m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

6 June 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 6 June 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 6 June 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 - 16 MAY 2011

 

Referred Reports FROM Inspection Committee - 4 June 2011

 

2.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 20

SUBJECT: 11 Cullen Street, Lane Cove

 

Orders Of The Day

 

3.       Order Of The Day No. 10

SUBJECT: Australian Citizenship Ceremony - Wednesday 29 June 2011

 

General Managers Reports

 

4.       General Managers Report No. 8

SUBJECT: Tender for Meeting House Redevelopment

 

5.       General Managers Report No. 11

SUBJECT: Moving to Electronic Distribution of Council News (Quarterly Newsletter)

 

Corporate Services Division Reports

 

6.       Corporate Services Division Report No. 25

SUBJECT: Review of Council and Committee Meetings

 

7.       Corporate Services Division Report No. 27

SUBJECT: Constitutional Recognition of Local Government

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Reports

 

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

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

 

9.       Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 18

SUBJECT: Lane Cove Country Club - Fees and Charges

 

Environmental Services Division Reports

 

10.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 21

SUBJECT: Draft Sustainable Events Policy  

 

 

 

 

             


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 June 2011

Environmental Services Division Report No. 20

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 20

Subject:          11 Cullen Street, Lane Cove

Inspection Committee after considering this matter referred this Report to the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on the 06 June 2011.   

Record No:    DA11/14-01 - 17807/11

Author(s):       Michael Mason 

 

 

Background

 

Council at it’s meeting of 2 May 2011 resolved:-

 

“….the matter be referred to mediation.”

 

A copy of the original report is attached (AT-1).

 

Attached as AT-2 is correspondence from the applicant declining the offer of mediation at this time.  As such the application is referred to full Council for determination.

 

All affected parties will be advised by phone prior to this meeting.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council determine the application.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Copy of Environmental Services Division Report No. 77

13 Pages

AT‑2 View

Letter from Vanessa Wegner, Architect, dated 6 May 2011

1 Page

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 June 2011

Order Of The Day No. 10

 

 

Reference:    Order Of The Day No. 10

Subject:          Australian Citizenship Ceremony - Wednesday 29 June 2011    

Record No:    SU28 - 18101/11

Author(s):       Millie  Stephen 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

An Australian Citizenship ceremony will be held in the Council Chambers on Wednesday 29 June, 2011 commencing at 7.00pm 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 29 June 2011 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 6 June 2011

General Managers Report No. 8

 

 

Reference:    General Managers Report No. 8

Subject:          Tender for Meeting House Redevelopment    

Record No:    SU4387 - 21781/11

Author(s):       Tony Fazio 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council called for tenders in accordance with Council’s Tender and Quotation Procedure for building construction works for the redevelopment of Meeting House, 23-27 Stokes Street Lane Cove.  This report provides details on the tender process conducted and recommends that the tender from Platinum Projects Australia Pty Ltd be accepted.

 

Background

 

The Meeting House Redevelopment is one of the projects highlighted in Council’s Major Projects Strategic Management Plan. The existing centre which was vacated early in 2011 has been operating for over 30 years. The centre has been providing a range of neighbourhood oriented bus, community and child care services highly valued by both Council and the community. As Council is aware, service expansion to meet the changing needs of the community and organisational sustainability could not be met from the existing aging residential buildings whose space constraints severely limit the type of services offered. Council’s Social Plan identified the continued need for Meeting House to provide improved neighbourhood services and listed as critical the need for further long day care places for 0-2 year olds.

 

In August 2006, Council resolved to proceed with the redevelopment of Meeting House to provide the much needed and improved facilities. Council entered into a three (3) stage contract with Malone Campbell Allen (MCA) Architects to redevelop the facility based on Council’s specific detailed requirements.

 

The first stage concluded with the issue of the development consent for a mixed-use (residential flat building, child care centre and community meeting rooms and community kitchen) development. The second stage of the redevelopment is the current tender process the conclusion of which will see the appointment of a builder to undertake the building works, subject to Council approval. The third stage of the redevelopment is subject to Council entering into a contract with the recommended Tenderer for the construction of the facility.

 

Once completed, the new Community Centre increases the available spaces for 2-5 year olds, and allows simultaneous access to multiple groups. The two new meetings rooms plus a Consulting Room will double the centre’s meeting room capacity to 50 persons. Bigger spaces and better access for the aged and disabled also create opportunities to offer a wider choice of community centred activities.

 

The new Child Care facility effectively triples the centre’s current capacity by offering 40 places across three developmental groups. For the first time the centre can offer 0-2 year olds placement meeting the needs identified in the Social Plan.

 

A purpose built centre, with bigger meeting spaces, better access, recreation and playground facilities are essential to help the Meeting House to build the programs and services that support the identified needs and well-being of Lane Cove residents, thereby enriching and enhancing the community within which it operates.

 


Discussion

 

The tender documentation was prepared by MCA Architects with valuable input by Council officers. The general conditions of tendering clearly stated that the tender submissions would be assessed based on the following weighted criteria:-

 

Tender Price 40%:- Based on the Tender Price and schedule of rates provided in the mandatory returnable schedules. The bids were scored based on a pro rata difference in prices submitted, with the lowest price receiving 40 points. 

