m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

4 October 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 Tuesday

4 October 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 4 October 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 - 5 SEPTEMBER 2011

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

2.       Notice of Motion No. 18

SUBJECT: 150 Epping Rd, Lane Cove

 

General Managers Reports

 

3.       General Managers Report No. 19

SUBJECT: Council Snapshot

 

4.       General Managers Report No. 21

SUBJECT: Gazettal of Public Roads

 

Corporate Services Division Reports

 

5.       Corporate Services Division Report No. 39

SUBJECT: Pecuniary Interest Returns 2011

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Reports

 

6.       Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 27

SUBJECT: NSROC Tender No.11/11 for Supply of Asphalt, Supply and Delivery and Supply, Delivery and Laying of Asphaltic Concrete

 

7.       Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 28

SUBJECT: Proposed Courtesy Bus Levy

 

8.       Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 29

SUBJECT: Richard Street, Greenwich - Road Reserve Safety

 

9.       Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 30

SUBJECT: Lane Cove Car Share Policy

 


Environmental Services Division Reports

 

10.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 31

SUBJECT: LEP Planning Proposal Finalisation: 1-5 Birdwood Ave Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

 

11.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 33

SUBJECT: Proposed Additional Green Waste Collection  

 

Human Services Division Reports

 

12.     Human Services Division Report No. 5

SUBJECT: Tender Report on the Adaptation of the Top Floor of the Community Centre, 164 Longueville Road, Lane Cove into an Art Gallery and Exhibition Space

 

13.     Human Services Division Report No. 15

SUBJECT: Art Gallery and Exhibition Space - Management Agreement, Business Plan and Proposed Name for the Space  

 

 

 

 

                 


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 October 2011

Notice of Motion No. 18

 

 

Reference:     Notice of Motion No. 18

Subject:          150 Epping Rd, Lane Cove    

Record No:    SU4548 - 40696/11

Author(s):      Councillor Shauna Forrest 

 

 

Background

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 5 September 2011, the Notice of Motion and recommendation of Environmental Services Division Report No. 30, 150 Epping Road, Part 3A Environmental Assessment,) was not carried and was not negated. This Notice of Motion submits the recommendation of that report, attached as AT-1.

It is reasonable to work on the assumption that if Council tonight agrees to put in a Submission, that the State Government will accept it and consider it up until its decision is made. The 150 Epping Road site’s future is considered of high importance to Council, given its prominence at the western entry to Lane Cove, its setting in an industrial zone by the Lane Cove River and the proposal’s potential to be highly visible from Willoughby and Ryde council areas as it significantly exceeds the scale resolved on by Council on 6 December 2010.

Residents have expressed concern that Council did not itself resolve at its last meeting to send a submission to the Department of Planning addressing the issues concerning a Concept Plan for 150 Epping Road for a mixed use development of up to 25 storeys, with environmental protection proposed over the eastern bushland portion of the site.

The draft submission (shown attached as AT-2) comments on a range of detailed issues in the Concept Plan proposal, which had not been issued at the time of Council’s resolutions last December. It expresses concerns at the application’s inadequate response to the Director-General’s Requirements and its significant departure from the scale of concepts presented by the developer to Councilllor workshops.

The draft submission supports Council’s resolutions of 6 December 2011 for:-

1.   the zoning to remain industrial; and

2.   the maximum height to be 39 metres (12-13 storeys) and FSR 1.1:1 to apply if mixed use proceeds.

 These resolutions took into account the advice of independent consultancies, GMU Urban Design & Architecture Pty Ltd and Tim Williams Architects.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorse the draft submission shown attached as AT-2 dated 6 September and it be forwarded to the Department of Planning as a matter of urgency.

 

 

 

Councillor Shauna Forrest

Councillor

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

REPORT 150 Epping Road, Part 3A Environmental Assessment

5 Pages

AT‑2 View

Draft Submission - 150 Epping Rd part 3A Environmental Assessment - 6 September 2011

19 Pages


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 October 2011

General Managers Report No. 19

 

 

Reference:     General Managers Report No. 19

Subject:          Council Snapshot     

Record No:    SU220 - 36891/11

Author(s):      Millie  Stephen 

 

 

Executive Summary

Attached for the information of Councillors is a review of Councils recent activities, entitled Council Snapshot. This report provides a summary of the operations of each division. 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the information be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Council Snapshot

60 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 October 2011

General Managers Report No. 21

 

 

Reference:     General Managers Report No. 21

Subject:          Gazettal of Public Roads    

Record No:    SU1691 - 40806/11

Author(s):      John Lee 

 

 

Executive Summary

This report considers concerns raised about the status of a number of roads which were included in plans of subdivision before the commencement of the Local Government Act, 1906, and which were not formally dedicated as such and remained in certificates of title, many of which have since been cancelled.  The report recommends that for abundant caution, where doubt about the status of public roads arises in such cases, the General Manager be authorised to have notices published in the Government Gazette pursuant to Section 16 of the Roads Act 1993.

Background

Roads were progressively recognised as public roads in legislation including:-

a)         The Municipalities Act 1897 which stated that all roads, streets, lanes, or other thoroughfares, and all ferries, wharfs, and jetties dedicated to public use or in, over, and upon which a legal use or enjoyment existed in favour of, or was vested in, the public were deemed and taken to be public roads, streets, ferries, wharfs, jetties, and thoroughfares.

b)         the Public Roads Act 1902, which defined a road as : ‘" Road " wherever used in this Act includes any land proclaimed dedicated resumed or otherwise provided before or after the passing of this Act as a public thoroughfare or way and wherever used in sections twelve eighteen to twenty-two inclusive and thirty-four of this Act also includes any land defined reserved or left before or after the passing of this Act as a road in any subdivision of Crown land or in the measurement or granting of Crown land as indicated upon the official plans of the same

c)         The Local Government Act 1906 defined " Public road " to mean “road which the public are entitled to use” and gave Council the care control and management of roads and made relevant exceptions to where a Council did not exercise care control and management of roads which were not yet constructed; and

d)         Local Government Act 1919 provided that “Where any road has been left in subdivision of private lands before the commencement of the Local Government Act, 1906, and there exists any doubt as to whether or not it is a public road—

(a)     the council may serve on the owner of the land comprising the road notice of intention to take over the road ;

(b)     if the owner has any objection he may within thirty days after such service appeal to a district court judge having jurisdiction within the area;

(c)     such judge may hear and determine the appeal and make such order as he thinks fit;

(d)     if the owner does not appeal, or if on appeal the judge so orders, the council may notify in the Gazette that such road is a public road,

(e)     and thereupon the road shall be a public road and shall vest in the council.”

Discussion

The provisions of the 1919 Local Government Act are still available in Sections 16 and 17 of the Roads Act 1993 where the Council may, by notice published in the Gazette, dedicate such land as a public road.  On the publication of the notice in the Gazette, the land described in the declaration becomes free of all trusts, restrictions, dedications, reservations, obligations and interests, and the land is dedicated as a public road.

There are a number of subdivisions within our Local Government area which pre-date the commencement of the 1906 Local Government Act.  Where legal use or enjoyment could be established prior to 1 January 1907 roads could become public roads in NSW by usage.  There are some instances in these subdivisions where roads intended for public use were not formally dedicated and remained in the certificate of title of the land being subdivided, notwithstanding that subsequent dealings have assumed public road status. 

