of 48 Garling St, there are two adjoining land owners who may be interested in a short-term lease.

 

The resident has stated that off-street parking in Barwon Road is limited, making it difficult for visitors / tradespeople to find nearby off-street parking. The adjoining unformed road area in Garling Street is currently used by the visitors / tradespeople, but during times of wet weather, vehicles can become stuck. The resident’s correspondence is provided as AT-1.  The other matters raised in the correspondence have been addressed separately.

 

Council does not have any intention of providing for parking in the unmade section of Garling Street as it is of low priority and no funds are available.

 

Discussion

 

Initial investigations into the status of the subject parcel of Garling Street identified that it was created prior to 1920. Some roads created prior to 1920 may not be public roads that can be closed under the Roads Act 1993. If the road has not been dedicated to Council, then Council will need to consult with the Department of Lands prior to taking action for the dedication of the road under the Roads Act 1993.

 

Council will need to undertake further investigations before identifying whether the subject parcel of Garling Street is dedicated Council public road. Once this is known, a further report will be tabled for Council’s consideration on any possible closure of, and subsequent sale of the road.

 

In the interim, Council may wish to consider providing a lease of the land for a period up to 5 years. This will allow the lessee to undertake some works that would allow for off-street parking, as agreed to by Council, whilst further research is undertaken on any future sale.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.    Council commence discussions with the adjoining land owners with respect to a short-term lease arrangement of that section of road reserve in Garling Street, adjoining 48 Garling St.

2.    A further report be tabled after the land title status of Garling Street has been determined, to assist Council in the consideration of any future sale of the subject parcel of road reserve.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Excerpt from Correspondence 48 Garling Street

1 Page

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2011

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 9

 

 

Reference:    Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 9

Subject:          Mowbray Road Precinct - Traffic & Bushfire Emergency Evacuation    

Record No:    SU4043 - 9882/11

Author(s):       Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove LEP 2010 was gazetted in February 2010. The gazetted LEP included the rezoning of the area bounded by Mowbray Road, Centennial Avenue, Batten Reserve and Willandra Street, now commonly referred to as the Mowbray Road Precinct, to high density residential, R4. The rezoning of this area was performed by the Department of Planning (DoP), against the resolution of Council.

 

Council strongly reinforced its view regarding the Mowbray Rd Precinct by resolving to seek a downzoning of the Precinct at its meeting of t6 December 2010.

 

Council Officers have since met with the DoP on 12 December to convey the resolution to downzone the area.  The documentation required to be submitted to the Department’s LEP Gateway panel was subsequently prepared following further discussions with the DoP in February-early March 2011.  It is to be submitted at a meeting set for next Tuesday 22 March.  This is the earliest possible date as Council had to take into account changes to the NSW Standard LEP, only announced on 25 February this year.

 

One of the key issues with the increased development is the precincts proximity to bushland and the associated Bush Fire Risks.  In response to concerns raised by the Rural Fire Service through the Joint Regional Planning Panel process of reviewing development applications for the Mowbray Road Precinct, the DoP engaged a consultant, Urbanhorizon Pty Ltd, to prepare the “Lane Cove Bushfire Accessibility” report.  A Final Report, dated March 2011, is provided as AT-1.

 

Council staff are concerned that this report is completely lacking in any meaningful research or analysis on the traffic implications and bushfire emergency evacuation procedures that will be required as a result of the DoP’s decision to rezone the Mowbray Road Precinct, to high density residential, R4 through Council’s Lane Cove LEP 2010.

 

Unless the State Government, DoP, or Rural Fire Service ensure a more meaningful study is undertaken immediately, Council and the local community will be left to deal with a possible catastrophic event in the Mowbray Road Precinct should a significant bushfire occur.

 

It is proposed that Council undertake significant lobbying of the responsible government authorities and political parties for urgent attention to be given to this matter, and for a meaningful study to be undertaken on the traffic implications and bushfire emergency evacuation procedures required for the Mowbray Road Precinct as a matter of urgency.

 

Background

 

The result of the Mowbray Road Precinct rezoning by the Minister of Planning is that the area could be redeveloped with up to 2500 additional dwellings (when a FSR of 2.1:1 is applied; about 1800 additional dwellings with an FSR of 1.5:1) in addition to the existing flats there.  As a result of this, Council requested from the DoP any background study information that they had used to determine the application of these FSR’s for the Mowbray Road Precinct. The Department was not forthcoming with any information.