 

Track record of tenderer, including experience with Government projects to undertake building construction for similar type and scale of projects in the past 5 years 15%:- Refers to the experience of the tenderer and its personnel, including management and supervision, the experience of any sub-contractors to be used in delivering projects of similar type and scale to the Meeting House Redevelopment project and being approximately $4 to $5 million in value. To achieve the maximum score the Tenderers were required to have relevant experience, positive reference checks, provide full details of personnel and equipment to carry out the work, management structure of the company and contingency plans to cover downtime and other unforseen circumstances. 

 

Financial Capability of the Tenderer to complete the project 10%:- 

 

To achieve the maximum score Tenderers were required to provide the returnable financial information schedule and the company’s financial statements incorporating the profit and loss statements and balance sheets for the preceding two (2) completed financial years. The tender documentation expressly stated that Council would commission” Corporate Scorecard” to assess the tenderers’ financial position and that the process formed a mandatory part of the tender evaluation. 

 

Technical skills of the consulting specific team personnel proposed for the project and their individual experience 10%:-

 

To achieve the maximum score Tenderers were required to provide the returnable schedules detailing the Tenderer’s authorised officer, key personnel indicating principal contacts, directors of the company, project managers, quantity surveyors and estimators, project managers, other key personnel and nominated subcontractors. The appropriate technical skills of all the above personnel are considered imperative to the successful completion of any project and more particularly of the Meeting House project.  

 

Construction Program proposed for the project including tailoring the sequence of activities and key milestones to ensure the project is completed on time...10%:-

 

To achieve the maximum score Tenderers were required to provide the construction program with key activities to ensure the project is completed on time. 

 

Proven Environmental and energy Sustainability performance outcomes including energy efficiency, water consumptions, waste management, material selection, biodiversity and indoor environment quality ...15%:-

 

All tenderers were required to provide details of the Environmental Policies and answer yes to all applicable questions in the Council’s Environmental Survey included in the returnable schedule, provide an Environmental Management Plan, OHS Management Plan and work method statements.  Tenderers who were accredited under the AS/NZS ISO 9001 Quality Management System, AS/NZS ISO14001 Environmental Management Systems and AS/NZS 4801:2001 Occupational Health and safety Management Systems received the maximum score. 

Council advertised the tender in the Sydney Morning Herald on 29th March, 2nd, 5th, 9th and 19th   April 2011, and in the North Shore Times on 30th March and 6th April 2011.  Thirty four (34) companies registered and collected the tender documentation. This is indicative of the highly competitive market at the time of tendering.  Tenders closed at 2.00pm on Tuesday, 10 May 2011 and Council received sixteen (16) valid tender submissions and three (3) late tender submissions. The late tender submissions as expressly indicated in the General Conditions of Tendering were not accepted and were therefore excluded from the tender evaluation.  During the tender advertising period, ten (10) tender notices were issued to all tenderers with the exception of one tenderer who did not supply sufficient details. Attempts were made to contact the tenderer but to no avail. The tender notices   provided clarification on the tender documentation and responses to questions raised by the tenderers.

 

The Tender Review Panel (TRP) was formed in accordance with clause 10.4 of Council’s Tender and Quotation Procedures. The TRP consisted of Council’s Manager - Special Projects (Chairperson) Tony Fazio, Manager – Governance, Ian Naylor and Executive Manager - Human Services, Jane Gornall. A representative of MCA Architects assisted the TRP in the tender evaluation process but only after signing a Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Agreement. Each tender was assessed based on the above weighted criteria and ranked accordingly:-

 

 

Tenderer /

Selection

Criteria

Price

Track

Record

Financial

Capability

Technical

Skills

Construction

program

Environmental

Considerations

Total

 

% Weighting

40

15

10

10

10

15

 

Arlington Property Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Armat  Construction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barbro Constuction

 

 

 

 

Eq Preferred

 

 

C and M Constructions

 

 

 

Eq Preferred

Eq Preferred

 

 

Denham Constructions

 

Preferred

 

Eq Preferred

 

 

 

Eco Fresh Solution

Preferred

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kane Constructions

 

 

 

Eq Preferred

 

 

 

Kinsley Constructions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Morabito Constructions

 

 

 

Eq Preferred

 

 

 

Nace Civil Engineering

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Platinum Projects

Australia

 

 

Preferred

Eq Preferred

 

 

Preferred

Project Corp

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reitsma  Construction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Simcar Constructions

 

 

 

Eq Preferred

 

Preferred

 

Structum

 

 

 

 

Eq Preferred

 

 

 

Walton Constructions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A confidential memorandum has been circulated separately to Councillors detailing the prices submitted by each tenderer, how each of the weighted criteria was assessed and details of the reference checks undertaken of the recommended tenderer.

 

To better assess and compare tender prices, an independent Quantity Surveyor’s  measured costing based on the tender documentation was obtained. The measured costing identified anomalies and distinct variations in the trade prices schedules submitted by the complying tenderers. The independent costing assessed the value of the construction costs for this project based on industry costing standards and is within approximately 10% of the median price of all the complying tenders received.

 

Eco Fresh Solution Pty Ltd submitted the lowest tender price which was 55 % lower than the independently measured tender price. Based on this the TRP consider the tender price in no way reflects the real cost of the project. The TRP was also concerned about the lack of detail in the tender response, the failure by the tenderer to lodge the construction program. 

 

The TRP determined that tender bid submitted by Platinum Projects Australia Pty Ltd represents the best value for Council. The financial assessment provided by Corporate Scorecard indicates that the company is trading in a profitable manner and that it has the capacity to complete the project satisfactorily. The preliminary construction program appears slightly longer than expected. During the interview with the TRP, the company’s representatives indicated that a shorter construction program may be achievable.   The reference checks indicate that the company has a satisfactory record and is recommended by the referees to undertake projects of this nature.

