m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

6 February 2012

The meeting commences at 6.30pm. If members of the public are

not interested in any business recommended to be considered in

Closed Session or there is no such business, Council will ordinarily

  commence consideration of all other business at 7pm.

 


 

Notice of Meeting

 

Dear Councillors

 

Notice is given of the Ordinary Council Meeting, to be held in the Council Chambers on Monday 6 February 2012 commencing at 6:30pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Yours faithfully



Peter Brown

General Manager

 

Council Meeting Procedures

 

The Council meeting is chaired by the Mayor, Councillor Win Gaffney. Councillors are entitled to one vote on a matter. If votes are equal, the Chairperson has a second or casting vote. When a majority of Councillors vote in favour of a Motion it becomes a decision of the Council. Minutes of Council and Committee meetings are published on Council’s website www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au by 5pm of the Thursday following the meeting.

 

The Meeting is conducted in accordance with Council's Code of Meeting Practice. The order of business is listed in the Agenda on the next page. That order will be followed unless Council resolves to modify the order at the meeting. This may occur for example where the members of the public in attendance are interested in specific items of the agenda.

 

Members of the public may address the Council Meeting on any issue for a maximum of 3 minutes during the public forum which is held at the beginning of the meeting. All persons addressing the Meeting must speak to the Chair. Speakers and Councillors will not enter into general debate or ask questions.

 

If you do not understand any part of the information given above; require assistance to participate in the meeting due to a disability; or wish to obtain information in relation to Council, please contact Council’s Manager Governance on 99113525.

 

Please note meetings held in the Council Chambers are recorded on tape for the purposes of verifying the accuracy of minutes and the tapes are not disclosed to any third party under the Government Information (Public Access)  Act 2009, except as allowed under section 18(1) or section 19(1) of the PPIP Act, or where Council is compelled to do so by court order, warrant or subpoena or by any other legislation.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council 6 February 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

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

 

Confidential Items

 

1.       Human Services Division Report No. 1

SUBJECT: Possums Corner Child Care Centre - Update Report

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (a) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the matter will involve the discussion of personnel matters concerning a particular individual; AND the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret; it further being considered that discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to public interest by reason of the foregoing and the report discusses the commercial position of the Centre. 

 

public forum

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

2.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 19 DECEMBER 2011

 

Referred Reports FROM Inspection Committee 4 February 2012

 

3.       Environmental Services Division Report No. 3

SUBJECT: 21 Dunois Street, Longueville

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

4.       Notice of Motion No. 1

SUBJECT: Recycling Facilities for Small Businesses

 

5.       Notice of Motion No. 2

SUBJECT: Disparity in Reporting Obligations for Not-for-Profits

 

6.       Notice of Motion No. 3

SUBJECT: Lane Cove Charity

 

7.       Notice of Motion No. 4

SUBJECT: Marshall Ave, St Leonards

 

General Managers Reports

 

8.       General Managers Report No. 1

SUBJECT: Council Snapshot

 

Corporate Services Division Reports

 

9.       Corporate Services Division Report No. 1

SUBJECT: 2nd Quarter Review of the 2011-2013 Delivery Program and Operational Plan

 

10.     Corporate Services Division Report No. 2

SUBJECT: 2nd Quarter Review of the 2011 - 2012 Budget

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Reports

 

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

SUBJECT: Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held Tuesday 20 December 2011

 

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

SUBJECT: Lane Cove Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP)

 

13.     Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 3

SUBJECT: ALGA Roads to Recovery Campaign

 

14.     Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 4

SUBJECT: Boat and Trailer Parking on Public Roads

 

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

SUBJECT: Courtesy Bus Levy Consultation Report

 

Environmental Services Division Reports

 

16.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 1

SUBJECT: Draft Private Principle Certifying Authority Complaints Policy

 

17.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 2

SUBJECT: LEP Amendment - Open Space

 

18.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 3

SUBJECT: Issues Paper of the NSW Planning System Review  

 

 

 

 

              


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 February 2012

Environmental Services Division Report No. 3

 

 

Reference:     Environmental Services Division Report No. 3

Subject:          21 Dunois Street, Longueville

Inspection Committee after considering this matter referred this Report to the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on the 06 February 2012.   

Record No:    DA01/287-1 - 3519/12

Author(s):      Norm Fletcher 

 

 

Property:                     21 Dunois Street Longueville

Application No:            DA 287/01A (Section 96 modification)

Date Lodged:              21/11/2011

Cost of Work:              Additional $2,500 to the value of the original development

Owner:                                    C & M Palamara

Applicant:                    C & M Palamara

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Section 96 modification to the roof terrace area that was approved with the original application for a new dwelling house and roof terrace

ZONE

R2 - Low Density Residential

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

Yes

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

No

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

No

IS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO BUSHLAND?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a

STOP THE CLOCK USED

No

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                  72, 68, 70, 74, Kenneth Street, Longueville; 75, 73, 71 Arabella Street, Longueville; 3 Cowper Street, Longueville.

Ward Councillors        W Gaffney, A Smith, S Forrest, S Bennison

Progress Association  Longueville Residents Association

REASON FOR REFERRAL

The section 96 modification application has not been called by any Councillors.  However, the original development application DA 01/287 and a subsequent section 96 modification application were approved by Council and this section 96 modification application is therefore referred to the Council for the decision. 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

·    The application seeks to modify the original consent so as to increase the trafficable roof area and propose a new stainless steel balustrade system secured to the new tile covering to the replaced water proof membrane.

·    Two submissions were received in response to the notification of the modification application. The issues raised in the submission are as follows:

Works not being in accordance with the consent.

Reduction in the setback would allow an increase in trafficable roof terrace area.

Simple balustrade would not be adequate to maintain the area as non trafficable.

To ensure privacy is maintained, the originally approved 4 metre setback be maintained.

·    The modification proposal is recommended for approval subject to condition 1 of the consent being altered and the condition requiring shade cloth (condition 48) being deleted as indicated in the recommendation.

SITE

The site is known as 21 Dunois Street, Longueville and has a single storey masonry dwelling house with a sheet metal flat roof on the western section and a tiled deck on the eastern section.  The section of Dunois Street, where the property is located, is between Arabella Street to the east and Kenneth Street to the west.  The site is on the northern side of Dunois Street and adjoins three properties to the north, west and east.

The deck area, where the modification relates, is above the main dwelling house and has views toward Sydney Harbour above the dwelling located on the eastern side being 73 Arabella Street.  Site plan and Notification plan attached (AT-1 and AT-2).

PROPOSAL

The proposal is to increase the available trafficable deck area by approximately 10.6m2 that would require the additional area located 2m from the northern edge of the existing roof top.  The original approval required a 4m set back from the northern edge of the roof top as being not available for trafficable use.  The approved set back from the eastern side being 2m remains unchanged.

The proposal indicates that the area to be used for trafficable and non trafficable purpose would be defined by a 1.0m high stainless steel balustrade that would be secured to the tiles and the existing masonry parapet walls. It would have intermediate support posts generally at 1.3m centres with horizontal stainless steel wires at 105mm spacing.

The proposed new balustrade location in relation to the boundary with the property to the north (3 Cowper St) would be approximately 4.9m and 4.2m to the common boundary with the property at the east.

The property adjoining the northern side boundary is planted with boundary shrubs (reasonable density) that have an average height of approximately 4m. The plantings do provide a sense of privacy as the swimming pool in the rear yard of the property to the north, would not be visible to any person in a standing position adjoining the proposed new balustrade.

The rear deck at 3 Cowper Street does allow a viewing opportunity to the roof terrace area at the subject site and again persons on the terrace can also look towards 3 Cowper Street. However the principal views afforded to both 3 Cowper Street and the subject site are to the east, towards the Sydney Harbour and Woodford Bay waterways.

The proposed modifications may create an increased privacy concern to the properties fronting Arabella Street to the north-east (being 71 Arabella Street) as the terrace area with the altered trafficable area would allow for a direct viewing of 71 Arabella Street.

PREVIOUS APPROVALS/HISTORY

The original approval DA 287/01 was issued by Council on 12 December 2001 for the demolition of an existing dwelling house and the construction of a new single storey dwelling house with a roof terrace.

The roof terrace, as approved, is located on the eastern side of the building with the western side being sheet metal.

A section 96 modification application was lodged to replace the skillion roof to a flat roof towards the rear of the house. The application was approved on 24 November 2003 subject to the amendment to Condition 1 and addition of condition 48 which are as follows:

Condition 1.