 

Following the rezoning, developers began to lodge significant applications to construct apartments (high density residential) with a capital investment value over $10 million. As of 1 February 2011, Council had received the following applications for within the Mowbray Road Precinct:-

 

1.         532-534 Mowbray Road and 72-74 Gordon Crescent;

2.         544-550 Mowbray Road;

3.         554-560 Mowbray Road;

4.         9-13 Mindarie Street (not for JRPP); and

5.         31-39 Mindarie Street.

 

These proposals account for over 250 apartments and were referred to the Joint Regional Planning Panel (other than 9-13 Mindarie Street). During this process, the Rural Fire Service (RFS) required that they would not be in a position to provide comment or their sign off, until a traffic assessment was provided for the whole precinct.

 

This requirement for a traffic assessment was referred by Council to the DoP in late 2010. In January 2011, the DoP issued a draft document to Council that called for tenders to prepare a “Mowbray Road Traffic Assessment”. In the main, this tender brief required a suitably qualified consultant to undertake a traffic assessment to determine whether the existing road infrastructure can support the planned increase in population density in this area.”

 

Council pointed out to the DoP that this draft document did not address the bushfire emergency evacuation issue for the Mowbray Road Precinct. From this, the DoP somehow managed to morph the brief and remove the need for the traffic assessment based on the increased population density and only required “comment on the suitability of the current road network to cater for vehicular movement during a bushfire given planned increases in density provided for in the Lane Cove LEP 2010” and “recommend appropriate vehicular access changes or emergency access requirements.”

 

This highlights the fact that the DoP is either ignorant to the obvious serious traffic implications that will occur in the Mowbray Road Precinct and adjoining street network as a result of the significant increase in dwellings and population density, or that it is another example of a State Government department offloading its responsibility to local government. Subsequent correspondence from the Department’s representative appears to indicate the latter.

 

Discussion below will further highlight the indifference of the DoP and RFS to the major traffic implications and bushfire emergency evacuation issues as a result of accepting the “Lane Cove Bushfire Accessibility-Final Report, dated March 2011” that was prepared by Urbanhorizon Pty Ltd. This report has been found by Council staff (and others) to be totally inadequate at addressing the real issues and simply attempts to transfer the responsibility for undertaking the necessary studies to account for an emergency evacuation of large scale proportions in the event of a bushfire in Batten Reserve to Council.

 

Discussion

 

After considerable input from numerous Council staff in preparing a meaningful brief, the Department of Planning chose a company called Urbanhorizon Pty Ltd to undertake the “Lane Cove Bushfire Accessibility” study. It would appear from correspondence from the DoP that no tender or expressions of interest process was used in selecting Urbanhorizon Pty Ltd for this study.  

 

Based on the Final Report provided to Council, it is questionable if this company was qualified to undertake a study of such importance, and that will have serious ramifications on the potentially significant numbers of people that could end up living in the Mowbray Road Precinct.

 

In the main, the report regurgitates requirements straight from the Rural Fire Service “Planning for Bushfire Protection, 2006” document. The report makes no meaningful conclusions, other than requiring Council’s Emergency Management Committee to update its’ Displan, with involvement from the RFS.

 

The report states a potential for 1200-1500 potential dwellings in the rezoned area (based only on the Department based growth data). However, based on Council’s data, the potential dwelling size could be up to 2500 apartments. This would create significantly more traffic than that identified in the Urbanhorizon report. Without any justification, the Urbanhorizon report states the additional 4800-6000 trips per day is “not considered a threat to RFS access and operation during a fire event”. However, the report goes on to state that “the increased volume of traffic and parking in the precinct may increase delays in the event of an evacuation.”  The two statements contradict each other, both without any factual quantification of the problem. There is no discussion of the significant traffic movements that occur on both Mowbray Road and Centennial Avenue (Regional Roads). There is no discussion about the gradients or narrowness of Girraween Road, Kullah Parade, Mindarie Street or Willandra Street. There is no discussion about how Elizabeth Parade would be used in the event of a bushfire. In fact, there is little discussion about any of the major traffic issues that would occur in the event of a bushfire emergency evacuation of the Mowbray Road Precinct.

