m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

16 April 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 16 April 2012 commencing at 7:00pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Yours faithfully



Peter Brown

General Manager

 

Council Meeting Procedures

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 


Ordinary Council 16 April 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

public forum

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 5 MARCH 2012

 

Orders Of The Day

 

2.       Council and Committee Meeting Schedule - May 2012

 

3.       Citizenship Ceremony - 16 May 2012  

 

Notices of Motion

 

4.       Linley Point Direct Bus Route

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

5.       Mowbray Precinct Post-Exhibition Report

 

6.       Planting on Nature Strips

 

7.       Draft Signage Concepts

 

8.       2012-15 Draft Budget, Delivery Program and Operational Plan

 

9.       Feedback Sought on Proposed Rezoning Changes

 

10.     Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting - Tuesday 20 March 2012

 

11.     Funding under Round 4 of Sustainability Small Grants Program

 

12.     Alcohol Free Zones in Lane Cove LGA

 

13.     National General Assembly of Local Government 2012

 

14.     Policy Manual Review - Phase 1

 

15.     Deductible Gift Recipient

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

16.     Audit Committee Report on Activities

 

17.     Council Snapshot  


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 April 2012

Council and Committee Meeting Schedule - May 2012

 

 

Subject:          Council and Committee Meeting Schedule - May 2012    

Record No:    SU1915 - 16407/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Kirsty Fleming 

 

 

 

The Council and Committee Meeting Schedule for May 2012 is proposed as follows:-

May     19        Inspection Committee (if required)

May     21        Ordinary Council

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council and Committee Meeting Schedule for May 2012 be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 April 2012

Citizenship Ceremony - 16 May 2012

 

 

Subject:          Citizenship Ceremony - 16 May 2012     

Record No:    SU28 - 16408/12

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Millie Stephen 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A citizenship ceremony will be held in the Council Chambers on Wednesday 16th May 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 16 May 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 16 April 2012

Notice of Motion - Linley Point Direct Bus Route

 

 

Subject:          Notice of Motion - Linley Point Direct Bus Route    

Record No:    SU1363 - 16650/12

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Ann Smith 

 

 

 

The Linley Point Neighbourhood Committee have submitted a request to the Minister for Transport to modify an existing bus service to provide a direct route from Lane Cove West and Linley Point via Victoria Road to Sydney CBD thus allowing the residents to have their public transport needs met.  Their correspondence, including diagrams of possible options, is attached as AT-1

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council support the residents request and write to Hon Gladys Berejiklian, Minister for Transport supporting Option A, modifying the M50 Section Point 00 bus route which currently departs from Drummoyne Oval, Drummoyne so that the starting point is “modified to Lane Cove West at the existing Bus stop - 263 Burns Bay Road (high residential developments).  The bus would then pick up residents along Burns Bay Road and then proceed over Gladesville Bridge to resume its normal route along Victoria Road, through Drummoyne and Rozelle to the City and onto Coogee.” 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Ann Smith

Councillor - Central Ward

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Letter to the Minister for Transport Re: Direct bus to the City from Lane Cove West via Linley Point

5 Pages

 

   


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 April 2012

Mowbray Precinct Post-Exhibition Report

 

 

Subject:          Mowbray Precinct Post-Exhibition Report    

Record No:    SU4500 - 16388/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Stephanie Bashford; Vivienne Albin 

 

 

Executive Summary

Following the Strategic Review of the Mowbray Precinct, undertaken in 2011 by the Department of Planning & Infrastructure and Council in partnership, a series of amendments to the Local Environmental Plan 2009 was endorsed in early December 2011 by Council and the Department for public exhibition.

A public exhibition of the draft LEP amendments was held for eight weeks from 27 January to 23 March 2012.

After reviewing public submissions, it is considered that the exhibited LEP scheme remains, overall, a balanced position between the LEP 2009’s high density zoning and the former Planning Proposal 2011’s low density scenario. Certain variations to it are, however, recommended, relating to:-

·          zoning changes to a small number of properties, generally on the grounds of consistency with surrounding future land uses

·          floor space and height control adjustments to accord with open space zoning and

·          proposed wording changes relating to the bushfire asset protection zone mapping.

The LEP proposals exhibited as a result of the 2011 Strategic Review are considered to remain appropriate in balancing the range of public concerns and, subject to the above amendments, are supported to proceed to the Department of Planning & Infrastructure requesting finalisation.

Background

The Department of Planning & Infrastructure and Council in partnership undertook a Strategic Review of the Mowbray Precinct in 2011, focusing on physical and other identified development constraints. Two studies by independent consultants were commissioned as a basis for the review: a Master Planning Study by JBA Planning Pty Ltd and a Traffic Study by SMEC Australia Pty Ltd.

The Strategic Review Report proposed recommendations based on the conclusions of the Master Planning Study and Traffic Study. Key recommendations relating to zoning and scale were to:-

(i)         zone the Precinct to a combination of low density residential, throughout the bushfire asset protection zone along the southern area from Kullah Parade south-westwards, with retention of the high density residential zone for the major part of the Precinct’s north, east and west areas,

(ii)        reduce the high density zone’s floor space ratio from FSR 2.1:1 to (i) FSR 1.6 over the majority of the R4 zone, with (ii) FSR 1.8:1 west of Hatfield Street and (iii) FSR 1.4:1 for 8-14 Mindarie Street,

(iii)       change the height to (i) 14.5 metres (4 storeys), (ii) 17.5 metres (5 storeys), and 11.5 metres (3 storeys) for the above areas respectively,

(iv)       reconfigure and expand the open space to provide a larger park of 6,000m2 on Mindarie Street and

(v)        undertake traffic measures to increase the road network’s capacity and develop a Section 94 development contributions plan for these and other works including stormwater improvements.

The proposed zonings were endorsed by the Department and Council in December 2011, subject to the following variations requested by Council, for exhibition:-

a)         the Low Density Residential (R2) zoning replaced with Environmental Living (E4)       

b)         46-60 Gordon Crescent rezoned from high density (R4) to Environmental Living (E4)

c)         the Girraween Park Public Recreation RE1 zoning retained until a replacement pocket park is acquired.

JBA zoning recommendation

 

Exhibited zoning

 

 

Asset Protection Zone Map

Discussion

LEP 2009, which was notified (gazetted) in February 2010, included the rezoning of the Precinct to High Density Residential R4. The rezoning was not supported by Council at the time. However Council’s adoption on 5 December 2011 of the zoning now exhibited acknowledges that the planning context has altered since LEP 2009’s introduction. The retention of R4 zoning over the precinct’s north, east and west areas has regard to the gazetted high density zones and physical constraints, and seeks to minimise uncertainty and disruption for property owners, having regard to the altered situation as a result of the numerous development applications approved since LEP 2009’s introduction. 

The planning proposal’s exhibition was held for eight weeks from 27 January to 23 March 2012. Approximately 75 submissions were received by Council. This report discusses the submission comments as follows:-

·          by topic – for example, zoning, and

·          within the topic - (i) specific issues for individual sites and (ii) general comments for the precinct as a whole.

Submissions received from government authorities are attached as AT-1.  A Submissions Schedule listing the comments expressed by the public is attached as AT-2, and includes comments by a resident forwarded in a letter by the Minister, Anthony Roberts, on his behalf. This schedule does not summarise the community associations’ submissions in detail, however, as these are provided for the public to read. Community associations’ submissions are attached as AT-3.

The report does not revisit general issues which have been covered by independent consultants within the Strategic Review, but provides an overview of specific comments on issues raised in the exhibition.

The Councillors received the full set of all submissions ten days before the Council meeting on 16 April to provide time for their consideration.  Prior to the meeting, Councillors will have undertaken a site visit on Saturday 14 April of various areas within the precinct referred to in the submissions.


1.         Zoning

(i)         46-60 Gordon Crescent

                                               

 

Exhibited zoning – Environmental Living E4

 

Issue: A number of owners within Nos.46-60 Gordon Crescent requested that the site retain the higher density R4 zoning, rather than the exhibited low density E4 zoning, on the grounds of equitable development opportunities and concerns regarding overshadowing, overlooking and noise, should these sites be excluded from the adjacent high density zones.

Staff Comment:

·          The consultant, JBA, recommended that this area remain R4 as in LEP 2009. JBA took into account the proposed Asset Protection Zone and DCP controls, and calculated that the sites are capable of being developed for residential flats. At the meeting on 5 December, Council agreed to exhibit the E4 zoning on the request of owners.

Note: The Bushfire Protection Assessment by JBA’s consultant clarifies that “the APZ extends inwards… from the top of the kerb on the side of the road adjacent the reserve where there is a perimeter road” (page 12). There is no intention to permit an APZ to be made on Council’s bushland either within the road reserve south of the kerb or in Batten Reserve. The RFS advises that APZs on public land are rare and should be undertaken only when Council has committed to a “maintenance in perpetuity” agreement.

·          The house sites would be isolated within a high density block extending uphill to the north and eastwards, with potential for overshadowing and overlooking, given that the land rises by 14 metres from Gordon Crescent to Mowbray Rd.

·          Relativity between neighbouring sites is a consideration, in terms of loss of amenity due to overshadowing, overlooking, noise and traffic impacts.

·         Equitable development opportunities for property owners in the area are a factor.

Recommendation: Retain the current LEP 2009 High Density Residential R4 zoning for 46-60 Gordon Crescent, as in JBA’s recommendation.

 

(ii)        8-14 Mindarie St

 

                                 

 

 

Exhibited scale - FSR 1.4:1

 

Exhibited height - 11.5 metres

 

 

Issue: A number of residents downhill and to the south in Kullah Pde have requested that Nos.8-14 Mindarie St be rezoned to low density Environmental Living E4 from High Density Residential R4, due to concerns regarding overshadowing, overlooking and noise.

Staff Comment:

·          Rezoning Nos.8-14 Mindarie St to Environmental Living E4 would provide a low density zone for the whole block, surrounded by streets and a walkway on all sides. The subdivision pattern would otherwise contain an “island” of apartments in a predominantly low density zone. The R4 zone would extend in a more regular linear band, approximately 70 metres deep, along the southern side of Mowbray Rd.

Note: Improved use of the walkway is being investigated in the Section 94 Review. JBA proposed a reconfiguration of this walkway but, if this were appropriate given the topography, it could be achieved through the R4 zone to the east, and does not preclude the E4 zoning being applied west of the walkway.

·          Kullah Pde properties are restricted to remaining low density E4 due to the Asset Protection Zone (APZ) constraint, but have high density R4 abutting their rear fences.

·          The Bushfire Protection Assessment by JBA’s consultant, EcoLogical Australia, identified the APZ as covering the Kullah-Mindarie block up to the boundary of Nos.8-14 Mindarie St.  An alternative bushfire assessment of Nos.2,4,6 and 8 Kullah Pde has been obtained by residents at the western end of this block, which they state would permit higher density development of those four sites. The Rural Fire Service, however, states in its submission (see also below) that any such APZ is indicative only, and is not a replacement for the individual site assessment which RFS would undertake at the DA stage. It is not supported that this block be zoned R4 on the basis of one single preliminary assessment by any owners, but rather the precautionary principle should apply in retaining the low density zoning recommended in the Strategic Review.             

·          There is a significant difference in topography along the interface between the two zones - approximately 18 metres rise between Kullah Pde and Mindarie St.

·          Nos.8-14 are shallow sites, so that there is only a limited area for site-specific DCP setbacks to protect the amenity of houses below.

·          These factors have been taken into account in the exhibited proposal, in that the three R4 lots have a reduced FSR of 1.4:1 (that R4 area generally being 1.6:1), and height of 11.5 metres (R4 generally: 14.5 metres). The height would be limited to three storeys in the DCP (R4 generally: 4 storeys). Nevertheless, the E4 zoning is supported on the grounds below.

The overriding considerations are as follows:-

·    Consistency of zoning within one block bounded by roads/ public path

·    Consistency of subdivision pattern

·    Topographical constraints along the interface between the Mindarie St and Kullah Pde properties and

·    Minimisation of loss of amenity due to overshadowing, overlooking and noise.

Recommendation: Rezone 8-14 Mindarie St to Environmental Living E4, from High Density Residential R4.

 


(iii)       South of Mindarie Street

Exhibited zoning – High Density Residential R4

 

Issue:   A number of submissions, including from some residents in this area, requested that the R4 properties from south of Mindarie St to the E4 zone in Merinda St and Pinaroo Place be rezoned to a lower density.

Staff Comment:

This proposal for lower density included the following submissions relating to specific properties:-

(a)   The E4 zoning was objected to by certain owners within Pinaroo Place, but they requested that if it is to apply, the whole of Pinaroo Place should be E4 for consistency rather than permitting flats adjacent to houses.

It is considered, however, that the JBA exhibited zones should be retained south of Mindarie St, with DCP setback controls tailored to specific sites, on the policy of not reversing the current LEP 2009 zoning where possible so as to minimise uncertainty for property owners. The sites rezoned to E4 are only those which are affected by bushfire asset protection zone limitations.          

(b)   The proposal was also made that Medium Density Residential R3 be applied to the entire area south of Mindarie St, for townhouses to provide a transition zone between the R4 and E4 zones, in response to the exhibition’s increase to up to 5 storeys height in this western R4 area. This transition zoning, while it  may be appropriate in other areas, is not considered practical in this location and is not supported, for these reasons:-

·          Nos.9-19 Merinda already provide medium density housing in this area, adjacent to the exhibited R4 zone, so there would be no change under R3 zoning (No.21 is Council land).

                                                      

·          This would then leave four lots adjacent to the R4 zone: Nos. 6-8 and 28 Pinaroo Place and 6 Merinda St. It is considered that, as these properties are a small proportion of a predominantly R4 zone, the general principle of not overturning JBA’s recommendations and reversing the R4 zone, minimising owner uncertainty relating to  LEP 2009’s introduction, should continue to apply. It would, however, be appropriate for a site-specific buffer to be provided by DCP setback controls, as distinct from R3 zoning.                                                    

·          The R4 zone would form a continuum of residential flats to either side of Mindarie Street. The gradient from the houses to Mindarie Street is only approximately 1 in 11 , in contrast with the much steeper area above Kullah Pde, discussed earlier, of 1 in 7, where a small R4 development uphill could impact disproportionately on houses below. Flats adjacent to the existing park would also increase the number of dwellings benefitting from that amenity. 