“The trafficable roof area must be restricted as not to extend closer than two (2.0) metres from the eastern edge of the roof and four (4.0) metres form the northern edge of the roof.  Access to the non trafficable roof area is to be restricted by installing shade fabric covering the whole of the non trafficable area at a height of not greater than 900 mm above the height of the roof slab level in accordance with sheets 1 and 2 undated. The reason for this condition is to ensure the area covered by the fabric remains non trafficable in order to ensure privacy to the neighbouring residences is maintained”

Condition 48.

“The shade sails be maintained at all times over the non trafficable roof areas to prevent access.”

The terrace has a perimeter wall approximately 800 mm above the concrete slab roof structure that is partially used as the roof terrace.

Council on 20 October 2011 served a notice of intention on the owners of the property as the shade fabric had been removed and access was available to the area that was identified as non trafficable.

The owners subsequently submitted a section 96 application in response to the proposed order and also indicated that due to internal water damage to the dwelling house, because of a failing roof terrace membrane, urgent works were necessary to replace the membrane. The membrane was replaced and the terrace area has been tiled to protect the membrane.

PROPOSAL DATA/POLICY COMPLIANCE

Local Environmental Plan 2009

Zoning:           R2 Low Density Residential

Site Area:       500 m²

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

No change

0.5

Yes

Height of Buildings

No Change

9.5m

Yes


Comprehensive DCP

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

No change

Consistent with area or 7.5m

Yes

Secondary street setback (corner lots)

NA

2m

NA

Side setback (min)

No change

1200mm/1500mm

Yes

Rear setback (min)

No change

<1000m²: 8m or 25%

>1000m²: 10m or 35%

Yes

Wall Height (max) (maximum parapet of 600mm)

No change

7.0m

Yes

Maximum Ridge height

No change

9.5m

Yes

Subfloor height (max)

NA

1.5m

NA

Number of Storeys (max)

1

2

Yes

Landscaped area (min)(Minimum width of 1m required to be included in area)

No change

35%

Yes

Foreshore Building Line          (min)

NA

 

NA

Cut and Fill      (max)

NA

1m

NA

Solar Access

NA

3 hrs to north-facing windows

NA

Provide for view sharing

NA

 

NA

Heritage Conservation

NA

 

NA

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

5 m

3m

No

Private open space

No change

24 m² (min)

4m minimum depth

Yes

Basix

NA

 

NA

REFERRALS

Senior Building Surveyor

No objection has been raised to the S96 proposal.

section 96(2) Lane Cove LOCAL Environmental Plan 2009 (Section 79c (1) (a))

·    Section 96 (2) (a) The development to which the consent relates to is substantially the same development

The proposed modification relates to an increase in the trafficable area provided on the roof terrace and relocation of the balustrade on the northern side of the terrace 2.0m towards the northern side of the dwelling house.

The proposed changes as submitted are relatively minor in nature as they do not alter the main building bulk of the approved dwelling house. The relocation of the balustrade would depart from the original approval but generally it is considered that the overall development would be substantially the same.

·    Section 96 (2) (b) Consultation with relevant Minister, Public Authority of Approval Body

There is no requirement to consult with the Minister, Public Authority or Approval Body as a result of the proposed modification.

·    Section 96 (2)(c) Any submissions made

The proposal was advertised in accordance with Council’s policy of Community Consultation and two submissions were received from the owner of 3 Cowper Street an adjoining property towards the north and the owner of 71 Arabella Street an adjoining property towards the north-eastern corner of the subject site.

Section 79 (C) Matters for Consideration

·    Section 79 (C) (a) (i) The provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument

The subject site is zoned R2 - Low Density Residential under the provisions of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009. The proposal is permitted with the consent of Council.

·    Section 79 (C) (a) (ii) The provisions of any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument

There are no Draft Environmental Planning Instruments that need to be considered.

·    Section 79 (C) (a) (iii) The provisions of any Development Control Plan

The original development was assessed against Council’s Code for Dwelling Houses and the current development is assessed against Council’s Comprehensive Development Control Plan.

The proposed modifications depart from the original approved plans which required a setback of 4 m from the northern edge of the building and shade cloth to prevent access to the non trafficable area.

The proposal is to remove the shade cloth installation and provide a stainless steel balustrade set back 2m from the external wall of the dwelling. The aim of the balustrade is to prevent access to the non trafficable area.

Variations to Council’s Codes/Policies

The proposal alters the set back requirements as indicated in condition 1 of the original consent.

The width of the roof top terrace to the east is 5m as originally approved and to the north is proposed to be 11.5m, an increase of 2m.

The application proposes an increase to the roof terrace trafficable area. This would increase overlooking and impact upon privacy of the adjoining properties.

The intent of the original consent was to limit the use of the trafficable roof terrace area by the application of a physical barrier in the form of a shade cloth structure.

It is considered that a 4m set back to the north should be maintained, even though the vegetation along the northern side boundary does provide some screening to the rear yard of 3 Cowper Street.

In regard to ensuring privacy can be maintained, the provision of additional screen planting via roof top planter boxes on the northern side adjoining the proposed balustrade system is recommended as a condition of the consent.

·    Section 79 (C) (b) The Likely Impacts of the Development

The modifications as proposed have raised a concern from an adjoining property owner regarding possible loss of privacy.

The privacy concern can be addressed by the provision of a condition requiring planter boxes inside the new stainless steel balustrade as it would then restrict access to the non trafficable area and also provide an opportunity to allow for plantings on the dwelling house roof top.

The installation of planter boxes with a minimum width of 600mm and planted with permanent shrubs that attain a height of 1.5m would limit any impact on properties to the north.

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

The modification as proposed is acceptable as it would not change the original approved residential land use and also would not affect the suitability of the site for the proposal.

·    Section 79 (C) (d) Any submissions made

The proposal was advertised in accordance with Council’s policies.

·    The submission from 3 Cowper Street raised concern with regard to works being carried out not in accordance with the original consent.

Comment

Council served a proposed order, as an inspection by Council’s Building Surveyor indicated that the shade cloth installation to restrict access to part of the roof terrace area had been removed.

Subsequent to the proposed order an application was made for a section 96 modification to the roof terrace area as indicated on the submitted plans.

·    The submission from the owner of 71 Arabella Street raised a concern that the reduction in the set back would allow an increase in the roof terrace trafficable area. It has been indicated that a simple barrier (balustrade) is not sufficient to maintain the area as non trafficable.

·    It has also been submitted by the owner of 71 Arabella Street that to ensure privacy can be protected, the original approved 4m setback be maintained and an exclusion method be required by Council for the non trafficable area.

Comment

It is recommended that the width of the non trafficable area towards the north be maintained as approved in the original application. In addition, a planter box is required to ensure that privacy can be maintained to the adjoining properties.

 

·    Section 79 (C) (e) The Public Interest

The proposed modification would create a situation where privacy would be a concern to the adjoining properties particularly to the north and north east.

It is considered that the 4m set back should be maintained and a planter box installation be required to ensure that privacy can be maintained to the adjoining properties.

It is considered that approval of the application that maintains the 4m set back and the installation of planter boxes is in the public interest.

 

CONCLUSION

The application has been assessed having regard to the relevant Planning Instruments and Council Controls, as well as public good and suitability of the site.  The matters under Section 79C and Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 have been considered and are assessed as being adequate and satisfactory.

 


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That pursuant to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the development consent D287/01 granted on 12 December 2001 and subsequently modified on 24 November 2003 for a residential development at 21 Dunois Street Longueville is amended in the following manner:-

A.        Amend Condition 1 as follows:-

·    The trafficable and useable recreational terrace area on the roof is to be restricted to the area behind the stainless steel balustrade that is to be located 4m from the northern side and 2m from the eastern side of the dwelling external parapet walls that is consistent with the original development approval.

·    The Drawing number DA01 as submitted with the section 96 modification application be amended to indicate a 4m set back to the northern side and also to include a planter box installation that has a minimum width of 600mm and is to be located adjoining the inside section of the northern balustrade. The planter box to be provided with plantings that attain a height of 1.5m to be used as screen and ensuring privacy can be maintained to the properties on northern side of 21 Dunois Street.

·    The amended drawings to be submitted to the Council prior to the installation of the new stainless steel balustrade.

B.        Delete Condition 48

            “The shade sails be maintained at all times over the non trafficable roof areas to prevent access.”