Conclusion

For abundant caution, and to remove any doubt about the status of roads left in subdivision of private lands as public road before the commencement of the Local Government Act, 1906, it is recommended that the General Manager be authorised to have notices published in the Government Gazette pursuant to Section 16 of the Roads Act 1993.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council, in exercising abundant caution, and to remove any doubt about the status of roads left in subdivision of private lands as public road before the commencement of the Local Government Act, 1906, authorize the General Manager to have notices published in the Government Gazette pursuant to Section 16 of the Roads Act 1993.

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 October 2011

Corporate Services Division Report No. 39

 

 

Reference:     Corporate Services Division Report No. 39

Subject:          Pecuniary Interest Returns 2011    

Record No:    SU2095 - 34759/11

Author(s):      Ian  Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to table the Pecuniary Interest Returns of Councillors and Designated Staff as required by the Local Government Act 1993.  This report recommends that Council notes the tabling of these returns.

Discussion

Section 449(3) of the Local Government Act 1993 (“LG Act”) requires Councillors and Designated Staff to lodge a “Disclosures by Councillors and Designated Persons Return” to the General Manager by 30 September 2011.

The General Manager is required to keep a register of lodged returns and table lodged returns at the next meeting of Council after 30 September in accordance with Section 450A of the LG Act.

Conclusion

All returns for Councillors and Designated Staff have been submitted.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council note the tabling of Pecuniary Interest Returns of Councillors and Designated Staff lodged prior to 30 September 2011.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 October 2011

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 27

 

 

Reference:     Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 27

Subject:          NSROC Tender No.11/11 for Supply of Asphalt, Supply and Delivery and Supply, Delivery and Laying of Asphaltic Concrete    

Record No:    SU3311 - 38816/11

Author(s):      Martin Terescenko 

 

 

Executive Summary

Tenders were invited by NSROC on behalf of member councils for Supply; Supply and Delivery and Supply, Delivery and Laying of Asphaltic Concrete. The preferred tenderers are Boral Asphalt, Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd, J & M Schembri Pty Ltd, Ozpave (Aust) Pty Ltd, SRS Road Services Pty Ltd and Stateline Asphalt Pty Ltd who have satisfied the selection criteria and have the most cost effective pricing structures.

Background

NSROC tender 11/11 was issued to the market in May 2011. The contract is for the supply of Asphaltic Concrete Surfacing and associated works to the NSROC Member Councils for a 2 year period. To enable a thorough and detailed investigation on market conditions for asphalt contractors, the tender documents requests prices for supply; supply and delivery; supply, delivery and laying of various grades and quantities of asphaltic concrete.

Discussion

As part of the selection and evaluation process the tenders were evaluated on the following criteria:-

 

·           Compliance with the contractual and technical conditions of the Tender

·           Compliance with relevant Government Policies

·           Compliance with Australian Standards

·           Performance standards eg. Delivery, quality

·           Competitive pricing structure

·           Capacity to supply the specific requirements of each Council

·           Service Levels

·           Suitability of Quality Systems

·           Ability to invoice on a Project Basis at the end of the month during which the project is completed

Eleven tenders were received by the participating council’s and all met the selection criteria. The tenderers submitted a variety of rates for a large number of asphaltic concrete products and services. Lane Cove Council has decided to accept four tenderers for the Mill and Re-sheet Program and two tenderers to be used for the Heavy Patching Program. A confidential memorandum has been circulated separately to Councillors detailing the prices submitted by each tenderer and details of the reference checks undertaken of the recommended tenderers.  

Mill and Re-Sheet

Over the past few years Council has been mainly using Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd for the Mill and Re-sheet program as they have been the most cost effective. However, due to the increased works program by the introduction of the Infrastructure Levy this year Council is proposing to choose four tenderers for Mill and Re-sheet works should the main contractor be unavailable or unable to carry out asphalt works when required. The following table shows the ranking of prices to mill and re-sheet typical sections of roadway.

 

Tenderer

Cost to Mill & Re-sheet 1500m2 of 100mm thick AC10 and AC20

Ally Property Services Pty Ltd

 

Boral Asphalt

Equally Preferred

D & M Excavations & Asphalting Pty Ltd

 

Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd

Equally Preferred

Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd

 

J & M Schembri Pty Ltd

 

Kizan Pty Ltd

 

Ozpave (Aust) Pty Ltd

Equally Preferred

Sharpe Bros Pty Ltd

 

SRS Roads Pty Ltd

Equally Preferred

Stateline Asphalt Pty Ltd

 

It is recommended that four tenderers be accepted for mill and re-sheet works. Therefore the preferred tenders are from Downer EDI Works, Boral Asphalt, Ozpave and SRS Roads.

Heavy Patching

Heavy patching is generally undertaken on small patches of roadway where there are localised failures or for restoration of an area damaged by a Utility Authority.  The table below shows the ranking of prices to undertake heavy patching in two common scenarios.

 

Tenderer

20m2 of 100mm Deep Heavy Patch

75m2 of 150mm Deep Heavy Patch

Ally Property Services Pty Ltd

 

 

Boral Asphalt

 

 

D & M Excavations & Asphalting Pty Ltd

 

 

Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd

 

 

Fulton Hogan Industries Pty Ltd

 

 

J & M Schembri Pty Ltd

Equally Preferred

Equally Preferred

Kizan Pty Ltd

 

 

Ozpave (Aust) Pty Ltd

 

 

Sharpe Bros Pty Ltd

 

 

SRS Roads Pty Ltd

 

 

Stateline Asphalt Pty Ltd

Equally Preferred

Equally Preferred

It is recommended that two tenderers be accepted for Heavy Patching works. Therefore the preferred tenders are from J & M Schembri Pty Ltd and Stateline Asphalt Pty Ltd.

Council has been using J & M Schembri Pty Ltd for heavy patching works over the past seven years and have found them to be a very reliable and professional contractor. This year is the first year that Council will be using Stateline Asphalt Pty Ltd, however positive references were received from other councils for their work.

Contractor Safety Management System

Council uses BNG Conserve for our contractor safety management to ensure that all our contractors are up to date with their insurance policies, licences and OH & S requirements. Therefore, the conditions of contract will require these contractors to have their policies, licences and OH & S requirements assessed and approved by BNG Conserve.

Conclusion

Having met the selection criteria, providing the most cost effective pricing structure and having positive reference checks about the quality and reliability of their work, it is recommended that Council:-

1.   Accept the tenders from Boral Asphalt, Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd, J & M Schembri Pty Ltd, Ozpave (Aust) Pty Ltd, SRS Road Services Pty Ltd and Stateline Asphalt Pty Ltd for Supply; Supply and Delivery and Supply, Delivery and Laying of Asphaltic Concrete for two years subject to these contractors having their policies, licences and OH & S requirements assessed and approved with BNG Conserve.

2.   Authorise the General Manager to sign the contracts.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council consider the recommendation from the Tender Panel for the Supply; Supply and Delivery and Supply, Delivery and Laying of Asphaltic Concrete to Council.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 October 2011

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 28

 

 

Reference:     Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 28

Subject:          Proposed Courtesy Bus Levy    

Record No:    SU4486 - 39392/11

Author(s):      Tim Sullivan 

 

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide details on the mechanisms for the introduction of a possible Courtesy Bus Levy to be submitted to the NSW Government. The report details procedures and requirements to facilitate an application for a special variation to general income for large land owners in the Lane Cove West Business Park under section 508A of the Local Government Act.

Background

The need for an improved public transport service to Lane Cove West Business Park has been identified for some time. Currently the volume of single occupancy car trips to the business park causes congestion, particularly in the afternoon peak, and it also results in a scramble for limited on street parking space. There is also evidence that the lack of accessibility is one of the key factors restricting rental occupancy and value, and damaging economic competitiveness relative to neighbouring employment centres such as Macquarie Park and Artarmon. Further, anecdotal evidence suggests some employers in Lane Cove West Business Park struggle to recruit and retain staff who find it difficult to get to work without a car due to the current inadequate bus service provision.