 

It is incredible that the author of the report then has the audacity to conclude with the statement:-

 

“Any supplementary traffic investigation will need to be undertaken in a manner that does not delay development assessment and approval in the precinct.”

 

Further to the traffic comments (or lack thereof) made in the report, Urbanhorizon also has provided some less than constructive comments to make in relation to how Council could reduce the fire risk in Batten Reserve, and improve the RFS accessibility and operations. The suggestions made by the author include:-

·     Removing lower limbs of trees abutting the southern side of Gordon Crescent and Kullah Parade up to a height of 4 metres above the ground;

·     Reducing the tree canopy cover in Batten Reserve to between 15% and 30% (This is not a misprint, the author is definitely telling Council that we should seriously consider removing up to 85% of the tree canopy for the whole of Batten Reserve. This would definitely negate any bushfire risk. In fact, this would result in virtually the total removal of the bushland from Batten Reserve, and would definitely ensure the area is no longer bushfire prone land and be in direct conflict with SEPP 19 and other bushland protection legislation; and

·     Mowing the understorey of Batten Reserve along the southern side of Gordon Crescent and Kullah Parade. (Again, it must be pointed out that this is not a misprint. The author does not stop at mowing the grass, but any understorey along the south side of the road carriageway. With the 85% removal of tree canopy and mowing the understorey, Council would struggle to retain 10% of the existing bush reserve.)

 

These suggestions may satisfy the RFS Asset Protection Zones requirements and the needs of the developers in undertaking residential developments in Gordon Crescent and Kullah Parade, but they are ludicrous in the context of what this report was required to investigate, analyse and make recommendations on.

 

Batten Reserve is a highly valued community asset.  Bush regeneration has been actively undertaken in the area for over 40 years and as well as its innate value to our community it is an acknowledged wildlife corridor.  Council and community would not accept such environmental vandalism as an option.

 

In all, Council staff have reviewed the Urbanhorizon report and find it to be completely unsatisfactory and an insult to the Council and Lane Cove community. It not only provides no meaningful analysis of the real issue of bushfire emergency evacuation of the Mowbray Road Precinct, but it is suggested that the conclusions have been written to simply allow the DoP and the RFS to tick boxes and allow the substantial overdevelopment of the area to be moved along.

 

Of real concern is that if this report is accepted by DoP and possibly the RFS in progressing the high density residential development in the Mowbray Road Precinct, then Council and the Lane Cove community will be left with a seriously unaddressed bushfire emergency evacuation issue.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to inform the community of Council’s stance and major concerns on the Lane Cove Bushfire Accessibility report prepared by Urbanhorizon Pty Ltd, particularly relating to the unaddressed bushfire emergency evacuation issue.  It is also designed to notify the State Government and the Opposition of Council’s major concerns in this respect.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Form of Participation

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Proposed Medium

Press release, E-newsletter and Website information

Indicative Timing

Immediate, and for as long as required

 

Conclusion

 

The Urbanhorizon report only serves to reinforce that council was correct in its intial decision in 2008 not to seek significant upzponing of this area of the Mowbray Road Precinct.  It serves also to reinformce council’s decision in December 2010 to seek a downzoning of the current R4 zone. 

 

The total inadequacy of the research and analysis undertaken both prior to and since this enforced rezoning by the DoP and the serious implications particularly by bushfire, need to be urgently highlighted to the Premier and Opposition Leader.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.    Write to the Premier and Opposition Leader:-

a)    Detailing Council’s deep concerns regarding the totally inadequate research and analysis that was undertaken prior to and since this enforced rezoning with respect to traffic, bushfire including emergency evacuation and environmental implications.

b)    Requesting the urgent funding needed for the necessary expert reports required should the incoming State Government insist on maintaining the current zoning, and

c)    Implore the incoming State Government to treat Council’s request for a downzoning of this section of the Mowbray Road Precinct as a matter of extreme urgency.

2.    Issue a press release highlighting the above issues and in particular the shortfalls of the Urbanhorizons report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Urbanhorizon Lane Cove Bushfire Accessibility Final Report

22 Pages