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plans

2 Pages

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

   


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 February 2012

Notice of Motion No. 1

 

 

Reference:     Notice of Motion No. 1

Subject:          Recycling Facilities for Small Businesses    

Record No:    SU3732 - 4110/12

Author(s):      Councillor Ian  Longbottom 

 

 

 

Background

 

Sometime ago the question of glass/plastic container recycling was discussed and I believed that we were going to supply containers for such recycling to small businesses, such as restaurants and cafes, so that more recycling could take place rather than these materials be co-mingled with other waste and ending up in landfill.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council provide small businesses, such as cafes and restaurants, with access to a Council funded recycling program so as to minimise the amount of glass and plastic containers ending up in landfill. This could be done as an individual bin being provided or a number of centralised bins being placed in near proximity to cafe/restaurants and other large users of recyclable containers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Ian  Longbottom

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 February 2012

Notice of Motion No. 2

 

 

Reference:     Notice of Motion No. 2

Subject:          Disparity in Reporting Obligations for Not-for-Profits    

Record No:    SU3474 - 4242/12

Author(s):      Councillor Scott Bennison 

 

 

Typically not-for-profits are either registered as Incorporated Association or Companies Limited by Guarantee.  Incorporated Associations are subject to the Incorporated Associations Act that is administered by the NSW Department of Fair Trading and Companies Limited by Guarantee is subject to the Corporations Law which is administered by ASIC.

Both jurisdictions have different reporting requirements which I have summarised below.  Except for some specific circumstances the following illustrates the different reporting requirements for not-for-profits under the Federal and State jurisdictions:-

Federal (turnover)

NSW State (turnover)

< $250,000 no Audit

< $250,000 no Audit

< $1,000,000 elect for a review or an audit

> $250,000 Audited Financial Statements

> $1,000,000 audited Financial Statements

 

NSW Department of Fair Trading has recently released a Class Order 11/01 that increased the turnover threshold ‘Tier 1’ to $2mil.  This provides for reduced financial reporting however they still require an Audit.

With the Auditing there is a big difference between an “Audit” and a “Review” in terms of cost and the level of assurance given.

Audit Report

We give an opinion as to whether the financial statements, taken as a whole, are fairly presented. This opinion is given after extensive tests of the accounting records are made. The tests include confirmation with outside parties, analytical procedures, inquiry of client personnel and a detailed study of the accounting records.

Review Engagement Report

We express limited assurance that we have not noted any items that would require adjustments that should be made to the statements in order for them to be in conformity with accepted standards. The accountant must conduct a review and be satisfied as to the reasonableness of the statements through inquiry and analytical procedures. A review does not provide an opinion on financial statements or an understanding of the internal control structure or assess control risk. It does not conduct tests of accounting records but on the other hand it may bring to the accountant’s attention significant matters affecting the financial statements. In short it can be said that a review is no way concerned about the financial statements of the company.

In summary an Audit expresses an ‘Opinion” as to whether the financial statements are ‘true and fair’ while the review provides limited assurances regarding items in the financial statements.

From a non-for-profits perspective a review is cheaper than an audit given that Auditing Standards have become ‘force of law’.

To become registered as an Auditor with ASIC it requires years of specific audit experience, education and ongoing additional training above that of Accountants in Public Practice. Auditing required a different skill set and analysis than Accountants in Public Practice hence the difficulty in becoming registered as an Auditor with ASIC.

At present in NSW any member of the Accounting professions can sign of as Auditors for Financial Statements prepare for Incorporated Associations.  The problem with this is that Accountants not skilled in Auditing techniques are signing off as Auditors.  The perceptions to the public would be that any Financial Statements signed off as “Auditor’ would be done by a qualified Auditor.

I believe that the ASIC model of Financial Reporting is better aligned to reduce the Auditor expectation gap and reduce cost. For entities with < $1mil in turnover they will only require an review or elect an Audit if their turnover is between $250k and $1mil.  Reviews can be performed by members of any of the Accounting Professional Bodies which I believe matches the skill set of the Accountant to the level of assurance given.  Any entity over $1mil will require an Audit and only registered Companies Auditors can provide this service.

In Summary I believe this motion addresses inconsistencies with the reporting requirements for not-for-profits and will reduce the financial burden placed on not-for-profits in complying with regulators.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council write to the Minister for Fair Trading the Hon. Anthony Roberts and make representations on behalf of Lane Cove not-for-profit’s and other not-for-profit’s in the state that:-

1.    The current reporting requirement for Incorporated Associations in NSW be reviewed and consideration be given to aligning these to that of Companies Limited by Guarantee;

2.    Similar to Companies Limited by Guarantee that members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, CPA Australia and National Institute of Accountants can perform reviews however Incorporated Associations requiring an Audit, this can only be done by Registered Company Auditors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Scott Bennison

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Financial Reporting Requirement Facts Sheet

6 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 February 2012

Notice of Motion No. 3

 

 

Reference:     Notice of Motion No. 3

Subject:          Lane Cove Charity    

Record No:    SU3474 - 4244/12

Author(s):      Councillor Scott Bennison 

 

 

Council gifts over $400,000/annum to community groups that provide various services to residents of Lane Cove.  Some of these not-for-profit organisations may qualify for registration as Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) in their own right. The costs and expertise associated with the registration and operation would generally act as barrier for these organisations and would therefore restrict the funds that could be raised from residents and businesses.

A Council owned and operated charity would allow the public and the business community to make tax deductible donations to the charity that can then be donated to eligible not-for-profits.

In the first instance Council should seek advice to determine if their is any legal impediment to owning and operating our own Charity. If we are able to own and operate a Charity then we should establish a task force to report back to Council on the legal and operational aspects of the Charity. Once Council has decided on the concept then it is proposed to undertake community consultation to gain feedback from local residents and businesses.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.       The General Manager seek advice and report back to Council to determine if there is any legal impediment to Council owning and operating a Charity;

2.       If the answerer to (1.) is yes, then a detailed report be prepared which includes the following information:-

a.       Options as to the legal structure including draft constitution;

b.       Reporting requirements;

c.       Estimated operating costs;

d.       Confirmation from the ATO regarding eligibility in obtaining DGR status;

e.       Which of the known community groups would be eligible for DGR status that would be eligible to receive donations;

f.       Options for marketing; and

g.       Other information.

3.       Councillors be given the opportunity to participate in researching the report outlined above.

 

 

 

Councillor Scott Bennison

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 February 2012

Notice of Motion No. 4

 

 

Reference:     Notice of Motion No. 4

Subject:          Marshall Ave, St Leonards    

Record No:    SU3476 - 4820/12

Author(s):      Councillor David Brooks-Horn 

 

 

Background

 

The residents of 2,4,6,8 Marshall Ave, 2 Holdsworth Ave and 1,3,5 Canberra Ave, following the proposed Loftex proposal of Marshall Avenue St. Leonards, have had discussions with council offices regarding possible changes to the LEP and DCP for their properties.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That a report be submitted to the next Council meeting showing details regarding:

1.       The proposed changes to the LEP and DCP as discussed by the residents of 2,4,6,8 Marshall Ave, 2 Holdsworth Ave and 1,3,5 Canberra Ave; and

2.       The pros and cons of the proposal and the effect to the surrounding area.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor David Brooks-Horn

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 February 2012

General Managers Report No. 1

 

 

Reference:     General Managers Report No. 1

Subject:          Council Snapshot    

Record No:    SU220 - 4061/12

Author(s):      Millie  Stephen 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Council Snapshot

60 Pages

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 February 2012

Corporate Services Division Report No. 1

 

 

Reference:     Corporate Services Division Report No. 1

Subject:          2nd Quarter Review of the 2011-2013 Delivery Program and Operational Plan    

Record No:    SU238 - 3210/12

Author(s):      Ian  Naylor 

 

 

Summary

The report outlines Council’s progress on the activities and projects listed in the Delivery Program and Operational Plan.  It is recommended that the report be received and noted.

Discussion

This report discusses the highlights of the second quarter in 2011-2012 and provides a detailed analysis of the second quarter progress against the performance measurements adopted by Council in the 2011-2013 Delivery Program and Operational Plan, shown attached as AT-1.  A continuing feature of the review is, where applicable, a cumulative year-to-date figure is provided for performance measures. 

Some of the highlights for the quarter include:-

·      Sustainability Lane was held as part of the Annual Rotary Fair (October).

·      Car Share Policy was adopted (October).

·      Concert held to celebrate International Day of Older People (October).

·      A major upgrade of Civica Authority (Financial, Development, Human Resources and Payroll) Computer System was completed (November).

·      The format and structure of the Annual Report for 2010/11 was revised in line with the planning themes of the Community Strategic Plan (November).

·      An energy efficient lighting system was installed within the Council Administration Building (November).

·      Primary School Open Days held at the Youth Centre with local Primary Schools proved successful with attendance at the Youth Centre increasing (November).

