m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

5 March 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 5 March 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 5 March 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.       General Managers Report No. 2

SUBJECT: Retirement of General Manager and Recruitment Process 

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the matter will involve the discussion of personnel matters concerning a particular individual; 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 that the matter pertains to the employment of staff. 

public forum

 

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

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

2.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 6 FEBRUARY 2012

 

Orders Of The Day

 

3.       Order Of The Day No. 1

SUBJECT: Citizenship Ceremony 21 March 2012

 

Notices of Motion

 

4.       Notice of Motion No. 5

SUBJECT: Container Deposit Legislation

 

5.       Notice of Motion No. 6

SUBJECT: Reduce Single-Use Plastic Bag Use in Lane Cove LGA

 

6.       Notice of Motion No. 7

SUBJECT: Submission to Standing Council on Environment and Water on the Consultation Regulation Impact Statement

 

General Managers Reports

 

7.       General Managers Report No. 3

SUBJECT: Council Snapshot  

 


Corporate Services Division Reports

 

8.       Corporate Services Division Report No. 3

SUBJECT: Results of Trial of Council Meetings

 

Open Space and Urban Services Division Reports

 

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

SUBJECT: Commercial Fitness Groups and Personal Trainers

 

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

SUBJECT: Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting Held Tuesday 21 February 2012

 

Environmental Services Division Reports

 

11.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 5

SUBJECT: Marshall Avenue South - Rezoning Proposal

 

12.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 6

SUBJECT: Establishment of a Lane Cove Council Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel

 

13.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 7

SUBJECT: Request to Waive Infrastructure Levy Contribution (Section 94 Contribution) - for an Additional Domocile - 15 Garling St Lane Cove

 

14.     Environmental Services Division Report No. 8

SUBJECT: Recycling Facilities for Small Businesses

 

Human Services Division Reports

 

15.     Human Services Division Report No. 2

SUBJECT: Funding Proposal for Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service  

 

 

 

 

                


Ordinary Council Meeting 5 March 2012

Order Of The Day No. 1

 

 

Reference:     Order Of The Day No. 1

Subject:          Citizenship Ceremony 21 March 2012    

Record No:    SU28 - 4755/12

Author(s):      Millie  Stephen 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A citizenship ceremony will be held in the Council Chambers on Wednesday 21st March 2012 commencing at 7.00pm. A Councillor is required to attend the ceremony and speak to the new citizens about local government. 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That a Councillor nominate to attend the Citizenship ceremony on 21st March 2012 and speak to new citizens about local government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 5 March 2012

Notice of Motion No. 5

 

 

Reference:     Notice of Motion No. 5

Subject:          Container Deposit Legislation    

Record No:    SU1667 - 9125/12

Author(s):      Councillor Shauna Forrest 

 

 

The Federal Government Ministers are expected to consider waste solutions following stakeholder and community feedback for the Standing Council on Environment and Water’s (previously EPHC) Packaging Impacts Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) and concern has been expressed by the LGSA and the Boomerang Alliance that inferior measures will become further entrenched.

 

NSW has a recycling rate of around the 40% mark for beverage containers. Over 13 million beverage bottles are consumed and it is estimated that around 8 billion of these are not recycled, an increasingly larger percentage than previously (Boomerang Alliance and Clean Up Australia figures). It has been stated that around 80% of the rubbish cleaned up weekly in Darling Harbour around the Aquarium is bottles.

 

South Australia has maintained a Container Deposit Scheme for the last 37 years. Enacted in 1975 under the Beverage Container Act 1975 and later incorporated into the Environment Protection Act 1993 (SA), CDL has been instrumental in the South Australia Government achieving a recycling rate of 70-80% in relation to beverage containers and providing a new income stream for local government, community organizations, and the States' most disadvantaged groups.

 

Container Deposit Legislation has the potential to:-

·      Reduce the volume of litter in our parks, beaches and roadsides by 12-15%;

·      Significantly reduce the number of turtles, lizards, seals and birds killed by litter across Australia;

·      Achieve a 6% diversion of all ­Municipal Solid Waste waste away from landfill;

·      Reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by over 1.3 million tonnes of CO2e per year (equivalent to 197,000 homes switching to 100% renewable energy);

·      Save enough water to permanently supply over 24,000 Australian homes;

·      Deliver the same level of Australian air quality improvements as taking 140,000 cars off the road;

·      Provide 250,000+ Australian homes with access to recycling services for the first time;

·      Save rate payers over $59.8 million per annum; and

·      Increase Australia’s recycling by over 630,000 tonnes p.a.

 

An independent study of container deposits by Dr. Stuart White in 2001 states that:-

Local Government would realise financial benefits from the introduction of CDS through reduced costs of kerbside collection and through the value of unredeemed deposits in the material collected at kerbside”

 

On Friday 9 July 2010, the Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW and the Boomerang Alliance wrote to the Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett congratulating him on his commitment to drafting a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for a national Container Deposit Legislation (CDL).  Nearly two years on and we have a new Environment Minister and yet no National CDL in place.

 

The Boomerang Alliance paper “Container Deposits: The Common Sense Approach Towards a Zero Waste Society” April (2008) highlights the increases in recycling rates with the introduction of a National CDS. Similar rates are achieved in South Australia and with an appropriately designed recovery system, the South Australian recycling rate of 70-85% could be successfully duplicated in NSW.

 

The Northern Territory recently introduced CDL.

 

The NSW Government has recently released its NSW: 2021 Strategic Plan. In Chapter 4: Strengthen Our Local Environment and Communities – Goals 22-24 are particularly relevant to the introduction of a Container Deposit Scheme in NSW.

 

On 30 November 2011 the Standing Council on Environment and Water (previously EPHC) released the Packaging Impacts Consultation (RIS) and associated documents for public consultation, however the Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW (LGSA) have expressed serious reservations with the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) issued on Thursday 8 December 2011. LGSA President, Cr Keith Rhoades AFSM, asks COAG to “Bring on container deposit schemes in NSW and nationally, and the sooner the better."

 

President of the Shires Association, Cr Ray Donald said of the RIS, that it was a pity that ..…. COAG appeared to have accepted the packaging industry's self-interest advocacy while not acknowledging the input of Local Government” (9 December 2011, It’s time for Container Deposit Schemes, councils say).

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.    Acknowledges the significant environmental and economic benefits to ratepayers of adopting a Container Deposit Scheme (CDS) in NSW and a national CDS.

2.    Write again to the NSW Premier, the Hon. Barry O’Farrell, to our local MP, the Hon. Anthony Roberts, and the Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Robyn Mary Parker, and the NSW Labor Shadow Minister for the Environment, urging them to implement such a scheme in NSW and to represent our support for a National CDS scheme to their federal counterparts.

3.    Write to the Prime Minister, appropriate Senators and other Federal Ministers encouraging them to adopt a National Container Deposit Scheme when they consider this issue in the Parliament next (approximately June 2012).

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Shauna Forrest

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 5 March 2012

Notice of Motion No. 6

 

 

Reference:     Notice of Motion No. 6

Subject:          Reduce Single-Use Plastic Bag Use in Lane Cove LGA    

Record No:    SU1667 - 9170/12

Author(s):      Councillor Shauna Forrest 

 

 

Council recognises the need for proper legislation to control the impending waste crisis facing Sydney metropolitan Councils, including Lane Cove. Waste is a major responsibility of local government.

 

Worldwide, the single-use plastic bag features heavily as a component of waste and has been banned in many countries and states throughout the world including Bangladesh and Ireland, with an overnight and spectacular reduction in plastic waste. Recently the ACT legislated a ban, while many small towns and cities around the world have also initiated ‘voluntary’ bans.

 

Council has previously supported community based programs to reduce single-use plastic bag use in the Lane Cove Local Government Area. The initiative has led to positive community action and for some, the awareness to reduce the number used.

 

It is clear that there is strong community support to reduce the number of single-use plastic bags in Lane Cove and in NSW, however it is without legislative support, or a voluntary ban by the major supermarkets. It is an unnecessary and time consuming imposition on local volunteers to maintain the momentum for a community based program. An outright ban or levy is a more desirable, sophisticated approach, akin to ‘extender producer responsibility’.

