m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

20 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 20 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 20 June 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

 

public forum

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 6 JUNE 2011

 

Orders Of The Day

 

2.       Order Of The Day No. 11

SUBJECT: Council and Committee Meeting Schedule - July 2011   

 

General Managers Reports

 

3.       General Managers Report No. 12

SUBJECT: Suggestion for Lane Cove to host the 2012 Australian National Town Criers Championship

 

4.       General Managers Report No. 13

SUBJECT: Proposed Part Road Closure of Little Lane, Lane Cove  

 

Corporate Services Division Reports

 

5.       Corporate Services Division Report No. 28

SUBJECT: Determination of Local Government Remuneration Tribunal for Councillor Fees

 

6.       Corporate Services Division Report No. 29

SUBJECT: Review of Public Forum

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Reports

 

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

SUBJECT: Proposed Lane Cove Carshare Scheme

 

8.       Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 19

SUBJECT: Telecommunications Facility Proposal - Trouve Street, Lane Cove

 

Environmental Services Division Reports

 

9.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 26

SUBJECT: Delegated Authority Report - May 2011

 

Human Services Division Reports

 

10.     Human Services Division Report No. 7

SUBJECT: Request to Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (NSROC) to Fund Aboriginal Education

 

11.     Human Services Division Report No. 8

SUBJECT: Report on the Lane Cove Seniors Survey and Programmes

 

12.     Human Services Division Report No. 9

SUBJECT: Tender for the Operation of the Lane Cove Aquatic Centre  

 

 

 

 

               


Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2011

Order Of The Day No. 11

 

 

Reference:    Order Of The Day No. 11

Subject:          Council and Committee Meeting Schedule - July 2011 

    

Record No:    SU1915 - 23592/11

Author(s):       Kirsty Fleming 

 

 

 

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

 

July      16        Inspection Committee

 

July      18        Ordinary Council

                                               

July      30        Inspection Committee

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2011

General Managers Report No. 12

 

 

Reference:    General Managers Report No. 12

Subject:          Suggestion for Lane Cove to host the 2012 Australian National Town Criers Championship    

Record No:    SU16 - 23642/11

Author(s):       Peter Brown 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Lane Cove’s Town Crier, Mr Bill Wallace, has written to Council (shown attached as AT-1) seeking approval to nominate Lane Cove as host for the 2012 Australian National Town Criers Championship. If successful the event would become one of the 2012 Cameraygal Festival events.

This report recommends supporting a Lane Cove bid for the event.

 

Discussion

 

Mr Bill Wallace has represented the Lane Cove local government area as our official Town Crier over many years.  Mr Wallace attends each of Council’s Citizenship Ceremonies including Australia Day, the Lane Cove Village Fair and numerous other community events bringing a sense of celebration, fun and enjoyment to all, particularly those children present. As Town Crier Mr Wallace has represented Lane Cove in numerous Town Crier Championships where he has performed admirably including winning the Seniors Section of the championship for four consecutive years, and third place honours in the Champion of Champions competition in 2008.

 

The Australian National Town Criers Championship is held annually and Mr Wallace’s suggestion for Lane Cove to host such an event is strongly supported. As mentioned in his letter costs are minimal, estimated as a maximum of $2000, but such an event would help enliven our town centre over the weekend concerned and could be planned to coincide with other suitable activities as part of the 2012 Cameraygal Festival.

 

Conclusion

 

Mr Wallace’s request is for in principal support at this stage so that he can formally suggest Lane Cove as a venue at this year’s Annual General Meeting of the Ancient and Honourable Guild of Australian Town Criers held in July, 2011.  Mr Wallace’s request is strongly supported.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.   Strongly support hosting the Australian National Town Crier’s Championship in Lane Cove in 2012 as part of the 2012 Cameraygal Festival; and

2.   Thank Mr Wallace for his efforts as Town Crier and his suggestion of Lane Cove hosting the 2012 Australian National Town Criers Championship.

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Letter to General Manager from Bill Wallace regarding Australian National Town Criers Championship 2012

2 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2011

General Managers Report No. 13

 

 

Reference:    General Managers Report No. 13

Subject:          Proposed Part Road Closure of Little Lane, Lane Cove     

Record No:    SU3164 - 23792/11

Author(s):       Tony Fazio 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report outlines submissions received in regard to the proposed Little Lane part road closure. 

The road under consideration comprises part of the Council public road known as Little Lane, being part of the stratum (below the existing road formation ) adjoining Lot 2 in DP 524992, Lot B in DP 411363 and Lot 51 in DP 5922.  

 

The proposed road closing will not affect the continued public use of the existing constructed road.

Public notification as per the requirements of the NSW Land and Property Management Authority Crown Lands (NSW LPMACL) was undertaken from 15th March up to 7th June 2011 with advertisements placed in the Sydney Morning Herald, North Shore Times and the Northside Courier. The notification was also sent by Council’s E-newsletter and posted on Council’s website. Public notification letters were sent to the Office of Strategic Lands, Public Utilities and adjacent residential landowners in Little Street and commercial landowners in Longueville Road affected by the road closing proposal.    

 

All submissions have been considered.  Issues generally related to protection of public utility installations, traffic congestion, access for loading and unloading to the rear of the commercial properties and general amenity.

 

The report recommends that Council resolve to advise the NSW LPMACL that there are no reasons preventing it from approving the proposed part road closure subject to the creation and registration of the Stratum Plan of Subdivision. Upon closure, the proposed Little Lane part road closure will facilitate the redevelopment of the Little Lane Car Park to include public car parking, community facilities, retail facilities and residential units.

 

Background

 

The proposed Little Lane part closure proposal has been progressed in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between NSW LPMACL and Council dated 28 April 2006.  This MoU authorised Council to act on behalf of the Crown in progressing a number of administrative functions associated with the closure of a public road. 

 

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on 15 November 2010, considered the part road closure of Little Lane affected by the proposed redevelopment of the Little Lane Public Car Park and resolved to close part of Little Lane with a view to creating a stratum subdivision for the future air space below the road surface. Council will recall that the part of the Little Lane within the residential parking of the previous redevelopment application was a determining factor in withdrawing the application.

 

The proposed part road closure of Little Lane will allow the creation of two (2) stratum lots, one for the residential car park basement levels and the other for the public car park basement levels of the proposed future mixed use redevelopment.

 

Upon closure and registration of the stratum subdivision plan Council will be in position to reconsider the car park redevelopment options and if appropriate lodge a fresh Development Application for any revised proposal.


Public Agencies and Service Providers

 

Prior to public notification, the views of various public agencies and service providers were sought.  In general terms, provided that existing electricity and water utilities are protected by appropriate easements if and when required, the objections to the road closure raised by these public agencies will be withdrawn.  

 

Ausgrid (Energy Australia) have lifted the objection to the part road closure conditional to the relocation of the affected street lighting infrastructure prior to commencing construction of any proposed and approved redevelopment.