·      Conducted the Kaleidoscope Festival (November).

·      Two youth Art Workshops were conducted by respected artist ‘Mistery’ (November & December).

·      Lighting of the Christmas Tree and installation of LED lighting in the Plaza (December).

·      50th Anniversary Celebration of the Lane Cove Swimming Club and opening of the pool (December).

·      Additional Green Waste collection services implemented (December).

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the 2nd quarter review of the 2011-2013 Delivery Program and Operational Plan be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

2nd Quarter Review of 2011 - 2013 Operational Plan

48 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 February 2012

Corporate Services Division Report No. 2

 

 

Reference:     Corporate Services Division Report No. 2

Subject:          2nd Quarter Review of the 2011 - 2012 Budget    

Record No:    SU757 - 3854/12

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

The second Quarter 2011 - 2012 Budget Review involves a variety of variations in both income and expenditure. It is recommended that the Budget be varied in terms of the report.

Background

Council is required to prepare a Budget Review Statement each quarter, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1999. This report is prepared in accordance with the clause for the period ended 31 December 2011. The Division of Local Government has issued a prescribed format for reviews which is included as an attachment to this report.  The purpose of these reviews is to ensure that the impact of financial variation is reflected in the forecast of Council’s global budgetary position to 30 June 2012, and the adopted Budget adjusted accordingly.

Discussion

The following is a summary of Council’s adopted Budget for 2011 - 2012 and proposed following the adjustments included in this report:-

 

 

Original Budget

Qtr 1 Adjustment

Qtr 2 Adjustment

Revised Budget

Expenditure

$33,885k

$376k

$90k

$34,351k

Revenue

$34,855k

$610k

$1,064k

$36,529k

Surplus/ (Deficit)

$970k

$234k

$1,011k

    $2,178k

 

Expenditure

Minor adjustments are proposed to depreciation provisions for assets totalling $86,000 and a $3,500 increase in staff advertising costs.

Income

As range of adjustments are proposed including reduced income from golf course operations ($120,000) and increased revenue from the recovery of $800,000 in unpaid rates relating to Asset Strata, 23 Mars Road. Council has negotiated a substantial payment with the mortgagee in possession on the basis of a forthcoming sale. At this stage the sale has not proceeded. An adjustment of $220,000 is also proposed in relation to the increased value of the Lane Cove Market Square property. Council has also received increased grant income of $50,000 for Kindy Cove and Commonwealth Financial Assistance grants ($31,852).

Conclusion

The following statement is made in accordance with Clause 203(2) of the Local Government (general) Regulations 2005.

It is my opinion that the quarterly Budget Review Statement for Lane Cove Council for the quarter ended 31 December 2011 indicates that Council's projected financial position will be satisfactory at year end 30 June 2012, having regard to the projected estimates of income and expenditure and the original budgeted income and expenditure.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the 2011 – 2012 Budget be varied as follows:-

 

 

Original Budget

Qtr 1 Adjustment

Qtr 2 Adjustment

Revised Budget

Expenditure

$33,885k

$376k

$90k

$34,351k

Revenue

$34,855k

$610k

$1,064k

$36,529k

Surplus/ (Deficit)

$970k

$234k

$1,011k

    $2,178k

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Attachment for Council Report - 31 December 2011 - 2nd Quarter Budget Review

6 Pages

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 February 2012

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 1

 

 

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

Subject:          Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held Tuesday 20 December 2011    

Record No:    SU1326 - 3659/12

Author(s):      Nick Karahlis 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday 20 December 2011.  The Agenda is included as AT-1.  The Traffic Committee recommendations are shown in the Minutes of the Meeting, included as AT-2.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the recommendations of the Lane Cove Traffic Committee held Tuesday 20 December 2011 be accepted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Agenda - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 20 December 2011

18 Pages

AT‑2 View

Minutes - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 20 December 2011

4 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 February 2012

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 2

 

 

Reference:     Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 2

Subject:          Lane Cove Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP)     

Record No:    SU757 - 49323/11

Author(s):      Nick Karahlis 

 

 

Executive Summary

The Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan (PAMP) focuses on investment in safe, convenient and coherent pedestrian infrastructure on key pedestrian routes. The PAMP provides a strategic and coordinated framework for investment in safe and convenient pedestrian infrastructure. It is recommended the draft PAMP be adopted for the purpose of public exhibition.

Discussion

The study area for the PAMP comprised the whole Council area. The study area includes but is not limited to schools, shopping centres and business districts, public transport interchange, ferry connections, and community recreational and sporting facilities.

The objective of the study is:-

·    To facilitate improvements in the level of pedestrian access and priority, particularly in areas of pedestrian concentrations;

·    To reduce pedestrian access severance and enhance safe and convenient crossing opportunities on major roads;

·    To identify and resolve pedestrian crash clusters;

·    To facilitate improvements in the level of personal mobility and safety for pedestrians with disabilities and older persons through the provision of pedestrian infrastructure and facilities which cater to the needs of all pedestrians;

·    To provide links with other transport services to achieve an integrated land use and transport network of facilities that comply with the best technical standards;

·    To ensure pedestrian facilities are employed in a consistent and appropriate manner;

·    To link existing vulnerable road users plans in a coordinated manner (e.g. Bike Plans, safer Routes to School etc.);

·    To ensure that pedestrian facilities remain appropriate and relevant to the surrounding land use and pedestrian user groups;

·    To accommodate special event needs of pedestrian; and

·    To further Council’s obligations under the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act (1996).

The existing information on pedestrian networks has been reviewed by GTA Traffic and Transport Consultants and the following tasks have been undertaken.

Surveys and pedestrian facility audits have been conducted and surveys undertaken aimed at the following:-

·   Significant generators and attractors;

·    Pedestrian trip details such as volume estimates; pedestrian routes; trip origins and destinations; time of day demand; types of pedestrian users; factors that may inhibit walking; pedestrian related crashes; road speed and classification etc; and

·    Pedestrian crash concentrations segmented into Facility User Group Profiles and Local users and pedestrian catchment areas outside the local government or study areas.

 

The direction provided by Council Officers to the transport consultants included the following issues that required to be included in the PAMP study:-

·    Integrate consistent and continuous pedestrian networks into the land use and transport system, to facilitate and encourage more walking;

·    Linkage of pedestrian concentrations to pedestrian networks to facilitate and encourage safe and convenient accessibility and mobility for pedestrians;

·    Identify clusters and patterns of pedestrian crashes to highlight areas that restrict safe and convenient accessibility and mobility for pedestrians;

·    Development and integration of intra and inter pedestrian routes that form part of a connected pedestrian network; and

·    Linkage to and between Planning Instruments (e.g. Local Environmental Plans (LEP’s) and Development Control Plans (DCPs).

The method used for the PAMP study included the following main steps.

The existing information on the current pedestrian networks in Lane Cove was reviewed.

Surveys and interviews with relevant organisations, pedestrian facility user groups and other stakeholders such as the Access Committee were conducted.

The surveys identified:-

a)   The significant pedestrian generators and attractors in Lane Cove;

b)   Pedestrian trip details such as volume estimates; pedestrian routes; trip origins and destinations; time of day demand; types of pedestrian users; factors that may inhibit walking; pedestrian related crashes and road speed and classification;

c)   Pedestrian crash concentrations segmented into facility user group profiles and local users and pedestrian catchment areas outside the local government or study areas; and

d)   The need to analyse Pedestrian Crash data for a minimum five-year period. The crash data is shown on the map below.

2003 – 2008 Pedestrian Crashes in Lane Cove –

Source: RTA accident data

 

 

 

 

 

 



The key documents used as reference for the PAMP study were:-

·    Lane Cove Bicycle Plan;

·    NSW / RTA Bicycle Maps;

·    Lane Cove LEP;

·    Lane Cove DCP;

·    Lane Cove Sustainability Action Plan; and

·    Lane Cove Social Plan 2010 - 2014

As part of the pedestrian route audits that were undertaken for the high priority routes, the key focus of the audits was to identify any obstacles and barriers which limits the ability for less mobile and vulnerable pedestrians to move along these routes. The most important barriers included the following:-

·    Inadequate kerb ramp design;

·    Lack of kerb ramps at pedestrian crossings;

·    Lack of tactile paving at crossings;

·    Missing or inappropriate crossing treatments;

·    Damage/slippery footpaths and paving;

·    Road furniture or obstructions such as retail signage and seating that conflicts with travel paths; and

·    Trees and other obstructions above footpaths.

Each audit was undertaken within a 200 – 400m catchment of the central location, with the catchment area being dependant of the type of location. 