It is therefore proposed that Council facilitate a new Courtesy Bus Service, linking the main line railway network to Lane Cove West Business Park.  This express service would run at 20 minute intervals between Chatswood Station and Mars Road in the morning and afternoon peaks, Monday to Friday (see fact sheet attached as AT-1 for more details).

A number of ways to pay for the proposed new bus service have been considered. A direct charge to users is the most obvious method but the Passenger Transport Act prohibits the operation of this type of commercial charter service to a fixed route and timetable. A gold coin donation is a method used by some Sydney councils to partially cover the cost of community bus services but this type of voluntary donation is unlikely to be sufficient as a primary source of funding for a commuter service.  The preferred option is the introduction of a Courtesy Bus Levy for a trial period of two years.  This levy would be payable by rate payers in the business park in addition to current council rates.

The proposed Courtesy Bus Levy has several advantages:-

·    It provides a guaranteed revenue stream for a fixed period, allowing bus service patronage to become established over a number of months.

·    The levy is paid by larger property owners and (indirectly) by high end tenants, who stand to gain the most from improved public transport access to the business park.

·    The proposal for a levy originated from a meeting of key stakeholders, therefore would not be seen as “imposed” by Council.

·    A Courtesy Bus Levy could be absorbed in to the current rate collection process, minimising any additional administrative burden on Council.

·    A free bus service lowers travel costs for staff commuting to the business park and the absence of any on-bus transactions improves the efficiency and operation of the service.


Other Council’s Experiences

A number of other councils in Greater Sydney operate shuttle bus services, using different financial models. Listed below are four examples.

 

Council

Name of Bus Service

Method of Funding

Route

Manly

Population: 38,790

Hop, Skip & Jump

Council, donations, sponsorship

Links Manly to surrounding neighbourhoods of Balgowlah, Fairlight and Seaforth

Willoughby

Population: 62,869

Artarmon Loop

Developer

Operates a loop between Artarmon Railway Station and Artarmon industrial estate

Parramatta

Population: 154,000

Parramatta Shuttle Bus

State Government

Links Parramatta Railway Station with CBD and ferry wharf

City of Canada Bay

Population: 65,000

BayRider

Council, initially through Sustainable City Levy

Community bus service/Dial-A-Ride

Process to Obtain Levies

The key matters considered as part of the assessment of a section 508A application are:-

·          Sound business case;

·          Impact on council sustainability;

·          Efficiencies;

·          Impact on ratepayers;

·          Consultation and feedback; and

·          Special variation application history.

The application must include a general overview of the purpose and reasons behind the application, including the period covered by the variation, the financial impact of the proposed increases and how the application reflects the Community Strategic Plan.

A council’s application must be supported by a Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) and Asset Management Plan that has been developed in accordance with the prescribed Integrated Planning and Reporting requirements.

It must also include information on key assumptions that underpin the LTFP and the special variation application. These assumptions will include projections such as:-

·          the community’s priorities and expectations;

·          the rate peg;

·          level of cost recovery for provision of services (e.g. full/partial cost recovery);

·          expenditure growth rate;

·          major asset disposals/investments/capital commitments;

·          population/ rate assessment growth rate;

·          major borrowings/repayments;

·          grants and other revenue; and

·          proposed level of service for assets.

 


Options for Implementation of a Courtesy Bus Levy

 

The estimated annual cost of the proposed bus service is $187,200 per annum. This is based on two buses operating for fours hours per day, 52 weeks per year.  Council’s finance staff have calculated three different options for how the levy might be spread across properties in Lane Cove West, detailed in the following table.

 

Levy applied to…

Total income generated

Levy as % of property value

No. of properties affected

All properties

$187,200

0.001002816

550

Properties Valued >$95k

$187,200

0.001024952

178

Properties Valued >$500k

$187,200

0.001152351

59

The preferred option is to charge the levy for an initial two-year period on properties valued at greater than $500,000.  This will ensure that it is the 59 largest properties, being those that will generate more traffic and stand to gain the most from better public transport, bear the cost and risk involved in starting up the service.

Community Consultation

Given its significance, any council considering applying for a rate variation must demonstrate its ongoing consultations with those affected by the variation.

Details must be provided of the steps the council has taken to inform those affected of the special variation proposal and the mechanisms it has implemented to obtain feedback on the proposal.

This includes engagement through surveys, media publicity, focus groups, public meetings etc. Council when preparing for the Courtesy Bus Levy will consult primarily with the 50 or so largest rate payers in Lane Cove West, as it is this group that will be affected by the proposed rate increase.  Other property owners in Lane Cove West will be invited to take part in the consultation and the wider Lane Cove Community will be informed of the outcome.

Statement of Intent

The consultation is designed to inform whether major property owners would be willing to commit to a levy to fund a Courtesy Bus Service to Chatswood Station. Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with the Courtesy Bus Levy.

Method

Level of Participation

Inform

Involve

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community

Major land and property owners in Lane Cove West, Smaller property owners in Lane Cove West, Businesses and staff working in Lane Cove West

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement, Public Exhibition and

E-newsletter

 

Stakeholder workshops,   Paper surveys, Email/letter correspondence and Posters

Public Exhibition,

E-newsletter,

Website Exhibition

 

Indicative Timing

October - November 2011

October - November 2011

October - November 2011

Conclusion

The current level of traffic growth in Lane Cove West Business Park is unsustainable and damaging both to the economy and environment of the region. This proposal offers a means to alleviate traffic congestion and improve the economic vitality of an important employment centre in the Lane Cove LGA through an affordable rate increase, payable by those who stand to gain the most from improved public transport access to the business park.

Should the levy not be approved, it is unlikely that another source of funding for the bus service could be found. In this case the only means by which Council could attempt to improve public transport in the area would be through lobbying the State Government to introduce additional regular bus services to Lane Cove West Business Park. Based on previous experience, this approach is likely to be extremely time consuming and drawn out, with no guarantee of success.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.         Endorse the proposed Courtesy Bus Service to the Lane Cove West Business Park;

2.         Undertake community consultation for a period of 6 weeks with major property owners on a Courtesy Bus Levy; and

3.         Receive a further report after the consultation concludes outlining the submissions received.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Courtesy Bus Levy - Fact Sheet v3

4 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 October 2011

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 29

 

 

Reference:     Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 29

Subject:          Richard Street, Greenwich - Road Reserve Safety    

Record No:    SU1691 - 40495/11

Author(s):      Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

The safety of the road reserve at Richard Street was raised at the Council Meeting on 5 September 2011 as an issue following consideration of the request for the possible closure and subsequent sale of the area adjacent to 2 Richard Street, Greenwich.

Staff have investigated the safety of the road reserve and consider that the existing chain wire fence that traverses the footpath provides an adequate barrier to any possible danger.

Background

At the last Council meeting of 5 September 2011, as a matter arising from the consideration of the possible closure of the road reserve at Richard Street, Council resolved:-

“That a report come back to Council regarding the safety of the road reserve at Richard St, Greenwich.”

This matter has now been investigated by staff.

Discussion

The Richard Street road reserve, adjacent to 2 Richard Street and Greenwich Baths falls quite steeply from the footpath to those properties below.  However, the footpath area that traverses this steep ledge is separated by a 1.2 metre high chain wire fence. The chain wire fence is in good condition and is structurally sound. Council’s records do not indicate that there has ever been any incident that has occurred at, or near to, the area adjacent to 2 Richard Street.