Recommendation:  No change. It is considered that the JBA exhibited zones should be retained south of Mindarie St, with DCP setback controls tailored to specific sites.                                            

 

(iv)       15 Centennial Avenue

 

Issue:  

·          The owner has requested that the site remain High Density Residential R4 as in LEP 2009, rather than Environmental Living E4, to form a continuum of the R4 zone to the north and west, to avoid being downhill of higher density development, and stating the poor environmental quality of the land due to stormwater runoff and other factors, as detailed in the Submissions Schedule at AT 2.

·          If Council does not allow R4 zoning, the owner requests that Council purchase the western half of the property at a value estimated to be $900,000 based on Valuer-General’s data. The site as a whole is 1,530m2 in area.

Staff Comment:

JBA’s recommendation was for No.15 Centennial Avenue to be rezoned to low density, exhibited as Environmental E4, for the reasons that this site suffers greater constraints than surrounding properties, taking into account the riparian zoning, bushfire asset protection zone and topographical contours in combination.

Other neighbouring properties are also affected by riparian zoning, but not to the same extent, either due to lesser gradient issues or because they have combined into a single development proposal and can mass buildings better in relation to the contours.

The owner has contributed detailed submissions regarding the condition of his land and, in particular, in relation to environmental quality. These submissions should be taken into account if Council considers it appropriate to investigate the request for purchase within the Section 94 Plan Review.

Recommendation:  The exhibited Environmental Living E4 be retained on the basis of the JBA recommendations, which have had regard to the combination of development constraints affecting the site.

2.         Open Space

 

Issues:  

(i)      Open Space Use

Several community submissions expressed support for the exhibited open space zoning for both the existing Girraween Avenue park and the proposed 6,000m2 open space in Pinaroo Place.

It was noted that the FSR and Height Maps were not consistent with the RE1 zoning, but related to adjacent residential zones.

The NSW Land & Housing Corporation has expressed opposition to the rezoning of 10-20 Pinaroo Place for open space (please see 3 below)

Staff Comment:

·          Girraween Avenue: The need for a park in the eastern half of the precinct, and its most appropriate location, are being investigated within the Section 94 Plan Review, taking into account topography, adjacent uses, pedestrian access and other factors. There will be opportunity for further community comment, including by NSW Land & Housing, when this draft plan is submitted to Council for exhibition.

·          Pinaroo Place: Submissions requested that this proposed open space be a park rather than an oval, due to traffic concerns in weekends, and the existing supply of ovals in the locality. This, however, is a matter for future open space planning, rather than for the LEP. Prior to that it would be necessary to negotiate with NSW Land & Housing to obtain the land.

·          The mapping comments relating to development controls for open space are agreed with. The residential development standards should be removed to accord with the Public Recreation RE1 zoning.  (One other comment on mapping relates to Willandra St and requires no change.)

Recommendation:  The Floor Space Ratio and Height Maps be amended to remove residential standards for the existing Girraween Avenue park and the proposed Pinaroo Place park, for consistency with their Public Recreation RE1 zoning.

 

3.         Government agencies

In accordance with the Gateway determination,  Council forwarded the planning proposal to: NSW Land & Housing Corporation, Transport for NSW, NSW Rural Fire Service, Sydney Water and Transgrid, and sent it also the Willoughby City Council.

Submissions were received from four government authorities, and a summary of their comments is below. A copy of their submissions in full is attached at AT 1.

(i)         NSW Land & Housing Corporation    

 

LH&C’s Issues

(a)    The L&HC emphasises that it is imperative that it be able to effectively manage its assets and ensure the delivery of social housing within the region.

(b)    It maintains its strong objection to the rezoning of 10-20 Pinaroo Place from R4 High Density Residential to RE1 Public Recreation.

(c )   It maintains its strong objection to the increase in the minimum deep soil landscaping requirement from 25% to 40% of the site, as this would restrict the redevelopment potential of L&HC sites.

Staff Comment:

·    Point (a) – The Strategic Review has retained the R4 zonings, except where constrained by by bushfire asset protection, having regard to issues including the implications for property values if LEP 2009 were to be substantially overturned. The modifications in FSR and height for the R4 zone reflect the realistic development potential evidenced in recent DAs, indicating that assets will be able to managed and redeveloped viably, by all property owners including the L&HC.

·    Point (b) – It is recommended that, as these sites have been identified as suitable for open space, the zoning should remain, with negotiations continuing to seek appropriate options for development of L&HC properties.

·    Point (c ) – The deep soil provision of 40% remains a reduction from the pre-2010 DCP’s 50%, and reflects the significant mature trees and leafy, environmental character of this precinct. The L&HC has stated for some years that it may sell a major portion of its properties in the precinct for private development, retaining only the current level of social housing. It is therefore important that the same controls apply to those sites as to other sites in the precinct, to ensure consistent character across the precinct.

Recommendations

·          No changes to the LEP relating to this section.

 

(ii)        Rural Fire Service

 

RFS’s Issues:  

(a)  The RFS is satisfied that the precinct is capable of accommodating the rezoning for higher density and any subsequent emergency evacuation of the area, in accordance with the recommendations of the SMEC Traffic Study.

(b)  The RFS notes that the JBA Master Planning Report identifies asset protection zones (APZs) and lots that are beyond the scope of "Planning for Bushfire Protection" or unable to support compliant development re APZs. The APZs indicated on these plans are only indicative & should be relied on as a trigger mechanism. RFS would need to provide further comment when DAs are lodged.

(c)  The RFS comments that JBA’s statement: that each building should be able to provide safe refuge, is not appropriate in all situations and is a matter for consideration as part of any development proposal. RFS states that each application is to be assessed on its merits for the building to provide a passive level of protection rather than safe refuge. Emergency evacuation plans & safe refuges are only required on special fire protection purpose development or in exceptional circumstances, therefore this recommendation of the Master Planning Study is not supported by RFS.

Staff Comment:

·          Point (a) – The RFS supports the exhibited zoning and traffic study, their requirement for this having been a catalyst for the Strategic Review.

·          Point (b) – The Asset Protection Zone (APZ) Map proposed to be included in the LEP should be accompanied by text wording advising that the APZ is indicative only, as stated by the RFS. This APZ map and clause would be comparable in force with the Riparian Map in the LEP. No other change to JBA’s recommendations are proposed in response to the RFS comments; JBA’s planning calculations of the potential for compliant development within the development controls are accepted by staff.

·          Point (c ) – The DCP could reflect the RFS’ comments regarding emergency plans and safe refuges. Council may recall a number of development proposals approved by the Court considered this very issue. It is noted that the RFS supports the SMEC study including its estimate of the numbers of residents remaining in their homes.

Recommendations

·          The Asset Protection Zone (APZ) Map, proposed to be included in the LEP as exhibited, should be accompanied by text wording advising that the APZ is indicative only.

(iii)       Transgrid

 

Transgrid’s Issues:  Transgrid states that the Precinct land is clear of any existing Transgrid infrastructure and at present there are no Board-approved proposals that may have a future impact on this site. Transgrid has no further comment.

Staff Comment:  This submission will be considered within the Section 94 Plan Review.

Recommendations:  No changes to the LEP relating to this section.

 

(iv)       Willoughby City Council

 

WCC’s Issues

(a)  The following are supported by WCC:-

·          downzoning of properties affected by bushfire APZs in proximity to Batten Reserve from high to low density with appropriate height & FSRs

·          introduction of area-specific heights and FSRs in R4 zones to be more responsive to context and proportions

·          introduction of an APZ for the precinct by local clause & map.

(b)    Willoughby raises no objection if intersection upgrades along Mowbray Rd are undertaken in consultation with NSW Roads & Maritime Services & Willoughby Council to minimise disruption and at no cost to Willoughby Council.

(c )   A range of detailed traffic comments are included in the Submissions Schedule at AT 2.

(d)    Existing transport, social & community infrastructure must be assessed to ensure they can adequately meet needs of future residents of precinct. Eg, bus services, parks, schools libaries etc. Additional infrastructure must be delivered in a timely manner.

Staff Comment:

Point (a) – Willoughby Council’s support for the LEP controls is noted.

Points (b), (c ) and (d) – The traffic and other infrastructure comments will be considered within the Section 94 Plan Review.

 

Recommendations:  No changes to the LEP relating to this section.

The planning proposal was forwarded also to the following authorities, but no submissions were received in response:-

(i)         Transport for NSW – an email advised that a submission would be sent to Council, but this has not been able to be obtained.

(ii)        Sydney Water – no submission received.

4.         Traffic

The Traffic Study undertaken by SMEC had indicated that there is at least one feasible set of traffic management measures to accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic that will occur as a result of the development in the Precinct.

It is to be noted that SMEC’s study, like any traffic study, was undertaken within a funding limitation which determined the areas/ intersections analysed. It has provided a base from which to expand with further studies relating to surrounding and related precincts.

Having regard to the wide range of public suggestions for variations to the traffic measures proposed in the SMEC study (detailed in the Submissions Schedule at AT 2), consideration will be given within the Section 94 Plan review to the possible scope to further develop the traffic masterplanning for the precinct. That, however, would not prevent the current planning proposal’s high/low density mix proceeding now to finalization within the current LEP planning proposal.

 

5.        Infrastructure

 

A number of submissions expressed concern at the impacts of high densities on infrastructure (detailed in the Submissions Schedule at AT 2). The planning review has specified that these matters will be the subject of detailed Section 94 provision and negotiation with NSW government agencies.

 

Key infrastructure to be undertaken through Section 94 contributions would include: traffic measures, pedestrian linkages, the expanded Mindarie Street 6,000m2 park, pedestrian linkage upgrades, tree planting, stormwater works and bush revegetation, as well as utilities upgrades funded at State level, details of which are listed in the Strategic Report’s Recommendations.

 

In particular, a need for shops and community facilities in the area has been raised. This is a matter of importance for the Section 94 Plan review, as has been expressed in previous Council resolutions, and will be considered in detail then.

 

6.         Studies

 

Several submissions requested more detailed studies relating to environmental, threatened species, pollution, hydrological, geotechnical and other issues. It is considered that the Strategic Review reports contained appropriate studies for the precinct as a whole, taking into account the legislative requirements for detailed studies to be undertaken at the development application stage.

 

Conclusion

The exhibited LEP scheme remains, overall, a balanced position between the LEP 2009’s high density zoning and Council’s former low density scenario. Certain variations to it are, however, contained in the Recommendations given below, relating to:-

·          zoning changes to a small number of properties, generally on the grounds of consistency with the surrounding future land uses

·          floor space and height control adjustments to accord with open space zoning and

·          proposed text wording relating to the bushfire asset protection zone mapping.

Government authorities were consulted and their submissions have been taken into consideration.

The community has put considerable effort into submissions and their contributions are being taken into account within the planning review, DCP amendments, the Section 94 Plan Review and/or other planning documents and processes as appropriate.

In summary, the LEP proposals exhibited as a result of the 2011 Strategic Review are considered to remain appropriate in balancing the range of public concerns and, subject to certain amendments, are supported to proceed to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure with a request for finalisation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

That:-

 

1.         Council adopt the exhibited amendments to Local Environmental Plan 2009 relating to the Mowbray Precinct, subject to the following changes:-

a.         Nos. 46-60 Gordon Crescent retain the current LEP 2009 High Density Residential R4 zoning.

b.         Nos. 8 to14 Mindarie Street be rezoned to Environmental Living E4 from High Density Residential R4.

 

2.         The Floor Space Ratio and Height Maps be amended to remove residential standards for the existing Girraween Avenue park and the proposed Pinaroo Place park, for consistency with their Public Recreation RE1 zoning.

 

3.         The Asset Protection Zone (APZ) Local Map, proposed to be included in the LEP as exhibited, should be accompanied by a text clause advising that the APZ is indicative only, in accordance with the RFS submission.

 

4.         The Department of Planning & Infrastructure be requested to finalise the draft LEP 2009 amendments as recommended in this Report.

 

5.         Development Control Plan amendments be prepared in an appropriate timeframe supporting the finalization of the LEP amendments for the precinct.

 

6.         The current Section 94 Plan Review, and related discussions with the State Government regarding infrastructure provision, address the submissions made in the recent LEP exhibition concerning traffic measures and other infrastructure.

 

7.         Liaison continue with NSW Land & Housing Corporation regarding options for the development of their housing provision within the region.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Submissions by Government Authorities

10 Pages

AT‑2 View

Submissions by General Public

10 Pages

AT‑3 View

Submissions by Community Associations

18 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 April 2012

Planting on Nature Strips

 

 

Subject:          Planting on Nature Strips    

Record No:    SU1631 - 16370/12

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Susan Butler 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A petition has been received regarding the nature strip planting outside 90 Greenwich Road signed by 63 residents of Greenwich. Planting on nature strips by residents has been an evolving issue that has become more prevalent in recent years.  Direction is sought from Council regarding planting on nature strips. Specifically whether resident should be required to keep with the current traditional landscape style and whether Council should require residents who have landscaped the nature strip in a different style to remove unauthorised planting or allow them to lease the affected area.  It is proposed that a detailed policy be developed with respect to planting on nature strips, to be the subject of a further report.  On the matter pertaining to 90 Greenwich Road, it is proposed that a decision on the nature strip planting be deferred until the policy has been developed, exhibited and adopted by Council.

 

Background

 

Council has received a petition signed by 63 residents in Greenwich requesting the retention of the nature strip planting outside 90 Greenwich Road, which has been circulated separately to Councillors. The nature strip planting consists of five (5) ornamental pear trees and 45 box hedge plants. Three (3) pear trees and some of the box plants are planted on the verge either side of the entry path between the footpath and the kerb and another two (2) pear trees with box plants are planted in the garden area between the footpath and the front fence opposite the entry path.  This planting was done following the completion of the building works at 90 Greenwich Rd and replaces a bottlebrush street tree that was damaged during construction.