 

Sydney Water through the Licensed Water Servicing Coordinator requires the diversion of the existing sewer main that currently traverses the car park site from Little Lane to Little Street. The sewer diversion is possible given the relative levels and length of pipework required. Once any development consent is issued, Sydney Water will issue a list of requirements which will need to be satisfied prior to the issue of the Section 73 Certificate.

 

A Section 73 Certificate (Developer Compliance Certificate) is Sydney Water’s confirmation that all Sydney Water requirements have been met and that the development concerned has correctly sized water/sewer mains available for connection. The Section 73 Certificate is necessary to carry out a strata subdivision of any development.

 

Jemena Asset Management Pty Ltd on behalf of Jemena Gas Networks has no objection to the road closure as there are no gas mains located within the proposed part closure of Little Lane.

 

Public Notification

 

The public notification approved by NSW LPMACL, appeared on 15 March 2011 in the Sydney Morning Herald and was repeated on 24 May 2011.  The notice also appeared in the Northside Courier - Sydney Weekly and North Shore Times on 29 March 2011 and 16 March 2011 respectively.  The notification period closed on 7 June 2011.

 

Adjacent Properties

 

There are no adjacent properties directly affected by the proposed road closure. 

 

Submissions

 

No Objections

 

Submissions advising no objections were received from Jemena Asset Management P/L (Jemena).

 

Qualified Objections

 

A Submission advising qualified objections requiring further assurances/information has been received from Ausgrid. Previous advice was received from Sydney Water through the Water Services Co-ordinator:-

·      Ausgrid has lifted the objection to the part road closure conditional to the relocation of the affected street lighting infrastructure prior to any proposed redevelopment; and

·      Sydney Water’s approval will be subject to a Section 73 Certificate Application which can only be submitted once development consent is received for any future redevelopment.

 


Objections  

 

One (1) objection was received by Council. The objections related to traffic congestion and access for loading and unloading to the rear of the commercial properties.

 

Other Submissions

 

Three (3) submissions were received by Council from commercial property owners. One (1) of these was in favour of the proposal and stated “as it is unlike Barrangaroo’s alienation of public open space I can see no reason for any one to provide a valid objection. I will be pleased to see this re-development completed as soon as possible”. The other two (2) submissions requested clarification on the proposed part road closure. Clarification was provided to the writers by advising that there is no physical reduction to the width of the Lane and that the section of the Laneway proposed for closure is below the physical road surface.

 

All submissions have been taken into consideration and are summarised as relating to the:-

·      Protection of public utility installations;

·      Traffic management and traffic congestion; and

·      Access for loading and unloading to the rear of the commercial properties.

 

Discussion

 

The following précis identifies how those issues or concerns originally raised have been resolved:-

 

Ausgrid

 

Ausgrid in its letter dated 13 May 2011 has lifted the objection to the part road closure conditional to the relocation of the affected street lighting infrastructure prior to commencing construction for any proposed redevelopment.

 

Sydney Water

 

Sydney Water’s approval will be subject to a Section 73 Certificate Application which can only be submitted once development consent is received for any future redevelopment. This was conveyed to Council through the Licensed Water Coordinators Rose Atkins Rimmer (Infrastructure) Pty Ltd in a letter dated 8 October 2010.

 

Traffic Management and Traffic Congestion

 

Adjacent commercial owners alluded to a reduced road width of Little Lane leading to more traffic congestion in the busy lane way. It would appear that the objectors have not understood the part road closure proposal. The proposal is to create a stratum subdivision limited in depth below the existing road surface. There is no reduction in the width of Little Lane and therefore there will be no added traffic congestion and no traffic management issues arising.

 

Any proposed redevelopment will eliminate much of the existing traffic issues because of the proposed new entrances to the new development directly from Little Street. Once the new redevelopment is completed, only service vehicles will access the laneway as the car park patrons, community, commercial and residential users occupying the future redevelopment will access the car park from Little Street.

 


Access for Loading and Unloading to the Rear of the Commercial Properties Fronting Longueville Road

 

The road closure proposal will not affect the access for loading and unloading activities.

With any new redevelopment the access for loading and unloading activities will in fact be improved.

 

Stratum Plan of Subdivision

 

The Stratum Plan of subdivision creating the proposed stratum lots below the road surface will be created in line with the plan shown attached as AT-1.

 

Conclusion

 

The issues raised in the submissions received have been carefully assessed as outlined above.  Based on advice from the affected Public Utility Authorities the issues can be resolved at the Construction Certificate stage and following the issue of the Development Consent for any revised Proposed Redevelopment.  It is therefore appropriate for Council to request NSW LPMACL to approve the road closure and effect gazettal, subject to the completion of the Stratum Plan of Subdivision for the part road closure proposal.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.    Having considered the issues raised in the submissions and/or objections received in relation to the  Little Lane part road closure proposal as outlined in this report, request the NSW Land and Property Management Authority Crown Lands to approve the part road closure and effect gazettal, noting that:-

a)   Ausgrid’s approval is conditional on the relocation of the affected street lighting infrastructure prior to construction of any proposed redevelopment;  

b)   Sydney Water’s approval is subject to obtaining Development Consent for any proposed redevelopment and the imposing of requirements through a Section 73 Application; and

2.    Authorise the General Manager to execute the Stratum Plan of Subdivision and all other necessary documents for the Little Lane part road closure proposal and, if required, use Council’s seal or Power of Attorney.

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Map of Proposed Part Road Closure

1 Page

 

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2011

Corporate Services Division Report No. 28

 

 

Reference:    Corporate Services Division Report No. 28

Subject:          Determination of Local Government Remuneration Tribunal for Councillor Fees    

Record No:    SU839 - 22459/11

Author(s):       Ian  Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report details the recent determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal for Councillors Fees.

 

Discussion

 

The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal has handed down a determination (see link below for more detail) on 28 April 2011 under Sections 239 and 241 of the Local Government Act on the level of fees to be paid to Councillors and Mayors from 1 July 2011:-

 

http://www.dpc.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/119714/2011_Report_and_determination_Copy_for_Gazette.pdf

 

The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal has increased all minimum and maximum fees for Mayors and Councillors by 4.2%.  The table below shows the current annual fees paid to Lane Cove Councillors and the new minimum and maximum annual fees as determined by the tribunal:-

 

 

Current Annual Fee

New Minimum Annual Fee

New Maximum Annual Fee

Mayor (in addition to the Councillor Fee)

$34,860

 

$16,080

 

$36,320

 

Councillors

$15,970

$  7,550

$16,640

 

The program in Council’s adopted Budget for 2011/12 provides for these increases.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council determine the appropriate fee to be paid to the Mayor and Councillors for 2011/2012.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2011

Corporate Services Division Report No. 29

 

 

Reference:    Corporate Services Division Report No. 29

Subject:          Review of Public Forum    

Record No:    SU828 - 23218/11

Author(s):       Ian  Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to review the operation of the Public Forum during Council Meetings.  It is recommended that Council give consideration to the options for improving the Public Forum and resolve accordingly.

 

Background

 

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 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.