 

It is particularly important for Lane Cove to reduce single-use plastic bags due Lane Cove’s proximity to the Sydney Harbour, Lane Cove and Parramatta Rivers, creeks and waterways and as an example of best behaviour for our children. The devastating effects that plastic bags have on local species of birds, turtles, Cetaceans etc. is not visible at the check-out but has been widely reported.

 

Alternatives to plastic bags exist, however there is little incentive for behaviour change due to the distribution of free plastic bags.  The current practice of our garbage dumps exporting bales of our dirty plastic bags to China may horrify some residents.

 

The ‘Take 3’ campaign and scientific investigation, such as at Moreton Bay and Lord Howe Island has shown that a high percentage of marine animals and birds studied and admitted for care have consumed plastic bags or plastic products. It’s important that Council continue to show leadership, lobby State and Federal Governments for legislative change, and provide education and support to assist with the small changes in behaviors that are needed to further reduce plastic bag use in our area.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Acknowledge the efforts taken by many local businesses, residents and environmental groups to reduce the number of single-use, non biodegradeable plastic bags used throughout the Lane Cove Local Government Area;

2.   Acknowledge that single-use plastic bags in the waste stream cause pollution, lasting many hundreds of years and that they are a major litter problem in our parks, bushland and waterways and can result in the deaths of many animal species in Lane Cove as well as turtles, Cetaceans, birds etc. outside of Lane Cove.

3.   Write to the State and Federal Government urging them to introduce legislation that would ban or levy free single-use plastic shopping bags.

4.   Contact major local retailers to encourage them to collaborate with Council voluntarily in a staged approach to reduce and ultimately eliminate free, single us plastic shopping bags from the Lane Cove Local Government Area.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Shauna Forrest

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 5 March 2012

Notice of Motion No. 7

 

 

Reference:     Notice of Motion No. 7

Subject:          Submission to Standing Council on Environment and Water on the Consultation Regulation Impact Statement    

Record No:    SU1667 - 9126/12

Author(s):      Councillor Shauna Forrest 

 

 

Councils throughout NSW have long called for the introduction of Container Deposit Legislation (CDL). Generally, Shires councils have called for CDL while Local Government councils support its introduction to reduce the financial burden of operating kerbside collection (waste and recycling) services.  Motions from both the Local Government Association’s and the Shires Association’s Annual Conferences supporting the introduction of CDL go back many years.

The Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW (LGSA) have expressed serious reservations with the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) issued on Thursday, 8 December 2011 by the Council of Australian Government (COAG) Standing Council on Environment and Water.

It was agreed that the scope of the work (the Consultation Regulation Impact Statement)  would include all consumer packaging made of any material, including sales and distribution packaging arising as waste both at home and away from home. Ministers agreed that the RIS would consider a range of measures, including a container deposit scheme, an advance disposal fee and co-regulatory arrangements which may have a tangible impact on packaging recovery rates and litter reduction.

However, concerns and reservations are raised by the LGSA of NSW and the Boomerang Alliance that real progress is again being thwarted.

The cost of removal of waste is shifted to Local Government which is making every effort to reduce waste to landfill and thus the cost to their ratepayers. However, a very large percentage of the waste 'processed' by the mechanical recycling facilities (MRFs) still goes to landfill.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council write a submission to the Standing Council on Environment and Water on the Consultation Regulation Impact Statement (RIS), supporting the implementation of Container Deposit Schemes (CDS) and a ban or levy on free single-use plastic shopping bags and national measures to increase packaging recovery and decrease packaging litter prior to the 30 March 2012 deadline.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Shauna Forrest

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 5 March 2012

General Managers Report No. 3

 

 

Reference:     General Managers Report No. 3

Subject:          Council Snapshot     

Record No:    SU220 - 8943/12

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

48 Pages

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 5 March 2012

Corporate Services Division Report No. 3

 

 

Reference:     Corporate Services Division Report No. 3

Subject:          Results of Trial of Council Meetings    

Record No:    SU828 - 2996/12

Author(s):      Ian  Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the results of the 6 month trial of alternating between one and two council meetings per month. This report recommends that Council adopt the meeting cycle of one Ordinary Council meeting per month on the 3rd Monday except for December where it be the 1st Monday and no meeting of the Planning and Building Committee or Services and Resources Committee.

Background

Council considered a report on a review into the structure and operation of Council and Committee Meetings on 6 June 2011, shown attached as AT-1.  The report discussed whether the current meeting cycle of two Council and Committee meetings per month is efficient and optimum given the reduction in the number of development applications being considered and the increased delegation to staff. After consideration of this report Council resolved to trial for 6 months, alternating between one and two council meetings per month. During the trial all matters previously dealt with by the Planning and Building and Services and Resources committees were considered by Council.

Discussion

Results of Council Meeting Trial

Council commenced a 6 month trial in July 2011 of varying the meeting cycle between one and two council meetings per month. One meeting a month was held in July, September, November, December and February and Two Meetings a month were held in August and October. Prior to the trial, when Council met twice per month, the average duration of Council meetings was just over 2 hours (not including the Planning and Building and Services and Resources Committees meeting time). During the trial, when only one meeting was held in a month the average duration was

2 hours and 25 minutes and where two meetings were held the average time was 1 hour and 54 minutes. During the trial period considerable time was spent by Council in relation to the Mowbray Road Issue in the Public Forum, which impacted on the average meeting time during the trial.

If the same amount of business conducted during the trial had been undertaken with only one meeting per month, it would have resulted in each meeting increasing by only 37 minutes, making an average meeting length of 2 hours and 42 minutes, including all matters that were previously considered by Committees. It should be noted that Council is also considering at this meeting the introduction of an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel for development applications which would further reduce the average meeting time even further.

Prior to the trial, Council was considering on average 8 substantive matters per meeting and during the trial Council considered on average 9 substantive matters per meeting and 10 where there was one meeting in the month. During the trial there was no evidence of any delays in decision making due to there being only one meeting per month. In fact, the implementation of sending development applications to the Inspection Committee prior to Council has decreased the decision making time for development applications.

Overall the new arrangements did not have an adverse impact on the duration of the Council meeting or timeliness of decision making and had the benefit of significantly reducing administration, staff time and paper costs.

To assist in further streamlining the consideration of business at the Council Meeting it is suggested that for Officers reports they be listed with items for determination first and information reports last, an example is shown attached as AT-2. This would allow Council the option to move the information reports in bulk at the end of the meeting, if there was no debate on these items.  This is a common practice in other councils to deal with business in the most efficient way possible.

The current monthly program of Councillor workshops to discuss emerging issues, major projects, changes in legislation and receive detailed presentations will continue.  The new meeting schedule will provide further opportunity for workshops as required.

The results of the trial indicate that the amount of business currently being considered by Council does not support the need for two Council meetings per month as the meeting time would only increase by 37 minutes with one meeting per month.  Over time the need for two meetings per month has reduced due to a reduction in the number of items considered by Council due to increased delegation to staff, development applications may be considered by an independent panel rather than Council and the increased use of technology to easily disperse information by

e-mail and on Council’s website. If there is additional urgent business, an Extraordinary Council Meeting can be held.

Meeting on 3rd Monday of each month would have the advantage of avoiding the current situation of meeting on Tuesdays when a public holiday falls on a Monday in June and October.  However, for December, due to Christmas, it is recommended to meet on the 1st Monday. 

As there has been no meeting of the Planning and Building Committee in the last 6 months, Council will need to confirm the Minutes of the last Planning and Building Committee being 16 May 2011, shown attached as AT-3.

Conclusion

The six month trial of alternating between one and two council meetings per month shows that Council can move to a monthly meeting cycle without impacting on the business of Council.  If the same amount of business conducted during the trial had been undertaken with only one meeting per month, it would have resulted in each meeting increasing by only 37 minutes, making an average meeting length of 2 hours and 42 minutes. Council is also considering at this meeting the introduction of an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel for development applications which would reduce the average meeting time even further.