 

In September 2011, Council issued a Notice under Section 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 requiring the residents “to remove these plants on the grounds that the landscape works established on Council land are causing an encroachment on the nature strip area adjacent to the property and the encroachment is not authorised by or under any Act.” This work was not done and the residents responded with a list of 106 addresses and some photographs from the surrounding area where there are other nature strip plantings.

 

In February 2012, Council issued an Order requiring that “all plant material, mulch etc must be removed from the nature strip area in front of the property. Turf shall be established in the affected area following removal of all landscape materials and vegetation. The reason for the order was that the dominant street tree in this section of Greenwich Road is Callistemon viminalis. The pear trees and shrubs established in from of the property are not appropriate for the streetscape. The current state of the nature strip is not in the interest of public safety or convenience.”

 

The residents at 90 Greenwich Rd have requested that the planting as it is be retained. They are concerned that they are being targeted unfairly and have provided a petition signed by 63 residents in Greenwich requesting the retention of their nature strip planting.

 

Discussion

 

Current Nature Strip Planting in Lane Cove

 

The typical nature strips in Lane Cove are mown grass with a street tree. Many nature strips consist of a narrow garden/grassed or paved area between the footpath and the front fence of the adjacent property and a wider strip of grass between the footpath and the kerb with a street tree.

 

These nature strips contribute significantly to the streetscape and amenity of local neighbourhoods. Nature strip, footpath and laneway areas are owned by Council. It is Council’s responsibility to ensure that members of the public are not caused injury wherever possible whilst using this area.

 

Council maintains the street trees but relies on the residents to maintain the grass. Grassed nature strips are expected to be mowed regularly by residents and kept neat and tidy such that they contribute to the general appearance of the street.

 

Council also relies on residents to keep vegetation trimmed back to their front boundary if it obstructing pedestrians walking along the footpath or nature strip. Residents must make sure that garden plants within their property or along the fenceline do not obstruct other people’s access on the public footpath/laneway or nature strip. When a complaint is received, Council writes to those residents who have vegetation obstructing footpaths asking them to trim this back off the footpath.

 

Council wishes to maintain an overall consistency and appearance of the nature strips. Council is concerned about alienation of public land, where public land, including nature strips, is being made to look like private land and/or used for a private purpose. Other matters for consideration regarding planting on nature strips include: the effect on access to kerbside parking, the effect on access to adjacent properties, the effect on access along the street to the general public and public liability issues.

 

Nature Strip Planting at 90 Greenwich Rd and Nearby Addresses

 

The residents at 90 Greenwich Road have provided a list of 106 addresses in the neighbourhood with landscaped nature strips and ask if any of these have been issued with a Notice of Intention to give an Order. Council staff inspected the 106 addresses provided and found that in the vast majority the landscaped areas were low growing, strap-leafed plants, typically agapanthus, dianella, clivea and other herbs and/low shrubs, planted in the narrow strip between the front fence and the footpath, with grass and street tree on the kerb side of the footpath.  There were a small number of nature strips with plants on both sides of the footpath.  

The nature strip planting at 90 Greenwich Rd differs from the common planting style at the addresses provided. There are five (5) trees planted in the small space on both sides of the footpath, rather than one (1) or two (2) street trees.  This variety of ornamental pear tree grows to around 10 to 12 metres tall and up to 4m wide. As such, the trees will require pruning and shaping under the power lines by Ausgrid contractors on a regular basis given the growth potential of the species.  The owner of the trees had indicated to Council staff that they would only grow to 5 metres in height.  The tree species is inconsistent with the established street tree planting along that part of Greenwich Rd.   The understorey planting of box hedge on both sides of the nature strips is inconsistent with the typical nature strip planting. The combination of the five (5) ornamental pear trees and the dense planting of box hedge as understorey on both sides of the footpath is markedly different from the common planting style and will create a point of constriction for pedestrians walking along Greenwich Rd. 

 

Conclusion

 

The landscaping outside 90 Greenwich Rd is inconsistent with the typical nature strip planting around Lane Cove. The residents have been issued an Order to remove the plant material, mulch, etc from the nature strip and establish turf. In response, they have requested that the planting as is can be retained and have submitted a petition signed by 63 residents supporting this request.

 

Direction is needed from Council regarding planting on nature strips. This could be achieved by developing a policy which endorses the current typical style of nature strip in Lane Cove, of grass verges, street trees to Council’s specifications and the option of low soft planting in front of the fences, keeping the footpath and the kerbside free from obstruction.

 

Finally, direction is needed from Council regarding the future of the nature strip planting at 90 Greenwich Rd, and whether the five (5) ornamental pear trees and understorey box hedge plants be retained as is. This direction should be deferred until the proposed Nature Strip Planting/Landscaping Policy has been adopted by Council. Staff anticipate that a draft policy will be tabled for Council’s consideration at the June 2012 Council meeting.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Develop a policy on planting/landscaping on nature strips in general; and

2.   Defer a decision on the nature strip planting at 90 Greenwich Rd until the policy has been adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 April 2012

Draft Signage Concepts

 

 

Subject:          Draft Signage Concepts     

Record No:    SU2955 - 16376/12

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Susan Butler 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Draft Signage Concepts have been on public exhibition and a number of submissions have been received. The Signage Concepts for the medium signs have been amended following the comments received during consultation. It is recommended that the amended Signage Concepts for medium sized entry signs dated April 2012 be adopted as the sign style and form for Lane Cove. All other sized signage will flow from these signs. The medium signs will set the direction for the rest of the family of signs to be used in the parks and reserves. The Signage Concepts are ready to proceed to detailed documentation and implementation.

 

Background

 

In February 2011 Council adopted its Signage Strategy following public exhibition. The next stage of the process involved the development of preliminary concepts by signage consultants Minale Tattersfield. Feedback on the suite of signs they developed was obtained from staff and Councillors. The feedback indicated that the signs developed by Minale Tattersfield were not the style and form Council was after. Consequently, Council then engaged Artscape Consulting to prepare alternate Draft Signage Concepts for parks and reserves that took into account the feedback from staff and Councillors. These concepts were developed for three (3) sizes of signs, larger district parks, neighbourhood parks and small local parks, for use in recreation areas and bushland. The signs concepts were developed to a conceptual level at this stage to gauge feedback on the general look of the signs prior to undertaking detailed documentation. The concepts were placed on exhibition over January and February 2012. A copy of the Draft Signage Concepts placed on exhibition is attached as AT-1.

 

Discussion

 

Council conducted community consultation on the proposed Signage Concepts from 18 January to 2 March 2012.  The concepts developed by Artscape Consulting were placed on public exhibition at the Civic Centre, Lane Cove and Greenwich Libraries, and on Council’s website from 18 January 2012. An e-newsletter was sent out and letters were sent to all residents associations on 23 January 2012. The Bushland Management Advisory Committee and Access Committee were also invited to comment on the Draft Concepts. An advertisement was placed in the North Shore Times on 1 February 2012.

 

Responses on the Draft Signage Concepts were received from three (3) groups and ten individuals. Concerns were expressed that the large and medium entry signs were too large, the small entry signs looked uneven and open to vandalism and the directional signs were too obtrusive in the bushland. Feedback included that the signs need to be more streamlined and contemporary in style and more sympathetic to the bushland character of Lane Cove. A summary of the key points made in the submissions is provided as follows:-


 


Summary of Key Points Made in Submissions

Response

Overall Design

Style OK for urban areas, steel signs inappropriate for parks and bushland areas

Comments noted

Sign concepts are pleasing to look at and easy to read

Comments noted

Signs add nothing distinctive, don’t enhance Lane Cove’s image

Final concepts have added features that make the signs distinctive to Lane Cove.

Be innovative in design with something that reflects the bushland character

Final concepts are more streamlined in shape with colours that reflect the bushland character

Darker background shows up details on sign well

Dark background colour chosen

White writing on dark background is highly visible even for passing cars

Dark background colour chosen

Colour that is more sympathetic to the surrounding environment

Dark background colour chosen

Signs with a subtle look may be more appropriate for well-established reserves

Final concepts are less obtrusive than previous concepts

Simplicity is key for signs in bushland reserves

Final concepts are simplified in shape and graphics

Avoid large clear spaces as they attract graffiti

Final concepts do not include large clear spaces

Shape of Signs

Signs look a little old fashioned in materials and proportions; Shaped headers and footers look very old fashioned

Headers and footers modified to more contemporary style

Question relevance of ornate patterns of fences and gates to justify shapes of the signs

Headers and footers modified to more contemporary style

Symmetrical, streamlined shaped signs look more modern

Final concepts are more streamlined and more modern in appearance

Decoration on header is an additional cost and become dated as styles change

Headers and footers modified to more contemporary style

Sceptical about the usefulness of the motifs in providing a precinct focus

Motifs deleted

Incorporate base into sign, structure to be integrated rather than on poles

Signs on 2 poles are easier to install in a variety of locations rather than signs with integrated base

Size of Signs

Signs need to be read at eye level

Final concepts show the text at or just below eye level

Signs are too large and too high; Sizes of all signs are too large; Size of largest sign seems very big indeed; Reduce the size of the large and medium signs

Signs reduced in size

Cantilevered signs look unbalanced and open to vandalism; Small signs on single posts are too high

Cantilevered signs in original draft concepts to be replaced by signs with 2 posts

Directional signs are unnecessarily high and look like street signs; Directional signs are too large and need 2 posts; Directional signs would detract from the bushland setting; Need low impact directional signs where paths intersect

Directional signs will be bollard style

Use bollard style for small signs to reduce sign clutter

Bollard style will be used

Information on the Signs

Additional themes should be included eg historical information and natural history

Space for information including maps and other information, be included at the design stage for individual parks/reserves

Can there be a panel to include a succinct history behind the naming of the place where appropriate

Space for information including maps and other information, be included at the design stage for individual parks/reserves

Can the signs include a brief description about the park that relates to the Cameraygal people

Space for information including maps and other information, be included at the design stage for individual parks/reserves

Can the motifs reflect the traditions of the Cameraygal people as much as possible

Motifs deleted

Additional messages about what is prohibited etc are intrusive and unnecessary

Final concepts need to include some pictograms for regulatory control but these are not too obtrusive

Advisory/compliance symbols should not detract from the main message

Final concepts include advisory/compliance symbols without being too obtrusive

Sign Replacement

Spend a fraction of the money and refurbish or replace the wooden signs in parks and bushland

Existing wooden signs are not large enough to include additional information required and many are at the end of their useful life; want to limit number of signs to reduce visual clutter

What is the program for replacing and upgrading signs

Maintenance manual to be developed in consultation with sign company making the signs

 

The responses have been considered and the draft signage concepts for the medium sized park entry signs have been amended as displayed in AT-2.

 

The legibility of the text is the driving force behind the sign size and shape. The name of the park or reserve is in horizontal text, and the size of the letters of the park name is similar to that used in the existing signs. The information between the two horizontal orange lines is flexible using site specific information, including maps, interpretive information, park facilities and regulatory information including any off leash dog exercise areas. The rear of the signs includes contours or other graphics to showcase an artistic aesthetic or interpretive information.

 

At this stage, the full suite of signs has not been developed fully, but the large signs will be scaled up from the medium sign, the small signs scaled down and the directional signs will be bollard style. Interpretive signs will be similar shape to the existing style, aluminium signs on a 450 angle on single or double post depending on size. All signs will have a coherent theme in colour, graphics and materials.

 

Two (2) colour options have been provided, rustic and charcoal, with a final decision of preferred colour still to be made. The roll out of the signs will be at the following parks and reserves: Stringybark Reserve, Tambourine Park, Newlands Park, Helen Street Reserve, Bob Campbell Oval and Gore Creek Reserve.

 

Conclusion

 

The submissions received during the public exhibition have been reviewed and changes made to the signage concepts as a result. The proposed signage concepts are now ready for adoption by Council as the sign style and form to be used in the parks and reserves. The concept style and form will set the direction for the rest of the family of signs.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.   The amended signage concepts developed by Artscape Consulting, dated April 2012 be adopted as the sign style and form and set the direction for the rest of the family of signs to be used open space; and

2.   Council staff be authorised to proceed to detailed documentation and implementation of the adopted sign style and form.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Original Signage Concepts December 2011

10 Pages

AT‑2 View

Final Signage Concepts April 2012

4 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 April 2012

2012-15 Draft Budget, Delivery Program and Operational Plan

 

 

Subject:          2012-15 Draft Budget, Delivery Program and Operational Plan    

Record No:    SU4553 - 16815/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson; Wayne Rylands; Jane Gornall; Michael Mason; Peter Brown 

 

 

Introduction

 

The 2012 - 2015 Budget has been formulated in the context of the ongoing tense economic environment.  This combined with major cost increases in utilities and the pending Carbon Tax, the pressure local government generally is under from a variety of sources, has once again made the development of this budget difficult. Major pressures include:-

·    Lower interest rates resulting in lower returns on income from investments

·    Continuation of additional superannuation costs due to a decline in financial returns, Council will need to contribute an additional $324,000 per annum over the next 8 years for staff who are in the Defined Benefits super fund.

·    Revenue decreasing relative to inflation, the government has approved a 3.6% increase in Rates, which has regard to the pending Carbon Tax, however, the exact impact is not yet understood.

·    Cost shifting from State & Federal government; and

·    Continued rate pegging from the NSW State government over more than 2 decades which has seen revenue lag behind actual costs.

Draft Budget for 2012 – 2015

Budget Summary

The 2012 - 2015 Budget (AT 1) was prepared using Council's normal format and arranged in program areas that reflect Council’s activities. The document contains explanatory notes that describe the activities covered by each of the programs.