 

Discussion

 

The Public Forum is an opportunity for anyone to address the Council Meeting for 3 minutes on any topic. However, Council often grant speakers an extension of time to speak longer than 3 minutes. As part of the review of Council and Committee Meetings, an analysis of the duration of the Public Forum was undertaken.

 

The results of the review of Council and Committee Meetings indicated 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.  Depending on the items on the Agenda for a particular meeting, the duration of the Public Forum can take up to 2 hours.  On most occasions when this does occur, it is because there are many speakers addressing the same topic and raising the same points of view.

 

While the Public Forum provides an important avenue for the community to address their concerns to the Council, it can delay Council discussing the Agenda Items till well after 8pm. To improve the efficiency of the Public Forum Council could consider the time set aside for the Public Forum.  Some councils designate the first 30 minutes of a meeting for discussing items on the Agenda and time at the end of the meeting for raising matters not on the Agenda.

 

The review of Council and Committee Meetings discovered that 90% of speakers address items on the Agenda and in the main discuss Development Applications.   With respect to development applications, there is no limit on the number of speakers for or against each application and the same person may speak to Councillors at both the Inspection Committee and Council Meeting as well as contacting them by telephone or e-mail. It is often the case that many speakers present the same point of view on an application regardless of whether the issue has been raised by a previous speaker. The Public Forum could be streamlined by limiting the number of speakers for and against each application.

 

Public Forum Process at Other Councils

 

Unlike other councils there is no registration process for speaking at the Council Meeting and therefore council staff have no indication of the number of speakers that will be present at any meeting.

 

All other NSROC councils require speakers for a Council Meeting to register their interest prior to the Meeting and in some cases place restrictions on the matters that members of the public can speak on. For example, Ryde Council has the following rules for speaking:-

You may speak on any Council related matter whether it is listed on the agenda or not, except for:

·            Matters relating to the determination of a Development Application (including any alleged breaches of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act)*

·            "confidential" matters under the Local Government Act, e.g. some legal matters, tenders, personnel matters – check with staff if you’re not sure.

·            Matters that have been already listed and considered by the Works and Community Committee and Planning and Environment Committee; and have then been referred to Council for determination under delegated authority.

To be fair to everyone, you can only speak once at a meeting and you can’t speak on the same subject more than once in a 3-month period”.

 

It is common practice in other councils for speakers to register their interest to speak and in the case of items not on the Agenda provide a précis of the topic to Council for approval prior to the meeting.

 

Options for the Public Forum

 

Given the issues raised above and in order to streamline the efficiency of the Public Forum the following options are presented for Council’s consideration.

 

1.   No change to the current practice.

 

2.   a) No restrictions on members of the public speaking to items on the Agenda;

 

      b) Members of the public not speaking to items on the Agenda need to register by 12pm on the day of the Council Meeting and provide a précis of the subject matter they wish to discuss. The General Manager (in consultation with the Mayor where necessary) would grant approval for each of these speakers. Approval is limited to speaking on the same subject only once in a 3 month period.

 

c) For development applications, there be a maximum of 2 speakers for and 2 against an

Item.

 

3.   a) No restrictions on members of the public speaking to items on the Agenda;

 

      b) Limit the time for the Public forum at the beginning of the meeting.

 

c) For development applications, there be a maximum of 2 speakers for and 2 against an

Item.

 

To improve the efficiency of the Public Forum and to avoid lengthy delays for Council in considering Agenda Items it is recommended that Council trial Option 2 for 6 months as this will give priority to people speaking about items on the Agenda and reduce the duplication of views on development application proposals.  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

            1.Trial for 6 months the following process for the Public Forum:-

 

      a) No restrictions on members of the public speaking to items on the Agenda;

 

      b) Members of the public not speaking to items on the Agenda need to register by 12pm on the day of the Council Meeting and provide a précis of the subject matter they wish to discuss. The General Manager (in consultation with the Mayor where necessary) would grant approval for each of these speakers. Approval is limited to speaking on the same subject only once in a 3 month period.

 

c) For development applications, there be a maximum of 2 speakers for and 2 against an

            Item.

 

            2. Publicise the changes to the Public Forum 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 20 June 2011

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 15

 

 

Reference:    Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 15

Subject:          Proposed Lane Cove Carshare Scheme    

Record No:    SU3197 - 18120/11

Author(s):       Nick Karahlis 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s support for a car share scheme and adoption of a draft Car Share Policy for the purpose of public exhibition.

 

Council at it meeting on 7 February 2011 considered the Car Share Scheme and resolved that a report be prepared for Council’s consideration to explore car share experiences in the surrounding Council areas and investigate car share experiences and guidelines for new large developments. It is also requested that large car rental companies be sounded out on their potential to move into car share schemes. At the Council meeting of 7 March 2011, Council reconsidered the charge for the car share space in the Town Centre and identified the need to check whether car rental companies were interested in providing car share services.

 

This report shows the up-to-date investigations on Car Share schemes of other Sydney metropolitan council’s and provides a draft Car Share Policy for Lane Cove. It also provides a review of major car rental companies’ position on providing car share schemes of their own.

 

Background

 

At its meeting on 7 February 2011 Council resolved the following:-

 

“1.     Prepare a report on car share experiences of surrounding councils so far  for the future development of a Car Share Policy for Lane Cove; and

 

2.       Investigate the development of car share guidelines and incentives for new large developments for inclusion in our LEP & DCP.”

 

Council Officers investigated policies from Sydney metropolitan councils and these finding are listed below.

 

Further to the above resolution, at the meeting of 7 March 2011, Council resolved:-

 

“1.     Council defers any decisions relating to the budget allocation of a market rent for the car space in Rosenthal Avenue for the current ‘Go Get’ Car Scheme or future car share schemes. A decision relating to these matters is to be considered following the development of a formal car share scheme policy for Lane Cove; and

 

2.      All identifiable car rental / car share companies be included in the report for the consideration of car park allocation.”

 


Discussion

 

Council Officers investigated the Car Sharing experience in other Sydney metropolitan councils in terms of the following characteristics of their Policies:-

 

a)   The number of Car Share parking spaces that each of these Councils have introduced;

b)   If these Councils have an active policy;

c)   If these Council charge for the introduction or rental of the parking bays; and

d)   If they issue parking permits to Car Share Vehicles (that is if the Car Share vehicles park in Resident Parking Scheme areas).

 

The following was found in relation to the above issues related to Car Sharing:-

 

Mosman Council

 

Number of vehicles: 3

Charging: They do not charge for installation or rental of bays, and have an active Car Share policy.

 

North Sydney Council

 

Number of Vehicles: 47

Charging: They do not charge for installation or rental of bays and have an active policy. They also issue parking permits for all Car Share vehicles.

 

City of Sydney

 

Number of vehicles: 236

They are charging currently for the installation of parking bays. City of Sydney are going to move to partially recovering costs for the installation of car sharing bays in the new financial year. They will be continuing their policy of not charging for rental of the actual spaces. City of Sydney also provides permits for the vehicles that allows them to park in the surrounding area if the dedicated bay is illegally parked in. These parking permits are provided at the standard residential rate.