Therefore, it is recommended that Council adopt a meeting cycle of one Ordinary Council Meeting per month from April 2012 (on the 3rd Monday of the month except for December where it be the 1st Monday of the month) and dissolve the Planning and Building and Services and Resources Committees and that the public be notified of these changes.


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Adopt from April 2012, the meeting cycle of one Ordinary Council meeting per month to be held on the third Monday of the month except for December where it be the 1st Monday;

2.   Dissolve the Planning and Building and Services and Resources Committees.

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

4.   Adopt a revised Order of Business for Ordinary Council Meetings to list Officers reports for determination first and information reports last; and

5.   Confirm the Minutes of the Planning and Building Committee of 16 May 2011.

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

REPORT Review of Council and Committee Meetings

5 Pages

AT‑2 View

Proposed New Format of Council Agenda

1 Page

AT‑3 View

Minutes - Planning and Building Committee 16 May 2011

3 Pages

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 5 March 2012

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 6

 

 

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

Subject:          Commercial Fitness Groups and Personal Trainers    

Record No:    SU1278 - 8690/12

Author(s):      Susan  Butler 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

There is a need for a policy to regulate the use of Public Open Space by organised commercial fitness groups and personal trainers who wish to use Public Open Space, which is under the care, control and management of Council, for running their business.

 

The Draft Policy on the Use of Public Open Space by Commercial Fitness Groups and Personal Trainers has been developed to clarify to those people interested in providing the service, residents who live close to parks, and those people who wish to use this type of service, the terms and conditions that apply.

 

Background

 

The use of Public Open Space by commercial fitness groups and personal trainers to conduct private business activities has become a significant issue across Sydney in recent years. This is part of the trend for greater health and fitness and promotion of the outdoors for active recreation.

 

Fees and charges for personal trainers were introduced by Council in 2005/06. The fees and charges were reviewed in 2007/08, when a category for not for profit locally based community trainers was introduced.

 

Exercise is a legitimate activity within parks and reserves. Council is keen to support fitness but this must be balanced with the needs of residents who live near parks and the needs of other park users. Both the Local Government Act and the Crown Lands Act have provisions which govern the use of Public Open Space and the requirement for any person engaging in a trade or business within that Public Open Space to obtain Council approval.

 

Commercial fitness trainers gain revenue from their use of open space that has been set aside primarily for the recreational, physical health and well being of the community as a whole. Council charges local sporting clubs and association to use sporting ovals and also applies user charges for events such as weddings, parties, filming and other park events.

 

Council has received complaints from neighbours of some of the parks, concerned about the noise made by these activities particularly in the early hours of the morning, and about the impact of the activities on other park users. Concerns have also been received from some of the sporting clubs about personal trainers using sportsgrounds when they are closed due to wet weather.

 

Prospective personal trainers are requesting information about the procedures to obtain approval to operate their business in Lane Cove’s parks.

 

Discussion

 

In response to the above, a Draft Policy on the Use of Public Open Space by Commercial Fitness Groups and Personal Trainers (attached as AT-1) has been prepared, based on a similar policy used by other Sydney councils.  The associated Draft Personal Fitness Trainer Agreement (attached as AT-2) includes the parks considered suitable for this purpose and the starting times allowed as well as other conditions of approval.

 

The draft Policy includes the types of permissible activities under the policy, exclusion zones, excluded activities, groups excluded from the policy, size of groups and general conditions. The draft Agreement includes the list of parks considered by Council staff as suitable for this purpose, based on the size of the park, the residential amenity, existing facilities and existing users. The issuing of an Agreement does not give commercial trainers exclusive use rights. They must give due regard to other park users and the status of the park as public open space.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to inform the community of the draft policy. Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with or amend the draft policy.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Involve

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community

Key Message givers e.g. Locally based fitness companies, Fitness Australia, and residents who have previously contacted Council about personal trainers in parks.

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisements, Public Exhibition,

E-newsletter and

Website Exhibition

Notification Letters

 

Public Exhibition,

E-newsletter,

Website Exhibition

 

Indicative Timing

March – April 2012

March – April 2012

March – April 2012

 

Conclusion

 

The Draft Policy on the Use of Public Open Space by Commercial Fitness Groups and Personal Trainers will be exhibited for a period of 6 weeks and following that time a report will be submitted to Council on the results of the community consultation, prior to adoption of the Policy.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.    Endorse the Draft Policy on the Use of Public Open Space by Commercial Fitness Groups and Personal Trainers for the purpose of public exhibition.

2.    Place the Draft Policy on the Use of Public Open Space by Commercial Fitness Groups and Personal Trainers on public exhibition for 6 weeks and community consultation take place in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in this report.

3.    Receive a further report 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

Draft Policy on the Use of Public Open Space by Commercial Fitness Groups and Personal Trainers

5 Pages

AT‑2 View

Personal Fitness Trainer Approval

4 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 5 March 2012

Open Space and Urban Services Division Report No. 7

 

 

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

Subject:          Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting Held Tuesday 21 February 2012    

Record No:    SU1326 - 9127/12

Author(s):      Nick Karahlis 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday 21 February 2012.  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 21 February 2012 be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Agenda -  Lane Cove Traffic Committee 21 February 2012

13 Pages

AT‑2 View

Minutes - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 21 February 2012

6 Pages

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 5 March 2012

Environmental Services Division Report No. 5

 

 

Reference:     Environmental Services Division Report No. 5

Subject:          Marshall Avenue South - Rezoning Proposal    

Record No:    SU4043 - 8158/12

Author(s):      Vivienne Albin 

 

 

Executive Summary

Council has been approached by a planning consultant on behalf of the owners of eight properties south of Marshall Avenue requesting that Council consider their proposed rezoning.

The proposal involves the amalgamation of eight properties into two allotments and rezoning of the site to part B4 – Mixed Use and part RE1 – Public Recreation. The scale of the building envelope for the proposed B4 portion of the site is commensurate with the eastern portion of the Loftex planning proposal; a height of approximately 25 storeys and an FSR of 5:1. A copy of the proposal is attached at AT-1.

Although the proposal is not at odds with some of the broader strategic objectives for Sydney, such as locating more residential dwellings in close proximity to public transport nodes, it is considered an ad hoc spot rezoning and is against Council’s strategic plan to date as provided under LEP 2009. In forming the current LEP, Council undertook considerable research of areas for rezoning for high density residential development. The area the subject of this proposal was considered for upzoning and not supported by Council at this time relative to other areas. Similarly, the Department of Planning considered the subject area but did not support its rezoning. Although its reasons are not available, there had only recently been some years of negotiation over the Duntroon Avenue flats in return for retaining low density housing between Canberra Avenue and Berry Road.

Importantly, Council has rezoned significant land to comfortably meet residential targets set by the Department of Planning in their strategy documents without the need for any additional rezonings.

The current stage of the LEP was envisaged to have an approximate time span of 10-15 years, after which time the strategic direction of the plan would be reassessed. Any further rezoning at present is considered premature, and would be more appropriately undertaken following a municipality-wide review of residential needs following the foreshadowed review of the Draft Inner North Subregional Strategy’s residential targets to 2036.

It is recommended that Council do not proceed with the proposed rezoning at this stage.

Background

History of Proposal

Council was approached by the planning consultant, Mr Eugene Sarich of Urbanesque Planning Pty Limited. Urbanesque Planning has been engaged by the owners of eight properties south of Marshall Avenue to investigate the potential rezoning of that land.

Staff met with Urbanesque Planning in late November 2011 at their request to discuss a then transitional scale for the subject site similar to that of Duntroon Avenue (height 21 metres and FSR 2:1). Council staff indicated that support for the rezoning of the subject site would be unlikely at an officer level at this point in time for the reasons stated in the Executive Summary.


The residents raised the proposal with Councillors and a motion was passed at Council’s Meeting of 6 February 2012, which stated:-

“…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 effects on the surrounding area.”