The 2012 - 2015 Budget has been formulated on the basis of applying the principle of achieving a balanced budget in cash terms without the reliance on debt. On an AAS 27 Accrual Accounting basis, Council’s budget is balanced, after Grants and Capital contributions a surplus of $1,686,529 is anticipated. In terms of Cash Flow, the budget has a net impact on cash of negative $7.3 million, which includes Council’s commitment to the completion of the Meeting House Project at $1.5 million, $5,250,000 for Major Repairs to the Aquatic Centre and Expansion of the Gymnasium and $945,000 to commence the Little Lane Car Park Redevelopment

To achieve this, the 2012 - 2015 Draft Budget was formulated based on materials and contracts being pegged at 2011 - 12 levels. Any changes beyond this were made in an environment of contestability which required individual Divisional Managers to critically evaluate and justify program expenditures, matching each against their respective funding source thus leading to the containment of costs.   I believe, the draft budget as presented will continue to facilitate the achievement of Council’s objectives in the coming 12 months.

Update on Long term Financial Plan

Council prepared its first Long Term Financial Plan prepared in 2011. The Plan was developed to:

·    confirm and communicate Council’s financial objectives and current forecasts for the planning period; and

·    guide the preparation of Council’s Annual Budgets within the context of longer term financial sustainability.

The Plan is not a static document, but is reviewed annually as part of Council’s strategic planning and budget process and is updated to reflect changing internal and external circumstances.

An update of the Plan has been produced an included as (AT 2) which revises projections based on the past 12 months of operations and has consideration to the proposed 2012-2015 Budget. Compared to the original plan it shows an improved projected Cash Flow position as at 2021 of $13,077,000, up $1,268,000. Consequently all Council’s Key Performance Indicators have improved. The improved result is largely attributable to the recovery of a bad debt of $800,000. The plan has also been adjusted for project timing and revised income and expenditure projections.

Budget Highlights

Meeting House - $1,500,000 has been provided to complete construction of the Meeting House development.

Lane Cove Village Centre Projects - $1,000,000 has been provided to continue the refurbishment of the Plaza and other Town Centre Urban Design upgrades. A further $250,000 has been included to provide for more environmentally efficient lighting to the Centre.

Little Lane Car Park Redevelopment - $945,000 is provided to obtain a Construction Certificate and prepare to build the new facility.

Neighbourhood Shopping Precinct Improvements – A further $280,000 has been provided for Stage 3 of the refurbishment of the Greenwich Road Shopping Centre and Stage 1 of the refurbishment of the Beatrice Street Shopping Centre.

Lane Cove Aquatic Centre - $5,250,000 has been provided to commence refurbishment of the roof and expansion of the Gymnasium.

304-314 Burns Bay Road Redevelopment - $250,000 has been provided to undertake the design and investigation work for the proposed access road and possible community facility under the road structure.

Mowbray Precinct – Open Space - $100,000 has been provided to undertake investigation and possible design work for active recreation space in the Mowbray Precinct to cater for the additional population that will occur in this area.

Golf Course Precinct - $250,000 has been provided to further the investigative and design work that has been undertaken to date for the Multi-Purpose Sports Facility and possible 266 Longueville Road redevelopment to include an Aged Care Facility.

Kingslangley Road – Road Safety - $150,000 has been provided for footpath improvements to Kingslangley Road, outside the Greenwich Public School, to improve pedestrian safety.

Public Domain - $250,000 has been provided to further the investigative and design work for the proposed St Leonards Plaza & Bus/Rail Interchange improvements.

Corporate Services

Administration 1.1

Overall the budget has been struck on the basis of a zero increase where possible.

Council will need to continue to contribute an additional $324,000 per annum over the next 8 years for staff who are in the Defined Benefits super fund. Superannuation estimates in individual accounts will vary throughout the budget depending on the number of staff in the scheme.

The allocation for Facilities Redevelopment Planning has been maintained at a lower level. Projects to be investigated this year include 314 burns Bay Road and the Rosenthal Avenue Car Park. The projects from the Major Projects Plan that are currently underway are funded in the respective programs throughout the budget. They include: Meeting House Redevelopment Program 4.3.6, and Little Street Car Park 8.5.

The main focus for the Information Technology unit in 2012-13 will be the review of Council’s website, $30,000 has been provided for this project.

The Council election which will be administered by Council is due in September 2012, a budget of $125,000 has been provided, which if achieved will represent a saving of approximately 25% compared to the State Electoral Commission.

$45,000 is provided for Council’s Internal Audit program, which is a shared resource with other NSROC Councils, the program is now at full capacity with two auditors. The NSROC contribution has increased to reflect additional staff member employed by NSROC to assist with regional waste strategy development; regional ageing strategy development; economic strategy development; and implementation of NSROC sportsground strategy.

Organisation Development - Administration (Program 3.1)

Council has for the past 4-5 years experienced exceptionally low loss ratios for Workers Compensation, resulting in low premiums, which are essentially claims cost driven.  During 2009/10 Councils claims experience increased significantly, resulting in significant premium increases across the Council Workers Compensation estimates in the budget. Claims from 2010/11 returned to normal, however, as the calculation of premium includes a three year trail, premiums remain relatively high.

Council’s property insurance premium is slightly lower than 2011/12, but remain relatively high due to increased claims activity in the past by Council and more recently the whole market. Council insures property through the UIP property pool, and premiums include a weighting of 50% based on actual claims made.

Metropool, Council’s Public Liability Insurer, has expanded the range of insurance products it provides, Councillors and Officers, Fidelity Guarantee, Personal Accident and Casual Hirers insurance are all now included with the Public Liability Premium.  Council in recent years has enjoyed low premiums due to its good claims history. As a guide by size, Council represents 9% of the pool yet pays 5.4% of the contributions.

Environmental Services

Overall the Environmental Services Division is seeking to consolidate existing programme initiatives for the 2012/13 budget year.

Strategic Planning (Programme 2.1)

The Section 94 Plan Review is to be completed within 2012/13, to accord with the significant residential and commercial growth expected in the new LEP.  An ongoing series of LEP and DCP amendments will continue to be undertaken, and a number of ad hoc special projects arise each year, including in liaison with the development assessment section.

Development Control (Programme 6.2)

Council continues to resolve difficult DAs and minimise legal expenses. 

The legal budget is expected to fall as Council moves to establish an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel for major Council and contentious development applications.

The new fire safety register is anticipated to increase income marginally.


Environmental Health (Programme 6.3.1)

Council continues to undertake inspections for food shops on a risk based approach. 

Regulatory Services (Programme 6.4)

Council will focus on the efficient and safe movement of vehicles in the Lane Cove CBD and maintain its focus on minimising graffiti and vandalism.

The Sustainability Advisory Committee endorsed projects to be funded under the Sustainability Levy.  Management of Sustainability Levy projects will continue to be a key focus, with the LED Street Lighting in Rosenthal Avenue car park to be implemented and then extended to Longueville Road.

Household Garbage (Programme 9.2)

Tipping charges reflect increases to the NSW Government s.88 Levy imposed on waste placed in landfill.  Council will continue to implement its waste strategy which seeks to increase diversion rates above 50%. Work will commence on a new waste disposal and a separate waste collection contract.

Human Services

Major projects that will undertaken in the next twelve months include the planning and delivery of community facilities in The Meeting House; working with Centrehouse and the Music and Cultural Centre on planning for the most effective use of the community space in the Little Lane Development. Work will also be completed on upgrading the former Brownie Hut and gem Club premises at Greenwich.

The remedial work at the Aquatic Centre will be undertaken and liaison will be required with the public and the lessee of the Aquatic Centre to ensure that there is minimal interruption to the public use of the space.  In addition to the remedial work, the first stage of the Aquatic Centre Master Plan will be implemented. This stage includes the relocation of the main entry to the Pool deck level and the enlargement of the gymnasium. The Development Application for this stage has been submitted to Council. A large water tank will also be placed in the grounds to utilise water from the roof.

Funds have been made available to continue to implement the Social; Cultural and Disability Discrimination Action Plans. Funding for the ongoing operation of Gallery have been separated from the Cultural Plan implementation funds. These funds will assist in the running of the Gallery.

Programs across the Division have been assessed against the Plans listed above and the Sustainability Plan.

Kindy Cove Child Care Centre   (Program 4.3.2)

Kindy Cove Child Care Centre is run as a business unit of Council.  The budget is developed in close cooperation with the Management Advisory Committee.  Kindy Cove is in the process of implementing the new National Quality Standards. The Standards have had an impact on the cost of the Centre as rations for under 2 year olds is now 1:4. While the Centre ran on a notional 1:4 since opening in 1976 – the actual standard was 1:5 which gave leeway during staff breaks and short absences.  The Management Advisory Committee discussed the new fees at its March meeting.

Community Services   (Programs 4.3.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.4, 4.3.5, and 5.5)

These programs include provision for services to youth, the aged and disabled, cultural services and community groups generally.

The Youth Services Program continues to provide high quality services to our residents including initiatives such as Club 114 (for 11 to 14 year olds) and with the Youth Centre operating as a five day a week service from Tuesday to Saturday. Shorefest will continue in 2012/13 and funds have been included in the budget to cover this event.

Funds have been included in the budget to continue a growing range of seniors programmes such as Seniors Week; Seniors Concerts, regular seminars an enhanced and enlarged HEART programme (Healthy Eating and Recreation Time for Seniors); the BOOMers program; write to wellness and cooking for men. Council has received funding from the NSW Dept. Human Services – Ageing, Disability and Home Care for a part-time Community Development Officer – Aged and Disability and funds for the implementation of new programs. (Program 4.3.5)

Small increases have been allocated to a range of cultural activities in line with the spirit of the Cultural Plan.   All of our current festivals and events – Cameraygal; Autumn Harmony Festival and Sunset in the Village have been increasing in the range and number of events that Council and community organisations run in  line with the festival dates. Organisations and Council are especially finding the printed programmes and the publicity for the events – very beneficial in promoting their activities. An allocation of funds has been made for the recruitment of a part-time Cultural Development Officer to assist with running Council’s year-long program of events. 

Library and Information Services (Program 5.1)

The Library expenditure on materials has predominantly been maintained at existing levels, while operating expenses have risen in line with the increase in size of the new library. Small increases have been also been made in the resources votes.

The Shorelink contribution has increased based on the usage that the Library has experienced compared to the other Shorelink Libraries. An amount has also been included for the upgrade of equipment.

The main increases have been in the cleaning budget and the electricity budget. These increases are an indication of both the increase in the size of the building and in its usage. The cleaning vote increase is partly to offset the cost of the public toilets within the building.

The Library usage has increased by more than 20% in loans. In addition to loans, attendance at children’s activities has increased as has attendance at all events that are held in the Library. The Library has also added a number of new programmes, including Movies @Lane Cove; and the author talk program. The use of the Meeting and Training rooms is heavy, by Council and by community groups.

One of the most dramatic changes between the old building and the new building is the use that the public make of the space as a lounge room; a meeting and connecting space and as a study space for children and adults.

Facilities (Programs 4, 5 & 9)

Activities of this Branch are shown in programs where Council facilities appear.

The Facilities Branch works closely with the Environmental Services Division in the implementing actions arising out of the Sustainability Levy.

Funds have also been included to cover structural repair costs associated with the indoor pool complex. Funds have also been allocated to undertake Stage 1 of the Aquatic Centre Master Plan. Funds have also been allocated to monitor the Aquatic centre lease throughout this financial year.

Funds have been allocated from the Sustainability Levy for the installation of a water tank within the Aquatic Centre grounds. The tank will capture water from the roof for reuse.

An amount has been allocated to Carisbrook House for the installation of a new kitchen in what is currently the laundry. 

Open Space and Urban Services

Open Space   (Programs 5.7.1 – 5.7.6)

During 2012 - 2013 a number of capital improvements are planned for Council’s Open Space areas including parks, sporting grounds and water recreation.

Funding has been included to continue implementation of Council’s Signage Strategy. Funding has also been included to finalise the upgrade to Goodlet Reserve, adjacent to the Meeting House Redevelopment.

Further funding has been allocated towards the upgrading and replacement of Council’s playground equipment to ensure compliance with the relevant Australian Standards. This is an on-going program that will link with the Council’s Playground Strategy and help cater for the additional needs of a growing population.

Funds have been provided to install a floating pontoon adjacent to the new Burns Bay Boat Ramp, to make for easier access for all boat enthusiasts, including kayakers and rowers.

Work will be undertaken on the sea wall next to the Greenwich Baths, and some new street furniture will be installed for community use.

The boat lockers at Northwood will have necessary structural repair work undertaken.

Increased funding has been allocated to further develop the Strategic Review of the Golf Course Precinct and 266 Longueville Road.

Additional funding has been allocated to Blackman Park to finalise the levelling of the fields.

The perimeter fence around Tantallon Oval will be upgraded to enhance the field as Council’s premier sporting field. Tantallon Oval has won numerous awards and accolades from the Shires Cricket Association for its presentation and performance for sporting events.

Funding has also been included to provide some permanent outdoor training equipment. This will include sit up and chin up style equipment.

Within the Bushland budget, funds have been allocated for the Volunteer Bushcare program as well as for the regular Bushland Management Program.  The Bushland Program also has a number of continuing works that are funded by Grant allocations.

Engineering and Support Services (Program 8.1)

Further work will be undertaken on the strategic traffic and transport studies for the Lane Cove Town Centre, St Leonards Commercial Precinct, Mowbray Road Residential Precinct and Burns Bay Residential Precinct.

Depot modifications will include further upgrade of the security fencing around the site perimeter.

Roads (Program 8.2)

The Roads program includes a slight increase in capital works.

The Federal Roads to Recovery Program has been extended by the Federal Government and will also be utilised for improvements to improve the condition of substandard roads identified in Council’s Asset Management System.

Council has requested a grant of $210,000 for the RTA Rehabilitation of Regional Roads Program and $22,000 for the 3x3 Program to be spent on Regional Roads. An amount of $61,000 has also been provided for regular maintenance on Regional Roads.

Ancillary Works (Program 8.3)

Income from reinstatements/restorations has been maintained to reflect an expected continuance of a similar amount of work by the Council works staff. 

Funding for street lighting expenditure has been based on the latest AER indication that Energy Australia could increase their infrastructure and service charges in this coming financial year. However, significant savings have been attained through Council’s new energy agreement with Momentum Energy.