Conclusion

The existing chain wire safety fence is considered adequate to prevent any danger to the public from falling from the Richard Street road reserve.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.  Council receive and note the findings of the safety audit for the road reserve at Richard Street, Greenwich.

2.  No further action be taken.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 October 2011

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 30

 

 

Reference:     Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 30

Subject:          Lane Cove Car Share Policy    

Record No:    SU4483 - 40631/11

Author(s):      Nick Karahlis 

 

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the results of the consultation for the Draft Lane Cove Car Share Policy, shown attached as AT-1 and dated 14 June 2011. 

Council previously considered in detail the Lane Cove Car Share Scheme, Policy and Agreement with the ‘Go Get’ Car Share Company. Council resolved to exhibit the proposed Car Share Scheme and the draft Lane Cove Car Share Policy. The consultation has identified that that there is overall support for the car share scheme and the proposed Lane Cove Car Share Policy.

It is recommended that the Draft Lane Cove Car Share Policy be adopted with the retention of the existing parking space in the Town Centre. The ongoing retention of the car share scheme will be subject to consistent utilisation of the existing car space.

Background

Council at it meeting of 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. Furthermore, at Council’s Meeting on 20 June 2011 Council considered further the Car Share scheme addressing experiences of various Council’s who were facilitating the operation of these schemes. At this meeting Council resolved that the Lane Cove Car Share Scheme and the draft Policy be consulted with the Public in accordance with our community consultation policy.

Discussion

The aim of endorsing the Lane Cove Car Share Scheme is:-

·    To provide on street parking opportunities for Car Share groups, in balance with competing parking demands.

·    To support transport objectives and strategies that are aimed at encouraging the use of public transport, aiming to reduce private motor vehicle ownership. This will also result in lower parking demands, congestion, fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants.

Community Consultation

The Lane Cove Car Share was on public exhibition for a period of 6 weeks.  It was advertised in the local newspaper and on Council’s web site. The public had the opportunity to provide their comments and suggestions in response to these advertisements. The responses received were from individual’s car share users and non-users and community groups who provided valuable input.

From the 12 responses received, ten (10) were in favour of the scheme, and two (2) responses were against.


The below table summarises the comments and suggestions received.

 

In Favour of the Scheme

Yes/No

Response provided

(summarised comments)

Council’s response

1.   Yes

The spaces must only be paid by Council’s funds. If the spaces are allocated by section 94 contributions Council should not charge further income

The proposed space/s are not funded by section 94 contributions.

2.   Yes

Maximise car share opportunities. Bicycle facilities should be within close proximity to Car Share spots. Car share parking should be provided at Greenwich shops.

Noted

3.   Yes

Great Idea and should be supported. I applaud Council. A charge should be levied. Make them as affordable as possible

Noted

4.   Yes

I find it difficult to park at Lane Cove. I pay to be able to park at Lane Cove. Everyone should pay the appropriate fee

The Car Share scheme aims to reduce the number of vehicles entering the town centre. A central aim of the car share is to reduce parking demand in the town centre

5.   Yes

Definitely support the scheme which has been well considered. The permit has to be reviewed by Council if the parking space is not well used.

 

Noted

6.   Yes

Under the section “application” it should be re-worded to reflect that even strong objections to the scheme require to be reviewed if they have a basis to object. Otherwise these objections be dismissed.

I have used the car share 4 times but some times the space has been occupied by illegal parkers.

Noted

 

Will upgrade enforcement at the Car Share dedicated spaces.

7.   Yes

Generally support the Policy. Do not support any charges for the spaces towards the sustainability Levy. More Car Share spaces required.

Costs for parking signs and linemarking very low. Does not need to come out from the sustainability levy.

8.   Yes

Our Organisation (Osborne Park Progress Association Inc) supports the policy and applauds Lane Cove Council for providing car share opportunities in Lane Cove.

Comments: Point 3 states that cars are

GVGR > of 2.5. This is good but some vehicles may not meet the 2.5 standard. We hope Council will assist the car share operator as the car share scheme is vital to its success.

Noted

9.   Yes

The Lane Cove Sustainability Group congratulates Lane Cove Council on the general content of the Car Share Scheme Policy. The above group has made comments such as: Car Spaces in high density areas, minimum quota on the use of car share before the car share space be allocated in another area, measurable usage over a 2 year contract period, a great number of residents and businesses can use finite on-street spaces as car share scheme which will reduce the demand of parking, there are economic benefits to residents and ideal for small businesses.

We do not support any charge for car share spaces, being levied by the provider, as the scheme reduces private ownership and congestion and improved environmental outcomes.

Noted

10.  Yes

Lane Cove Commercial Property Owners: Generally support the direction of the Draft Car Share Policy however the market rental needs to be charged for any parking spaces supplied under this scheme in the Lane Cove Shopping Village. We believe that the minimum rent /charge per space should be equal to the all day parking rate for the Market Square for the full 365 days per year. It should then be ‘loaded” by 20% as it will be a dedicated space.

The Economic benefits to the ratepayers and businesses who use it and the reduction of the private vehicle usage and as a consequence the reduction in the demand of car spaces in the town centre will certainly compensate for the use of one parking space. The application of Care Share in the Town Centre should be considered as a sustainable transport option. Therefore should not be penalised with rental charges. It should be instead encouraged and promoted.

11.  No

No comment

 

12.  No

No comment

 

Conclusion

Council has exhibited the Draft Lane Cove Car Share Policy and received 12 submissions, 10 of which are in favour of the scheme.

In order to benefit from a Car Share Scheme that represents an environmentally sustainable alternative to car ownership for residents and businesses in the Lane Cove Local Government Area, Council has formulated a Draft Car Share Policy and guidelines to assist with the provision of car share parking in the area and this will be incorporated into Council’s Traffic and Transport strategy.

Based on the submissions received in favour of the scheme, it is proposed that the exhibited Draft Lane Cove Car Share Policy be approved and form the policy that governs car share in the Lane Cove Council area. It is proposed that any future planning for additional car share parking spaces will require further Council consideration and approval, and will be tabled on a case by case basis.  


 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Endorse the Draft Lane Cove Car Share Policy shown attached as AT-1 and dated 14 June 2011 and the retention of the existing car share parking space in the Lane Cove Town Centre.

2.   Consider any future planning and/or funding for additional Car Share parking spaces on a case-by-case basis and be subject to a resolution of Council prior to implementation. 

3.   Review and monitor the Car Share Scheme’s utilisation and potential for any future increase in parking allocation.

4.   Review and monitor the success or otherwise of Car Share Schemes in other Council areas.

5.   Promote the Car Share Scheme via its website and any other media as appropriate.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Lane Cove Car Share Policy

3 Pages

 

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 October 2011

Environmental Services Division Report No. 31

 

 

Reference:     Environmental Services Division Report No. 31

Subject:          LEP Planning Proposal Finalisation: 1-5 Birdwood Ave Floor Space Ratio (FSR)    

Record No:    SU4470 - 36199/11

Author(s):      Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

This report relates to a planning proposal for 1-5 Birdwood Avenue (Lane Cove Club) within the LEP Review. The proposal is to increase the site’s floor space ratio to FSR 3:1 from FSR 2.1:1 and the exhibition has been completed. A copy of the planning proposal is attached at AT-1.

The report comments on the nine submissions received, and concludes that the LEP amendment to increase the FSR to 3:1 should proceed to the Department of Planning & Infrastructure seeking finalisation. A copy of the submissions are attached at AT-2.