Furthermore, a letter was received by Council from Urbanesque Planning (dated 21 February 2012 and included at AT-1) articulating the desired future vision for the rezoning. The proposal includes rezoning part of the site to B4 – Mixed Use and part of the site to RE1 – Public Recreation. The scale of the allowable building on the B4 - Mixed Use portion has been based on the scale of a minority of the Loftex proposal for Marshall Avenue north with a height of 78m and an FSR of 5:1. The transitional scale discussed in November with the planning consultant has been significantly increased to a tower form.

The Site

The site being discussed in this report, and highlighted in Map 1, comprises 8 allotments:-

·     2, 4, 6 and 8 Marshall Avenue;

·     2 Holdsworth Avenue; and

·     1, 3 and 5 Canberra Avenue.

Each of these allotments currently contains a detached dwelling house and mature vegetation (see Map 2). In total, the site area is in the vicinity of 5800 m2.

 

Map 1: The Subject Site

 

Map 2: Aerial image of the site

The Locality

The surrounding locality can be broadly described in the following way:-

·     To the north of the site is Marshall Avenue. On the opposite side of Marshall Avenue are dwelling houses, the subject of a planning proposal (Loftex) currently with Council. Further to the north is the Pacific Highway and North Shore Hospital.

·     To the east of the site is the north shore rail corridor and north east of the site is St Leonards railway station. Further to the east is the St Leonards commercial centre.

·     To the south east is Duntroon Avenue, where development comprises 5-7 storey residential flat buildings, and Newlands Park.

·     Directly to the south of the site are detached dwelling houses with street frontages to Holdsworth Avenue or Canberra Avenue.

·     To the west are detached dwelling houses.

·     The locality slopes from the Pacific Highway down to River Road and Newlands Park.

Maps 3 and 4 below show the site in its context.

 

Map 3: Zoning of the Locality

 

Map 4: Aerial image of the Locality

The Proposed Rezoning

In their letter of 21 February 2012, Urbanesque Planning outlined their vision for the Marshall Ave south site (see Map 5 below).

In summary, the proposal comprises:-

 

Attribute

Details

Zone

B4 Mixed Use for:

2, 4, 6 Marshall Ave & 1 Canberra Ave

2740 m2

 

RE1 Public Recreation for:

2 Holdsworth, 8 Marshall Ave, 3 & 5 Canberra Ave

3115 m2

Height

75m (25 storeys)

FSR

5:1

The proposal also includes calculating the gross floor area over the whole site and massing it on the B4 portion.

 

Map 5: Marshall Avenue south proposal – Extract from Urbanesque letter (21.2.12)

Discussion

The following matters are addressed in considering the proposed rezoning:-

·     How the proposal fits in with the broader strategic planning framework;

·     How the proposal fits in with Council’s strategic planning framework;

·     The relevance of the Loftex Planning Proposal to the proposed rezoning;

·     The relevance of the Duntroon Avenue development to the proposed rezoning;

·     St Leonards in transition; and

·     Broad comments on elements of the proposal.

How the Proposal Fits in with the Broader Strategic Planning Framework

The relevant broader strategic planning framework affecting St Leonards includes:-

1.    Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036;

2.    Draft Inner North Subregional Strategy 2007;

3.    Section 117 Ministerial Directions; and

4.    St Leonards Strategy.

1.         Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney 2036

Under the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036, St Leonards is identified as a Specialised Centre. Broadly, the proposal supports the following Metropolitan Plan policies to:-

·    locate at least 80% of all new homes within the walking catchment of existing and planned centres of all sizes with good public transport;

·    focus activities in accessible centres;

·    plan for centres to grow and change over time;

·    target development around existing and planned transport capacity; and

·    locate at least 70% of new homes in existing suburbs and up to 30% in Greenfield areas.

2.         Draft Inner North Subregional Strategy 2007

The Draft Inner North Subregional Strategy 2007 includes targets for housing and employment for the Lane Cove LGA . Lane Cove’s housing target of 3900 new dwellings by 2031 has already been satisfied by land rezoned or upzoned to high density housing under the LEP 2009.

Under the Subregional Strategy St Leonards is identified as a Specialised Centre within the North Sydney to Macquarie Park Economic Corridor. The employment target for St Leonards is 8200 jobs within the three LGAs that comprise that St Leonards commercial centre. It is assumed that the employment target is more relevant to the commercial centre than the locality being discussed.

3.         Section 117 Directions

Ministerial Direction 3.1 relates to residential zones. The objectives are as follows:-

“Objectives

(1) The objectives of this direction are:

(a)   to encourage a variety and choice of housing types to provide for existing and future housing needs,

(b)   to make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services and ensure that new housing has appropriate access to infrastructure and services, and

(c)   to minimise the impact of residential development on the environment and resource lands.”


The proposed rezoning could satisfy Objectives (a) & (b), however, the impact of the proposal on dwellings houses to the south and south west is yet to be assessed (relevant to objective (c)).  Ministerial Direction 3.4 Integrating Land Use and Transport relates to residential development and states:-

“Objective

(1) The objective of this direction is to ensure that urban structures, building forms, land use locations, development designs, subdivision and street layouts achieve the following planning objectives:

(a)   improving access to housing, jobs and services by walking, cycling and public transport, and

(b)   increasing the choice of available transport and reducing dependence on cars, and

(c)   reducing travel demand including the number of trips generated by development and the distances travelled, especially by car, and

(d)   supporting the efficient and viable operation of public transport services, and

(e)   providing for the efficient movement of freight.”

Increasing residential densities close to St Leonards rail and bus nodes would appear to support objectives (a) to (d) above, with (e) not being relevant.

4.         St Leonards Strategy

The St Leonards Strategy was prepared on behalf of Lane Cove, North Sydney and Willoughby Councils and the Department of Planning in 2006.

 

The main objectives of the Strategy are to:-

1.   Inform the content of new LEPs;

2.   Identify how the economic role of the centre can be strengthened;

3.   Identify how sustainability, amenity and a sense of place in the centre can be strengthened; and

4.   Establish a coordinated planning approach from the Councils.

The Vision in the Strategy includes:-

“New and diverse housing opportunities will also continue to emerge and be supported by convenience shopping, cafes, bars….”.

The Strategy identifies the “Greenwich North” precinct (although located in the St Leonards area) within the Strategy study area and includes the subject site. The Precinct extends from the Pacific Highway south and west of the railway line. The Precinct is described as “…an attractive, leafy residential neighbourhood…”.

The Strategy includes a recommendation for the “Greenwich North” precinct to promote the redevelopment of underdeveloped sites and specifically states:-

“Relax land use prohibitions to allow mixed use between Marshall Avenue and Marshall Lane.” p.94.

Council has acted upon the above recommendation of the strategy and rezoned the area between Marshall Lane and Marshall Avenue for mixed use development. The strategy does not extend this mixed use recommendation to land further south of Marshall Ave.

Although Council and the Department of Planning agreed on the zoning of the Marshall Ave north block, the 36m height limit put over this block by the Department of Planning immediately before the gazettal of the LEP was not sought by Council. Council has been concerned about the potential effect on dwellings to the south of a 170m long façade of 12 storey (36m) buildings facing Marshall Ave. Council’s consideration of a tower on the eastern portion of this block (as submitted in Loftex’s planning proposal) aims to minimise the scale of development for most of the northern block as viewed from the residential precinct to the south. Council is expressed if Council wishes to replicate this building form further down the slope to the south within the low scale residential precinct.

Moreover, part of the reason for the mixed use zoning for Marshall Ave north is to create synergies between the under developed commercial strip on the Pacific Highway, backing onto Marshall Lane, and the Marshall Ave north block. The Loftex planning proposal facilitates meeting this objective by providing attractive pedestrian links to the commercial centre immediately adjacent. The Loftex proposal supports the St Leonards strategy as it promotes revitalisation of the commercial strip and the integration of both sides of Marshall Lane.