 

Randwick Council

 

Number of vehicles: 25

Policy: Randwick Council has an active Car Share policy. They allow on-street dedicated bays but they do not issue permits.

Charging: Randwick Council do not currently charge for installation or rental of bays.

 

Willoughby Council

 

Number of vehicles: 12

Charging: They do not charge for installation, and do not charge for rental.

 

Waverley Council

 

Number of vehicles: 25

Policy: Waverley Council allocates on-street  dedicated bays to Car Sharing operators, but do not provide permits.

Charging: Waverley Council do not charge for location, however operators must install their own locations.

 

 


Ashfield Council

 

Number of vehicles: 6 No council approved locations, however Go Get has 6 on- street cars in unrestricted locations.

Charging: They will charge for installation of bays but not for rental of spaces.

 

Leichhardt Council

 

Number of vehicles: 24

Charging: Charge for installation of bays, but not for rental. They Issue permits as needed in some locations.

 

Manly Council

 

Number of vehicles: 7

Policy: They do not have a current Car Sharing policy. However, Go Get is in the process of applying for 15 dedicated bays. They issue permits.

Charging: They will not charge rental for bays.

 

Marrickville Council

 

Number of vehicles: 18

Policy: Council does not have an active policy. However has recently decided to allocate Car Sharing bays on street. No permits will be issued.

Charging: They are partially recovering costs for installation of bays, but will not charge rental.

 

 

Lane Cove Council currently has only one dedicated Car Space and does not provide parking permits for the Car Share vehicle.

 

 

Car Rental Companies and Carsharing

 

Council has also considered the matter to explore if Car Rental Companies will be willing to provide Car Share in Council’s area.

 

Car Sharing differs from traditional car rentals as it is a self-service reservation, pickup, and return service. The vehicles can be rented by the hour, as well as by the day by users who have previously become members. For these users, there are pre-approved background driving checks, by car share groups or companies. After these checks have been taken place a payment method has been established.  The applicable fees include a membership fee, a refundable bond for the duration of membership, an hourly fee or a per kilometre charge for use of the vehicle

 

Investigation was also carried out by Council’s Officers approaching Car Rental Companies to determine whether these companies provide Car Share Services. Following phone contacts with the head offices of the companies below, the following information is provided for Councillors review:-

Budget Car

Advised that they have no intentions to provide Car Share.


Avis

Advised, that they have no intentions to provide Car Share.

Europcar

Advised that they have no intentions to provide Car Share.

Thrifty

Advised, that they do not provide Car Share. They mentioned that smaller rental companies may provide Car Share but they are not intending to.

Bayswater Car

Advised that they do not provide Car Share.

Hertz

Advised, that they don’t do Car Share in Sydney.  They have a Flexi car system in Melbourne where you can pick up the car from different spots but don’t do this in Sydney at this stage.

Ascot Car Rental

Advised that they have no intentions to provide Car Share in Lane Cove.

The above investigation showed that none of the major Car Rental Companies are willing to participate in a Car Share Scheme in Lane Cove (or elsewhere) at this point of time.

GoGet Car Share Scheme

The most well known car share scheme in Sydney is the GoGet Car Share Company. It currently has around 170 cars established in many locations (pods) around Sydney.

 

Council Officers had tried in the past to contact other Car Share organisations but there was no willingness from any Car Share Company to provide a Car for the purpose of Car Share On the contrary, the discussions with the Go Get Car Share Company resulted in a Car Share scheme being established in Lane Cove with one parking space for Car Share vehicles operating in Rosenthal Avenue.   Research has shown that each shared car replaces 6 privately owned cars.

 

Additionally, better environmental outcomes are achieved by car share, as they supply new, fuel-efficient vehicles which means that in some cases, people are getting out of older, inefficient means of transport and into a cars that are new, well maintained, safer and more improved, benefiting the environment.

 

This scheme may also have a useful role in delivering both local transport and land-use planning objectives in high-density urban areas which have both good public transport and parking restraints. Car share have worked with councils and developers to provide share spots to reduce the need for individual parking spaces attached to unit and office blocks.

 

The UK Commission for Integrated Transport state that developers of high density low-car housing projects which incorporate social housing should be encouraged to establish car clubs within their developments and to offer the residents of the social housing free membership for at least a year.

 

To ensure Council treats all car share companies in a fair and equitable manner all car share activities should be reviewed on an annual basis. By renegotiating the provision of the parking space and membership annually, Council would have the opportunity to consider all schemes keen to operate in Lane Cove regularly.

 

Attached as AT-1 is Council’s Draft Car Share Policy dated 14 June 2011.

 

Guidelines & Incentives For New Large Developments

 

In relation to Guidelines and Incentives for new large developments, Council’s Officers will be investigating this aspect of sustainable transport together with other traffic and transport initiatives. These studies will be undertaken in the next financial year as part of the new transport planning position created.

 

Responsibility and Accountability

 

Council’s Traffic Section will be responsible for the provision and determination of eligibility and management of any Car Share Schemes.

 

Council’s Rangers will be responsible for the enforcement of any parking controls introduced to operate the Car Share Schemes.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to inform Lane Cove Residents, commuters and other road users of the proposed Car Share Scheme and the proposed Car Share Policy.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and

other Lane Cove road users

Lane Cove Community and

other Lane Cove road users

Proposed Medium

Community newsletter; Website Exhibition; Advertisement and E-Newsletter

Community newsletter; Website Exhibition; Advertisement and E-Newsletter

Indicative Timing

Public notification from mid July 2011

Public notification from mid July 2011

 

Conclusion

 

To establish a Car Scheme there must be minimal cost to Council. This should be limited to the cost of signage and line marking. There are currently no parking fees charged at the existing on-street Car Share car parking space near to Rosenthal Avenue Car Park. Furthermore, studies have shown that the provision of Car Share parking spaces reduce the need for private vehicles.

 

Therefore the allocation of a space to car share is not going to impact on Council’s income. The cost of signage at the car share location would come out of the existing traffic facilities budget.

 

The total cost for the Car Share parking space created is approximately $250.00. A Draft Car Share Policy has been attached for Council’s consideration and public exhibition. 

 

 


 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.         Council support the Car Share Scheme in Lane Cove with the retention of the existing parking space in the Town Centre;

2.         The draft Car Share Policy dated 14 June 2011 shown attached as AT-1 be placed on public exhibition for 6 weeks and community consultation take place in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the report;

3.         A further report be submitted to Council following the exhibition period;

4.         The public exhibition provide the community the opportunity to comment on whether a market rent should be charged for the car space in Rosenthal Avenue or any other future car spaces allocated for a car share scheme, to form part of the further report to Council.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Lane Cove Car Share Policy - Car Share Policy Draft

3 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2011

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 19

 

 

Reference:    Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 19

Subject:          Telecommunications Facility Proposal - Trouve Street, Lane Cove    

Record No:    SU643 - 23806/11

Author(s):       Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 4 April 2011, Council requested legal advice on the Commercial Agreement provided by Optus Mobile Pty Ltd, a market valuation for the proposed site and independent reports on the health impacts of mobile tower facilities to assist Councillors in assessing the telecommunications facility proposal in Trouve Street, Lane Cove. The requested information is provided in this report.