Funds have been allocated to construct traffic signals at Longueville Road/Little Street/Birdwood Avenue.

Council’s bicycle funding has been maintained to allow increased implementation of Council’s Bicycle Plan.

Allowance is made for the construction of a retaining wall in William Edward Street.

Further work will be undertaken on improving the public domain in the St Leonards Commercial Precinct.

The Greenwich Road Shops are programmed for Stage 3 renewal whilst Beatrice Street Shops are programmed for Stage 1 renewal of the street furniture and footpath pavement in accordance with Council’s Neighbourhood Shopping Precinct Plan.

Footpaths (Program 8.4)

Funding has been maintained in an endeavour to maintain the general footpath condition.  Provision has been made for continuing upgrade works including the provision of pram ramps at numerous key locations. Asset renewal in the footpaths program also matches Council’s commitment to increase asset renewal rates to the equivalent of depreciation.

Parking Areas (Program 8.5)

The transfer of responsibility for enforcement of parking to local government is assisting more effective management of the available parking stock and providing additional revenues. The installation of parking meters to St Leonards has resulted in improved management of the parking supply and has also provided additional revenues. The Birdwood Avenue Car Park and Market Square also provide additional revenues which assist in offsetting their operational costs to Council.

Funding for Parking Meter maintenance has been increased slightly due to higher operating costs.

Funding has been provided to build on the public domain analysis that has been undertaken on the Rosenthal Car Park site.

Bus Shelters (Program 8.6)

This program is funded under a contractual arrangement with Adshel.

Water Transport (Program 8.7)

Cleaning maintenance will be carried out as part of an ongoing agreement with Maritime NSW, who have taken over responsibility for general maintenance and upgrades/major repairs to the ferry wharves within the Lane Cove LGA (and other Council areas adjoining the harbour).

Street Sweeping (Program 9.3)

The expenditure for mechanical sweeping remains unaltered in line with the new tender adopted in late 2010.

Funding has been maintained for hand sweeping to maintain Council’s current level of service

Other Garbage Expenses (Program 9.4)

The contract for servicing of litter bins has been included with the contract for domestic waste collection.  The allocation makes allowance for increased tipping fees.

Urban Stormwater (Program 9.5)

Funding for maintenance of stormwater has been increased to allow additional work to be undertaken and maintain Council’s system at an acceptable level of service.  A program of pit upgrading is expected to reduce the frequency of blockages and this program will continue into the future as required.

The continuation of the Stormwater Levy will allow Council to fund further capital works to replace and upgrade the system as required.

Other Community Facilities (Program 9.7)

Provision has been maintained for two staff in the Plaza in the 2012 – 2013 Budget. Funding has also been provided for upgrading works as recommended in the Lane Cove Alive program.

Sustainability Levy

This year Council continues to fastrack Sustainability initiatives utilising the 6% Sustainability Levy. Projects this year to be managed by Open Space and Urban Services can be split into two categories new and continuing. The new projects include:-

 

·    Walking Track Upgrades

·    Backyard Wildlife Program

·    Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program – Civic Centre Lighting

·    Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program – LED Street Lighting

·    Pedestrian Access Mobility Plan Implementation

·    Better Business Partnership

·    Aquatic Centre Rainwater Harvesting

·    Community Nursery Upgrade

Budget Revenues

Rates Levy

The Minister for Local Government has announced the general rate peg increase as 3.6% for 2012-13.

General Purpose (Ordinary) Rates

It is proposed to levy two (2) Ordinary Rates in 2012-2013 in accordance with S.492 and S.497(a) of the Local Government Act.

i.       An Ordinary Residential Rate of 0.178038 cents in the dollar, on the Land Value of all Rateable Land categorised as Residential in accordance with S.516 of the Local Government Act, (with the exception of heritage properties which are rated on their heritage value), with a Minimum Rate of $520, to yield $14,600,878.

ii.       An Ordinary Business Rate of 0.775291 cents in the dollar, on the Land Value of all Rateable Land categorised as Business in accordance with S.516 of the Local Government Act, with a Minimum Rate of $774 to yield $5,338,281.

Car Parking Special Rate

It is proposed to levy a Car Parking Special Rate on Business premises in Lane Cove (as per metes and bounds description as advertised in the North Shore Times on 13 June 1979), of 0.180580 cents in dollar with a minimum rate of $2 per assessment, to raise $143,894.

Domestic Waste Management (DWM) Charges

Domestic Waste Management Services are rendered by Council to all residential properties (including flats and strata’s) in the Lane Cove Municipality. DWM does not include waste services rendered to business rated properties. As provided for in the Local Government Act the “reasonable” cost of DWM is fully recoverable and is reflected in the recommended charge for Domestic Waste Management in the Management Plan.

The Draft Budget provides for the levying of a Domestic Waste Management Charge (under S.496 of the Act) of $377.00 for each 80 litre MGB and recycling service on all rateable and non-rateable residential properties. Additional DWM services to Owner Occupied Single Residential Dwellings are available at $5.52 per week. Charges for DWM services rendered to residential units above business premises, or extra DWM services rendered to other premises, are set out in the Schedule of Fees and Charges for 2012/2013.

Interest Charges

Interest is to be charged on overdue Rates and DWM Charges in accordance with S.566(3) of the Act. The maximum rate of interest payable has not yet been announced by the Minister for 2012/2013.

Valuation Base

Rates for 2012/2013 will be levied on the 1 July 2010 Base Date Valuations as recently issued by the Valuer General.

Fees & Charges

Based on the Reserve Bank of Australia inflation is forecast  at 2.25% This has been used as a reference for any recommended increases in the Schedule of Fees and Charges for 2012/2013 (AT 4) for those charges which are set by Council.

S.611 Charges – Infrastructure Charges

Council is proposing to levy under S611 of the Local Government Act, on persons for the time being in possession, occupation or enjoyment of a rail, pipe, wire, pole, cable, tunnel or structure laid, erected, suspended, constructed or placed on, under or over a public place. The charges are based on the nature and extent of the benefit enjoyed by the person concerned. Council will levy a charge on AGL in respect of gas pipes occupying Council land.

Loan Borrowing

It is not proposed to raise any new loans. There are no renewal loans requiring refinancing during this period.


Salaries and Wages

Salaries and Wages include provision for staff progression through Council's revised Salary System. All other provisions are as per the Local Government (State) Award. Sick leave has been based on 50% of leave entitlement and is based on sick leave history.

Depreciation Charges

In accordance with the requirements of Australian Accounting Standard AAS27, the Draft Budget incorporates Depreciation of fixed assets. Depreciation theoretically is the consumption of these   assets over their useful life - amounts are provided each year to reflect this consumption and do not involve the movement of cash.

Draft Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Program and Operational Plan

Last year Council implemented the integrated planning framework. This new framework replaced the Management Plan Management Plan with a Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Program, Operational Plan and Resourcing Strategies. 

The Draft Community Strategic Plan, Lane Cove 2025 was adopted and sets the long term strategic direction for the future. Council also adopted its long term financial, assets and workforce plans.  Council’s Issue Plans such as the Social Plan, Sustainability Action Plan and Recreational Plan to name a few, were also used to develop the strategic direction of Lane Cove 2025.

The 2012-13 Draft Delivery Program and Operation Plan (AT 3) outlines the strategies and actions to be implemented over the coming 12 months in order to achieve the goals of the Community Strategic Plan.

Community Consultation

It is a statutory requirement that the Draft Budget, Delivery Program (Incorporating Operational Plan) 2012-2013, and Fees and Charges 2012-2013, following Council’s initial consideration, be placed on public exhibition for a period of not less than twenty eight (28) days. Following this, Council must consider any public comments submitted before the Plan can be adopted.  

It is proposed to exhibit these documents from 20 April 2012 until 6 June 2012. A report will be prepared for Council on 18 June 2012 advising of the results of the community consultation and recommending final adoption. Until the Delivery Program is adopted, Council is unable to levy rates and charges for the fiscal year for which the plan is prepared.

Consultation Statement of Intent

The consultation is designed to provide the community with the opportunity to comment on the proposed initiatives and actions over the next 12 months.

The methods of consultation proposed are outlined below. The proposed exhibition will be at both the Civic Centre and the Library to final confirmation. 

Methods

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Open

Target Audience

Whole Community

Whole Community

Proposed Medium

Exhibition/ Press release/ Advertising/ enewsletter

Survey

Indicative Timing

April - June

April - June

           

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.         Council adopt for the purpose of public exhibition, the Draft Budget for the year to 30 June 2012-15 Draft Fees and Charges 2012-13, Draft Delivery Program (Incorporating Operational Plan) 2012-2013 and 2012 Update on the Long Term Financial Plan;

2.         Council proceed to public exhibition as per the consultation strategy outlined in the report; and

3.         Following public exhibition, the Draft Budget, Draft Fees and Charges, Draft Delivery Program (Incorporating Operational Plan) and 2012 Update on the Long Term Financial Plan together with any submissions received, be considered at the Council meeting to be held 18 June, 2012.

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Budget 2012 / 2015

87 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑2 View

Lane Cove Council 2012 Update to Long term Financial Plan

12 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑3 View

Draft Lane Cove Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2012 - 2013

79 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑4 View

Draft Fees and Charges 2012 - 2013

32 Pages

Circulated Separately

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 April 2012

Feedback Sought on Proposed Rezoning Changes

 

 

Subject:          Feedback Sought on Proposed Rezoning Changes    

Record No:    SU1454 - 16443/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Michael Mason 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Hon Brad Hazzard, MP, Minister for Planning and Infrastructure is proposing to grant Councils delegated powers to make certain LEPs and to introduce a review process for proponents and Councils pre and post Gateway decisions.  The Minister is seeking feedback from Council to his proposals.  This report discusses the proposals and recommends qualified support.

 

Proposal

 

The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, the Hon Brad Hazzard, is seeking Council’s views on the proposal to increase delegated LEP plan making powers to Councils in the following areas:-

·    Site specific rezonings;

·    Reclassifications of land;

·    Heritage LEPs;

·    Section 73A matter (administrative errors and amendments); and

·    Mapping alterations and corrections.

 

As part of the new delegation for Council to determine rezoning applications it is also proposed to create a review or appeal mechanism where there is currently no right of appeal or review to a proponent of a rezoning request to a Council and the Gateway.

 

Pre-Gateway Reviews

 

The proposed LEP review process would apply to a planning proposal not supported by Council. Under the review process the planning proposal would be reviewed by the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) or Planning Advisory Committee (PAC).

 

Gateway Review

 

The proposed review process would also permit a proponent or Council to request a review of a Gateway Determination within 40 days of the determination.

 

Comment

 

The Department of Planning and Infrastructure has provided the following information providing details of the proposed changes to the plan making parts (Part 3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act:-

·         Media Release by the Hon Brad Hazzard, Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, Minister assisting the Premier on Infrastructure NSW (attached as AT-1);

·         Department of Planning and Infrastructure Fact Sheet  More local, more accountable plan making dated March 2012 (attached as AT-2); and

·         Department of Planning and Infrastructure proposal detail (attached as AT-3).

 

Discussion

 

The above information by the Department provides an overview of the purpose and administrative processes of proposed amendments to streamline plan making (PART 3) provisions.

 

The proposed changes to current plan making procedures would provide Council with the delegation to make LEPs of a minor nature and the ability for proponents of rezoning proposals (including Council) to request a review of a Gateway determination (within 40 days) or a condition imposed by the Gateway (14 days).  Proponents or developers may seek a review of a Council decision not to support a planning review.  In such cases the review would be undertaken by the JRPP or PAC.

 

The delegation to make an LEP of a minor and/or administrative nature would be vested with the General Manager and the principal planner by specific powers along with provisions and responsibilities in the exercise of such.

 

Comments

 

Delegations

 

Clearly, any move to reduce the time taken to make an LEP is to be applauded.  There are numerous occasions where simple spot rezonings with little or no community impact are delayed for extended periods due to the current convoluted and time consuming plan making process. The same concern applies to minor amendments that include definitions, cartographic and text errors and omissions.

 

The proposal to extend delegations to Councils’ is welcomed.

 

Right of Review – Proponent (Pre-Gateway)

 

The right of a proponent to request a review of a Council determination not to support a planning proposal that would seek a rezoning would be a new right not currently available to proponents.

 

Currently the Council is the first port of call for a proponent seeking a change to a land use zone.  If the Council declines the request the proponent has no further option.  It can be argued that a right of review is a fair and reasonable approach and such should be entertained by Council.  Under the proposal put forward by the Minister the review would be undertaken by the local JRPP or PAC.

 

At the heart of any rezoning request Council is bound to consider not only the relevant State and Regional planning strategies but also the likely impacts on the local community.  While the JRPP and the PAC would also be bound by the same principles and good planning practice, it has a different make up to that of Council and has the potential to attract similar criticisms as the previous Part 3a provisions.  Bearing such in mind, it is considered that it is appropriate for this review function to be undertaken by Council’s Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP).

 

Council is currently in the process of establishing a Lane Cove IHAP and given the intended composition includes legal, professional and community representatives, it is appropriate that it also function to consider pre Gateway planning proposal reviews. 

 

Having regard to the above, it is suggested that Council favourably consider the call by the Minister for a planning proposal review process for proponents that is credible and depoliticised, be supported and that Council advise the Minister such a review process must be credible and have the confidence of the local community and that the review of pre Gateway planning proposals be undertaken not by the JRPP or the PAC but the local IHAP.

 

Right of Review – Council and Proponent (Post Gateway)

 

In those cases where a planning proposal to rezone land has been declined or conditions imposed by the Gateway process and the Council or the proponent seeks a review of either the decision or an imposed condition, it is appropriate that the review be undertaken by the JRPP or the PAC.  Given that the Gateway process is primarily considering the regional and State strategy context, the skill mix and make up of the JRPP and PAC is supported for a post Gateway review.

 

Conclusion

 

Council has for many years embraced the practice of fair and reasonable review of its decisions.  The proposal by the Minister to improve and streamline plan making functions by increasing his delegation to Council when a Gateway determination issued is supported.