How the Proposal Fits in with Council’s Strategic Planning Framework

In 2000, Council started working towards the new LEP and selected appropriate areas for increases in residential development potential. During this decision making process, Council applied best practices, by minimising impacts on low density residential areas, and selecting targeted areas for increased densities.

Council also considered rezoning industrially zoned sites to provide more land for residential development.

During this process, the land to the south of Marshall Avenue was considered as land for increased residential densities but not selected in the first stage of the LEP (10-15 years). However, the low density residential area (including the subject site) from the railway line west to Berry Road was identified for consideration for the second stage of the LEP (15-25 year plan).

It should be noted that during the Draft LEP preparation (2007-08) the Department of Planning did not support the specific rezoning of the subject locality to mixed use development.

There is not sufficient need for the rezoning of this land to be undertaken now. The proposed rezoning of the Loftex site does not give rise to a need for a rezoning of the subject site. The visual effect of a nearby tower is not unacceptable within a mixed use, commercial-fringe location. Minimum sunlight hours will continue to be achieved by these residences, generally as set out under the DCP.

Council undertook detailed research, gained Department of Planning approval, and gazetted a well considered LEP which is currently in operation. Council is experiencing a ‘boom’ in development as land carefully selected for high density development is being taken up.

As the $300-400m worth of development in Lane Cove becomes occupied dwellings, the provision of infrastructure needs to be monitored and in many instances augmented. To add another site which has not been part of Council’s strategic plan may be premature and have unanticipated impacts. It would appear more measured for Council to continue to implement their plan and then review it at the appropriate (10-15 year) stage.

Rezoning the subject site in an ad hoc manner is at odds with Council’s strategic direction in this first stage of the LEP.

If the proposal was supported by Council, it may create additional demand for dwelling houses further to the south and west to be redeveloped in a similar manner. Map 4: Aerial Image of the Locality clearly shows that the area to the south of Marshall Avenue down to River Road has been carefully retained for low scale dwelling houses.

If Council were requested by the Department of Planning to increase residential densities beyond the current LEP (before the second stage of the LEP), Marshall Ave south would not necessarily be a selected site. There may be other sites within the Lane Cove LGA which Council could equally consider, perhaps with less impact on surrounding development.

It has been Council’s policy to rezone entire blocks, rather than to allow ad hoc rezonings of a portion of a block.

The Relevance of the Loftex Planning Proposal to the Proposed Rezoning

The Urbanesque letter to Council of 21 February 2012 has sought to justify its request to rezone, including the “desired future vision” for the site, by relating the proposal to the Loftex Planning Proposal currently with Council. The Loftex proposal on the northern side of Marshall Avenue is not considered to be a good comparison to the subject site and should not set a precedent for the area. Loftex did not need to rezone their site, it already has a B4 Mixed Use zoning. The zoning was already set in the LEP, and the current planning proposal seeks to add value and amenity by reconfiguring the height and FSR of the site.

The northern side of Marshall Ave forms a transitional element between the commercial development on the Pacific Highway and the low scale residential area to the south of Marshall Avenue. Consequently, the current mixed use zoning is appropriate allowing both commercial and residential development. Marshall Ave has been identified as a clear and immovable barrier to the low scale development to the south. This development pattern has been well considered, logically following existing street patterns, supported by Council to date, and leaving intact the residential area to the south with qualities such as good housing stock. It is not desirable to attract passing trade for potential shops to a residential precinct.

Urbanesque believe that their planning proposal is superior to Loftex’s in the “…area and quality of the separation to the lower density zones.” It may be true that the separation from the B4 section is buffered by the RE1 section of the site which has a width of at least 28m, while Marshall Ave only has a width of 20m. However, it is not preferred or necessarily logical to continue any impact from a tower further down the slope away from the Pacific Highway, while the justification for proposing a tower, that is minimising the impact of height along the majority of Marshall Ave, is not valid in this case.

As indicated above, it would appear that the main drivers of the scale of this proposal relate to the Loftex planning proposal to the north of the subject site. The indicated height and FSR both are taken from the Loftex planning proposal. However, it is important to emphasize that the Loftex proposal is not yet built. The planning proposal has not yet been put on public exhibition or been endorsed by the Department of Planning. Similarly, comparison with the Winten proposal for 88 Christie Street has limited relevance as the proposal has not yet gained DA approval and cannot be considered to be finalised.

The Relevance of the Duntroon Avenue Development to the Proposed Rezoning

The residential flat development in Duntroon Avenue, St Leonards is also not considered to set a precedent for development in the St Leonards locality due to the history of the site.

In the late 1990s, Council had to undertake a Residential Strategy for the LGA and as a result of this Strategy it was identified that the LGA was deficient in medium density areas. To rectify this situation, it was initially proposed to rezone to medium density development land between the railway line and Berry Road. However, residents between Canberra Ave and Berry Rd strongly articulated a desire to keep the quality single dwelling stock (predominantly Californian Bungalows). As an alternative solution, the residents at 1-16 Duntroon Avenue were willing to provide an equivalent number of dwellings through a rezoning to high density residential development for their sites, and townhouses were provided around Lane Cove Village instead.

Subsequently, the land at 1-16 Duntroon Avenue was rezoned to high density residential under SEPP 53 - Metropolitan Residential Development, Amendment 6 (specific to Lane Cove LGA), by the Department of Planning. The scale of the current development was negotiated with the community through extensive consultation and resulted in an allowable FSR of 1.8:1 and a height of 5-7 storeys.

The Duntroon Ave site is considered to be unique both in terms of its history and location; the rezoning was a result of community consultation and the site could be described as an ‘island’ bounded by the railway line, Duntroon Ave, Canberra Ave and River Road. Due to these factors, the Duntroon Ave site is not an appropriate precedent for development in the Marshall Ave south area. The location of the Duntroon Ave site negates impacts such as shadows, noise and traffic.

St Leonards in Transition

It is understandable that local residents are concerned as a change in character would occur with the renewal of the commercial and mixed use portions of St Leonards. Changes are inevitable in St Leonards with the Centre’s identification in the Metropolitan Strategy as a “Specialised Centre” and the strategic objectives set out in the St Leonards Strategy and Council’s LEP. Change has been visible in the centre since the 1990s with the development of The Forum and other buildings on the northern side of the highway.

Likely benefits of the revitalization of St Leonards for the residents on the south side include: an upgraded and improved pedestrian network, augmented and improved shopping facilities and the upgrading of landscaping in the centre.

Broad Comments on Elements of the Proposal

No planning proposal for a rezoning, with required supporting documentation, has been formally submitted to Council for the subject site at this stage. Broad comments are included below on the preliminary concept outlined in the Urbanesque Planning letter of 21 February 2012:-

·    The appropriateness of the proposed B4 Mixed Use zone is questioned. Mixed use development can comprise many different land uses (eg, commercial development). The Standard LEP does not provide any guidance on the application of the B4 Mixed Use zoning. While this zoning may be appropriate for a transitional area, the subject site is clearly within a low density residential precinct (see Maps 1 – 4).

·    While the proposed RE1 – Public Recreation land would provide benefits to the community, the value of the proposed park is possibly limited with a larger park (Newlands Park) in proximity to the site.

·    The proposal envisages transferring the floor space from the RE1 Public Recreation portion of the site to the B4 Mixed Use portion of the site. The merits of this floor space transfer would need to be considered given the site’s proximity to low scale residential development to the south and west. Moreover, it is questioned as to whether this could be done legally as the RE1 zone does not allow residential flat buildings and therefore would not have any floor space to be transferred for this purpose.

Community Consultation

At this stage, community consultation is not required. Should Council in principle support the proposed rezoning the applicant would be required to submit a planning proposal to Council addressing each of the following:-

A.   Need for the proposal.

B.   Relationship to the strategic planning framework.

C.  Environmental, social and economic impact.

D.  State and Commonwealth interests.

If Council were to support the planning proposal, the formal process to be followed would include submission of documentation to the Department of Planning’s Gateway process and then public exhibition.