The results of the route audits were used to compile the PAMP schedule of works.

     

Example of pedestrian walking barriers


Community Consultation

As part of the work undertaken for the PAMP, surveys were carried out with various stakeholders.  There were interviews undertaken with relevant organisations, pedestrian facility user groups and other stakeholders such as Lane Cove Alive, Access Committee’s, Council’s Community Services, Planning and Open Space and Urban Services Departments. There were also consultation workshops undertaken with the Lane Cove Access Committee and also discussions with members of the Lane Cove Bicycle Committee. 

The discussions, workshops and interviews were used to assist in identifying future pedestrian needs and desire lines.  It is proposed to undertake community consultation on the PAMP study.

Statement of Intent

The consultation is designed to involve the general public and any stakeholders that did not have a chance to have an input when the PAMP study was undertaken.

Any comments received will be reviewed, evaluated and incorporated in the final PAMP study which will be referred back to Council for endorsement.

Method

Level of Participation

Inform

Involve

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Lane Cove Alive, Lane Cove Access Committee, Lane Cove Bicycle Committee

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement,

Public Exhibition,

E-newsletter and

Website Exhibition

Letters

 

Public Exhibition,

E-newsletter,

Council’s Website

 

Indicative Timing

Timing of consultation

Feb – Mar 2012

Timing of consultation

Feb – Mar 2012

Timing of consultation

Feb – Mar 2012

Conclusion

The Lane Cove PAMP, attached as AT-1 (appendices excluded), provides Council with a proactive policy to increase the level of walking as an important sustainable transport mode to benefit the health and economic wellbeing of the community. Walking also provides additional recreational activities and experiences for the residents of Lane Cove and visitors.

The aim of the PAMP is to build strategically walking opportunities while taking into account the natural and people’s behavioural barriers to walking.

The Lane Cove PAMP study preliminary report will be referred for public consultation and be advertised as per Lane Cove Council’s community consultation policy.


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.    The Lane Cove PAMP study preliminary report be placed on public exhibition for 6 weeks and community consultation take place in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the report

2.    A further report be submitted to Council following the exhibition period to consider the results of the community consultation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

PAMP Study

60 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 February 2012

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 3

 

 

Reference:     Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 3

Subject:          ALGA Roads to Recovery Campaign    

Record No:    SU203 - 1854/12

Author(s):      Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) has written to all councils seeking their support to lobby the Federal Government to continue the Roads to Recovery Program in its current format, on a permanent basis.

It is proposed that Council support the ALGA campaign to continue the Roads to Recovery Program and make representations to our local Federal member, the Honorable Joe Hockey.

Background

Mayor Genia McCaffery, President of the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA), wrote to Council on 12 December 2011, seeking our support to campaign Federal members for the continuance of the Roads to Recovery Program on a permanent basis.

This letter, attached as AT-1, highlights that since the commencement of the Roads to Recovery Program in 2000, over 34,000 projects, which would otherwise have required local funding, have been undertaken.  The Program is due to finish in 2014 however the ALGA is encouraging councils to lobby their local Federal members to continue it on a permanent basis in its current format.

Discussion

Council has undertaken significant road repair and upgrade work since the Roads to Recovery Program commenced in 2000. Some of these projects include:-

·    River Road West;

·    Bridge Street; and

·    Centennial Avenue.

As part of the ALGA campaign, a resolution was passed at the National Local Roads and Transport Congress held on 18 November 2011, which calls on the Federal Government to:-

·    Recognise the successful delivery of the Roads to Recovery Program by local government since 2000;

·    Continue the Roads to Recovery Program on a permanent basis to assist local government meet its responsibilities of providing access for its communities;

·    Continue the Roads to Recovery Program with the current administrative arrangements; and

·    Provide an increased level of funding under a future Roads to Recovery Program that recognises the shortfall of funding on local roads of $1.2 billion annually.

Conclusion

The Roads to Recovery Program which commenced in 2000 has resulted in significant road repair and upgrade work being undertaken.  Although the program is due to finish in 2014 it is recommended that Council support the ALGA campaign to continue the Roads to Recovery Program and make representations to our local Federal member, the Honourable Joe Hockey. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council write to the Honourable Joe Hockey, Federal Member for North Sydney, indicating Council’s strong support for the continuation of the Roads to Recovery Program on a permanent basis in its current format.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

 AT‑1 View

Letter from ALGA on Roads to Recovery Program

60 Pages


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 February 2012

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 4

 

 

Reference:     Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 4

Subject:          Boat and Trailer Parking on Public Roads    

Record No:    SU1663 - 1969/12

Author(s):      Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

Woollahra Municipal Council has written to Council seeking support to approach the Premier and Minister for Roads and Ports to amend Regulation 200 of the NSW Road Rules 2008, so that time limits are placed on the parking of registered trailers, boat trailers and advertising trailers in built up areas.

Over the years, Council has experienced problems where owners legally park their trailers on the public roadway outside other residents’ properties. Council is powerless to force the trailer to be moved, unless time restricted signposting is employed. This solution impinges on local residents and relocates the problem to another area.  Woollahra’s solution would be permanent and more easily enforceable.

It is recommended that Council support Woollahra’s proposal to amend Regulation 200 of the NSW Road Rules 2008. Further, it is also proposed that this request be forwarded to NSROC for discussion at a regional level.

Background

Supporting documentation (attached as AT-1) has been provided by Woollahra Municipal Council in their request for Council’s support for the State Government to amend Regulation 200 of the NSW Road Rules 2008, so that time limits are placed on the parking of registered trailers, boat trailers and advertising trailers in built up areas.

Councillors would be aware that similar situations have occurred in peninsula suburbs such as Greenwich, Northwood, Longueville and Riverview whereby non-residents have legally parked their boat trailers on local streets near to boat launching facilities. Some of these boat trailers can remain in the one location for months. Other than posting time restricted parking, Council is powerless to stop this practice. Instances where time restricted parking has been implemented in areas to reduce this type of abuse has resulted in the boat trailers being relocated to another nearby area, thus merely relocating the problem.

Discussion

A review of the documentation provided by Woollahra Municipal Council highlights the fact that any harbour, coastal or river area nearby to a boat launching facility can be affected by this affliction, particularly in relation to boat trailers. In addition to the long-term boat trailer parking, numerous instances exist in the Lane Cove LGA where trailers are parked long-term in public streets, either chained to street or sign posts.

For these reasons, it is considered appropriate to also refer this matter to NSROC for consideration, and to coordinate a regional response on behalf of all member councils to Woollahra as well.

Conclusion

The proposed change to Regulation 200 of the NSW Road Rules will not prevent the parking of registered trailers, boat trailers and advertising trailers in built up areas. It will restrict the amount of time that the trailers can be parked in public streets.

Council’s traffic department receives numerous complaints about these types of trailers being parked for extended, and often excessive, periods of time in public streets, which impacts on residents’ ability to obtain on-street parking near their homes.

It is considered appropriate that Council support Woollahra Municipal Council’s request to support their proposed change to Regulation 200 of the NSW Road Rules, and to lobby the State Government accordingly.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.   Council support Woollahra’s proposal to amend Regulation 200 of the NSW Road Rules 2008, so that time limits are placed on the parking of registered trailers, boat trailers and advertising trailers in built up areas.

2.   This matter be referred to NSROC for their consideration and action so that a regional response can be provided to Woollahra Municipal Council on this request as well.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Woollahra Municipal Council - Boat and Trailer Parking on Public Roads

6 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 February 2012

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 5

 

 

Reference:     Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 5

Subject:          Courtesy Bus Levy Consultation Report    

Record No:    SU4486 - 2442/12

Author(s):      Tim Sullivan 

 

 

Executive Summary

Council undertook community consultation with the major rate payers in Lane Cove West Business Park between 18 November 2011 and 20 January 2012 to determine the level of support for a proposed Courtesy Bus Levy. Members of the public and other interested parties not directly affected by the proposal were also invited to comment. The following report details the feedback received during the consultation period, including the result of the stakeholder survey. It is recommended that Council not proceed with the levy.

Background

Council officers have been working since June last year on a proposal to introduce an express courtesy bus service linking Lane Cove West Business Park with the railway network at Chatswood. This proposal came about because of the perceived lack of public transport accessibility to the business park, which is held to be partially responsible for reduced land and rental values and a large proportion of currently vacant properties.  In collaboration with a local private bus operator, Council officers developed a feasible route and timetable and costed a frequent, express commuter bus service at $187,200 per annum.  In July 2011 Council hosted a workshop session involving relevant officers and a variety of stakeholders from Lane Cove West Business Park, where the concept of a levy emerged (based on the existing rateable value system) to meet the cost of the service.