Background

From October to December 2010, Council approved a number of amendments to the LEP for submission to the Department. On 24 March 2011, after discussions with the Department,   Council submitted proposals for consideration by the LEP Gateway. On 2 June 2011 the Gateway Determination was issued permitting the proposal to proceed to exhibition.

Exhibition of the proposal was undertaken for six weeks from 8 July to 19 August 2011. Nine submissions were received.

Discussion

The site is part of the Lane Cove Village, which is zoned Local Centre B2 under the LEP. When the LEP was notified by Department in February 2010, it reduced without explanation the FSR for this site alone to 2.1:1, below the Town Centre’s generic FSR of 2.5:1 permissible for developments including shoptop housing. (This was done with the deletion of the label and blue border denoting Area 2 in which such FSR is permissible.)

A Council Report and Resolution in 1994 had approved FSR 3:1 for the site in the Business Zones DCP, shown as an attachment to the planning proposal (AT-1), potentially enabling the club to be redeveloped boundary to boundary (other than for landscaped setbacks).

Height is controlled by an 18 metres standard in LEP 2009, consistent with the previous DCP having permitting a maximum height to be that of the modern four-storey commercial building adjacent at 71 Longueville Rd (formerly the Aristocrat building), and stepping downhill to the west.

The proposal, in aiming to reinstate the FSR 3:1, took into account that the floor space ratio may not be achievable for certain types of development permissible in the zone, such as shop top housing, due to the height restriction in combination with setbacks and other controls required for residential uses.

A discussion of the comments made in submissions follows in Table 1.


Table 1: Submissions and Comments

Sub. No.

Submission Issues

Staff Comments

1.1

Comparable controls are requested for 71 Longueville Rd (former Aristocrat building).

A separate Gateway submission and exhibition would be required, if Council wishes to investigate that request. Not supported.

1.2

71 Longueville Rd would not object to FSR 3:1 on condition that the whole site remained for Club only.

A separate Gateway submission and exhibition would be required to restrict the site’s landuses under the LEP. This would remove the site’s broad commercial/ shoptop housing zoning which applied also under LEP 1987. Not supported.

1.3

71 Longueville’s height should be increased to 25 metres, given its greater visual prominence and strategic importance, but this should not be extended to 1-5 Birdwood Av.

A separate Gateway submission and exhibition would be required. As the submission points out, the Village Structure Plan includes both sites as a gateway precinct, so it is not reasonable to request that 1-5 Birdwood Av be excluded from such a scale increase. Not supported.

1.4

Request that residential/ shoptop housing be prohibited on1-5 Birdwood to (i) avoid conflict with 71 Longueville Rd, (ii) encourage continuation of the club and (iii) reinforce the Structure Plan for commercial or community uses on 1-5 Birdwood Av.

1-5 Birdwood Av is adjacent to the west of 71 Longueville Rd. It has been permitted the same height as No.71 since 1994. Residential alone is not permitted in the B2 zone. Shoptop housing has been permissible since 1999. The proposal would not change the two sites’ interrelationship from their scale and the general zoning applying throughout the B2 Village historically. See also 1.2. Not supported.

2.1

The Club’s survival is doubtful due to its location away from other successful community facilities – the FSR should not be increased. 

The FSR of 3:1 is a long-standing policy re-endorsed by Council in 2010 and Council has not sought to pre-empt the Club’s future by altering this. Not supported.

2.2

The 18 metre height accords with the Birdwood/ Finlayson precinct, and comparison with the former Aristocrat building is inappropriate.

That precinct’s 18m height and that of the Club are in fact based on the Aristocrat site, just as the Club site had been since 1994. Noted.

2.3

Traffic: major redevelopment would exacerbate the hazardous road for pedestrians - the FSR should not be increased. 

The FSR of 3:1 existed when the Epping / Longueville Rds intersection was reconfigured in recent years. Any review of this intersection’s functioning would involve consideration of wide-ranging land areas and uses rather than limiting this site in isolation. Traffic studies and RTA consultation would be required with any DAs for the site. See the RTA submission at 9. Not supported.

2.4

Loss of carpark trees and reduced landscaping concerns - the FSR should not be increased. 

Tree loss may be regrettable but the site has been zoned commercial/ shoptop for many years and this issue would arise regardless of this proposal. The site’s redevelopment/ permissible uses under the LEP cannot be sterilized. The DPC provides for landscaped setbacks and landscaping requirements could be supplemented during DA discussions.

Not supported.

3.1

The proposal is supported, including mixed use/ high rise.

 [The 18 metres may permit a 4-5 storey building]. Noted.

 

 

4.1

The proposal is supported, on condition that the FSR increase applies also to adjacent sites.

It is not recommended that the scale be increased from this commercial site across into the adjacent Mixed Use B4 zone on 7 Birdwood Avenue and westwards. In relation to 71 Longueville Rd to the east, see 1.1. Noted.

5.1

The proposal is supported as being reasonable and in keeping with the Lane Cove business district.

[The variation between the B2 zone generally (2.5:1) and this site (3:1) would be FSR 0.5:1.] Noted.

6.1

The Club has value as a community facility, including residents.

Noted.

6.2

The LEP was subject to widespread consultation. This site should not be exempted from the B2 controls.

The DLEP was permitted to be exhibited with the site at FSR of 2.5:1 as for the B2 zone generally, with Council in 2010 resolving to return it to the former 3:1. The Department did not consult with the community before reducing the FSR to 2.1:1.

6.3

The Aristocrat’s height is irrelevant.

See 2.2. Noted.

6.4

The LEP 2009’s FSR 2.1:1 should apply in any subdivision of the site.

See 2.1. It is not expected that certain other uses than the club could achieve FSR 3:1 on the subdivided lot e.g. due to residential setbacks etc. Not supported.

6.5

Traffic congestion - the FSR should not be increased. 

See 2.3. Not supported.

7.1

Using 1994 controls is not justified - the FSR should not be increased. 

For the club to regain the expansion potential it had assumed for many years, amendment of the 3:1 FSR to match that of the 1994 DCP is appropriate. As a minimum the site should regain parity with the Town Centre of which it is a part, by amendment of the FSR map to 2.5:1 (with shop top housing). No reason has been offered to justify singling this site out for reduction below the commercial centre’s FSR.

Not supported.

7.2

A statement that the generic FSR for this site is 2.5:1 is wrong.

No. The planning proposal 3.A(1) says: “LEP 2009, when gazetted in February 2010, reduced the FSR for this site alone to 2.1:1, below the Town Centre’s generic FSR - that is FSR 2.5:1”. Not supported.

7.3

The Club has not been financially viable for some years, and does not have the land for outdoor facilities in modern demand.

The Club’s financial decisions are not Council’s concern, but reducing its long-held development potential, and to FSR below all neighbouring sites in the same zone, appears inequitable.

Not supported.

7.4

The remainder of the B2 zone has FSR of 2.1:1 and any increase is inconsistent and open to interpretations.

See 7.3. The rest of the zone has FSR 2.5:1. The inconsistency lies in singling this site out for a reduced FSR from the rest of the zone and from the site’s past controls, without explanation by the Department. Not supported.

7.5

The FSR increase would hardly change the employment potential.

This may depend on the proportion of the site used for Club or other commercial use. Noted.

7.6

Traffic concerns

See 2.3. Not supported.

7.7

The recent subdivision is just to increase that site’s value and not to improve the Club, and would produce too small a site for redevelopment.

There is no minimum site area prescribed for commercial or mixed use development. Noted.

7.8

The carpark’s treed vista would be lost - the FSR should not be increased. 

See 2.4. Not supported.

8.1

Traffic concerns - the FSR should not be increased. 