 

Background

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting of 4 April 2011, it was resolved that Council:-

 

“1.   Place the proposal on public exhibition to ascertain community views;

2.    Seek legal advice to confirm the documentation;

3.    Determine market rent for the site; and

4.    Obtain independent reports as to the effects of this telecommunications facility in terms of noise, health and other issues that Council should be aware of.”

 

Further to resolution 2, Council also resolved on 4 April 2011:-

 

“That in relation to legal advice sought for the proposed telecommunications facility at Trouve St Lane Cove that Council provide solicitors the following points to consider with regard to the proposed lease:-

 

1.    Possible deletion of clause 4.6 (consider if needed);

2.    Review of 7.1 in accordance 5.7 and 5.2; and

3.    Possible addition of 10.1(e) The premises are not maintained to provide safe operational use in accordance to governments requirement and standards.”

 

Discussion

 

In relation to resolution 1, Council’s Governance staff met with representatives from Total Communications Infrastructure (TCI) (on behalf of Optus) to discuss the communication strategy to be employed to inform the community of the proposed telecommunications facility. The TCI staff advised Council that they were not yet in a position to undertake community consultation and they believed it was too early in the process to do so. It was agreed that the community consultation would be undertaken predominantly by TCI. TCI would undertake a newspaper advertisement as well as undertake a letterbox drop in the affected area. Council would issue an e-newsletter. It was recommended to TCI that their correspondence provide the community the opportunity to lodge their concerns with Council as well as TCI.

 

With respect to the request for legal advice as per resolution 2, Council’s in-house solicitor has provided his advice as follows:-

 


“Possible Deletion of Clause 4.6

 

This subclause relevantly states (among other things) that, notwithstanding any other provision in the lease, the lessee is not obliged to pay rent from the “Date of Commencement” to the “Rent Commencement Date”. Now, the latter date could well be quite later than the Date of Commencement.

 

I understand Council to be saying, or querying, why the lessee ought not to be obliged to pay rent to Council from the Date of Commencement … and I see no reason why not. I therefore recommend that we request that this subclause be deleted or amended so that rent is payable to Council on and from the Date of Commencement.

 

Review of [Clause] 7.1 in [Light of Clauses] 5.7 and 5.2

 

Clause 7.1 requires the lessee to effect public risk or liability insurance in respect of the Premises (being part of the Land). Council has rightly referred to clauses 5.7 and 5.2 of the draft lease, which empower the lessee to carry out certain works, relevantly, affix guy anchors and guy wires, on, and otherwise use parts of, the Land OTHER THAN the Premises.

 

Council is presumably querying why the lessee ought not to be required to effect public risk or liability insurance in respect of all parts of the Land that are, or are likely to be, used, IRRESPECTIVE of whether or not they form part of the Premises the subject of the lease … and I agree.

 

I therefore recommend that we request that this subclause be amended so that the lessee is required to effect public risk or liability insurance in respect of all parts of the Land that are, or are likely to be, used, IRRESPECTIVE of whether or not they form part of the Premises the subject of the lease.

 

Possible Addition of [Clause] 10.1(e)

 

Clause 10.1 specifies various “events of termination” which, if any one or more of them occurs, enables the lease to be terminated by, in some instances, the lessee and, in one instance (namely, where the lessee commits a material breach of any of its obligations which has not been remedied within a reasonable period), by Council.

 

Council raises the possibility of including an additional event of termination, namely, where the premises are not maintained to provide safe operational use in accordance with “government requirement and standards”. I see no reason why this additional event of termination ought not to be included in clause 10.1, as a new paragraph (e).

 

I therefore recommend that we request that clause 10.1 be amended as follows:-

 

·      amend paragraph (d) by omitting the word “interference,” and by inserting instead the words “interference; or”

·      insert the following new paragraph immediately after paragraph (d):

(e) the Premises are not maintained to provide safe operational use in accordance with, and to the extent required by, relevantly applicable statutory, governmental and industry requirements and standards and best practice.

 

Generally

 

I have perused and reviewed the remaining provisions of the draft lessee. Those provisions, including, most particularly, the release and indemnity provisions (see clause 7), are, in my opinion, legally acceptable.”

To assist in determining an appropriate market rent for the proposed site of the telecommunication facility, as per resolution 3, Council engaged the services of Chaloner Valuations. The Market Rental Assessment undertaken by Chaloner is provided as AT-1. In summary, the report provides a current market rental for the land as $15,000 per annum. This is almost double the initial offer of $8,650 per annum from Optus.

 

Finally, in relation to resolution 4, Council requested that staff obtain independent reports as to the effects of this telecommunications facility in terms of noise, health and other issues that Council should be aware of. An information package has been obtained from the Australian Communications and Media Authority entitled “Mobile Phone Towers and EME – Information for communities and councils”. This package contains numerous Fact Sheets on EME and its impacts on health, etc. The package will be distributed to Councillors separately.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

As detailed above, the community consultation will be predominantly undertaken by TCI, on behalf of Optus. The consultation is designed to inform the community of the proposed facility and to receive their feedback.  Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated by TCI to determine whether or not Optus will proceed with implementing the telecommunications facility proposed in Trouve Street, Lane Cove.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Involve

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and Community Groups

Key Message Givers (e.g. residents in Trouve St)

Lane Cove community and Community Groups

Proposed Medium

E-Newsletter, Advertisement, and Website Exhibition

Letterbox drop

E-Newsletter, Advertisement, and Website Exhibition

Indicative Timing

Timing of consultation i.e. 6 weeks from placement of advertisement by TCI on behalf of Optus

Timing of consultation i.e. 6 weeks from placement of advertisement by TCI on behalf of Optus

Timing of consultation i.e. 6 weeks from placement of advertisement by TCI on behalf of Optus

 

Conclusion

 

Action has been taken in relation to resolutions 2, 3, and 4 from the Council meeting of 4 April 2011 (inclusive of the separate resolutions on legal clauses of the lease document).

 

TCI has advised Council that they will soon undertake comprehensive community consultation. Prior to doing this, TCI will contact Council’s Governance staff to allow us to also undertake additional consultation via our e-newsletter.

 

Council will be kept abreast of the consultation process, with a further report advising of the results and feedback, and whether Optus intend to proceed with installing the telecommunications facility in Trouve Street, Lane Cove.