Probity Plan

Under the Probity Plan for the Meeting House Redevelopment, the Executive Manager, Corporate Services was authorised to act as the Probity Auditor under the Plan. The tendering process and the tender evaluation has been carried out in accordance with the Probity Plan.

 

Conclusion

Having recorded the highest score across all the weighted criteria and positive reference checks received about the quality and reliability of their work, the TRP recommends that:-

1.   The tender for the Meeting House Redevelopment  be awarded to Platinum Projects Australia Pty Ltd for an amount of $4,426,800 exclusive of GST but inclusive of the contingent items; and

2.   The General Manager be authorised to enter into contract and if possible negotiate a shortened construction program. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council consider the recommendation from the Tender Review Panel for the construction of the Meeting House Redevelopment Project.

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 June 2011

General Managers Report No. 11

 

 

Reference:    General Managers Report No. 11

Subject:          Moving to Electronic Distribution of Council News (Quarterly Newsletter)    

Record No:    SU1637 - 21885/11

Author(s):       Jenny  Smillie 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report provides advice to Council regarding the possibility of moving from hardcopy distribution of Council News (Quarterly Newsletter for residents) to electronic delivery.  The report recommends that Council authorise electronic delivery for the September 2011 issue, complemented by a reduced hard copy print run of 2000.  These hard copies would be available from the Lane Cove and Greenwich Libraries and Civic Centre.  The next issue (Number 67) is due out in June 2011.  Should Council agree to this proposition, a small article could be included in the June issue discussing the move to electronic (with limited hard copies) distribution.

 

Background

 

The Council News (Quarterly Newsletter) is currently an eight page A4 newsletter which reports on Council and community news and events each quarter.  The newsletter is printed on 100% recycled paper with vegetable based ink.

 

Currently the newsletter costs per quarter are:-

 

            Design and artwork approx                                                     $850

Printing 13,500 copies and crash fold to DL size                   $2,600

Letterbox delivery                                                                    $900

Total per quarter                                                                     $4,350

Total per year                                                                        $17,400

 

Discussion

 

There are several reasons for recommending Council News be distributed electronically.

 

Sustainability

 

Council would be seen to be making a sustainable choice by reducing the amount paper, power and water used in the printing process.

 

Efficiency

 

The delivery of the newsletter has been difficult to manage.  This is because the letterbox delivery is dependant on casual labour and sometimes the “walkers” are not totally reliable in terms of completing their areas and as their service is weather dependent, some delivery timeframes have stretched over many days.  Another factor was that Council News was often bundled with other commercial flyers and brochures which meant in some households it can find its way straight into the bin.  With electronic distribution, residents can elect to receive the newsletter by simply selecting Council News as an option in the e-newsletters section on Council’s website.  This process also means they receive the newsletter as a qualified email, not as spam. 

 


Reduced Cost

 

The cost of electronic distribution (and reduced hard copy distribution) would be as follows:-

 

Design and artwork approx                 $850

Printing 2,000 copies (approx)            $1200 (stapled + no crash folding)

Emailing                                              -------

Total per quarter                                 $2050

Total per year                                    $8200

 

It should also be noted that electronic distribution of the Council newsletter is common for regional councils and a growing trend for urban councils.  Hornsby Shire Council is currently in the process of moving across to an electronic only version of ‘The Bushland Shire News”, with its last hard copy version produced this Autumn.  North Sydney produces two hard copy editions of ‘North Sydney News’ (March and September) and approximately 10 e-newsletters.

 

 

Conclusion

 

A new approach of electronic / limited hard copy distribution of Council News has the benefit of being sustainable, efficient and less costly.  Given the Lane Cove community is generally supportive of sustainability initiatives and also have a high percentage of people online, it is recommended that Council commence electronic distribution of the Council News from September 2011.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council move to electronic / limited hard copy distribution of Council News, commencing with Spring edition, (September 2011) complemented by a reduced hard copy print run of 2000. 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 June 2011

Corporate Services Division Report No. 25

 

 

Reference:    Corporate Services Division Report No. 25

Subject:          Review of Council and Committee Meetings    

Record No:    SU828 - 13080/10

Author(s):       Ian  Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the results of a review into the structure and operation of Council and Committee Meetings.  It is recommended that Council determine if it wishes to trial from August 2011 the meeting cycle of one Ordinary Council meeting per month and no meeting of the Planning and Building Committee or Services and Resources Committee.

 

Background

 

Council staff have undertaken a review of the structure and efficiency of Council and Committee meetings as the existing meeting cycle was introduced in the early 1990’s and has not been reviewed for some time. The existing meeting cycle was introduced in a time where there was far less delegation to staff, in particular in relation to development applications and there was need for Councillors to discuss matters in further detail in formal committees.  A review has been undertaken to consider the impact of the following matters on the current meeting cycle:-

·     The significant reduction over the last 20 years in the number of development applications being considered by Council due to increased delegation of staff;

·     The introduction of the Public Forum and access to the Councillors via e-mail which has given the community further opportunities to express their views on Agenda Items;

·     The introduction of workshops which have given Councillors further opportunities to allow more in depth exploration of complex issues and presentations from staff, which had previously been undertaken at Committee Meetings;

·     Deadlines for decisions and determinations;

·     The Planning and Building Committee in recent years referring the vast majority of matters directly to the Inspection Committee; and

·     Matters for consideration by the Services and Resources Committee often being moved into the Council Meeting.