In October 2011, Council granted approval to undertake consultation with the 57 properties (46 owners) who would be required to pay the proposed levy. The results of this consultation are discussed below.

Consultation

In total there are 57 properties in the Lane Cove West Business Park that are valued over $500,000 and would therefore incur the proposed Courtesy Bus Levy if it were to go ahead. The owners of these properties and their nominated representatives number 46, some of whom own multiple properties in the area.

The postal addresses for the 46 property owners and their agents were obtained from Council’s rates and revenue staff to ensure that any correspondence regarding the Courtesy Bus Levy proposal was sent to the same address as the quarterly rates notice and therefore had the best chance of being successfully delivered. A lunchtime workshop was arranged for Tuesday 1 November 2011 and all 46 rate payers were sent invitations by post on 13 October, along with the Courtesy Bus Levy fact sheet that was produced for Council in October 2011. Unfortunately there were only a handful of confirmed attendees and so the decision was made to cancel the workshop and attempt to contact rate payers individually.

After extensive online research and numerous phone calls it was possible to obtain direct contact details for 22 of the 46 ratepayers. The remaining 24 property owners were sent a letter on 29 November 2011 requesting that the owner of the property contact Council as a matter of urgency.  On 20 December Council contacted rate payers by letter again to inform them of the general rate increase announced by the State Government and to set out the implications of the proposed Courtesy Bus Levy and general increase on their rates from July 2012. As a result of this correspondence and numerous other emails and phone calls, Council obtained contact email addresses for 31 out of 46 rate payers. These rate payers were each sent a short survey to complete. 26 completed surveys were received by the deadline of 20 January 2012. This represents a response rate of 57%.

In addition to the direct consultation with stakeholders, Council also publicised the Courtesy Bus Levy proposal on the Councils website, through an eNewsletter and in a North Shore Times advertisement published on 14 October 2011. The North Shore Times also ran a separate article on the proposal in the same edition of the newspaper.

Discussion

The charts below show three different ways of displaying the survey results.  The first is based on the value of the properties for which completed surveys were received. In this case, the value of those in favour of the levy was $53,063,040 and the value of those against was $40,677,730.

 

 

The second analysis looks at the number of properties (valued above $500,000) represented by survey respondents. In this case, 21 properties belonged to those in favour of the Courtesy Bus Levy and 13 properties belonged to those against.

 

 

The third chart simply shows the number of property owners for and against the proposal. Of the 26 individuals and organisations that responded, 14 are in favour and 12 are against.

 

In addition to the direct consultation feedback received in the form of completed surveys, there was also correspondence received from members of the public and other interested stakeholders. Letters and emails of support were received from the following organisations:-

·    Mandy Stubbs, Local Co-ordinator Lane Cove Group Permaculture Sydney North and Vice President, Permapatch Community Garden

·    James  Brocklebank, Group Leader Traffic & Transport, Willoughby City Council

·    Doug Stuart, RASAD (Residents and Shopkeepers for Appropriate Development)

·    Graham Holland, Lane Cove Bushland Conservation Society Inc

There were also letters and emails received from individuals living and working in Lane Cove, the majority of which were supportive.  A copy of the submissions has been circulated to councillors separately.

Conclusion

As can be seen from the summary of consultation feedback, property owners in Lane Cove West were divided on whether to support the Courtesy Bus Levy.

Great efforts were made to ensure that all of those rate payers who may be affected by the proposal were engaged through both direct communication and publicity in local print media and on the Lane Cove Council website. Despite these efforts, nearly half the key stakeholders did not complete surveys and were therefore not represented in the consultation results.

Given the close nature of the survey result and the lack of hard empirical evidence around potential patronage of the courtesy bus service, it is hard to justify imposing this levy on ratepayers in Lane Cove West Business Park only a year after the introduction of the Infrastructure Levy. It is therefore recommended that the proposal to introduce a Courtesy Bus Levy be withdrawn due to lack of support, and that the relevant stakeholders and local media be informed.

The imposition of a levy was a mechanism primarily suggested to overcome the key issue, that existing legislation prevents a charge being imposed on a privately operated service where the route is in competition with Sydney Buses. This issue has also previously arisen in relation to Council’s Village Express Bus Services and more recent Willoughby’s Artarmon shuttle service. Willoughby Council have indicated a willingness to seek legislative reform on the issue and therefore it is proposed the matter be referred to NSROC and a meeting be sought with the Minister for Transport, The Hon. Gladys Berejiklian MP to pursue the matter.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.   Council not proceed with the introduction of a Courtesy Bus Levy for rate payers in Lane Cove West Business Park due to a lack of support from the local business community.

2.   Stakeholders and the wider public to be informed by letter and press release of Council’s decision.

3.   Council seek the support of NSROC and the Minister for Transport, The Hon. Gladys Berejiklian MP and the local member The Hon. Anthony Roberts MP for changes to the Passenger Transport Act 1990 to permit bus services to be operated for a fee in competition with Sydney Buses, where Sydney Buses have declined to provide the service and there is a public benefit in the service being provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 February 2012

Environmental Services Division Report No. 1

 

 

Reference:     Environmental Services Division Report No. 1

Subject:          Draft Private Principle Certifying Authority Complaints Policy    

Record No:    SU572 - 3860/12

Author(s):      Michael Mason 

 

 

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to provide a Draft Private Principle Certifying Authority Complaints Policy which clarifies how and when Council will handle complaints about development sites controlled by private certifiers.

Background

Over recent years staff have noted an increasing number of complaints about the actions, or lack of action, by private certifiers in their monitoring and control of building sites.

Complaints may arise when a builder fails to act appropriately or when an adjoining neighbour perceives actions to be inappropriate.  Council staff are often called upon to clarify the role of the certifier or on some occasions take action against the builder and certifier.  In such situations Council staff act in good faith and in the communities interest, by clarifying the role and responsibilities of the various stakeholders, whether they be the owner of the land, the builder, the affected neighbour / objector, or the certifier.

A small number of incidents have been referred to the NSW Ombudsman’s office in the mistaken belief that Council has failed to act or is actively protecting a private certifier.  Where Council receives a complaint about a private certifier Council staff act in the communities’ interest and assume the role of adviser and mediator where appropriate.  To date the Ombudsman’s office have found that Council and its staff have acted appropriately and in recent correspondence has made the following observation:-

            “Our office has found that where councils have a formal policy document which discusses the roles and responsibilities of Council and the P.C.A (Principal Certifying Authority) in detail, complainants are more likely to understand whether to contact council or the P.C.A. and are less likely to become dissatisfied and complain to our office or the BPB (Building Professionals Board)”.

A copy of this correspondence from the Ombudsman’s office in its entirety has been distributed to Councillors separately.

Having regard to the above observation and the suggestion of the Ombudsman’s office that “…Council adopt a formal policy in relation to how Council will handle complaints about building and development work where a private certifying authority (PCA) has been appointed” a Draft Policy is provided (attached as AT-1).

As this Draft Policy outlines procedures to be undertaken by Council Staff in responding to complaints about private certifiers there is no need for community consultation.

Conclusion

Staff have reviewed the various standard policy documents highlighted by the Ombudsman’s office in developing the Draft Policy to fit the Lane Cove context.  The Draft Private Principal Certifying Authority Complaint Policy (attached as AT-1) adopts all the provisions of the Ombudsman’s office suggested policy and is recommended for adoption.  As the policy is based on the legislative arrangements associated with Private Certifiers and is essentially a statement of roles and responsibilities it is not suggested that Council undertake community consultation on the policy.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the Draft Private Principal Certifying Authority Complaint Policy which discusses the roles and responsibilities of Council and the P.C.A. (Principal Certifying Authority) to explain how Council will handle complaints.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Private Principal Certifying Authority Complaint Policy

9 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 February 2012

Environmental Services Division Report No. 2

 

 

Reference:     Environmental Services Division Report No. 2

Subject:          LEP Amendment - Open Space    

Record No:    SU4506 - 3933/12

Author(s):      Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

A planning proposal is recommended for Council endorsement in order to correct certain mapping anomalies in Local Environmental Plan 2009. These relate either to cartographic errors / historic zoning discrepancies or to unintended consequences of zones approved by Council. As a result, restrictions have been imposed unnecessarily on the future use of community and sporting facilities on Council lands.

Each of the proposed amendments would return the zoning to that intended either under Council’s policies in former planning documents or in approved land uses. As an example, a long-standing active recreation park fronting Burns Bay had been had been zoned for that use under LEP 1987 and Draft LEP 2008, but is zoned Environmental Conservation E2 in LEP 2009, so this is proposed to be returned to the more appropriate Public Recreation RE1 zone, as detailed below.