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.  Council write to TCI advising of the proposed changes to the legal agreement, as suggested by Council’s in-house solicitor;

2.  Council accept the valuation of $15,000 per annum, as prepared by Chaloner Valuations for the site area required for the proposed telecommunications facility at Trouve Street, Lane Cove;

3.  Subject to Council accepting the valuation proposed by Chaloner Valuations, that staff notify TCI of this valuation; and

4.  A further report come to Council following the community consultation process, including Optus’ intentions with the proposed telecommunications facility in Trouve Street, Lane Cove.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Valuation of Telecommunications Proposal

5 Pages

 

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2011

Environmental Services Division Report No. 26

 

 

Reference:    Environmental Services Division Report No. 26

Subject:          Delegated Authority Report - May 2011    

Record No:    SU1863 - 23644/11

Author(s):       Angela  Panich 

 

 

 

During the month of May 2011 a total of 31 Development Applications were determined under delegation by staff, one (1) by Council and three (3) by the Joint Regional Planning Panel.  In addition one (1) Construction Certificates and 17 Privately Certified Construction Certificates were issued.  There were nine (9) Privately Certified Complying Developments.

 

Developments under the new State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008  in May were:-

 

CD No

Address

Description of Work

CD45/11

4 Gentle Street, Lane Cove West

Inground swimming pool

CD46/11

125 Longueville Road, Lane Cove

Internal shop fitout

CD47/11

20A Pengilly Street, Riverview

Alterations to existing dwelling

CD9/11

96 Greenwich Road, Greenwich

Internal alterations

CD48/11

125 Longueville Road, Lane Cove

Internal shop fitout

CD52/11

20A Pengilly Street, Riverview

Carport

CD49/11

16 Mars Road, Lane Cove West

Change of use and fitout

CD50/11

2 Alpha Road, Lane Cove

Alterations and additions

CD52/11

20A Pengilly Street, Riverview

S96 modification to carport

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Development Applications Determined for May 2011

3 Pages

 

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2011

Human Services Division Report No. 7

 

 

Reference:    Human Services Division Report No. 7

Subject:          Request to Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (NSROC) to Fund Aboriginal Education    

Record No:    SU902 - 23509/11

Author(s):       Eric  Poulos 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Following a report to the meeting of 18 April 2011 about the Aboriginal Education Program, Council requested a full report come back regarding the Marsden School, West Ryde program. This report outlines the Aboriginal Education Program at Marsden High School, West Ryde based on information provided by the school, the Department of Education and independent research.

 

Background

 

The following people were consulted in the preparation of this report:-

·     Mrs. Denise Lofts, the Principal at Marsden High School;

·     Ian Bulgin, a Human Society and Its Environment (HSIE) teacher, responsible for Aboriginal Education at Marsden High School; and

·     David Lardner, Department of Education and Training (DET), North Sydney Region, Project Officer – Aboriginal Education.

 

Marsden High School is located in West Ryde, a well established residential area in the Ryde Local Government Area (LGA). It is a coeducational High School providing quality learning for years 7-12. There are around 750 students enrolled, with about 62% being boys and 38% girls. Approximately 90% of its students complete Year 12 and around 90% of these go on to attend university or TAFE on completing their HSC. About 20 students are Aboriginal, which is approximately 2.7% of the student population. Across the Northern Sydney DET region there are a total of 315 Aboriginal students. This is the lowest number across all the ten DET regions in NSW.

 

The school currently employs a part-time Aboriginal Education Officer on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Their role is to act as a liaison between Aboriginal students, the school and the community. In NSW, the retention rate (young people staying at school) from Year 7/8 to Year 12 in 2009 was 45% for Aboriginal students compared with 77% for non-Aboriginal students. Generally, when at school, Aboriginal children collectively have lower outcomes in numeracy and literacy. The Principal, Mrs. Denise Lofts provided information from the Lead4Learning website (http://deniselofts.wordpress.com/) where she noted: “Aboriginal education will always remain a focus. Those Aboriginal students who complete year 12, adds 12 years to their life expectancy. That is a powerful statistic.”

 

Comparisons between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children can be measured through the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), national tests. These tests controlled by the Federal Government measure literacy and numeracy for all students in Australia. Students are assessed using common national tests in Reading, Writing, Language Conventions (Spelling, Grammar and Punctuation) and Numeracy. Where these tests confirm that Aboriginal children are disadvantaged and score lower, the Federal Government provides funds to the State Government to put into their schools to improve the outcomes for Aboriginal children.

 

The Aboriginal Worker at Marsden High supports Aboriginal children who potentially are at risk and helps them to improve school retention and completion rates and cut off the potential for leaving school and performing poorly. They would call on a range of resources and strategies such as:-

 

1.    Identifying students at risk and support them with an Aboriginal team;

2.    Tutoring students in class;

3.    Providing Aboriginal mentors to students;

4.    Encouraging Aboriginal students to come and stay at school and decrease their rate of absenteeism;

5.    Addressing cultural awareness issues with staff so that cultural differences are understood and not considered a deficit;

6.    Promoting confidence in students by having positive Aboriginal role models, Aboriginal vocation days, and guest community speakers to talk to students;

7.    Using the Aboriginal team in school to regularly contact parents to explain the school policy and expectations;

8.    Promoting Aboriginal community involvement in the school decision making, reading programs and the school’s literacy and numeracy programs so they can act as mentors / tutors;

9.    Informing students of appropriate pathways with their learning; and

10.  Setting up and having an effective Aboriginal Education Consultative Group (AECG) with the involvement of school staff and the Aboriginal community. (The NSW AECG is an Aboriginal community-based organisation made up of volunteer members who are involved in local and regional AECG’s throughout NSW. The NSW AECG Inc. is recognised as the principal source of advice on behalf of Aboriginal communities on issues relating to education and training).

 

While there are State and Federal Government programs such as the Schools in Partnership initiative, and the Norta Norta Program (see AT-1) which focus on improving engagement, attendance, retention, and literacy and numeracy achievements for Aboriginal students, these are poorly funded in Northern Sydney. The Norta Norta Program is a supplementary program which provides targeted support to Aboriginal students to accelerate progress in student achievement. The focus of the program is to provide learning assistance in the key areas of literacy and numeracy to improve educational outcomes for Aboriginal students. 648 schools and 1,958 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students were identified to receive Norta Norta Program funding in 2009. These students were at or below the national minimum standards for reading and numeracy in 2008 National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) results for Year 3, 5, 7 and 9. David Lardner, from DET noted that he had only around $2,000 in funds to distribute to Aboriginal children in Northern Sydney, some of which went to Marsden High School.

 

Ian Bulgin, a HSIE teacher at the school noted: “Funding for the Aboriginal students that attend schools in Northern Sydney Region has been very difficult to access for many years due to the small numbers of students in many different schools across the region. Sadly, many of these students still suffer considerable social and economic disadvantage. At Marsden High School, West Ryde we have 20 students enrolled. We believe that the most effective way to assist these students and their parents and carers is to employ an Aboriginal Education Worker to support these students”. Essentially, any funds that Council and/or NSROC would provide would go towards maintaining the part-time employment of the worker. The school has applied to both the State and Federal Government (see AT-2) - Marsden High School - Aboriginal Students 2011 Application to Apply for Funding to Employ an Aboriginal Education Worker (AEW).