 

Discussion

 

The purpose of the review was to ascertain whether the current meeting cycle of two Council and Committee meetings per month is efficient and optimum, given the matters identified above.  The review revealed the following information on Council and Committee Meetings since the start of the most recent Council term in September 2008:-

·     On average Council considers 8 substantive matters per meeting;

·     The Planning and Building Committee has only met 21 times out of a possible 54 meetings, with the proportion of meetings decreasing during the current Council term;

·     The Public Forum on average accounts for 33% of each Council Meeting;

·     90% of Speakers during the Public Forum speak to matters on the Agenda; and

·     The average time for each Council Meeting is just over 2 hours.

 


In addition, in the last 12 months:-

·     The matters for consideration by the Services and Resources Committee has been moved into Council on 15 occasions out of 20 meetings; and

·     The Planning and Building Committee have considered 14 development applications, of which 10 were referred to the monthly Inspection Committee and 2 were deferred for mediation and submission of amended plans.

 

Development Applications

 

Development applications are referred to Council for determination for the following reasons:-

·     At the request of a Councillor;

·     The application has been previously considered by Council;

·     A review of a previous determination is required; or

·     The application is referred by the General Manager.

 

During the last 5 years, Council has granted greater delegation to staff to approve development applications and therefore the number of applications referred to Council for determination has decreased dramatically. This is highlighted by the Planning and Building Committee only meeting 21 times out of a possible 54 meetings during this current Council term. During the last 12 months the Planning and Building Committee have considered 14 development applications, of which 10 were referred directly to the monthly Inspection Committee and 2 were deferred for mediation and submission of amended plans. In addition, Council has considered 5 applications that were either previously considered by the Planning and Building Committee or were reviews of previous decisions.

 

Given the high proportion of applications that are referred to the Inspection Committee, it is recommended that this process could be streamlined by sending all development applications that require determination by Council to the monthly Inspection Committee.  The benefits of this would be that applications would be processed more quickly, as the time to make a decision would be reduced by up to 4 weeks (and not deferred from Planning and Building Committee to an Inspection Committee). In addition, all Councillors would be involved in the decision making process and administration, staff time and paper would be significantly reduced.

 

Services and Resources Committee Items

       

Currently, the Services and Resources Committee primarily consider matters relating to the Traffic Committee Agenda and Minutes, the General Managers Monthly Review and reports on Investments and Legal Expenses.  During the last 12 months the Services and Resources Committee has been moved into the Council Meeting 15 times out of 20 meetings.

 

With the introduction of the new integrated planning framework from 1 July 2011, Council’s Delivery and Operational Plan, Quarterly Budget reviews and General Managers Monthly Review should be considered by the full Council Meeting as they give the complete picture of Council’s services and how they are effectively managed within the allocated budgets.

 

This highlights that the need for a committee to discuss Council’s services in more detail is not really necessary.   Given this, it is recommended that the Traffic Committee Agenda and Minutes and the General Managers Monthly Review be reports considered by Council and that the reports on Investments and Legal Expenses be included as part of the General Managers Monthly Review.

 


Public Forum

 

Council resolved on 13 May 1996, to allow members of the public to address the 2nd Council Meeting of the month on any issue for a maximum of three minutes.  Council lists this item on its Agenda as the Public Forum. This was amended by Council on 17 December 2007, to allow members of the public to address any Council Meeting on any issue for a maximum of three minutes. The results of the review indicate that the Public Forum represents 33% of each Council Meeting and on average 40 minutes per meeting. Speakers at the Public Forum 90% of the time are speaking to items on the Agenda and in the main discussing development applications before Council.

 

The purpose of these resolutions was to ensure the community had an opportunity to make representations and put forward their view to Councillors so that these could be considered in the decision making process. Since this time, Council has increased the opportunity for the community to express their view on all matters through:- feedback forms on Council’s website, undertaking extensive community consultation on major projects and policies and informing the community of Council’s email address. In addition, members of the public can make representations to individual councillors using the e-mail addresses that are published on Council’s website.

 

In relation to development applications the community have the opportunity to express their views by:- making a submission during the neighbour notification period, speaking to a town planner,

e-mailing Council or Councillors and speaking at the Inspection Committee and Council Meeting.

The Executive considers that if Council was to change the meeting cycle this would not impact on the community’s opportunity to express their views on proposed developments.

 

Council Meeting

 

During the course of the review staff undertook an analysis of the business considered at the Council Meeting for this current term. The results of this analysis revealed that Council on average only considers 8 substantive matters per meeting and the average time to consider these matters is only 85 minutes. The duration of each Council Meeting is just over 2 hours with the Public Forum accounting for 40 minutes of this time.

 

These statistics although not indicating the complexity or importance of the issues considered by Council do not support the need for two meetings per month.  The number of items considered by Council has reduced over the years due to increased delegation to staff, the detailed information provided in the General Managers Monthly Review and the increased use of technology to easily disperse information by e-mail and on Council’s website.

 

Further, business at the Council Meeting could be streamlined by changing the format of the Agenda to list priority and major items first and information reports last. This would allow Council the option to move the information reports in bulk at the end of the meeting, if there was no debate on these items.  This is a common practice in other councils to deal with business in the most efficient way possible.