Conclusion

Urbanesque Planning consultants have approached Council to gain support for a proposed rezoning of eight residential allotments on the southern side of Marshall Avenue, St Leonards.  The proposal includes zoning approximately half the subject site to B4 – Mixed Use and the other half to RE1 – Public Recreation.  The scale of the building envelope for the proposed B4 portion of the site is commensurate with the eastern portion of the Loftex planning proposal; a height of approximately 25 storeys and an FSR of 5:1.  The proposal supports the broader strategic planning objectives for Sydney, for example, providing greater residential densities near transport nodes. However, it is not considered that the proposal supports Council’s well researched strategic planning objectives.  The Metropolitan Strategy 2031 and subregional strategy set a residential dwelling target for the Lane Cove LGA. The rezonings and upzonings included in LEP 2009 more than adequately allow for these targets to be met. The Department of Planning is yet to review these residential targets. Until that time, additional upzonings are not warranted. Moreover, upzoning to Mixed Use development would not necessarily yield additional dwellings as the land could be used for commercial development.  It is considered that it would be prudent for Council to consider the proposed rezoning as part of the second stage of the LEP once the current LEP has been fulfilled. This would allow for the effects of any current upzonings and developments to be considered.  Rezoning the subject site would permit one corner of a low density residential area to comprise high density development, which in turn is likely to have unacceptable impacts on properties to the south given that the local topography sloping down from the Marshall Avenue to Newlands Park and River Road only serves to exacerbate development effects such as overshadowing.  The proposed rezoning of the subject site south of Marshall Avenue is difficult to justify given Council’s well researched and articulated strategic planning direction within the 10-15 year (Stage 1) LEP 2009.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.    Council not support the proposed rezoning, on the grounds of excessive density within a predominantly low density block;

2.    The applicant’s be advised Council’s LEP 2009 adopts a measured and best practice planning approach to controlled development in St Leonards, and therefore the proposed rezoning is at odds with the current strategic direction of Council.

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Rezoning Proposal by Urbanesque Planning Pty Ltd - 21 February 2012

3 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 5 March 2012

Environmental Services Division Report No. 6

 

 

Reference:     Environmental Services Division Report No. 6

Subject:          Establishment of a Lane Cove Council Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel    

Record No:    SU4720 - 8444/12

Author(s):      Michael Mason 

 

 

Executive Summary

Councillors have received a presentation on the possible implementation of an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel to determine development applications. This report details an Independent Hearing and Assessment Model for consideration and adoption by Council.

Discussion

What is an IHAP

An Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) is a panel of appropriately qualified people independent of Council charged with determining a range of development applications on behalf of Council.  An (IHAP) panel can be formed under Section 355 of the Local Government Act (the Act) and delegated this authority under Section 377 of the Act.

Why Establish an IHAP?

Since the introduction of the 1993 Local Government Act the role and responsibilities of councils and elected Councillors have changed toward a greater emphasis on establishing the strategic framework in which Council operates and setting policy directions for staff and the organisation to follow.  With this greater emphasis on developing and articulating policy Councils have increased staff delegations, responsibilities and procedural efficiencies.  Councils are more consultative, transparent and accountable than at any time in the past.

In recent years the trend for Councillors to chart the policy and strategic direction of a Council has co-incided with calls by the public and agencies like the ICAC, Ombudsman’s Office and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for greater transparency and independent decision making.

Indeed, the current review of the NSW Planning System being undertaken by the State Government canvasses the need to ensure development decisions are as depoliticised as possible.

The experiences of Manly and Mosman Councils highlight the significant advantages of establishing an IHAP including reduced legal costs from reduced appeals to the Land and Environment Court, greater transparency, increased community confidence in the planning process and strong councillor support.

IHAP’s are particularly appropriate where:-

·        Council has a financial interest in a development and it is also the consent authority;

·        Development proposals involve significant departures from development standards; and

·        Council or individual Councillors have publically expressed views for or against a particular development proposal.

Other advantages or reasons for establishing an IHAP include:-

·          Being able to call upon independent people with expert skill and experience in law, architecture, planning, environmental science and urban design to determine difficult and/or contentious applications;

·          Freeing Councillors to concentrate on strategic and policy issues; and

·          Providing Council and the community with added confidence that development decisions referred for determination would be legally and technically robust if an appeal was to be lodged against a determination.

What Form Would an IHAP Take?

IHAP’s reflect the particular values, needs and aspirations of each Council area in which they are established.

In preparing the following IHAP for Council’s consideration, staff have had regard to the experiences of Manly, Mosman, Wollongong and Fairfield City Councils, as well as the views of ICAC, the Ombudsman’s Office and the State Government’s JRPP model.  All models have common elements and only differ significantly in the levels of decision making powers and the matters that are referred for assessment.

Bearing such in mind the model proposed for consideration seeks to build upon and add value to this Council’s current policy of increasing transparency and accessibility wherever possible.

IHAP Issues and Processes

The IHAP would become a body constituted under Section 355 of the Act and delegated this authority under Section 377 of the Act. It would consist of members with appropriate qualifications appointed pursuant to the Council Independent Hearing and Assessment Charter shown attached as AT-1.

The main aspects of the draft Charter are described below:-

Panel Structure

 

The IHAP would comprise 2 separate but related bodies:-

a)    a Determining Body, to consider and determine development applications, s96 modifications and s82A reviews of applications or any other matters referred to it by the General Manager, and

b)    a Review Body, to consider and determine S82A reviews of determinations made by the Determining Body.

The above structure is necessary as under s82A(6)(a) of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act requires that the review must be made by “if the determination was made by a delegate of the council - the council or another delegate of the council who is not subordinate to the delegate who made the determination.”

Panel Members

Members would be sought by invitation and a call for expressions of interest from the community and professional bodies.  Panel members would be appointed by the General Manager and be required to sign a Memorandum of Understanding acknowledging individual and collective roles and responsibilities.  The panel would include:-

a)    A lawyer as Chairperson;

b)    A professional expert in the field of planning, urban design or architecture;

c)    An environmental scientist; and

d)    A pool of 3 community representatives with one representative attending as a member each meeting.

The Membership of the Review Body shall not include any member of the Determining Body that made the original decision.

Chairperson

The role of Chairperson is critical to the efficient running and community acceptance of the panel.  For this reason the Chairperson should be an eminent person who would have the confidence of Council and be a lawyer.

Term and Remuneration of Panel Members

The term for Panel members should be for a fixed term that may be extended and panel members should be paid in line with their role and responsibility.  It is recommended that the term for panel members of a Lane Cove IHAP be for a period of two (2) years with an option to extend the term for a further 2 years.

Panel Meetings

The panel should meet when and as required.  Panel meetings should occur on a given day of the month to enable meetings to be planned for and serviced in a similar manner as any public meeting serviced by Council.

Panel Functions

The functions of the Determining Body of the Panel are to:-

a)    Provide an independent and open forum for interested persons and groups to hear and make submissions about development proposals referred for determination;

b)    Provide increased transparency of process and expert assessment of development proposals referred; and

c)    Consider and determine development applications, s96 modifications and s82A reviews of applications referred to it by the General Manager.

The functions of the Review Body of the Panel are to:-

a)    Provide an independent and open forum for interested persons and groups to hear and make submissions about S82A reviews of determinations made by the Determining Body;

b)    Provide increased transparency of process and expert assessment of the S82A reviews of determinations made by the Determining Body; and

c)    Consider and determine S82A reviews of determinations made by the Determining Body.

 

Code of Conduct for Panel Members

 

The role and responsibilities of a Panel member are articulated in the draft Code of Conduct shown attached as AT-2 and are similar to those of the State Government’s Joint Regional Planning Panels.  The Code of Conduct includes expectations for key principles of behaviour, conflicts of interest and complaints handling.


Panel Determinations

The determination and decisions of the Panel would be by a majority of votes with each member casting one vote.  In the event of a tied vote the Chairperson would have a casting vote.