 

The proposal to introduce a review process for proponents seeking a landuse rezoning from Council is also supported in principle.  However, the proposal to have the JRPP or the PAC undertake such a review can be perceived to be fundamentally flawed given the function and make up of these bodies.

 

It is considered that the Minister be advised that Council supports a credible and depoliticised planning proposal review process for proponents seeking a pre Gateway review and such should be undertaken by the local IHAP.

 

Also, that Council support a review process for Council and proponents seeking review of a Gateway determination or imposed condition and such review should be undertaken by either the JRPP or the PAC,

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council advise the Hon Brad Hazzard, MP, Minister for Planning and Infrastructure that Council supports:-

1.   The proposal to improve and streamline the plan making process by increasing certain delegations when a Gateway determination is issued.

2.   The proposal to introduce an independent pre-Gateway review process which may be requested by a proponent before a planning proposal has been forwarded for Gateway determination, provided that such review is undertaken by the local IHAP rather than the JRPP or the PAC.  This would provide a credible and depoliticised review process and avoid the perception of bias given the make up of the JRPP and PAC.

3.   The proposal to introduce an independent post Gateway review process for Council or proponents following a Gateway determination.  It is appropriate that given the State and Regional strategic issues to consider that such review be undertaken by the JRPP or PAC.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Media Release - Feedback Sought on Rezoning Changes

1 Page

AT‑2 View

Dept of Planning Fact Sheet - More local more accountable plan making

2 Pages

AT‑3 View

NSW Govt Planning & Infrastructure - More local, more accountable plan making

7 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 April 2012

Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held Tuesday 20 March 2012

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held Tuesday 20 March 2012    

Record No:    SU1326 - 16380/12

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Nick Karahlis  

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday 20 March 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 20 March 2012 be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Agenda - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 20 March 2012

23 Pages

AT‑2 View

Minutes - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 20 March 2012

3 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 April 2012

Funding under Round 4 of Sustainability Small Grants Program

 

 

Subject:          Funding under Round 4 of Sustainability Small Grants Program    

Record No:    SU4510 - 16390/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Claire Budden 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report advises of organisations seeking funds under Round 4 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program. Council received two (2) applications seeking a total of $2656.03 applied for in funding. The report recommends providing funding to the total of $1584.89.

 

Background

 

Council, under Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993, may grant financial assistance to organisations. This report discusses the application process for Round 4 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program and recommends Council provide the grants nominated. 

 

Under the program Council calls for applications for financial assistance from organisations either based in Lane Cove Local Government Area (LGA), or if not based in the LGA, whose assistance addresses identified needs of people within the LGA. 

 

Groups on Council’s financial assistance register were notified of the Sustainability Small Grants Program, and the program was promoted on Council’s website and through the Sustainability

E-Newsletter.  Applications closed on Monday 5 March 2012.

 

Discussion

 

All applications were assessed against the criteria provided in AT-1 by a panel comprising of the Chair of the Sustainability Advisory Committee and staff.  Applicants were required to show how their application could meet the needs of Lane Cove by referring to Council’s Sustainability Action Plan. Included in AT-2 is a summary of all the applications, panel consideration and recommended funding.

 

One application, for the Lane Cove Occasional Childcare Centre, is recommended for partial funding. The assessment panel supports the provision of infrastructure to expand the vegetable garden at the centre. However, as the grant program is intended to facilitate projects that will ultimately be self-sufficient, funding for ongoing expenses such as seedlings and fertiliser is not recommended.

 

The budget for the Sustainability Small Grants Program includes a provision of $20,000 in funding for this financial year (Round 3 and Round 4).

 

Conclusion

 

Council’s Sustainability Small Grants Program assists the development of a range of initiatives that are of direct and practical benefit to a sustainable Lane Cove community. Council’s Sustainability Action Plan provides guidance to assist in identifying priority projects for funding.


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.    Endorse funds under Round 4 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program for the following projects:-

·    $1540 – Chatswood South PermaPatch Inc;

·    $844.89 – Lane Cove Occasional Childcare Centre

2.    Give Public Notice of the proposed funding under Round 4 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program, and subject to no objections being received, grant the funds as outlined above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Selection Criteria for Round 4 of Sustainability Small Grants Program

1 Page

AT‑2 View

Summary of Grant Applications Received Under Round 4 and Panel Recommendations

1 Page

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 April 2012

Alcohol Free Zones in Lane Cove LGA

 

 

Subject:          Alcohol Free Zones in Lane Cove LGA    

Record No:    SU3530 - 16383/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      David Wilson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At its meeting of the 6 February 2012 Council resolved to “undertake a review of New Years Eve arrangements at Greenwich with a view to minimising alcohol related antisocial behaviour at future celebrations”.

 

Following the New Year’s Eve celebrations at Manns Point Reserve, a number of complaints were lodged with Council and the police in regard to the number of intoxicated persons that were present, the unruly behaviour and the condition of the Reserve following the gathering.

 

After consultation with representatives of the Local Area Command, Council officers were advised that the most effective means of controlling future gathering on News Years Eve, would be to establish Alcohol Prohibited Areas (APA) and Alcohol Free Zones (AFZ) for the period of 31 December and 1 January at those parks or public places that are likely to attract persons that want to gather and consume alcohol and streets and car parks in proximity of these public reserves.

 

It is recommended that a proposal to establish Alcohol Prohibited Areas in all parks and reserves and Alcohol Free Zones in the streets surrounding these reserves that are in proximity of Sydney Harbour and likely to be used for viewing New Years Eve celebrations be referred for public consultation for a period of 6 weeks and be advertised as per Council’s community consultation policy. 

 

Background

 

In 2011 a number of Councils in the vicinity of Sydney Harbour implemented APA and AFZ’s across their Local Government Area’s (LGA) to assist in managing the increasing number of people that were gathering in public areas to participate in the New Year’s Eve celebrations. In recent years the level of alcohol consumption and unruly behaviour has lead to a greater number of public areas being declared as APA and AFZ’s.

 

It was apparent, after the most recent NYE celebrations, that Manns Point was listed in a Sydney newspaper and on a prominent website, as a park that had a good viewing area for the NYE fireworks as well as a location where alcohol could be consumed. In contrast to other locations Manns Point was not a declared APA.

 

The reason that this and other areas in the Lane Cove LGA had not been declared as APA and AFZ’s, was that this particular location in the past had generally only attracted families and those looking for a quiet, low key location to view the NYE celebrations and therefore didn’t warrant the area being regulated in this manner.

 

Due to the adoption of APA and AFZs in North Sydney LGA, the Manns Point location became a more attractive location for those looking to consume alcohol. As a result approximately 2000+ people were in attendance at this location, with anecdotal reports that a large number of heavily intoxicated persons were present, some sections of the crowd were unruly and rocks were being thrown from the headland that resulted in a woman being hit in the face and requiring medical assistance. It should be noted that no arrests were made on the evening by the small contingent of police that were required to attend and observe the gathering.

 

The following morning (1 January 2012) Council was in receipt of a large number of complaints regarding the amount of waste that was covering the Manns Point Reserve. The waste was comprised of significant amounts of alcohol bottles (wine and beer), general paper litter and camping furniture.

 

The additional waste bins and additional temporary toilet facilities that were provided at Manns Point were consistent with the resources that were provided in the previous years, but with the increased number of people gathering at this location, these facilities were inadequate to cope with such an increase in numbers at this location.

 

Discussion

 

In consultation with the Local Area Command, the following parks and roads in the Lane Cove LGA are proposed to be established as APA’s and AFZ’s from 12.01am on 31 December 2012 to 12 Midday on 1 January 2013 in accordance with Section 632A and Section 644 of the Local Government Act 1993:

 

Alcohol Free Zones (streets, car parks and footpaths):-

·    Prospect Street Greenwich;

·    O’Connell Street Greenwich;

·    Albert Street Greenwich;

·    George Street Greenwich;

·    Victoria Street, Greenwich;

·    O’Connell Street, Greenwich;

·    East Street, Greenwich;

·    Mitchell Street, Greenwich;

·    Dunois Street, Longueville;

·    Wharf Road, Longueville;

·    Wilson Street, Longueville;

·    Arabella Street, Longueville;

·    Nott Lane, Longueville;

·    Stuart Street, Longueville;

·    Mary Street, Longueville;

·    Northwood Road (to Point Road) Northwood;

·    Kellys Esplanade, Northwood;

·    Kallaroo Road, Riverview; and

·    Karingal Road, Riverview.

 

Alcohol Prohibited Areas (public parks and reserves):-

·    Manns Point Reserve, Greenwich;

·    Greenwich Point Reserve, Greenwich;

·    Shell Park, Greenwich;

·    Aquatic Park, Longueville;

·    Griffith Park, Longueville;

·    Longueville Park, Longueville;

·    Wharf Road Reserve, Longueville;

·    Woodford Bay – Bicentennial Reserve, Northwood;

·    Lloyd Rees Park, Northwood; and

·    Tambourine Park, Riverview.

 

A map of proposed alcohol free zones and alcohol prohibited areas is attached as AT-1The proposal to incorporate Public Reserves and surrounding streets will provide the Police an enforceable area to control along this precinct and assist in the management of crowd behaviour within the area and surrounding streets. The Police have advised that by establishing  APA’s and AFZ’s it will allow them to manage and control these areas more effectively, where groups of people gather and consume alcohol that may result in the general amenity and safety of an area being negatively impacted upon.

 

Legislation

 

Council is able to establish Alcohol Free Zones (AFZ’s) for roads, footpaths and car parks in accordance with Section 644 (4) of the Local Government Act, 1993 (the Act) that states;

 

“(4) The proposed alcohol-free zone may comprise either or both of the following:

(a) a public road or part of a public road,

(b) a public place that is a car park or part of a car park.”

 

The primary purpose of this Section is to prohibit the drinking of alcohol on public streets.

 

In addition to regulate the consumption of alcohol in public parks and reserves, Council is able to establish Alcohol Prohibited Areas (APA) in accordance with Section 632A(4) that states;

 

“(4) A council may declare any public place (or any part of a public place) in the council’s area to be an "alcohol prohibited area" for the purposes of this section. However, an alcohol prohibited area cannot be established in relation to a public place that is a public road (or part of a public road) or car park.”

 

The primary purpose of this Section is for police to have the power to seize, confiscate and dispose of alcohol where persons are found to be consuming alcohol in a public park.

 

In regards to both Sections of the Act, extensive public consultation is required and approval from the Local Area Command prior to adoption by Council.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to inform local residents of Council’s intention to establish Alcohol Free Zones in the Lane Cove Local Government Area. Any comments received would be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with the establishment of Alcohol Free Zones in the Lane Cove Local Government Area.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Key Message givers eg. Residents of affected areas. Owners of licensed premises, Local Police.

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisements,

E-newsletter, Posters on Public Notice in Library and Plaza

Notification Letters

 

Public and

Website Exhibitions

 

Indicative Timing

April to June

April to June

April to June

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal to establish an APA at Manns Point Reserve and an AFZ in the surrounding streets is a reaction to the circumstances of the most recent NYE celebrations and the need to provide a safe environment that families and the general public can view the NYE fireworks without it being ruined by intoxicated persons.

 

Subject to this review, it is proposed to declare all parks in the Lane Cove LGA, where NYE celebrations can be viewed from, as APA’s and the streets that adjoin these public parks as AFZ’s. The challenge for Council in responding to this issue is to ensure that in addressing the issue of intoxicated persons and unruly behaviour that occurred at Manns Point Reserve, that we address the issue strategically to allow the local police to take effective action where required.

 

Accordingly an holistic approach is recommended to address all parks in the locality, where large groups are likely to gather to celebrate NYE and to watch the Sydney Harbour fireworks.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.    Pursuant to Section 632A and Section 644 of the Local Government Act, 1993 the proposal to declare the areas listed in the report as Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas be placed on public exhibition for 6 weeks and community consultation take place in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the report; and

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Proposed location for Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas

1 Page

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 April 2012

National General Assembly of Local Government 2012

 

 

Subject:          National General Assembly of Local Government 2012    

Record No:    SU204 - 16306/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

Council has received correspondence from the Australian Local Government Association inviting Councillors to attend the 2012 National General Assembly of Local Government to be held at the National Convention Centre in Canberra from 17 − 20 June 2012.  The report recommends that Council endorse the Mayor to attend the 2012 National General Assembly and submit motions on  Funding for Local Government to meet the New Standards for Access to Premises and the introduction of standards for electric bicycles.

Discussion

The National General Assembly of Local Government typically attracts more than 700 mayors, councillors and senior officers from councils across Australia and is an opportunity to contribute to the development of national local government policy. The theme for this years National General Assembly of Local Government is:- 'National Voice, Local Choice − Infrastructure, Planning, Services'. A Draft Program for the National General Assembly is shown attached as AT-1. The approximate cost of the conference is $1800/person including registration, accommodation and two formal dinners.  There is sufficient funding in the Councillors Continuing Education Account to cover this amount.

Motions for the National General Assembly Business Papers must follow the following principles:-

1.    Fall under one of the themes − Infrastructure, Planning or Services;

2.    Be relevant to the work of local government nationally; and

3.    Complement or build on the policy objectives of state and territory associations.

Motions are required to be submitted to the Australian Local Government Association no later than 27 April 2012. Council staff recommend that the following motions be submitted to the National General Assembly.

This motion was proposed by Council and adopted by the NSW Local Government Association but as it is a Commonwealth Standard it has consequences for all Australian local councils.

Motion

That the Australian Local Government Association make representations to the Federal Government for special funding for Local Government in order to make local buildings and public spaces more accessible for people with a disability to meet requirements of the Disability (Access to Premises - Buildings) Standard 2010.

National Objective

Maintaining, upgrading and building community infrastructure is a key priority for all Australian local councils. The Disability (Access to Premises - Buildings) Standard 2010 places increased requirements on local councils when upgrading and building new facilities. There is a real need for targeted funding from the Federal Government to assist local councils in accelerating the upgrade and building of facilities and public spaces that are more accessible for people with a disability.