 

Workshops

 

From time to time Councillors attend workshops with staff to discuss emerging issues, major projects, changes in legislation and receive detailed presentations. When the current meeting cycle was introduced in the 1990’s this was the role of committees.  In recent years the need for workshops between Councillors and staff outside of the meeting cycle has increased dramatically. During the last 12 months, workshops have been held to discuss Lane Cove Listens, meet with local tennis clubs, to receive updates on major development projects and to discuss the implementation of new policies. There would be more opportunity for workshops if the current meeting cycle was reviewed. 

 

Deadlines for Decisions

 

The review also considered whether there would be any delays to decisions if the current meeting cycle was reviewed. In undertaking the review there was no evidence that deadlines would not be met if the meeting cycle was reviewed. While urgent items arise from time to time and can rarely be foreseen, it is recognised that the need for resolution of those items can also fall outside of the timing of the existing two meetings per month, and history has shown that the existing delegations or procedures have been able to resolve those situations when they have occurred.  Depending on the importance of the issue, the existing delegations to the Mayor allows matters to be dealt with between meetings and an Extraordinary Meeting of Council can also be called if necessary.

 

With respect to development applications, the Executive Manager – Environmental Services advised that if the meeting cycle was reviewed this would not effect deadlines for determinations and if applications are referred directly to the Inspection Committee, this could decrease the determination time by up to 4 weeks. In the case of applications that are deferred for mediation and/or submission of amended plans, a longer gap between meetings would allow for better consideration of changes by the applicant and Council staff.

 

Recommendations of the Review

 

The results of the review indicate that the amount of business currently being considered by Council does not support the need for two Council and Committee meetings per month. This is due to the fact that since 1990 Council has granted greater delegation to Staff, the number of development applications being considered by Council has dramatically reduced and the fact that in practice the majority of committee meetings are being moved into the Council meeting.

 

The review also indicated that a change to monthly Council meetings would have no impact on timeliness of decisions or the opportunity for members of the public to express their views on matters. In fact, the review revealed that by sending development applications directly to the monthly Inspection Committee and then to Council for determination it could reduce the decision making process by up to 4 weeks.

 

Given the results of the review, it is recommended to undertake a 6 month trial commencing in August 2011 of the following changes to the meeting cycle of Council and Committee meetings:-

 

1.      TheOrdinary Council meets once per month on 3rd Monday of each month. 

 

Meeting on 3rd Monday of each month would have the advantage of avoiding the current situation of meeting on Tuesdays when a public holiday falls on a Monday in June and October.  However, for December, due to Christmas, Council may wish to move this to the 1st Monday.  This change in the meeting cycle would also allow for earlier distribution of major and complex reports to Councillors so they would have more time to read and research on the topic of these reports.

 

2.      All development application requiring determination by Council be considered by the monthly Inspection Committee and then referred to Council.

 

3.      There be no meeting of the Planning and Building Committee for the trial period.

 

If all applications requiring a determination by Councillors are sent directly to the Inspection Committee, it is proposed to trial no meeting of the Planning and Building Committee and provide the information in the Delegated Authority report as part of the General Manager’s Monthly Review.

 

4.   There be no meeting of the Services and Resources Committee for the trial period.

 

It is recommended to trial no meeting of the Services and Resources Committee and provide the information on Legal Expenses and the Statement of Investment reports as part of the General Manager’s Monthly Review. The General Manager’s Monthly Review and the Traffic Committee Agenda and Minutes would then be reported directly to the Council Meeting.

 

5.   That if Council proceeds with the trial that the community be informed of these changes with an advertisement in the local newspaper, by e-newsletter and on Council’s website.

 

On balance therefore, the impact of holding one Ordinary Meeting per month is worthy of consideration, particularly as it will allow Councillors further opportunity to undertake their duties on the various Advisory Committees which Councillors serve on. If Council wishes to pursue the matter, it is recommended the trial be conducted commencing in August 2011.

 

 

Discussions with other Councils

 

Staff surveyed other councils to ascertain the meeting cycles of other metropolitan councils.  The survey revealed that seven councils have a meeting cycle of monthly council and standing committee meetings.  Of these Auburn Council have a monthly Council meeting only. Discussion with the staff at Auburn suggest the move in 2009 to monthly council meetings has been a success and the council has not experienced any time lag for reports following this change.

 

Conclusion

 

The review of Council and Committee Meetings shows that Council can consider moving to a monthly meeting cycle without impacting on the business of Council.  Since September 2008, the average number of substantive items per meeting is only 8 and there has been a significant reduction in development applications being considered with the Planning and Building Committee having only met 21 times out of a possible 54 meetings.  Council could achieve greater efficiency in development application decisions by referring applications directly to the Inspection Committee. Auburn Council’s move in the same direction has been a success. Therefore, it is suggested that Council undertake a 6 month trial of one Ordinary Council Meeting per month from August 2011 with for the trial period no meeting of the Planning and Building Committee and Services and Resources Committee and that the public be notified of this trial.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Trial for 6 months from August 2011, the meeting cycle of one Ordinary Council meeting per month to be held on the second Monday of the month.

2.   Trial for 6 months from August 2011, no meeting of the Planning and Building Committee and Services and Resources Committee.