See 2.3. Not supported.

9.1

The RTA submissions has no objection to the proposal provided that all future vehicle access is from Birdwood Av, as the proposal would not have significant traffic impact on the adjoining road network.

Noted.

(Submissions will be forwarded to the Department with any planning proposal sent by Council for finalisation.)

A number of submissions object on grounds of traffic, scale, loss of landscaping etc to the increase in FSR from 2.1:1 to 3:1. In fact, however, the proposal is correcting a decrease in the FSR, imposed on this site in isolation from the remainder of sites in the same B2 zone. The anomaly was not explained at the time of the LEP introduction in 2010. Those issues would have have applied to the zone generally for many decades and require precinct-wide consideration rather than at the expense of one single site.

A number of submissions support the proposal.

Some submissions support the proposal conditionally if the increased scale were applied comparably to neighbouring sites. This approach would, however, have to be the subject of separate Gateway planning proposals and is not the subject of this report.

It is considered appropriate to reinstate the site’s FSR of 3:1 on the historical basis of its long-standing development potential since 1994. It is also considered that, if reinstatement of the FSR of 3:1 were not supported by the Department, the only alternative acceptable basis would be that of consistency with the surrounding Local Centre B2 zone’s FSR by permitting the FSR of 2.5:1 with shoptop housing. 

Conclusion

The Department’s Gateway has approved the planning proposal for exhibition and this has been completed. Submissions have been reviewed and on balance are not considered to provide justification for altering the proposal. The public authority submission from the RTA raises no objection to the proposal.

It is recommended that Council endorse the reinstatement of the long-standing FSR of 3:1 for 1-5 Birdwood Avenue and submit the planning proposal to the Department of Planning and  Infrastructure for finalisation.


 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Planning Proposal 2/1011: 1-5 Birdwood Avenue be submitted as is to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for finalisation.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Planning Proposal 2/2011: 1-5 Birdwood Avenue

9 Pages

AT‑2 View

Submissions on Planning Proposal for 1-5 Birdwood Av

13 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 October 2011

Environmental Services Division Report No. 33

 

 

Reference:     Environmental Services Division Report No. 33

Subject:          Proposed Additional Green Waste Collection     

Record No:    SU1943 - 38583/11

Author(s):      Sharlene Mercylin; David Wilson 

 

 

Executive Summary

This report addresses the key objective within Council’s 2011-2013 Delivery Program and Operational Plan to review the opportunity for an additional green waste collection service in December. Based on submissions made by members of the community and representations made by elected members, it is recommended that an additional or 13th green waste collection be provided. The additional cost of $31,264.98 (incl. GST) can be funded from the current waste management budget. It is recommended that Council provide this additional service.

Background

In May 2011, Council adopted the 2011-2013 Delivery Program and Operational Plan which established the need to investigate and report on the provision of an additional green waste collection service in December.

The need to report on the provision of an additional green waste collection was an outcome of discussions from the Councillor workshops, where the issue of insufficient collection frequency for green waste during the lead up to Christmas/New Year was discussed as an area that Council’s waste management services could be expanded to accommodate community demand.

Discussion

The current waste collection contract provides 12 green waste collections to all households per annum. The 12 collections are provided during each waste collection calendar year, (October – September) and include the non-collection period during the Christmas and Easter public holidays.

Owing to the length of the waiting period between their allocated green waste collection weeks that occurred as a result of the public holidays; a number of residents have requested the provision of additional collection services.

Council considered the following factors in investigating the provision of additional green waste collection service:-

1.   Variations to the existing service contract;

2.   Ability of the waste contractor to provide the additional service;

3.   Increase in resource recovery;

4.   Potential Increase in illegal dumping if the service is not provided; and

5.   Budget impact.

Variation to the Existing Service

Following discussions with Council’s waste contractor United Resource Management (URM) it was agreed that a 13th collection could be provided and in doing so, residents would have an uninterrupted green waste collection services throughout the contract year.

Improvements in Resource Recovery

In providing an additional green waste service, it is predicted that green waste that would otherwise have been disposed via the putrescible waste stream will be able to be recovered.

It should be highlighted that the waste audit conducted in December 2010 showed that annually there is a potential for a further 4.8% of green waste to be recovered from the garbage waste stream or 93 tonnes of green waste, which otherwise is disposed of to standard landfill as opposed to being recovered and reused.  It is envisaged that through the provision of a continuous green waste collection service, the potential loss of green waste in the general waste stream may be captured. 

Illegal Dumping

It is anticipated that by providing an additional green waste service the likelihood of illegal dumping of green waste in and around the locality, particularly local parks and the Lane Cove West industrial area would be reduced for the Christmas period particularly.

Budget Impact

Council obtained a costing of $31,264.98 (incl. GST) from URM to provide the 13th green waste service.  Council’s waste management budget has provision for a contingency such as this additional service, and as such the cost of providing this additional green waste collection can be addressed in the current budget, with no additional funding being required.

Conclusion

The provision of an additional green waste collection service in December would ensure the community have a continuous waste collection throughout the year.  The outcomes of providing this service would be measured in the amount of green waste recovered and the reduced amount of green waste being disposed of into the general putrescible waste stream.

In providing this additional service, the amount of green waste being removed from the total amount of waste being disposed of to landfill, would assist in increasing the total amount of waste being diverted from landfill and achieving Council’s objective of 50% of our waste being diverted from landfill.  The additional costs of providing this service are considered reasonable for the works being undertaken on behalf of the community.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Receive and note the report; and

2.   Endorse the additional green waste collection service in December 2011 and beyond for the duration of the current waste contract.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 October 2011

Human Services Division Report No. 5

 

 

Reference:     Human Services Division Report No. 5

Subject:          Tender Report on the Adaptation of the Top Floor of the Community Centre, 164 Longueville Road, Lane Cove into an Art Gallery and Exhibition Space    

Record No:    SU4243 - 40561/11

Author(s):      Donald  Gibson; Ian  Naylor; Jane  Gornall 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

In August 2011, Council called for tenders in accordance with Council’s Tender and Quotation Procedure for the adaptation of the top floor of the Community Centre, 164 Longueville Road into an Art Gallery and Exhibition Space.  This report provides details on the tender process conducted and recommends that the tender from Gapcomm be accepted.

 

Discussion

 

The additional floor for the Community Centre was added in 2004. The intention being that the area was to be utilised as a temporary home for the Library during the rebuilding and extension of the Library.  The delay in the commencement of the Market Square project meant that the space was available for other purposes and a number of art exhibitions have been held in the space, both before the Library relocated and after that time. The area is approximately 400 square metres and offers significantly more space than the Cove Room (approx. 170 square metres) can offer in particular for the larger art exhibitions including the Annual Council art show. 

 

A small working party was established to define the requirements for the space and to oversee the refurbishment. The working party consists of Chrissie Lloyd, President of the Lane Cove Art Society; Felicity Martin, Manager Centrehouse Inc; Council’s Manager Facilities, Donald Gibson and Executive Manager - Human Services, Jane Gornall. The working party commenced work in August 2010, compiled a list of requirements and formulated an architectural brief.  Council advertised for the appointment of an architect to oversee this process (October 2010) and in December 2010 appointed the Sydney Architectural firm of draw, De Manincor Russell Architecture Workshop.