Summary of Key Arguments

On 1 May 2011 the Federal Government introduced the Disability (Access to Premises - Buildings) Standard 2010. This requires any new buildings or upgrades to existing council buildings must meet the new standards for access to premises. Last Year the Federal Government’s Accessible Communities initiative attracted 377 eligible applications from 277 local governments. However, only 76 successful projects were funded under this $5 million initiative. Obviously there is a huge unmet need for project funding. Targeted funding would assist and accelerate Local Government in making local buildings and public spaces more accessible for people with disability.

The following motion was submitted by Council to the 2011 National General Assembly but wasn’t considered.

Motion

That the Federal Government take urgent action on introducing standards for the importing, design, construction and use of electric bicycles.

National Objective

With rising petrol prices and the emphasis on being more sustainable, there has been an increased demand for more sustainable transport. Electric bicycles are currently being imported into Australia as a viable sustainable alternative to traditional transport options. In the next 5-10 years, Australian local councils will be required to develop policies, facilities and infrastructure to meet the increased demand for electric bikes. There is an urgent need for technical standards to be introduced by the Federal Government that governs the importing of electric bikes, technical standards for their design and construction, their use on Australian roads and associated infrastructure.

Preamble

The rate at which electric bicycles are growing in Australia is outstripping the Commonwealth’s ability to adequately legislate. Electric bikes have a wide range of power systems, brake types etc. This gives Councils, who provide the majority of the infrastructure problems in ensuring safe use of residential streets, bike paths, footpaths, car parks etc. Legislation is needled urgently to address the gap in standards for the importing of electric bikes, technical standards for their design and construction, their use on Australian roads and associated infrastructure.  

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.   The Mayor attend the National General Assembly of Local Government to be held in Canberra from 17-20 June 2012; and

2.   Council submit motions on Funding for Local Government to meet the New Standards for Access to Premises and the introduction of standards for electric bicycles for discussion and debate at the 2012 National General Assembly of Local Government.

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

2012 National General Assembly Draft Program

16 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 April 2012

Policy Manual Review - Phase 1

 

 

Subject:          Policy Manual Review - Phase 1    

Record No:    SU241 - 16311/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

Council’s Policy Manual (“Policy Manual”) provides a list of all policies adopted by Council.  To ensure that the Policy Manual continues to be a useful and current document, Council has undertaken a review of the policies contained within.  This report forms the first of a series of reports to Council on the findings of the review and recommendations to Council for amendment to the Policy Manual and includes all policies falling under the headings A-D (inclusive)

Background

All of Council’s policies are contained in the Policy Manual. The policies relate to various subjects across all Council divisions, on matters ranging from the keeping of animals, community consultation, fences, and personnel to local libraries. 

The ‘Review of Council Policies’ policy at D01004 of the Policy Manual states that a review of Council's policies be carried out every 4 years.

Discussion

Corporate Services has commenced an organisational review of the current Policy Manual. This report constitutes the first of a succession of reports to be made to Council on the results of the review.  Given the extensive nature of the Policy Manual, it is intended that a report to Council will be made in parts so that Council is provided a genuine opportunity to consider any proposed amendments. 

The previous review of the Policy Manual was carried out in 2008 and the recommendations of that review were reported to Council. The review in that instance was based on “working legal principles” adopted as follows:

“1. A policy must be flexible in form and substance and must not be worded in dogmatic or mandatory terms.

In other words, it must always be possible for a person to show cause why some policy should not apply, or should apply with certain modifications, in his or her particular case.

2.   A policy must not truncate discretionary decision making.

In other words, a policy must not fetter Council’s discretion, nor bind Council to act in a certain way in all cases.

3.   A policy must assist in providing consistency in administrative discretion-making whilst at the same time permitting each matter to be properly considered and determined on its own individual merits.

4.   A policy must not be inconsistent with or repugnant to primary legislation, secondary legislation or the general law.”

This report provides recommended amendments for policies falling under headings A-D. As noted in Council’s previous review of the Policy Manual, many of the policies originated out of a response to a perceived problem in the past and the value of such policies may have diminished over time given a change in circumstances.  In addition, where Council has adopted a policy which effectively supersedes a policy in the Policy Manual, amendments to minimise repetition are recommended.


Recommended Amendments

Attached as AT-1 is the Policy Manual from headings A to D with the recommended amendments shown throughout.  The following provides commentary on the policies to be amended.  Only policies recommended for amendment are listed.  Where a policy is not being reviewed at the same time as the current series, a separate report will be produced for consideration by Council at a later date (e.g. D04001 Display of Goods on Council Footpaths).

A05001 – Appeals – Development and Building Applications

This policy relates to Councils practice in relation to Development and Building Application Appeals.  It is recommended that this policy be moved to D03000 Development Applications and allocated the new policy number D03016.

B01001 – Bill Posters

This policy relates to the removal of all bill posters in the LGA.  As the Local Government Act allows for the removal of all bill posters, a formal policy is not considered necessary.  It is recommended that this policy be revoked.

B02000 – Building Proposals

It is recommended this category be removed and applicable policies included under the heading D03000 Development Applications.

B02001 – Notification of Development Applications

This policy relates to the notification of residents in the decision making process of a proposed development.  It is recommended that this policy be moved to D03000 Development Applications and allocated the new policy number D03017.

B02007 – Carports

This policy relates to the construction of carports in front of the Building Line with a view to protecting and maintaining the amenity of the area.  It is recommended that the policy be revoked as the matter is covered in Council’s Development Control Plan (DCP).

B02010 – Plaza Shop Awnings

This policy stipulates regulations for shop awnings for properties bounding the Plaza with a view to maintaining and enhancing the streetscape of the Lane Cove CBD.  It is recommended that this policy be moved to D03000 Development Applications and allocated the new policy number D03018.

B02011 – Plumbing

This policy relates to the installation of plumbing in new developments.  It is recommended that this policy be moved to D03000 Development Applications and allocated the new policy number D03019.

B02012 – Power Poles

This policy relates to the provision of private electricity supply poles.  It is recommended that this policy be moved to D03000 Development Applications and allocated the new policy number D03020.


B02019 – Residential Flat Requirements

This policy relates to the specifications for room size, children’s play areas and clotheslines for residential flat developments. It is recommended that the policy be revoked as the matter is covered in Council’s Development Control Plan (DCP).

B02020 – Hoardings

This policy regulates the provision of hoardings.  It is recommended that this policy be moved to D03000 Development Applications and allocated the new policy number D03021.

B02020 – Site Controls

This policy relates to regulating building activities within the municipality so as to minimise their impact on the neighbourhood and the environment.  It is recommended that this policy be moved to D03000 Development Applications and allocated the new policy number D03022.

B02020 – Battleaxe Allotments – Building Upon Handle

This policy restricts development within the access handle of battleaxe allotments with a view to maintaining the amenity of any adjoining properties.  It is recommended that this policy be moved to D03000 Development Applications and allocated the new policy number D03023.

B02029 – Inclinators

This policy stipulates the requirements applicable to installation and usage of inclinators.  It is recommended that this policy be moved to D03000 Development Applications and allocated the new policy number D03024.

C02002 – Purchase Orders for Community Groups

This policy relates to provision of Goods and Services Tax exemption and indicates Council will not issue purchase orders on behalf of community groups except those require for building maintenance which is the responsibility of Council.  It is recommended that the policy be revoked and its content merged into D01010 – Purchasing Policy.

C02005 – Hire Charges – Council Civic Centre

This policy relates to the provision of meeting spaces at no cost to Committees on which a Councillor is elected to serve.  It is recommended that this policy be revoked as this will now be include in Council’s Fees and Charges document.

C04001 – Reports of Conferences

This policy relates to Councillors providing a report to Council of Conferences they have attended as a representative of Council.  It is recommended that the policy be revoked as the matter is covered in C04005 – Payment of Expenses and Provisions of Facilities to Councillors.

C04005 Councillors Access to Non-Public Information

This policy relates to Councillors access to documents and other information necessary for them to exercise their statutory role as a member of the governing body of Council.  Minor amendments have been made to correctly reference the appropriate legislation (i.e. Government Information Public Access Act).  It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

C04006 – Councillors Record Management Policy

This policy provides part of the framework for Councils record management policy which was created in accordance with section 12(2) of the State Records Act 1998.  Minor amendments have been made to correctly reference the appropriate legislation (i.e. Government Information Public Access Act) and currently used terminology (i.e. Advisory Committees as opposed to Councillor Committees).  It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

D01001 – Code of Meeting Practice

The Code of Meeting Practice has been developed in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act, 1993 (as amended) and the Local Government (General) Regulation, 2005 – Part 10 – Meetings.  It sets out the manner in which meetings of the Council are to be convened and conducted including rules for submission of business items, attendance, debate and declaration of interest. 

Appropriate amendments have been made to reflect Councils resolution of 5 March 2012 regarding changes to the Council meeting cycle, being one meeting per month (on the 3rd Monday from February to November and on the 1st Monday in December) and dissolution of the ‘Services and Resources’ and ‘Planning and Building’ Committees.  The content of this policy is not included within the policy manual but rather is available as a stand alone document.  The revised version is attached as AT-2.  It is recommended that this amended policy be adopted.

D01008 – Affixing of Council’s Seal

This policy governs the use of Council’s Seal.  It is recommended that the policy be revoked as use of the seal is governed by Section 400 of the Local Government General Regulation 2005 and is rarely used by Council as a Power of Attorney has been established.

D01009 – Australian Made Goods

This policy stipulates that where there is to be a choice between two comparable items to be purchased by Council, preference be given to Australian made goods’It is recommended that the policy be revoked as the matter is covered in D01010 - Purchasing Policy.

D01010 – Purchasing Policy

This policy governs then activities associated with the purchasing of all goods, services and works by Council.  It is recommended that the policy be amended to include the content from C02002 Purchase Orders – Community Groups.

D01011 – Use of Local Contractors

This policy stipulates that Local contractors shall be preferred where there is no disadvantage to Council in terms of timeliness of service, level of service, the availability of goods required and pricing’It is recommended that the policy be revoked as the matter is covered in the last bullet point of D01010 - Purchasing Policy.

D02001 – Delegation of Authority – Mayor

This policy relates to the authority delegated to the Mayor by Council.  A minor amendment has been made so that point 1 reads ‘The authority delegated by Council in the past to the Mayor shall apply to each new Mayor taking office’.   It is recommended that this amendment be adopted.

D02002 – Council Involvement in Litigation

This policy relates to engaging Council’s solicitors in response to cases of objections and appeals against Development and Building Application decisions.  It is recommended this policy be revoked and its content included in D03016 Appeals – Development and Building Applications.

D02003 – Delegation of Authority – Deputy Mayor

This policy relates to the authority delegated to the Deputy Mayor by Council.  A minor amendment has been made so that point 1 reads ‘The authority delegated by Council in the past to the Deputy Mayor shall apply to each new Deputy Mayor taking office’.   It is recommended that this amendment be adopted.

D03004 – Section 149 Certificates

This policy specifies the normal service conditions for issuing Section 149 Certificates.  It is recommended the policy be revoked as this is covered in Council’s Fees and Charges.

D03006 – Trade Waste Control

This policy regulates the removal of Trade Waste.  It is recommended the policy be revoked as this condition is placed on all relevant Development Approvals so a formal policy is not considered necessary.

D03014 – Drainage Policy

This policy relates to the provision of facilities to control runoff from Industrial, Commercial or Medium Density developments.  The policy has been amended in accordance with current practice.  It is recommended that these amendments be adopted.

D03015 – Development Application for Alterations to Council Owned Properties

This policy provides the General Manger with authority to determine minor alterations to Council owned premises/land.  Amendments have been made which increase the value of alterations that can be determined by the General Manager from $25,000 to $100,000 (providing there are no objections) and dictate referral of any proposed alterations over $100,000 (or with objection) to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel for determination.  It is recommended that these amendments be adopted.

D04001 Display of Goods on Council Footpaths

This policy is currently under review by the Environmental Services Division and will be the subject of a separate report to Council. 

Conclusion

The above policy amendments ensure the policy manual is up to date with current practice and legislation. None of the amendments or deletions are such that it is considered necessary to undertake community consultation. Further reports will be submitted in the coming months in relation to the remainder of the Policy Manual.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council amend the policies in the Policy Manual as listed in AT-1 – Policy Manual Recommended Amendments (from A-D) dated 10 April 2012.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Policy Manual Recommended Amendments (From A01000 - D04000)

120 Pages

AT‑2 View

Code of Meeting Practice

38 Pages

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 April 2012

Deductible Gift Recipient

 

 

Subject:          Deductible Gift Recipient    

Record No:    SU801 - 16300/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to outline the process to be followed and the obligations to be accepted if Council was to be endorsed by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) as a Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) enabling Council to receive gifts of money or property, the value of which can be claimed by donors as income tax deductions.  Council would need to make application to be endorsed as a Deductible Gift Recipient, a process which requires some rigour and detail, and deal with departmental requisitions and concerns as part of that process.  It is recommended that Council consider whether to undertake the process of setting up a DGR.

Background

At the Council Meeting on 6 February 2012, Council considered a Notice of Motion from Councillor Bennison seeking information on whether Council could set up a Charity. Council subsequently resolved:-

1.   That 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.    That Councillors be given the opportunity to participate in researching the report outlined above”.

Discussion

The classification of Council as a DGR is available through an endorsement process managed by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).  A DGR is entitled to receive income tax deductible gifts and tax deductible contributions and only certain organisations are entitled to be endorsed. Endorsement as a DGR allows donors to claim tax deductions for most types of gifts or donations they make to the DGR.

Obtaining DGR Status

Some DGRs are listed by name in the tax law but most must apply to the Tax Office to be endorsed as DGRs. To be endorsed as a DGR, an organisation must:- 

·     Have an Australian business number (ABN);

·     Fall into a DGR general category or operate a fund, authority or institution that falls into a DGR general category;

·     Have acceptable rules dealing with the transfer of surplus gifts and deductible contributions on winding up or revocation of endorsement;

·     Satisfy the gift fund requirements (if applicable); and

·     Be in Australia or its fund, authority or institution is in Australia, unless it is an ancillary fund. 