3.   Publicise the changes to the meeting cycle in the local newspaper, by e-newsletter and on Council’s website.

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 June 2011

Corporate Services Division Report No. 27

 

 

Reference:    Corporate Services Division Report No. 27

Subject:          Constitutional Recognition of Local Government    

Record No:    SU2073 - 21359/11

Author(s):       Ian  Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has received a request from the Australian Local Government Association to consider passing a motion in support of a referendum on the matter of constitutional recognition of Local Government. It is recommended that Council give consideration to this issue.

 

Background

 

The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) has been working for some time to garner support for constitutional recognition of Local Government. In December 2008, ALGA organised a Local Government Constitutional Summit, at which delegates passed the following resolution:-

 

Delegates of this Local Government Constitutional Summit resolve that:-

to ensure the quality of planning and delivery of services and infrastructure provided to all Australians, and the ongoing sustainability of local government, any constitutional amendment put to the people in a referendum by the Australian Parliament (which could include the insertion of a preamble, an amendment to the current provisions or the insertion of a new Chapter) should reflect the following principles:-

 

The Australian people should be represented in the community by democratically elected and accountable local government representatives;

-      The power of the Commonwealth to provide direct funding to local government should be explicitly recognised; and

-      If a new preamble is proposed, it should ensure that local government is recognised as one of the components making up the modern Australian Federation”.

 

Since this Summit, ALGA has been lobbying the Federal Government for a referendum to include Local Government in Australia’s constitution and allow direct funding of Local Government by the Federal Government.

 

Discussion

 

Council has recently received a letter from ALGA requesting councils to consider passing a resolution in support of ALGA’s position that a referendum be held by 2013 to change the Constitution to allow direct funding of local government bodies by the Commonwealth Government and also to include Local Government in any new Preamble to the Constitution.

 

If Council determines to pass a resolution in these terms, ALGA has also requested that councils  write to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and local Federal Members of Parliament to advise them of Council's support.

 

Constitutional recognition will be one of the issues featured in the upcoming ALGA 2011 National

General Assembly of Local Government, to be held in Canberra from 19−22 June. The President of ALGA, Councillor Genia McCaffery, plans to highlight directly to the Prime Minister, who will be attending the National General Assembly of Local Government, the level of support that exists within local government for constitution recognition by the number of resolutions passed by councils.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.         Support the Australian Local Government Association’s position that a referendum be held by 2013 to change the Constitution to allow direct funding of local government bodies by the Commonwealth Government and also to include local government in any new Preamble to the Constitution.

2.         Write to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, local Federal Members of Parliament and the Australian Local Government Association to advise them of Council’s support for constitutional recognition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 June 2011

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 16

 

 

Reference:    Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 16

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

Record No:    SU3164 - 21348/11

Author(s):       Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The status of Garling Street has been confirmed as Council public road.

 

Council can now make a decision as to whether to commence the process for closure, and potential sale, of the subject parcel of road reserve outside 46 and 48 Garling Street.

 

Background

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting of 21 March 2011, Council considered a request from the resident of 48 Garling Street to purchase part of section of Garling Street, adjacent to their property. At the meeting, Council resolved:-

 

“That a further report be tabled after the land title status of Garling Street has been determined, to assist Council in the consideration of the subject parcel of road reserve”.

 

Council has now ascertained the land title status of Garling Street.

 

Discussion

 

Following the Council resolution, staff commenced investigations and sought assistance from the NSW Department of Lands to determine the ownership status of Garling Street. The NSW Department of Lands referred Council to the Crown Lands Division who were able to confirm  Garling Street is a council road, created upon registration of DP20740 around 1947.

 

Provided as part of Attachment 1, is a copy of the Crown Lands Division correspondence that identifies the section of Garling Street that has been identified as council owned public road.

 

It should be noted that the Crown Lands Division has made reference to section 38(2) of the Roads Act which details that unformed Council roads will vest in the Crown upon closure. However, the section of Garling Street proposed for closure has had work undertaken by Council to provide vehicular access to 46 and 48 Garling Street.

 

Closure of a public road is undertaken in accordance with Part 4 of the Roads Act.  In a Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Lands and Council dated 28 April 2006, Council is authorised to act on behalf of the Crown in progressing a number of administrative functions associated with the closure of public road.  The first step in that process is public notification and receipt of public submissions.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to comply with the public notification requirements of the Department of Lands.  Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with the proposed road closure.

 


Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community

Adjoining landowners and the Lane Cove West Residents  Association

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement,

e-newsletter and Website Exhibition

 

Letterbox drop and Letter

 

Advertisement,

e-newsletter and Website Exhibition

 

Indicative Timing

As soon as services have been identified and approval is granted from the Department of Lands

As soon as services have been identified and approval is granted from the Department of Lands

As soon as services have been identified and approval is granted from the Department of Lands

 

Conclusion

 

The Crown lands Division has confirmed that Garling Street is a public road vested in Council. As such, Council can proceed with the road closure process in accordance with the Department of Lands protocols and the Memorandum of Understanding, dated 28 April 2006.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.   Council commence the process to close part of road reserve outside 46 and 48 Garling Street in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Lands dated 28 April 2006.

2.   Council undertake community Consultation for a  period of 6 weeks in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the report; and

3.   A further report be received outlining the submissions received.

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Background information on Garling Street road status

3 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 June 2011

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 18

 

 

Reference:    Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 18

Subject:          Lane Cove Country Club - Fees and Charges    

Record No:    SU2893 - 21912/11

Author(s):       Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

On 21 March 2011, Council advised the Lane Cove Country Club of proposed changes to the fee structure for the Block Booking Fee – Lane Cove Country Club as part of Council’s draft Fees and Charges for 2011-2012.