 

The working party worked on the premise that the area needed to be able to accommodate the largest annual exhibition of the year, the 300 plus exhibits for the Lane Cove Art Award, plus be able to effectively host smaller more intimate art shows. In addition, to ensure that the area was fully utilised, it was decided that the area needed to be able to be subdivided for workshops and meetings. The plans for the area provide for:-

 

·    Art hanging space capable of holding the annual Council Art Show;

·    Flexible space/s for workshop/seminars;

·    Storage area for the Lane Cove Art Society;

·    Storage area/s for other groups during exhibitions;

·    Office and storage space for Centrehouse;

·    New reception area;

·    Use of the outdoor terrace/balcony for creative space and for functions;

·    Kitchen/food preparation area;

·    Additional toilets facilities; and

·    Permanent art hanging screens.

 

Costings

 

Funds had been allocated in the 2010/2011 Budget for the adaptation of the area, however, once the detailed plans were drawn, it became clear that the allocated funds were insufficient to undertake the works. An assessment of possible reduction in the scope of works was undertaken with the result that possible savings of $76,000 could be made by the adoption of the following reductions:-

 

·    Lighting – Use of Halogen lighting rather than the more sustainable LED lights;

·    Mechanical Ventilation – Postponing the replacement of the current air-conditioning units with modern energy efficient units until later years and utilising the current units;

·    Flooring – Use of vinyl rather than the selected recycled rubber flooring; and

·    Entry – Retaining current entry layout.

 

Human Services Division Report No. 12 of 18 July 2011 considered the potential savings but decided to allocate additional funds to allow the project to proceed as envisaged. A further assessment of the above options was made in compiling the tender documents. The tender documents that were advertised included the full scope of the Mechanical Ventilation on the advice of the mechanical engineer who felt that a new system would provide better long-term functionality.  The entry as indicated in the drawings presented to Council in July was included in the tender documents. The new entry will increase the accessibility of the area, in particular for those in wheelchairs. Omitted from the tender documents (but not from the project) were the following items:-

 

Flooring

 

Purchase of the Regupol recycled rubber flooring. The flooring is available on government contract and it was the opinion of the architect that some savings could be made by Council purchasing  the flooring directly. The estimated cost for the flooring is $25,000. The cost of the installation of the flooring is included in the tender price.

 

Lighting

 

It was suggested by the architect that Councils’ current suppliers could provide track light fittings at a more competitive price rather than purchasing from the builder. It is estimated that the light fittings cost will be in the order of $25,000. The track light fittings are designed for LED lights which are more sustainable. It is intended that part of the cost of the flooring and the lighting will be provided by the Sustainability Levy.

 

Tender Process

 

A tender specification was prepared detailing the scope of work.  The specification outlined that the tender submissions would be assessed based on the following criteria:-

 

·    Conformity with tender documents;

·    Construction period;

·    Proposed alternatives;

·    Construction program;

·    Proposed methods;

·    Quality assurance;

·    Conflicts of interest;

·    Value for money;

·    Tenderer’s resources;

·    Tenderer’s current commitments;

·    Tenderer’s previous performance;

·    Industrial relations and safety records; and

·    Sustainability.

 

The weightings for the criteria are listed below:-

 

Price (Value for Money) - 51%: 

 

Based on the Tender Price and schedule of rates provided in the mandatory schedules.  The bids were scored based on a pro rata difference in prices submitted, with the lowest price receiving 5 points and higher prices scoring proportionately less. 

 

Capability & Capacity Assessment – 13%

 

Based on the following criteria which refer to the experience of the tenderer and its personnel, including management and supervision, the experience of any sub-contractors to be used, the capability of the tenderer to work within relevant policy frameworks and applicable legislation, and any initiatives for change and improvement.  This score is comprised of the following weighed criteria:-

 

·    Tenderers Resources – 4%;

·    Tenderers Current commitments – 4%; and

·    Tenderers previous performance – 5%.

 

To achieve the maximum score the tenderer must have relevant experience, capability to provide the goods and perform the services required, 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 unforeseen circumstances. 

 

Methodology and Timeliness - 22%

 

Methodology and timeliness refers to the tailoring of the sequence of activities to ensure the desired project outcomes and the company’s timeliness in being able to complete the project in the specified time. The score is comprised of the following weighted criteria:-

 

·    Construction period – 5%;

·    Proposed alternatives – 3%;

·    Construction program – 4%;

·    Proposed methods – 5%; and

·    Quality Assurance – 5%.

 

Sustainability and Environment & Occupational Health & Safety - 8%:

 

Sustainability and Environment Assessment refers to the manner in which environmental issues are to be appropriately addressed, including commitment to due diligence and the principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD) in regard to environmental legislation and documentation outlining past performance in regard to environment protection and enhancement initiatives. Occupational Health and Safety refers to the tenderer’s commitment to and compliance with the Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 and Occupational Health & Safety Regulation 2001. This score is comprised of the following weighted criteria:-

 

·    Industrial relations and safety records – 3%; and

·    Sustainability – 5%.

 

To achieve the maximum score the tenderer is to provide details of an environmental policy and answer yes to all applicable questions in the Environmental Survey included in the tender specification and to provide details in their submission that they have an OHS Management Plan and work method statements. 


Compliance with Council’s tendering guidelines – 6%

 

This score is comprised of the following weighted criteria:-

 

·    Conformity with tender documents – 3%; and

·    Conflicts of Interest – 3%.

 

To achieve the maximum score the Tenderer is to complete all schedules in the tender documents and sign the Conflicts of Interest Declaration.

 

Tender Process

 

Council advertised the tender in the Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday 9, Wednesday 10 and Saturday 13 August and in the North Shore Times on Wednesday 10 August.  Tenders closed at 2.00pm on Friday 9 September 2011.  A mandatory site visit was held on 16 August 2011.

 

Council received four (4) tenders at the time of the tenders closing and one (1) late tender.

The tender evaluation panel consisted of Council’s Executive Manager - Human Services, Jane Gornall; Manager - Facilities, Donald Gibson; Council’s Manager – Governance, Ian Naylor and John De Manincor, Architect from DRAW, De Manincor Russell Architectural Workshop.

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

 

 

Company

Price (Value for Money

(51%)

Capability & Capacity (13%)

Methodology & Timeliness (22%)

Environmental & OH&S Programs (8%)

Compliance

w/ tendering requirements (6%)

 

Total

Gapcomm

51

10.7

12.9

5.5

4.8

84.9

AJ Bristow

46.91

9.9

13.5

6.5

4.5

80.81

Interco

41.31

9.9

17.25

5.5

6

79.96

Dynamic PM

41.82

10.3

16.5

6.5

4.5

79.62

 

 

References

 

Reference checks for Gapcomm were undertaken, with questions on variations, delays, quality of workmanship and whether clients would use them again. Where there had been delays in completing the work this had, in each occasion, been as a result of changes to the scope initiated by the client. Any variations were considered to be reasonable and the quality of workmanship was considered to be very good. All referees stated that they would definitely use Gapcomm again.

 

 

Conclusion

 

A confidential memorandum has been circulated separately to Councillors detailing the prices submitted by each tenderer.  Having recorded the highest score across all the weighted criteria and positive reference checks were received about the quality and reliability of their work, the Tender Panel recommends:-

 

1.   The tender for the provision of the Adaptation of the Top Floor of the Community Centre be awarded to Gapcomm for an amount of $380,906 (incl. GST); and

2.   The General Manager be authorised to enter into a contract with them

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council consider the recommendation from the Tender Panel for the provision of building services in connection with the Adaptation of the Top Floor of the Lane Cove Community Centre to create and Art Gallery and Exhibition Space.