 


Discussion

 

Issues for Council to Consider

 

In response to Councillor Bennison’s motion, Council has been provided with information to discuss what role it will take in relation to Marsden High School. Based on the above information, Council should consider:-

1.   Whether it has a role in approaching NSROC to assist to fund the Aboriginal Education Worker;

2.   Whether it will support Aboriginal education in a school out of the Lane Cove area and not for Lane Cove residents; and

3.   What Local Government’s role is in terms of contributing to an approach where both the State Government (through the NSW Department of Education and Training) and the Federal Government have major responsibilities.

 

Conclusion

 

It is considered that Council has before it information on which to discuss what its next step will be in the matter. There is no impediment for Council to provide funds to the Marsden High School or to encourage NSROC to do so. As a matter of principle, Council’s financial assistance is tied to its social, cultural and management planning priorities. While a worthwhile cause, support for the proposal can not be seen as a high priority in any of these documents.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.    The report be received and noted; and

2.    Council consider what role it will take in approaching NSROC to contribute funds to             employ an Aboriginal Education Worker to support Aboriginal students at Marsden High     School.

 

 

 

 

 

Donald Gibson

Acting Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Aboriginal Education and Training Initiatives in NSW Government Schools

1 Page

AT‑2 View

Marsden High School - Aboriginal Students 2011 Application to Apply for Funding to Employ an Aboriginal Education Worker (AEW)

2 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2011

Human Services Division Report No. 8

 

 

Reference:    Human Services Division Report No. 8

Subject:          Report on the Lane Cove Seniors Survey and Programmes    

Record No:    SU3116 - 23524/11

Author(s):       Carol Sinclair; Eric  Poulos 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report gives information on programmes for seniors in Lane Cove that includes an analysis of a recent survey completed by 225 seniors. In addition, it informs Council on further funding attained from the Ageing, Disability and Home Care, Department of Family and Community Services (ADHC) which will allow Lane Cove to further expand its programmes for seniors and people with disabilities.

 

Background

 

Seniors Survey

 

To coincide with Seniors Week this year Lane Cove Council, The Meeting House and Lane Cove Community Aid Service collaborated to develop a seniors survey for the purpose of identifying ideas for activities and social opportunities for seniors in Lane Cove. 

 

A total of 225 people responded to the survey, 77% were female and 23% male.  The predominant age group for the respondents was 80-85 followed by the 75-79 and 85-90 year olds. Most respondents came from the suburbs of Lane Cove (45%), followed by Lane Cove West (14%), Lane Cove North (12%) and Northwood (11%). 

 

The survey was undertaken to find out more information about a range of services seniors already use and also to see where improvements can be made. To also know about the level of people’s mobility, questions were asked about their ability to travel and move freely. Within the survey, 75% of people did not use a walking aid at all, 22% used a walking stick and 3% used a walking frame or a scooter. 

 

Most respondents use their own car or a combination of walking and public transport to get themselves around. However 11% of respondents are reliant on others for transport – this would include friends and family, paid carers, and the transport services from Meeting House, Lane Cove Community Aid Service and Lower North Shore Community Transport.

 

The survey tried to ascertain which time of day or day of the week the seniors had available for new activities and although most seniors were available both mornings and afternoons, there was little preference identified for the day of the week. 

 

The Library was a very popular resource and activity for 79% of respondents with many positive comments about the friendliness of the staff and the spaciousness and quality of facilities provided. The most popular form of activity that respondents currently attend were day bus trips followed by seminars, cooking activities and morning tea bus trips.

 

When asked what activities they would be interested in attending in the future, exercise classes, a morning tea drop in centre, Tai Chi classes, a restaurant group, falls prevention classes and weekend activities were the most popular.  We received over 50 suggestions for further activities including groups for grandparents, a walking group for people who walk slowly, a range of seminar topics, DIY classes, a range of different card games, live theatre outings and regular computer workshops. 

 


Discussion

 

Further work will be done to follow up on information provided by seniors from the survey and as to how Council can better meet needs. The Seniors and Disability Officer will investigate:-

·      Organising new activities such as bus excursions and trips for seniors on a regular basis;

·      Using community transport to link seniors and people with disability to community services;

·      Matching the preferred time and day according to the majority of the people interested in that particular activity;

·      Providing a morning tea drop-in program;

·      Maintaining the Tai Chi, gentle exercise, and the seminar programs already in place; 

·      Continuing the falls prevention classes which have proved to be very popular and effective in strengthening seniors;

·      Expanding the cooking classes and the restaurant program which brings seniors together in a preventative way; and

·      Working collaboratively with the Lane Cove Community Aid Service and The Meeting House on some of these programs so that the widest possible clientele can be involved.

 

New Funding

 

Ageing, Disability and Home Care, Department of Family and Community Services (ADHC) has provided Council with an additional $32,500 growth funding. This is to be ongoing and supplemented by a one-off capital grant of $13,800 which has been granted in order to install a camera and screen system at the Seniors Centre to help facilitate the HEART Program (Healthy Eating and Recreation Time for Seniors Program). The equipment will be used to project an image of what the demonstrator is doing onto a screen so people can see exactly what is being done.  It is also hoped that we may be able to film the demonstration to make a DVD and recipe book package.  The themes and ways in which this approach could be used are wide ranging, eg. cooking for one, basic techniques demonstrated. 

 

With the growth of seniors’ programmes and the concerted use of the Lane Cove Seniors Centre, the new funding will allow for Council to expand its programmes and to employ a part time Activities Officer. This position will help to resource the existing activities run by the Seniors and Disability Officer and to assist in the development of new programs, including adopting suggestions made in the Seniors Survey.

 

Conclusion

 

Lane Cove Seniors Centre is going from strength to strength and seniors are giving Council very positive feedback about what is available for them in Lane Cove. This has helped Lane Cove Council to receive additional funding from ADHC due to our excellent reputation. The additional funds will be used to employ an Activities Officer and to further assist Lane Cove Seniors Centre to become a vibrant hub of activity and provide a broad range of events for seniors.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the report be received and noted.

 

Donald Gibson

Acting Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2011

Human Services Division Report No. 9

 

 

Reference:    Human Services Division Report No. 9

Subject:          Tender for the Operation of the Lane Cove Aquatic Centre    

Record No:    SU4182 - 23830/11

Author(s):       Donald  Gibson; Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council called for tenders in accordance with Council’s Tender and Quotation Procedure for the operation of the Lane Cove Aquatic Leisure Centre. The tender panel have identified that none of the tenders achieve a suitable financial return to level of service outcome. The panel recommends that Council reject all tenders and as Council has called tenders and identified suitable organisations in the Aquatic Centre management market, rather that call fresh tenders, enter into direct negotiations with all tenderers to improve the financial return to level of service outcomes. The panel’s recommendation is submitted for Council’s consideration.

 

Background

 

The Lane Cove Aquatic Leisure Centre consists of two elements, the original outdoor 50 metre Pool and grandstand opened in 1961 and the newer indoor complex opened in 2001.

 

In 2001, the Licence for the centre was awarded for a period of five years with a five year option, at the lessees discretion.  John Nicholas and Associates (JANA) was the original Licence holder under the company Lane Cove Aquatic Leisure Centre Pty Ltd. In 2007, Todd McHardy purchased 50% of the Lane Cove Aquatic Leisure Centre Pty Ltd and in 2008 subsequently bought out the remaining 50%. He rebranded the licence entity Bluefit.