 

A “without prejudice” meeting followed on 19 April 2011 between Lane Cove Country Club representatives and the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and senior Council staff (General Manager, Executive Managers – Corporate Services and Open Space and Urban Services) to discuss the proposed fee changes.

 

As a result of the meeting, the Country Club has suggested a number of proposed changes to the current Block Booking Times, and Council’s proposal for a different fee structure for the Block Booking Fee – Lane Cove Country Club, as detailed in the draft Fees and Charges 2011-2012.

 

The suggestions made by the Lane Cove Country Club regarding Block Booking times and fees appear to be an acceptable compromise for equitable use of the golf course between the Club’s membership and the public. With respect to the question of Round Fees, council will need to determine its position from the options included in the report.

 

Background

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting of 7 March 2011, Council considered the draft Fees and Charges for 2011/12 as part of the budgetary report.

 

It was resolved that the draft Budget, Fees and Charges, be placed on public exhibition until Friday, 22 April 2011.

 

As significant changes had been proposed to the fees and charges for the Lane Cove Country Club, a letter was sent outlining the changes to the President, Mr David Haugh, to ensure that the Club had ample opportunity to respond.

 

The Club responded by requesting a meeting with the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and senior staff (General Manager, Executive Managers – CS and OSUS) to discuss the ramifications of Council’s proposed fee structure for the Block Booking Fees for the Country Club for 2011-2012. The meeting was organised for, and held on, Tuesday, 19 April 2011. The discussions centred on the Block Booking Times and the draft Fees and Charges 2011-2012 proposed for the Country Club – Block Booking Times. The meeting was attended by three representatives of the Lane Cove Country Club, including their Treasurer.

 

As a result of the meeting, the Club requested additional time to consider the issues relating to the draft Fees and Charges 2011-2012. It was agreed to defer any report back to Council regarding the fees and charges associated with the Country Club until after the end of May 2011, to allow the Club the time for further feedback.

 

The Country Club has now responded to the Block Booking Times and draft Fees and Charges 2011-2012 in three separate letters, provided separately to Councillors along with the General Managers response.


Discussion

 

The Lane Cove Country Club confirms that in-principle agreement was reached at the 19 April meeting, regarding a variation to the Saturday Block Booking Times. It was agreed between the parties to vary the Saturday Block Booking times as follows:-

3.         Existing “Saturdays, 11.00am to 1.00pm” to “Saturdays, 11.00am to 12.30pm”.

4.         Add “Saturdays, 1.00pm to 2.30pm – Turnaround Time”.

5.         Existing “Wednesdays, 11.45am to 12.45pm and 1.45pm to 2.45pm – Turnaround Time” to Wednesdays, 11.20am to 1.00pm and 1.20pm to 3.00pm – Turnaround Time”.

 

The Lane Cove Country Club have also detailed an offer made by the Club representatives at the 19 April meeting, and ratified by the Board at their meeting of 5 May 2011, to require Club members to pre-book their Saturday competition usage by the close of business on the preceding Wednesday. The Board proposed as follows:-

1.         Members have until the close of business on the Wednesday immediately preceding the Saturday competition to enter their names on the sheet for that competition.

2.         Thereafter the Pro Shop staff are at liberty to contact members to bring forward their tee-off time within the morning or afternoon block of time, however no member may be required to play in the morning timeslot if their name is entered in the afternoon slot and vice versa for morning players.

3.         Any members who contact the Pro Shop after the cut off point may still play in the competition if slots remain available. We do not see this offer as a surrendering by the Club of unfilled slots to the Pro Shop once the cut off point is reached.

 

The Lane Cove Country Club has also proposed that the following changes apply, effective from 1 July 2011:-

1.         An increase in the Block Booking Fees by a CPI factor.

2.         That the fee for both male and female members be the same and therefore set at:-

(i)         Adults  - $365pa;

(ii)        Seniors (age 65 + 20 years continuous membership)  - $185pa;

(iii)       Students (age 18-21) - $177pa; and

(iv)       Juniors (age 10-17) - $74pa.

3.         Return to Council the following Block Booking Times:-

(i)         “Sunday, 9.35am to 10.15am” and “Sunday, 11.35am to 12.15pm – Turnaround Time”; and

(ii)        “Tuesday, 9.25am to 9.45am” and “Tuesday, 11.25am to 11.45am – Turnaround Time”.

4.         The transfer of 30 minutes of Block Booking Time from the Saturday competition to the public. This includes a transfer of 40 minutes of public time to the Wednesday competition Block Booking Time.

5.         The compression of the Saturday competition field so that unused slots are returned for public use.

 

The Club’s proposal represents an incremental approach to the fees for the course, with the exception of combining the previous male and female rate, into an adult rate.

 

The Club has stated a willingness to re-evaluate its membership categories and its competition structure, including consideration of Council’s proposed weekday-only and 7 day membership categories over the next 12 months. The Club has requested that to allow them time to undertake their re-evaluation any further fee structure changes be deferred until 1 July 2012.

 

Round Fees

 

At the meeting of 19 April 2011, the issue of the $15 Round Fee was discussed. The Club representatives indicated that they would provide a breakdown of the expenditure of the current $15 Round Fee charged by the Club and a proposal for this fee. In their letter of 12 May the Lane Cove Country Club has strongly objected to Council’s proposed $15 per round fee for members. No expenditure information was provided.