Matters to be Referred to the Lane Cove IHAP

The Determining Body

Matters that are not otherwise determined under the delegation of the General Manager would be referred to the Lane Cove IHAP for consideration and determination where they are:-

·      Council development applications of value greater than one hundred thousand dollars;

·      Development applications for individual Councillors, State or Federal members of Parliament or Council staff; and

·      Any development application considered by the General Manager as contentious, particularly complex or in the public interest for the panel to determine.

In exercising discretion the General Manager would have regard to the nature and complexity of the development proposal together with the number and relevance of public submissions made and policy implications.  The General Manager would also specifically consider applications that are seeking non-compliance with Council’s Local Environmental Plan standards of greater than 10% and would constitute an automatic referral for determination by IHAP.

The Review Body

All S82A reviews of determinations made by the Determining Body.

Process for Establishment

The process to establish an IHAP would commence as a priority for staff upon formal resolution by Council and broadly involve the following:-

·      Preparation of supporting documents and procedures and allocation of staff and resources to service the established Panel;

·      Calling for nominations to sit on the Panel from appropriately qualified persons; and

·      In particular the instigation of a search for a suitably experienced and qualified Chairperson who has high standing in the community and is of a legal background. 

 

CONCLUSION

Over the past 10-15 years Council has steadily streamlined the determination of development applications by improving processing times, increasing delegations and reducing legal costs.

It is now time to consider improving the situation further by the establishment of an IHAP to ensure that those few particularly complex, contentious or Council specific development applications, currently determined by the elected Council, are able to be determined in a non-political environment by a highly qualified expert panel with community representation.

 


 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.       Council establish the Lane Cove Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel under Section 355 of the Local Government Act comprising two bodies:-

a)       A Determining Body, to consider and determine development applications, s96 modifications and s82A reviews of applications referred to it by the General Manager, and

b)       A Review Body, to consider and determine S82A reviews of determinations made by the Determining Body.

2.       Council delegate authority under Section 377 of the Local Government Act to the two bodies formed under 1. above as follows:-

a)       The Determining Body shall have authority to consider and determine development applications, s96 modifications and s82A reviews of applications referred to it by the General Manager.

b)       The Review body shall have authority to consider and determine S82A reviews of determinations made by the Determining Body.

3.       Council endorse the Charter and Code of Conduct for the Lane Cove IHAP shown attached as AT-1.

3.       The General Manager recruit a Chairperson for both bodies of high standing with an eminent legal background and prior to the appointment consult with the Council.

4.       The General Manager recruit other panel members and prior to the appointment consult with the Council.

5.       The General Manager review the Lane Cove IHAP after 12 months and prepare a report for Council’s consideration.

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Lane Cove Independent Hearing and Assessment Charter

12 Pages

AT‑2 View

Draft Code of Conduct for Panel Members

13 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 5 March 2012

Environmental Services Division Report No. 7

 

 

Reference:     Environmental Services Division Report No. 7

Subject:          Request to Waive Infrastructure Levy Contribution (Section 94 Contribution) - for an Additional Domocile - 15 Garling St Lane Cove    

Record No:    SU1566 - 8644/12

Author(s):      Michael Mason 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

To enable Council to consider a request by a long term resident family to waive the additional Community Infrastructure and Service Levy (Section 94 Contribution) due from a proposed second dwelling in the rear yard.

 

Discussion

 

An application for a single level detached studio apartment is currently being processed by a Private Certifier as a Complying Development.

 

As part of the application there is a levy contribution for one additional person (currently $8,844.26) due if the application is to be enacted.

 

The family have requested that Council waive the levy fee as in their particular circumstances there would not be any additional impact on infrastructure or services.  A number of issues are detailed in this report and Council is requested to consider the report when determining a position in relation to the request to waive the development’s contribution levy.

 

Essentially, the property owner states that their daughter is returning to the family home after a number of years of independent living and by constructing the studio apartment, she would continue to live independently but in the rear yard of the family home.  The property owner has advised that the structure is a Complying Development and approval is imminent (refer to memorandum provided separately to Councillors).

 

Section 94 contributions are levied by Council where there is an increase in demand for services or additional demand on existing infrastructure (drainage, traffic, open space, community services and the like). The contribution is calculated by additional people (currently $8,844.26 per additional person).

 

The construction of a studio apartment in the rear yard creates the potential for increased demand on Council’s infrastructure and services when occupied.

 

The statement and claim by the property owner that there will, in his context, be no additional demand created by the construction of the studio apartment, but rather a reconfiguration and separation of living arrangements.

 

Comments

 

The request for the Section 94 Contribution Levy to be waived having regard to the particular circumstances of the property owner and their family, is supported, as no increased demand for services would be generated while the family unit remains as currently configured.

 

The Section 94 Contribution provisions cannot anticipate the range of possible family and community housing alternatives but seeks to identify demonstrable increases in demand for community services and infrastructure.

 

Having regard to the request of the property owner to waive the Section 94 Contribution Levy for one additional person, it is considered that such be supported for so long as the occupation of the studio apartment is by a family member. That is, the levy be deferred until such time as current circumstances change.

 

If Council is of the view that the levy be deferred, then appropriate procedural safeguards be put in place to ensure the levy be paid to recognise any change in circumstance.  In recognition of the special circumstance, deferral of the Section 94 contribution levy is supported, however, a waiving of the levy is not.  If Council was of the view that deferral is appropriate then notations on the title and 149 Certificate would maintain Council’s interest in the land.

 

It is considered if circumstances change and the studio apartment is rented on the market as a separate domicile or sold, then the Section 94 levy should be paid in full at the appropriate fee at the time.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council defer the Section 94 Contribution Levy for the complying development at 15 Garling Street Lane Cove and place a notation on the title and 149 Certificate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

 There are no supporting documents for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting 5 March 2012

Environmental Services Division Report No. 8

 

 

Reference:     Environmental Services Division Report No. 8

Subject:          Recycling Facilities for Small Businesses    

Record No:    SU2091 - 8904/12

Author(s):      David Wilson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council’s waste services currently provide for the collection of general waste from 120 businesses in the Lane Cove LGA. To provide a subsidised or free recycling service for all commercial premises, a cost of more than $807,685 would be incurred.

 

Council has committed to partnering with the Better Business Partnership Program in delivering a detailed review of all businesses within the Lane Cove CBD to assist them in reducing their waste, energy and water costs and facilitating long term sustainable businesses.

 

The costs of waste disposal and recycling from businesses are a cost that is considered a standard cost of conducting businesses, and as such the cost of the community subsidising this service beyond what is currently being provided is not appropriate.

 

Background

 

Notice of Motion 1 of Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 6 February 2012 raised the issue of Council considering the provision of a Council funded recycling program for small businesses such as cafes and restaurants to minimise the amount of glass and plastics being directed to landfill.

 

The Notice of motion also requested consideration be given to providing individual bins of centralised bins placed in near proximity to cafes and restaurants and other large users of recyclable containers.

 

Council currently provides waste services to 120 business properties for the collection and disposal of co-mingled waste in the LGA. This service is provided upon a business requesting this service at a cost of $365.40 per annum for a 240 litre weekly collection service. Businesses are able to organise their own commercial waste service with other waste contracting firms and do so based on their own specific needs.

 

In reviewing this matter the following annual fees and charges are currently being charged by the following neighbouring Council’s:-

 

Willoughby           $710 waste collection         (240 litre)

$710 recycling collection    (240 litre)

 

North Sydney      $678.60 waste collection    (240 litre)

                            $1461.60 waste collection (660 litre)

                            $678.60 recycling collection (240 litre) + $209 lift fee depending on materials

                            $1461.60 recycling collection (660 litre)

 

Discussion

 

Recycling Collection for Local Businesses

 

Lane Cove LGA currently has 120 businesses using Council’s waste collection services, and there are 1508 commercial rateable properties within the LGA (strata or not strata).

 

Council’s waste contractor has advised that to provide a service for the removal of recycled materials using a 240litre bin would, be up to $10 per week or up to $520 per year for this service.

 

By comparison with the nearby Council’s of Willoughby and North Sydney, Lane Cove’s contract waste services is up to 26% cheaper and affordable when compared with the domestic waste management charges of $364 that allow for a weekly waste collection (80 litre) and fortnightly recycling (240 litre) service.