 

The ten year licence became due for renewal on the 29th March, 2011. It was deemed prudent to align a new lease/licence to the financial year. An agreement was reached with Bluefit to cover the period from April to the end of June 2011.

 

Aquatic Centre Performance

 

In first seven years of the contract the reported attendance at the Centre averaged approximately 300,000 per annum. Since the advent of Bluefit attendances have grown to 594,000 during 2009/10 and are projected to exceed 600,000 in 2010/2011. In this period the number of complaints has also reduced significantly.

 

Since early 2007 Council has been working with Damian Gorman and Jim Corbett of Sport and Leisure Solutions to improve the overall operation of the Centre. Critical to this process was an Operation Review conducted in 2007 which assessed the current licence and its deficiencies and the overall operation of the Centre and its management.

 

Deficiencies in the original contract included:-

·     Difficulties in assessing profits to be shared;

·     Allocation of maintenance responsibilities;

·     Responsibility for the outdoor pool and its operations;

·     Lack of clearly defined management reporting requirements;

·     Lack of clearly defined performance criteria; and

·     Option – only exercisable by the licensee.


Sequence of Events for the Tender Process

 

Council has utilised the services of a number of appropriate specialists to ensure the deficiencies identified have been addressed in the new contract and tender documents:-

·     Sport and Leisure Solutions for the service specifications;

·     Marsdens Lawyers for the contract documents and review of the tender documents; and

·     Southern Aquatic Services, who maintain equipment for Council, for the inventory and maintenance requirements.

 

Council staff also liaised with the Lane Cove Swim Club to ensure that their needs were taken into account.

 

Tender Process

 

Council called for tenders in accordance with Council’s Tender and Quotation Procedure for the operation of the Aquatic Centre for a 5 year period with a 5 year option at Council's discretion. Advertisements for the tender were placed in the Sydney Morning Herald on  30th April, 3rd and 4th May, 2011 and North Shore Times 4th May, 2011, with a closing date of 23rd May, 2011. A site visit was conducted on Monday May 9 at 10.30 am. Five copies of the tender documentation were issued.

 

The criteria for the assessment of the tenders was determined as follows:-

·     Tender Price - 30%

·     Capacity and ability of tenderer to undertake the services - 15%

·     Capability, Previous relevant experience, performance and reliability in the provision of similar types of services - 15%

·     Management Reporting Systems & Procedures - 10%

·     Community Engagement – Partnership Capacity - 10%

·     OH&S and Contract Compliance - 10%

·     Innovation - Programming creativity - 10%

 

Discussion

 

At the close of the tender period, three tenders were received (in alphabetical order):-

·     Belgravia Leisure, conforming offer only;

·     Bluefit, conforming and non-conforming offer; and

·     YMCA, conforming and non-conforming offer.

 

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 - Facilities (Chairperson) Donald Gibson, Executive Manager – Corporate Services, Craig Wrightson, and a representative of Sport and Leisure Solutions, Jim Corbett, who assisted the TRP in the tender evaluation process, after signing a Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Agreement. The Executive Manager - Human Services, Jane Gornall also took part in the initial assessment of the tenders prior to her departure on leave.

 

Interviews were held on Monday 30 May, 2011 with each tenderer. At the interview, each of the tenderers were asked a series of questions designed to allow them to expand on an aspect of their bid. Each conforming tender was assessed based on the weighted criteria and ranked accordingly:-

 

 

 

Criteria

Weighting

Component

Score

Blue Fit

YMCA

Belgravia

Price Net Guarantee

30%

Bid Price                                

30

Withheld due to pending negotiations

Withheld due to pending negotiations

Withheld due to pending negotiations

Capacity

15%

Resource management

5

Equally preferred

Equally preferred

Equally preferred

Value for money

5

Equally preferred

 

Equally preferred

Conditions placed on price

5

Equally preferred

Equally preferred

Equally preferred

 

15%

Relevant experience and expertise

5

Equally preferred

Equally preferred

Equally preferred

 Capability

 

Marketing, sales, promotion

5

Preferred

 

 

 

 

Environmental

5

Equally preferred

Equally preferred

Equally preferred

Management Reporting Systems & Procedures

10%

Management reporting

5

 

Preferred

 

 

 

Management systems

5

Equally preferred

Equally preferred

Equally preferred

Community Engagement

10%

Partnership building capacity

10

Equally preferred

 

Equally preferred

OH & S and contract compliance

10%

Systems and processes

5

Equally preferred

Equally preferred

Equally preferred

Demonstrated experience in operating safe facilities.

5

Equally preferred

Equally preferred

Equally preferred

Innovation - program creativity

10%

Programming

10

 

Equally preferred

Equally preferred

 

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.

 

The tender process has successfully identified three suitable contractors that are more than capable of carrying out the contract for the operation of the Aquatic Centre. Each of the companies that tendered has a history of running leisure facilities on behalf of councils and each of them has several sites within the Sydney area. It has become obvious, however, through the tender process that only the existing operator is in a position to maintain the current levels of service provided at the centre in relation to the gymnasium as they have access to the offsite premises located in Phoenix Street to supplement the floor space in the main Aquatic Centre building. The panel therefore are of the view that none of the tenders as submitted provide a suitable financial return to level of service outcome. To address this issue, the panel proposes that all tenderers be rejected, and negotiations take part with all tenderers to improve the financial return to level of service outcome. This can be achieved by tenderers being requested to submit revised bids, such to include the possible immediate expansion of the gymnasium on site (Note the scope of work proposed is different to that proposed by Bluefit in their non-conforming bid outlined later in the report).

 

Non-Conforming Tenders

 

The YMCA non conforming bid calls for a short 2-3 year tender period at a lower rental to address issues perceived by the YMCA to impact on the financial return to level of service outcomes. A shorter term is not supported by the TRP as the issues can be addressed through the direct negotiations proposed.

 

The Bluefit non conforming bid provides for a capital injection within the first 5 years to increase the size of Aquatic Centre Gymnasium. The proposal is based on the Aquatic Centre Masterplan, but the Masterplan envisaged such a change would occur in conjunction with the relocation of the Aquatic Centre entrance. This would require significant capital injection from Council, which is currently unfunded in Council’s ten year financial plan. This option is not supported.

 

Conclusion

 

Having regard to the issues outlined above, the Tender Review Panel recommends that:-

1.   Council note that the tender process in this instance has not achieved a suitable financial return to level of service outcome.

2.   Council reject all tenders and as Council has called tenders and identified suitable organisations in the Aquatic Centre management market, rather that call fresh tenders, enter into direct negotiations with all tenderers to improve the financial return to level of service outcomes.

3.   The General Manager be authorised to conduct such negotiations and a further report be submitted to Council outlining the results of the negotiations.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council consider the recommendation from the Tender Review Panel for the operation of the Lane Cove Aquatic Centre.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Donald Gibson

Acting Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.