 

The Club have indicated that neither North Sydney nor Willoughby Council receive any of the proceeds of round fees at Cammeray or Castle Cove. Whilst this is correct it has also been pointed out to the Lane Cove Country Club that both courses mentioned are maintained by the Clubs concerned and neither of these councils contribute funds to the operation of those golf courses where as Lane Cove fully funds the maintenance of Lane Cove Golf Course.

 

At the time of writing this report the General Manager has written to the Club seeking reconsideration of the issue of Round Fees, including the possibility of a sharing arrangement of the current fee. An update will be provided at the meeting of any further response from the Club.

 

Currently the Club imposes a $15 round fee on playing members, which is collected by Council’s Course Manager and returned to the Club. Council’s draft fees and charges proposed a separate Round Fee of $15 to be collected for Council, also by the Course Manager. Council will need to determine its position regarding round fees.

 

As it stands there are 3 main options regarding round fees:-

i)     Impose a $15 round fee;

ii)     Impose a $7.50 round fee, effectively sharing the current round fee with the Club; or

iii)    Defer the consideration of a round fee for 2011/12 and reconsider for 2012/13.

 

Community Consultation

 

The Lane Cove Country Club has responded to Council as part of the consultation process for the proposed Fees and Charges for 2011-2012. Council notified the Country Club of the draft Fees and Charges 2011-2012 by way of letter on 21 March 2011. The Club responded by requesting the 19 April meeting with the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Senior Council Staff. This was followed by proposed amendments to block booking times and the fee structure in letters from the Country Club on 5 May, 6 May and 12 May 2011.

 

It is considered no further consultation is required prior to Council setting the Block Booking Fee – Lane Cove Country Club for 2011-2012.

 

Conclusion

 

Council staff concur with the changes proposed by the Country Club Board for the Block Booking Fee and request Council to resolve a preferred position regarding round fees.


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.                  Council set the following Block Booking Fee - Lane Cove Country Club for the Council Fees & Charges 2011-2012:

(i)                  Adults  - $365pa,

(ii)                Seniors (age 65 + 20 years continuous membership)  - $185pa,

(iii)               Students (age 18-21) - $177pa,

(iv)              Juniors (age 10-17) - $74pa

2.   Council determine its position regarding the imposition of a Round Fee.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 June 2011

Environmental Services Division Report No. 21

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 21

Subject:          Draft Sustainable Events Policy    

Record No:    SU4433 - 21279/11

Author(s):       Steve  Fedorow 

 

 

Executive Summary

                                           

This report describes and recommends that Council adopt for the purposes of public exhibition, a draft Sustainable Events Policy.

 

Background

 

At its meeting of 16 May 2011, Council considered a report outlining a Draft Sustainable Events Policy and due to concerns regarding the scope and impact of the policy upon community groups resolved to defer consideration of the Policy pending reappraisal of the document by staff.

 

Discussion

 

The Policy has been revisited in light of concerns about the scope of the Policy and the potential impact upon the viability of events run by community groups and charities were it to extend to events organised by these groups.

 

Whilst the original policy was limited in scope to Council run events, the policy has been redrafted to make this point abundantly clear.  Event organisers who wish to improve the sustainability of their events may wish to consider the policy as a guide; however they fall outside of its scope and will not be required or asked to produce a Sustainable Event Management Plan.

 

The Policy requires Council to develop a Sustainable Event Management Plan for each Council run event, demonstrating that in organising and delivering the event Council has considered sustainable options in the following areas:-

·      Venue/Location Selection;

·      Transport;

·      Equipment and Supplies;

·      Catering;

·      Event Promotion;

·      Water and Energy Use;

·      Waste Minimisation and Resource Recovery; and

·      Financial constraints.


It is important to note that the draft Policy is not intended to introduce a prescriptive approach to organising and delivering events, rather ensure that sustainable options have been considered.  In this regard event organisers would ensure that an appropriate balance is struck between the financial cost of hosting an event and the benefits of implementing the environmental guidelines associated in the Policy.

 

The draft Sustainable Events Policy dated 26 May 2011 is attached as AT-1.

 


Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to allow all residents and businesses within Lane Cove to view and comment upon the draft policy.  Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated when determining whether to proceed with the policies as drafted.

 

Method

 

The following table outlines how Council proposes to consult the community and interest groups regarding the draft policy. 

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Involve

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community

Key event organisers e.g. Rotary, Lane Cove ALIVE, Cameraygal Festival Committee.

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement, Public Exhibition,

E-newsletter and

Website Exhibition

Letter, Private Briefing

Public Exhibition,

E-newsletter and

Website Exhibition

Indicative Timing

June – July 2011

June – July 2011

June – July 2011

 

Whilst events run by Rotary, Lane Cove ALIVE and the Cameraygal Festival Committee fall outside of the scope of the draft Policy, these groups are key event organisers within the community who would provide valuable insight into the practical implementation of the Policy, and as such have been identified for targeted consultation.

 

Conclusion

 

The draft Sustainable Events Policy seeks to assist event organisers in planning and running events in an environmentally sustainable manner.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.   Council adopt the draft Sustainable Events Policy dated 26 May 2011 for the purposes of public exhibition for a period of 6 weeks in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the report; and

2.   At the conclusion of the public exhibition period, a report be submitted to Council that outlines the submissions received and makes appropriate observations and recommendations for Council’s consideration.

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Sustainable Events Policy

4 Pages