Council is requested to approve the preparation of a planning proposal to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s Gateway for exhibition approval, in accordance with the maps attached to this report as AT 1. Aerial photographs of the sites are provided at AT 2.

Background

The preparation of the comprehensive LEP included a review of the zones for open space. These comprise:-

·          active recreation parks (formerly zoned Open Space Recreation 6(a) under LEP 1987 - now Public Recreation RE1 under LEP 2009); and

·          passive recreation bushland (formerly Bushland 6(b) - now Environmental Conservation E2).

The review identified areas zoned for parks which had remained bushland, and conversely other areas zoned as bushland were assessed as appropriate for parks. This was a fine-tuning exercise along the borders between the two zones. The proportion of open space overall within Lane Cove under Draft LEP 2008 was not affected.

The LEP review also maintained most of the long-standing zonings existing from LEP 1987 or earlier plans.

Discussion

(i)         LEP Amendments Proposed

In mapping these areas over the course of two DLEP exhibitions and subsequently, electronic map coding was incorrectly applied to two sites and this is now proposed to be corrected. The open space review also had the unintended consequence of rezoning community and sporting facilities set within natural areas, restricting their potential upgrading. Additionally, some historic discrepancies have been identified, for example where zoning had not been updated to match new subdivision boundaries. The zones of each site under LEP 1987, DLEP 2008, LEP 2009 and this proposed LEP amendment are shown in AT 3.

 

 

 

Mapping Errors Post-Exhibition of DLEP 2008

Area 1: Sydney University Rowing Club site: This land was zoned Open Space Recreation 6(a) under LEP 1987 (and Special Uses on a small MSW&DB lot). This policy was continued with the site being zoned Public Recreation RE1 in both of the Draft LEP exhibitions in 2008 (including the Sydney Water lot, as it was required by the Department that infrastructure sites be rezoned to match their surrounding zone).

The land has been used over a considerable time for Sydney University Rowing Club activities, prior to the destruction of the rowing sheds in a fire. It forms the southern half of a park, of which the northern section continues to be correctly zoned as RE1. Car parking is available on hard surface areas, and there are grassed areas as well as vegetation over much of the site, as shown in the aerial photograph.

The E2 zoning was incorrectly applied in finalization of the maps in August 2008 for submission to the Department, and is proposed to be returned to Public Recreation RE1. An RE1 zoning would permit, with consent, a range of land uses not permitted in the E2 Environmental Conservation Zone, including kiosks, mooring pens, recreation facilities and cafes.

Linley Lane, which serves the two sections of the park, had been unzoned as were all roads under LEP 1987. Its zoning would also now be identified as RE1, as under the Standard LEP roads are required to be mapped to the adjacent zoning.

Area 2: Lane Cove West river area: This site comprises two lots: (i) a Council-owned foreshore strip and (ii) the rear part of No.355 Burns Bay Rd, a private residential property which formerly extended to the river until Council purchased the foreshore section.

That Council-owned land should be zoned Environmental Conservation E2 as it forms a contiguous strip of public bushland with the public foreshore to the north and south.

The narrow residue of private land at No. 355 east of Council’s property should be zoned Residential R2 as it forms part of the private house lot. This has been the standard approach following other foreshore purchases in that area to date.

Historic Discrepancies or Unintended Land Use Consequences

Area 3: The Tambourine Bay Rowing Shed occupies a small portion of Council land under lease to Macquarie University. It located at the southern end of a bush track adjacent to St Ignatius College. The whole bush track was zoned E2 in the DLEP open space review, but this precludes the rowing club’s activities (other than under existing use rights) at the southern end.

·    It is intended to rezone to RE1 only that southern end portion, and to retain E2 zone over the majority of the bush track.

·    The Environmental Protection zone layer which has applied under both LEP 1987 and LEP 2009 will be retained over the whole lot. This requires Council to consider the impact of any proposed development on the vegetation, topography and distinctive features of the land.

Area 4: Blackman Park house: No.3 Lloyd Rees Drive to the south of the roadway is occupied by public tennis courts and a Council-owned house which is currently a residential tenancy. The lot has, both in LEP 1987 and LEP 2009, been predominantly zoned for recreation, but with the south-eastern corner where the house is situated zoned as bushland.

It is proposed that the E2 corner be rezoned to RE1 for consistency with the lot as a whole and to allow for flexible options in planning the future of the land occupied by the house.

Area 5: The North Shore Rowing Club is partially located on Council’s foreshore within Aquatic Park, although it is predominantly located over reclaimed land controlled by the NSW Roads and Maritime. The DLEP aimed to zone the Park RE1 over the active recreational areas, which also include to the east the Lane Cove 12 Foot Skiff Club and the Sea Scouts clubhouses, and E2 over sensitive bushland at the western end.

The boundary between the RE1 and E2 zones is proposed to be slightly realigned to ensure that the North Shore Rowing Club is within the active RE1 zone.

Area 6: No. 3 Dunois St was included in DLEP 2008 and LEP 2009 with the RE1 zone applying east along the foreshore. This automatically replicated the inaccurate Open Space Recreation 6(a) from LEP 1987. It is a residential house lot and should be corrected to Low Density Residential R2.

Area 7: Coronation View Point, listed on Council’s Heritage Register, comprises four lots. The eastern-most lot was incorrectly zoned Residential R4 under LEP 2009 in continuation of the LEP 1987’s flats zoning of Residential 2(c ). This should be corrected to Public Recreation RE1 to reflect is use as a park (as shown in the attached aerial photograph) and for consistency with the remainder of the park’s zoning.

Area 8: The Greenwich Scout Hall is located between Greendale St and Eastview St in bushland zoned E2. To allow for the hall’s upgrading if required, it is proposed to rezone to RE1 a small arc of land approximately bounded by the two footpaths linking the hall to those streets.

Area 9: Council’s Possums Corner child care centre is located on Mowbray Rd at the western end of the industrial area. The site is predominantly zoned Light Industrial IN2, in which child care centres are permissible. However the E2 zone covering bushland along Epping Road incorrectly extends across a southern portion of the site. It is proposed to zone the entire child care site to IN2.

Area 10: Manns Point: This is a strip of foreshore vegetated land at the eastern tip of Manns Point Reserve. Although it has a road to the lookout, it is predominantly bushland and is appropriate to be included in the adjacent E2 area. Under the LEP 1987, the area as a whole was Bushland 6(a). Roads are permissible in the E2 zone.

Each of the proposed amendments would return the zoning to that intended either under Council’s clearly stated policies in former planning documents and/or in approved land uses.

(ii)        Community Land Management Plan Amendments Proposed

The Community Land Management Plan categorises lands in Council’s ownership or management as general community use, parks, sportsgrounds and/or natural areas. Three of the sites are categorized only as natural areas, and therefore require amendment of this Plan to parks. The objectives for “parks” include: “To encourage, promote and facilitate recreational, cultural, social and educational pastimes and activities”.

·    Area 3: Tambourine Bay Rowing Shed

·    Area 8: The Greenwich Scout Hall

The addition of the parks category to these two sites would make them consistent with the parks category of the other comparable sites including Aquatic Park site, Burns Bay rowing club site and Blackman Park house site.

·    Area 6: No. 3 Dunois St

This residential house lot should be deleted from the Community Land Management Plan.

 

Conclusion

This planning proposal is intended to correct mapping anomalies in Local Environmental Plan 2009 in order to ensure that the LEP is consistent with long-standing policies of Council. It would also update the Community Land Management Plan to reflect existing uses.

Council is requested to endorse the preparation by staff of a planning proposal to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s Gateway for exhibition approval, in accordance with the zoning maps attached to this report as AT1, and updating the Community Land Management Plan.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.    Submit a planning proposal to correct mapping anomalies in LEP 2009 as identified in the maps attached at AT1 to this Report.

2.    Update the Community Land Management Plan to (i) categorise Areas 3 and 8 as “park” and (ii) delete Area 6, to reflect existing uses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Proposed zones under LEP 2009

9 Pages

AT‑2 View

Aerial Photographs

5 Pages

AT‑3 View

Zones Table under various Plans

1 Page

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 6 February 2012

Environmental Services Division Report No. 3

 

 

Reference:     Environmental Services Division Report No. 3

Subject:          Issues Paper of the NSW Planning System Review    

Record No:    SU1401 - 4446/12

Author(s):      Michael Mason 

 

 

Background and Overview

In July 2011 the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, The Hon Brad Hazzard asked Mr Tim Moore and Mr Ron Dyer to undertake a review of the NSW Planning System.  Under the terms of reference Messrs Moore & Dyer were asked to consult widely with stakeholder groups and communities throughout the state to identify issues for consideration in developing a new planning system.  As part of the extensive consultation process Messrs Moore & Dyer have heard and received many submissions which have resulted in the preparation of the Issues Paper.  A copy of the Issues Paper can be viewed on the web link “The Way Ahead for Planning in NSW” which will be open for comment until the 17 February 2012.  Due to its large size a copy will be tabled on Monday evening.