 

If Council was to provide a further subsidy or free service to commercial premises for recycling an overall cost of $807,685 ($540 x 1508) would need to be accounted for in providing a 240 litre recycling service that is collected weekly.

 

Lane Cove’s busier dining and food businesses would require a waste collection service that picks up and empties their bins up to 3 times per week. Additional costs of $12 to $24 per service would be likely to be charged which is a further cost of up to $1461.60 per annum.

 

Centralised Recycling Containers for Business Use

 

Centralised containers for the collection of recycling materials such as bottle banks, have been used in many localities in the past to some effect. In the past 20 years best practice has been to move to providing the community with at source collection ie. at the business or residential premises. This system has been found to significantly reduce the amount of contamination of recycling materials and allow for a higher rate of waste being diverted away from landfill.

 

Whilst Council supports businesses in their endeavours to recycle, recycling and sorting of waste can be very specific to individual businesses in regards to types of waste generated, frequency of collection and the logistics of bins (storage, bin size and method of removal). Other than the significant cost implications for the community, effective and efficient waste services for businesses are best arranged by the businesses.

 

In regards to the provision of centralised bins being made available for businesses within the Lane Cove locality, the following issues are of concern:-

·    May give rise to unauthorised dumping of non recycling materials;

·    High probability that recyclables will become contaminated with general waste; and

·    Centralised bins may become a source of odour and attraction for vermin (currently the Plaza is experiencing challenges with Indian Myna birds and this problem may be exacerbated).

 

Conclusion

 

Council in conjunction with the Better Businesses Program over the next 12 months (extending to 3 years) will investigate and explore long term solutions to waste management as well as a review of energy and water use. As part of this process, each individual business that signs up to the program will be audited and provided with specific advice as to the means to becoming a sustainable business. A process that can result in significant cost savings and long term sustainable improvements.

 

The program will allow businesses to review how they receive their raw materials and the packaging that is used in the delivery of their stock items. Part of the solution may be to choose products that are delivered in bulk rather than individual containers or partner with suppliers that take back their containers for refilling.

 

 

The cost of waste disposal is increasing and in part the reason for these increases is based on consumption. Each business needs to review the waste they are generating and the methods for recycling or reusing. The solution of providing subsidies to business to dispose of their recycling materials is not considered sustainable for the community.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 5 March 2012

Human Services Division Report No. 2

 

 

Reference:     Human Services Division Report No. 2

Subject:          Funding Proposal for Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service    

Record No:    SU189 - 8950/12

Author(s):      Sally Lawler 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Late last year Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service (KYDS) came close to closing its doors due to an inability to secure ongoing funding for the service.  Since then Ku-ring-gai Council, Rotary and several local businesses have offered funding to assist the service to continue whilst further discussions about ongoing funding are conducted.

 

KYDS is a free service providing early intervention for mental health issues facing young people and their families on the North Shore. A brochure outlining the Service is attached as AT-1.

 

KYDS has worked collaboratively with Council’s Youth Services on a variety of projects including youth health days, various school and community based workshops for young people, parenting forums and a referral service for young people and their families for therapeutic counselling services.

 

This Report recommends providing some interim funding to assist the Service to continue while also providing additional services in the Lane Cove area.

 

Background

 

Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service (KYDS) has worked closely with Council’s Youth Services on several projects including the award winning Young Women’s Program, Higher School Certificate (HSC) workshops, health days and other school based workshops.  In 2011 KYDS provided counselling to young people and their families from the Lane Cove Local Government Area, with a total of 8% of their referrals coming from the Lane Cove Community.

 

As identified in Council’s Community Strategic Plan, one of the goals is to “address strategic gaps in social and welfare services to targeted groups” and KYDS is the only free counselling service of its kind for adolescents in our local government area.  Without KYDS, young people with mental health issues from our community will be forced onto lengthy waiting lists at the Royal North Shore Hospital for up to 8 weeks before they can receive care.

 

A combined total of 51% of KYDS referrals are for mental health or drug and alcohol related issues.  A graph showing the reasons for referral is attached as AT-2.  Also attached, as AT-3, is a graph of statistics for young people aged 15 – 24 indicating high levels of self harm and hospitalisation for the self harm incidents across NSW along with statistics, shown attached as AT-4, for referral by Local Government Areas and reasons for referral to KYDS.  These figures are a strong indication of the need for the services provided by KYDS to the Lane Cove and North Shore community.

 

KYDS has been successful over the last 7 years in providing mental health and wellbeing services to young people and their families on the North Shore.  KYDS has currently been unable to obtain funding through the Mental Health budget yet have been able to rally community support to assist them in continuing to provide services whilst they lobby for ongoing future funding which indicates a strong regard for the service at a community level.


Discussion

 

KYDS is continuing to lobby and submit applications for ongoing funding through the State Government by applying for direct funding from Northern Sydney Local Health District at the Royal North Shore Hospital and through the Federal Government’s Headspace project at Chatswood where they are currently negotiating becoming an Outreach partner for this new service.  Along with these options KYDS is also working with local business and has become a beneficiary for the Novus Foundation.  Rotary Lindfield, Wahroonga and Turramurra are also assisting the service with funding by committing $20,000 per year for the next three years. Ku-ring-gai Council has provided funding of $45,000 to assist the service until March 2012.

 

Council could support KYDS by providing $3500 of funding to assist them to continue providing a range of counselling services, workshops for our local schools and Parent Information Evenings to our local community. Council’s Youth Services would continue to work collaboratively with KYDS on projects that require specialist support from Adolescent Psychologists and by assisting them financially we will be able to continue to provide these much needed services to our community.

 

KYDS provides a unique service on the North Shore with the only other service that can provide free counselling to young people and their families in Lane Cove being the Royal North Shore Hospital and their waiting lists can be up to 8 weeks.  For young people and families with significant mental health or addiction issues in our community, this wait is too long.

 

KYDS can provide workshops in collaboration with our Youth Services team to local primary schools and our main feeder Government high schools, Hunters Hill and Chatswood High.  At our local primary schools KYDS intend to provide workshops on Transitional Issues  for young people in years 5 and 6 on topics such as preparation for high school, cyber safety, keeping well – strategies for good mental health, and resilience.  To complement these workshops KYDS plan on running a parent information evening discussing the early identification and triggers to mental health issues for young adolescents.

 

The Youth Team continue to build their relationship with Hunters Hill High School and we plan to work in partnership with KYDS to provide a year 9 girls health and self-esteem program, workshops targeting organisational and motivational techniques for year 9-10 students and assistance for teachers to help identify young people that may be at risk in terms of their mental health.

 

Conclusion

 

Council’s Youth team in collaboration with Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service hopes to identify and respond to the mental health and wellbeing needs of young people in the Lane Cove community by providing workshops to schools, counselling and referral services for young people and their families.  The overall aim of this partnership is to help improve the mental health of young people in Lane Cove and assist Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service to promote and gain ongoing future funding for their service.

 

Council can assist Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service (KYDS) to continue providing much needed mental health services to the Lane Cove Community by committing $3500 until June 2012.  Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service (KYDS) have been advised to apply for funding through the Council Financial Assistance Grants process for any further Council funding.


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.    Grant financial assistance of $1,000 to Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service (KYDS) to continue providing a range of counselling services to the Lane Cove Community, in accordance with section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993.

2.    Grant financial assistance of $2,500 to Ku-ring-gai Youth Development Service (KYDS) on the proviso that they develop and deliver specific programs for young people at Hunters Hill and Chatswood High School and local primary schools including a parent workshop to be run at the Lane Cove Library, in accordance with section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

 

 

 

Jane  Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

KYDS Brochure

1 Page

AT‑2 View

KYDS Reasons for referral

1 Page

AT‑3 View

Age Specific Hospitalisaton Rates - Intentional Self Harm (Females NSW 1989-90 to 2008-09)

1 Page

AT‑4 View

KYDS Referrals by LGA

1 Page