 

 

Jane  Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 4 October 2011

Human Services Division Report No. 15

 

 

Reference:     Human Services Division Report No. 15

Subject:          Art Gallery and Exhibition Space - Management Agreement, Business Plan and Proposed Name for the Space    

Record No:    SU4313 - 40596/11

Author(s):      Jane  Gornall 

 

 

Executive Summary

At its meeting of 18 July 2011 Council resolved that:-

“1.  Council’s 2011/12 Budget for the Lane Cove Community Centre be increased to $510,000 to include funding for the Lane Cove Art Gallery Space project;

2.   Tenders be called for the Lane Cove Art Gallery Space project; and

3.   A business plan for the operation of the gallery be provided to assist Council in the assessment of the tenders.”

Council further resolved that the Draft Management Agreement for the running of the Art Gallery by Centrehouse be provided to Council.”

This Report brings to Council the Business plan for the Art Gallery and Exhibition Space prepared by Centrehouse, the draft Management Agreement and some proposed names for the space.  A separate tender Report is presented to this meeting.

Discussion

Council at its meeting of 18 July 2011 requested that a Business Plan and draft Management Plan be prepared. Both of these documents are attached to this Report.

Business Plan

Centrehouse has provided a Business Plan for the Gallery, shown attached as AT-1. The Business Plan includes a market analysis including potential exhibitors and hirers; competitive analysis; the Gallery program and the draft budget for the Gallery. An amount of $31,000 was allocated from the Council Budget 2011/12, Implementation of the Cultural Plan, to provide assistance to Centrehouse for the first year. An amount of $20,000 will be paid to Centrehouse for the running of the Gallery for the period January- June 2012. The $11,000 will be allocated towards the opening exhibition for the Gallery and initial publicity, setting up of the logo and other establishment costs.

The Exhibitions listed in the Business Plan include the Gunnedah and Lane Cove Opening Exhibition discussed later in this Report and the Lane Cove Art Exhibition and Award. It should be noted that both of these exhibitions being Council’s do not provide any revenue to the Gallery but have costs associated with them. The Business Plan acknowledges the support provided by Council for the initial running of the Gallery. The Business Plan also has provision for the establishment of the Gallery, the creation of a suitable logo and initial promotion of the new space.

The Business Plan provides goals and target dates for the Gallery.  These Goals include:-

Exhibitions

To develop a yearly program of exhibitions that is diverse in content and will engage a local and regional audience

Education and Other Events

It is envisaged that the gallery will be able to host small meetings, launches and presentations; however we will have to wait until the technology resources are made available before we can tap into this market. These events will be charged out at higher and will generate additional revenue for the gallery.

Marketing and Promotion

To develop and enhance the positive image of the gallery within Lane Cove and further afield.  To stimulate brand awareness and generate revenue for the gallery .

Administration

To set-up and maintain effective administration systems that can effectively manage exhibition bookings, friends of the gallery memberships, art sales and Centrehouse activities.

Facility Management

To maintain and enhance the Gallery’s physical environment and ensure all equipment is accessible to hirers.

Volunteers

To present an enjoyable and participative program for the Galleries volunteers. (The Volunteers will be run through the Friends of the Gallery).

Draft Management Agreement

Council at the meeting of the 18 July 2011 also requested that a Draft Management Agreement for the running of the Art Gallary be prepared. A copy of the draft Agreement proposed by the Centrehouse Committee is shown attached as AT-2. There have been discussions between Centrehouse and Council staff in regard to the Agreement and some slight amendments are currently being discussed. These include clarification of payment for the electricity, as the area is not separately metered, the water and security costs. The apportionment of cleaning costs is also being discussed.

Based on the fact that the Gallery will only open in 2012 the initial Management Agreement will be in place for the first year and will be reviewed at the end of the first six months and then at the end of the first year.

Opening of the Gallery

Dependant on Council accepting the tender for the Adaptation of the Gallery and Exhibition Space it is proposed that the Gallery will be officially opened in mid February 2012.  It is suggested that the first exhibition for the space be a combined Lane Cove Council Art Collection exhibition with works from the Gunnedah Council Collection.   Gunnedah Council has not as yet been contacted regarding this proposal.

The last time that the Council collection was on display was in 2006, when the Visions of a Municipality Exhibition was held.  Depending on the agreement (if reached) with Gunnedah the size of the exhibition will need to be determined, as the Council collection has increased in size since the last exhibition.

While the Library has been showing selected parts of the Art Collection since it opened the current exhibit highlights paintings based on the theme “Landmarks of Lane Cove” covering riverscapes and streetscapes of Lane Cove.  There is only space for about 12 paintings to be exhibited for each display.  The ability to showcase the Council Collection and advertise the new space together will bring the space to the attention to the residents of Lane Cove.


Naming of the Gallery

As part of the planning for the Gallery we have canvassed names for the gallery space. A total of 9 names have been received as shown below.

 

Suggested Name

Explanation for Name

Lane Cove Gallery (2)

The suggestion being that this clearly indicates that this space is firstly a Gallery and also that it is a Council space.  Simplicity of name would enable people searching via Google or Council’s website to easily locate it.

The Warren Gallery

As a tribute to Joy and Guy Warren

Art in the Air

No additional information

The Lloyd Rees Memorial Gallery

No additional information

Art in the Cove

No additional information

Cove Art

No additional information

The Trove

It will be full of art and treasures and easy for people to remember

Gallery Lane Cove

Simplicity of name would enable people searching via Google or Council’s website to easily locate it.

Saltwater People

To connect with the Cameraygal people

Community Gallery

No additional information

Art & Events Space

No additional information

In addition, there was a suggestion that as the space can be divided into three areas.  There is potential to name the individual spaces such as the Guy and Joy Warren Room (or space) or the Warren Exhibition Room (or space).  The adoption of a name for the space will allow Council and Centrehouse to create publicity (including a logo) to effectively brand the space before the first exhibition. It will also allow Centrehouse to promote the space to interested artists.

From the suggestions above, Council staff recommend that the names Lane Cove Gallery or Gallery Lane Cove would be the most suitable as they would be easy to remember, clearly identify the Gallery as a Council space and make it easy to locate using Google.

A concept picture of the signage that the Architect has been considering is shown attached as
AT-3). The idea of the signage is that the area will be easily identified. A Development Application for the signage will need to be submitted.

Conclusion

It is anticipated that the physical renovation to the top floor of the Community Centre will be completed by December 2011 with the opening proposed for mid-February 2012. It is recommended that Council select a name for the Art Gallery and Exhibition Space and consider whether to name individual areas in the new Art Gallery and Exhibition Space.  A name will allow Centrehouse to promote the space to the community in preparation for the opening. 

Centrehouse have provided a Business Plan for the new space which outlines the goals for the new Art Gallery and Exhibition Space and provides target dates for the Plan. Council staff and Centrehouse have liaised in regard to the draft Management Agreement and general agreement has been reached with some minor details to be resolved.  It will build on our Sister City relationship if Gunnedah could be involved in the first exhibition to be held in the new space.


 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Note the Business Plan and Draft Management Agreement for the Art Gallery and Exhibition Space;

2.   Endorse the first exhibition in the Art Gallery and Exhibition space as the Council Art Collection;

3.   Write to Gunnedah Shire Council to request that they participate in the first exhibition in the new Lane Cove Art Gallery and Exhibition space by loaning appropriate paintings for display;

4.   Select a name for the new Art Gallery and Exhibition Space; and

5.   Consider whether to name the individual areas in the new Art Gallery and Exhibition Space.

 

 

 

 

 

Jane  Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

The Gallery - Lane Cove Business Plan

17 Pages

AT‑2 View

Draft Heads of Agreement between Lane Cove Council and Centrehouse for Gallery

6 Pages

AT‑3 View

Signage and Branding for Gallery Art Space

1 Page