In preparing the Issues Paper the authors were mindful of the economic importance to the State of NSW of eliminating unnecessary delay and costs in the planning system.

The Issues Paper reflects matters raised during the consultation process and forms the first stage of the review process.

After consideration of responses to the Issues Paper and best practice models from other jurisdictions both Australian and overseas Messrs Moore and Dyer have undertaken to prepare a Green Paper by May 2012 for consideration by the Minister.  This would enable the preparation of draft legislation for the 2012 Spring session of Parliament.

Terms of Reference

As briefly referred to above the Terms of Reference for the Review of the NSW Planning System seek to identify issues and inform the Minister as to change options to the current Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.  These Terms of Reference include but are not limited to:-

·     Consult widely with stakeholder groups and communities;

·     Examine interstate and overseas planning system models as best practice options;

·     Recommend a statutory framework and implementation measures that address defined issues and roles;

·     Promotes the maximum use of information technology; and

·     Any other matter considered relevant for full terms of reference.

Issues Paper

The Issues Paper is structured as follows:-

                                                                                                                                              Page

Background                                                                                                                     4

Letter to the Minister from Joint Chairs                                                                           5

Terms of Reference                                                                                                        6

Feedback questions                                                                                                         8

Chapter A       Introduction                                                                                               17

Chapter B       Key Elements, Structure and Objectives of a new Planning System     26

Chapter C       Making Plans                                                                                           34

Chapter D       Development Proposals and Assessment                                               50

Chapter E       Appeals and reviews; enforcement and compliance                               100

Chapter F       Implementation of the new planning system                                            110

Letter to Independent Chair of Local Planning Panel                                                      114

Meetings with key stakeholders                                                                                      115

Meetings with Members of Parliament                                                                            116

Locations of community consultation forums                                                                 117

Comments

There are six theme (A-F) issues with each chapter setting a context for discussion and questions for the reader to consider.  Preceding the theme chapters are 247 feedback questions gleaned from the public consultation process.  These questions have been categorised into the theme chapters and give clear indication as to particular areas of interest raised during the consultation period.

An overview of each chapter follows, however given the volume and diversity of comment contained, the overview can only provide a limited understanding of the range of issues and concerns expressed during the consultation phase.

Chapter A      INTRODUCTION

Chapter A sets the overall context for undertaking the review and describes the consultation process.

Key questions and statements identified by the authors include A new planning system:  What should the underlying principles be?

During consultations there was a wide spread desire for any new planning system to be:  simple, accountable, transparent and written in plain English.

What should the philosophy and objectives for the new planning legislation be?

During consultations there were calls for the inclusion of ecologically sustainable development as an objective and recognition of climate change.

Flexibility and the planning system:  one size does not fit all [councils] was a common call with participants requesting greater flexibility on development standards.

Strategic planning:  submissions supported a rigorous strategic planning process that included community participation.

The provision of infrastructure and community facilities.

There was broad concern as to how local facilities and infrastructure should b e planned and financed.  In urban areas there is a perceived disconnect between the approval local residential development (flats) and the provision or upgrading of major public infrastructure; particularly public transport.  Questions include:  how should levies pay for local and state community infrastructure.

Should there be a requirement to consider climate change?

Development Decision-Making

There was general agreement that large/complex or economically significant projects should be made at the State level.  There was less agreement as to at what level such projects should be referred to the State and the need for openness and transparency of process.

A total of 21 questions were posed as part of Chapter A.

Other Matters

There were matters that regularly arose during the consultation phase that were specific in nature that included:-

·     community concerns about the scope and processes for complying development;

·     the role of private certifiers;

·     changes to zoning; and

·     the integrity of environmental impact statements.

Changes to Zoning

Should there be a right of review or appeal against a Council decision concerning the rezoning of a property?

CHAPTER B  KEY ELEMENTS, STRUCTURE AND OBEJCTIVES OF A NEW PLANNING SYSTEM

The Issues Paper recognises that any new planning legislation will need to set out the framework for making plans and taking decisions about development.  It should also define roles for all in the planning system, from the Minister to an individual Council officer.

Key questions and statements in this Chapter include:-

·     Should some objectives have greater weight than others;

·     Should there be one act or separate acts for different elements of the planning system;

·     What should be in regulations; and

·     What should be the role of the Minister in the new planning system?

A total of 17 questions were posed as part of Chapter B.

CHAPTER C  MAKING PLANS

This chapter addresses the principles and key issues relevant to the content and process of plan making and questions the function and purpose of:-

·     Strategic plans;

·     State Environmental Plans (SEPPs);

·     Local Environmental Plans (LEPs); and

·     Development Control Plans (DCPs).

Key questions and statements of Chapter C include:-

·     Should new legislation prescribe a process of community participation prior to drafting the plan;

·     Should there be a requirement for plans to address climate change;

·     How should landscapes of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance be identified and considered in plan making; and

·     Should some rezonings not require any merit consideration at the State level?

A total of 36 questions were proposed in Chapter C of the Issues Paper.

CHAPTER D  DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AND ASSESSMENT

Development and assessment issues and concerns formed the majority of questions and statements during the consultation phase.  The issues discussed concentrated on:-

·     Seeking permission to carry out development;

·     The assessment process;

·     Decision making; and

·     Post approval procedures.

Questions and statements raised in Chapter D include:

·    How should development be categorised?

·     Should it be possible to apply for approval for development that is prohibited in the zone?

·     How can the application process be simplified?

·     When should an amended application be re-exhibited?

·     Should a new planning system include Joint Regional Planning Panels?

·     Should there be a limit to the number of modification applications permitted?

·     Should developers be permitted to choose their own Certifier?

There were 134 questions posed in Chapter D of the Issues Paper.

CHAPTER E  APPEALS AND REVIEW; ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE

During consultation views and comments were sought on Land and Environment Court appeals and the review of decisions by Councils as well as enforcement and compliance with consents.  Statements and questions posed and received regarding the above, include the following:

·     What appeals should be available and to whom?

During consultations the following issues were frequently raised in relation to appeals:-

·     The role of concurrence authorities;

·     The role of Joint Regional Planning Panels in reviews;

·     Rezonings;

·     Third party appeals;

·     Costs;

·     Open standing (who can appeal?);

·     In what circumstances should third party merit appeals be available?; and

·     How can enforcement be made easier and cheaper for consent authorities?

There were 20 questions posed in Chapter E of the Issues Paper.

CHAPTER F  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW PLANNING SYSTEM

The authors noted that during the course of community consultation that there will be financial and logistical constraints on both Government and Councils and as such, recommendations may need to be implemented over time or modest in budget.

A number of Councils, community members and industry bodies, noted the limited resources available to the Department of Planning when assessing State significant developments, processing Draft LEPs, developing policy options for strategic planning and performance monitoring of Councils.

Bearing such in mind the following questions assume an important relevance:-

·     What should be the role of the Department in implementing a new planning system;

·     What should be the role of the Council in implementing a new planning system; and

·     What changes can be put in place to ensure more effective co-operation between Councils, Government agencies, the community and developers within the planning system?

There were a total of 9 questions arising from the consultation process identified by Chapter F.

Comment

The Issues Paper serves to set the scope and type of issues raised during the wide ranging consultation phase. The panel travelled extensively and invited all people, organisations, professional bodies and stakeholder groups to comment on the current planning system and to be open in their criticism and praise.

To that end this Issues Paper poses over 200 individual questions for anybody affected by the current planning system to consider.  The six chapters (A-F) are theme based and presented in an informative manner that seeks to explain stakeholder concerns and pose questions that will stimulate consideration of options that will add value for all stakeholders when preparing a submission to the review.

The authors, Messrs Moore and Dyer, invite submissions on this Issues Paper from all stakeholders impacted by the current planning system by 17 February 2012.  The submissions received will be used and considered as part of their preparation of a Green Paper for consideration by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.  NSROC will be making a regional submission to the State Government regarding this matter.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Issues Paper of the NSW Planning System Review ‘The Way Ahead for Planning in NSW’ be noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.