Examples of the general DGR categories are:- 

·     Health promotion charities;

·     School building funds;

·     Public benevolent institutions;

·     Overseas aid funds;

·     Registered cultural and environmental organisations; or

·     Public libraries, museums and art galleries. 

What are the Pre-requisites for DGR Endorsement? 

Entity Endorsed as a Whole 

To be entitled to this type of endorsement, an organisation must:- 

·     Have an Australian business number (ABN);

·     Be in a general DGR category set out in the income tax law;

·     Be in Australia (with some exceptions); and

·     Be required by a law, its constituting documents or rules governing its activities to transfer the following assets to another DGR if the organisation is wound up or its endorsement is revoked:- 

Surplus gifts and deductible contributions made for the principal purpose of the

Organisation; and

Money received by the organisation because of such gifts or contributions. 

Entity Endorsed for a Fund, Authority or Institution it Owns or Includes 

To be entitled to this type of endorsement, an organisation must:- 

·     Have an ABN; and

·     Satisfy the gift fund requirements (unless endorsed as a DGR as a whole); and the fund, authority or institution an organisation owns or includes must:- 

Be in a general DGR category set out in the income tax law; and

Be in Australia. 

What is a Gift fund? 

A gift fund has these characteristics:-

·     It is a fund;

·     It is maintained for the principal purpose of the fund, authority or institutions all gifts, and deductible contributions, or money or property for that purpose are made to it;

·     Any money received by the entity, because of such gifts, or deductible contributions, is credited to it;

·     It does not receive any other money or property;

·     The fund is used only for the principal purpose of the fund, authority or institution; and

·     The organisation is required by a law, its constituent documents or governing rules to transfer any surplus assets of the gift fund to another gift deductible fund, authority or institution when the fund, authority or institution is wound up or the DGR endorsement is revoked, whichever occurs first. 

Legal Advice

Council staff discussed this matter with Hornsby Shire Council as they have undertaken the process of being endorsed as a DGR. Hornsby Shire Council in 2010 obtained legal advice from Pikes Lawyers (circulated separately to Councillors), who are on Lane Cove Council’s panel of solicitors, on the process required to receive DGR endorsement and what type of endorsement Council could seek. Based on the General DGR Categories detailed above Pikes Lawyers suggested that councils could become endorsed as a DGR or a fund, authority or institution within the categories of:-

Health

As a Public Fund for Public Ambulance Services.  To establish this fund a Deed or Trust would need to be setup with the General Manager as trustee.

Welfare and Rights (including Public Benevolent Institution)

As a Public Benevolent Institution, a Public Fund for Persons in Necessitous Circumstances, a Public Fund on the Register of Harm Prevention Charities, an Australian Disaster Relief Fund, an Animal Welfare Charity or a Charitable Services Institution. It should be noted that the objectives of a Public Benevolent Institution is very narrow and is to provide direct relief of poverty, sickness, suffering, distress, misfortune disability or helplessness only.

To establish any of these funds a Deed or Trust would need to be setup with the General Manager as trustee. However, an Australian Disaster Relief Fund must be setup in response to a specific declared disaster.

Cultural Organisations

Council could register as an institution which comprises a public library or could establish a public fund whose principle purposes are the promotion of literature, music, performing arts, visual arts, craft, design, film, video, television, radio, community arts, aboriginal arts and moveable cultural heritage. To establish this fund a Deed or Trust would need to be setup with the General Manager as trustee. Once this fund is established Council could then seek registration on the Register of Cultural Organisations.

Environmental Organisations

Council cannot register itself as an Environmental Organisation but could establish a public fund whose principle purposes are either (a) the protection and enhancement of the natural environment or of a significant aspect of the natural environment; or (b) the provision of information or education, or the carrying on of research about the natural environment or a significant aspect of the natural environment, or both. To establish this fund a Deed or Trust would need to be setup with the General Manager as trustee. Once this fund is established Council could then seek registration on the Register of Environmental Organisations.

Ancillary Fund

Council could establish a public fund for the sole purpose of providing money, property or benefits to other DGR’s. In effect, the fund is only a conduit or temporary repository for channelling gifts to other DGR’s.

After considering this Legal Advice, Hornsby Shire Council resolved on 21 July 2010 to:-

“1.   Establish a public fund whose principal purposes are the protection and enhancement of the natural environment and the provision of information or education, or the carrying on of research about the natural environment and then seek registration on the Register of Environmental Organisations.

2.    Establish a public fund with the purpose of the promotion of literature, music, performing arts, visual arts, craft, design, film, video, television, radio, community arts, aboriginal arts and moveable cultural heritage and seek registration on the Register of Cultural Organisations. 

3.    Make application to be endorsed as a Deductible Gift Recipient or a fund, authority or institution within the categories of environmental organisations as a public fund on the Register of Environmental Organisations. 

4.    Make application to be endorsed as a Deductible Gift Recipient as a public fund on the Register of Cultural Organisations, a public library, a public museum, a public art gallery, or as an institution consisting of a public library, public museum, public art gallery, or any two of them”.

Responding to Questions Raised in the Notice of Motion

1.   That 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;

Pikes Lawyers legal advice to Hornsby Council suggested that councils could become endorsed as a DGR or a fund, authority or institution within the general DGR categories of Health, Welfare and Rights, Environmental Organisations and Cultural Organisations.

2.   If the answer 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;

The simplest method for Council to set up any of the above DGR’s is by way of a deed with the General Manager as trustee. Council could also consider setting up a separate Incorporated Association.

b.    Reporting requirements;

Income tax law specifies that certain information must be included on a receipt issued by a DGR for a tax deductible gift or contribution. If an endorsed DGR does not provide the information below on its receipts, its endorsement may be revoked. When a DGR issues a receipt for a deductible gift or contribution, the receipt must state:-

·     the name of the fund, authority or institution to which the gift or contribution has been made;

·     the DGR's ABN ;

·     the amount of the gift or contribution

·     any GST applicable for the market value of a contribution; and

·     the fact that the receipt is for a gift or contribution.

All DGRs are expected to maintain adequate accounting and other records to verify that tax deductible gifts or contributions are used only for the principal purpose of the fund, authority or institution. If you have consolidated a number of funds, the records must be able to identify donations made in respect of each separate fund, authority or institution. The records must also show how the gifts to each fund, authority or institution have been used to further the principal purpose of that fund, authority or institution. In addition DGR’s are subject to audits by the ATO and DGR’s are encouraged to undertake an Annual Self-Review to ensure it still is eligible to be a DGR.

c.    Estimated operating costs;

The advice of Hornsby Council staff is that staff could undertake the reporting requirements as detailed above and there would be very minimal operating costs for running a DGR.

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

The ATO provides general information on their website about eligibility for obtaining DGR status however they can confirm/approve eligibility once an application is received for applying to become a DGR.

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

Council obtained further legal advice from Pikes Lawyers about the distribution of gifts or contributions received if Council setup a DGR. Council could not provide funds directly from the public fund to a community group, however, Council could provide additional funding through Financial Assistance Grants to Community Groups to match the money received by Council in a DGR public fund. It would be difficult for community groups to obtain DGR status unless they fulfilled the objectives of the general DGR categories referred to earlier in this report.

f.     Options for marketing; and

If Council resolves to proceed with obtaining DGR status, options for marketing will be provided in a further report once confirmation is received from the ATO that DGR status has been granted to Council.

g.    Other information.

Pikes Lawyers have provided Council with Legal Advice on whether the construction of a waste management facility that converts waste into energy falls with the DGR general category a public fund for an environmental organisation. The advice states:-

“The Guidelines do not at first instance envisage a fund in respect of the construction of a waste management centre but on the other hand, its reference to waste minimisation and ecologically sustainable development would appear to give Council an opportunity at least to specify such a purpose and seek registration of the fund.”

Conclusion

If Council was to seek to be “endorsed for a fund, authority or institution it owns or includes” it will need to determine under what categories it will seek endorsement and, in particular, to establish a gift fund by deed with the General Manager as trustee.  Council also needs to be aware that if it is endorsed, say, for a public library that it operates, then only gifts to the library would be deductible.  Other gifts, for example, gifts to the council for a neighbourhood project, would not be deductible.

Should Council wish to proceed to register as a DGR it will need to:-

1.    Establish a public fund whose principal purposes are the protection and enhancement of the natural environment, waste minimisation, promotion of ecological sustainable development, and the provision of information or education, or the carrying on of research about the natural environment and then seek registration on the Register of Environmental Organisations.

2.    Establish a public fund with the purpose of the promotion of literature, music, performing arts, visual arts, craft, design, film, video, television, radio, community arts, aboriginal arts and moveable cultural heritage and seek registration on the Register of Cultural Organisations. 

3.    Make application to be endorsed as a Deductible Gift Recipient or a fund, authority or institution within the categories of environmental organisations as a public fund on the Register of Environmental Organisations. 

5.    Make application to be endorsed as a Deductible Gift Recipient as a public fund on the Register of Cultural Organisations, a public library, a public museum, a public art gallery, or as an institution consisting of a public library, public museum, public art gallery, or any two of them.

Should Council not wish to proceed it can receive and note this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council give consideration to whether it wishes to make an application to the ATO to be an endorsed Deductible Gift Recipient or a fund, authority or institution.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 April 2012

Audit Committee Report on Activities

 

 

Subject:          Audit Committee Report on Activities    

Record No:    SU740 - 16361/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The report outlines the activities of Council’s Audit Committee. It is recommended the report be received and noted.

 

Discussion

 

1.    Introduction

 

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a summary of the operations of the Audit Committee (the Committee) in accordance with the Audit Committee Charter.

 

The Committee adopted an appropriate Charter to govern its operations which is based on the guidelines issued by the NSW Government.  Included in the Charter is a requirement for the Committee to report to Council on its activities.

 

2.    Background to Committee

 

The Committee is comprised of the following members, Independents Bernice Kesbah and Mark Shum and representing the Council, Councillor Scott Bennison.

 

3.    Advisors to the Committee

 

Michael Quirk             Head of Internal Audit - North Shore Councils

Peter Brown                General Manager

Craig Wrightson          Executive Manager - Corporate Services

                       

4.    Meetings of the Committee

 

The table below sets out the meetings of the Committee held since its inception until the date of the most recent meeting.

 

Summary of Committee Meetings and attendances:

 

Meeting Date

Bernice Kesbah

Mark Shum

Clr Scott Bennison

3/3/2010

Present

Present

Present

5/5/2010

Present

Present

Present

27/10/2010

Present

Present

Absent

8/12/2010

Present

Present

Present

3/3/2011

Present

Present

Present

3/8/2011

Present

Present

Present

26/10/2011

Present

Present

Present

8/3/2011

Present

Present

Present

 

The Committee also received a number of briefings from Council staff on financial planning and management, risk management, DA processing and a number of policy initiatives.

 

5.    Background to the Internal Audit Function

 

Following consideration of its requirements for suitably qualified internal resources, Council resolved to join with five other North Shore councils to develop a Joint Internal Audit function. The Joint Internal Audit Function is an initiative shared between the following councils: North Sydney Council, Hunters Hill Council, Lane Cove Council, Manly Council, Mosman Council and Willoughby Council.

 

The benefits of a joint service were that more resources could be acquired by the group and that the role of the Internal Audit Manager would attract candidates of high calibre. Learnings from the audit of one council can be used to focus areas of risk in other member councils.

 

Following an extensive search process, the Councils appointed Michael Quirk, an experienced internal audit specialist in Local Government to lead the Internal Audit Function. Mr. Quirk has recently been joined by further qualified audit specialists to strengthen the Internal Audit resources available.

 

The Internal Audit function is governed by a Charter based on a draft charter developed by the Department of Premier & Cabinet - Division of Local Government and forms part of their guidelines.  In support of this Charter is an Internal Audit Operating Protocol prepared by Mr. Quirk and approved by the member Councils and their respective Audit Committees.  The Charter requires Mr. Quirk to report functionally to the Audit Committee and administratively to the General Manager.

 

Following a high level risk review and discussions with the Group of Councils’ General Managers, the Head of Internal Audit drafted an inaugural program of work for the first two years of operations. The areas of focus chosen were those considered to provide the most useful coverage for the member Councils and covering high risk areas.

 

The programme of work will be reviewed in 2012 based on results to date and from a more formal risk review of work undertaken in each of the member councils.

 

6.    Achievements to Date

 

Since it started operations in March 2010, the following milestones have been achieved:

·      Audit Committee members were briefed on their roles and responsibilities and were provided with background material on the management and operations of Council.

·      The Committee reviewed and endorsed the Audit Committee Charter, the Internal Audit Charter and Operating Protocol drafted by the Head of Internal Audit.

·      The Committee received briefings on Council’s internal risk management practices and approaches to enterprise risk management.

·      The Committee reviewed and approved the interim Internal Audit programmes for the 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 years submitted by the Head of Internal Audit.

·      The Committee reviewed reports of Internal Audits conducted of the following areas:

o Cash Handling

o Tendering Procedures

o Corporate Credit Cards

o Records Management

o Payroll Data Integrity

o EFT Payments

All reports included a series of recommendations, and the Committee has monitored the implementation of theses recommendations. On a scale of 1 – 5, 5 being the best, all audits have returned a score of 3 or better, with no critical issues being identified.

·      The Committee reviewed the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2010 and the year ended 30 June 2011.  It received briefings from Council’s Finance Manager and the independent External Auditors on those statements as to compliance with legislation, controls and financial sustainability. The Committee endorsed the Financial Statements to Council.

 

Conclusion

 

Council has taken the important initiative to further strengthen its corporate governance practices and form an Audit Committee and Internal Audit function. Members of the Committee have worked together productively and harmoniously.

 

Internal Audit is new to Lane Cove Council and the independent members on the Committee have had the opportunity to question in some detail the Council senior officers. The Head of Internal Audit has indicated he has received full co-operation in his audits

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 April 2012

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot    

Record No:    SU220 - 16728/12

Division:         General Managers Unit

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 Council receive and note the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Brown

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Monthly Snapshot

60 Pages