m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

21 May 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 21 May 2012 commencing at 6:30pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Yours faithfully



Peter Brown

General Manager

 

Council Meeting Procedures

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 


Ordinary Council 21 May 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

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

 

Confidential Items

 

1.       Financial Assistance to Community Groups 2012/2013

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the matter will involve the discussion of personnel matters concerning a particular individual; it further being considered that discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to public interest by reason of the foregoing and financial assistance is used by some organisations for the employment of staff and therefore disclosure of funding arrangements is not in the public interest.

2.       Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) Appointments

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the matter will involve the discussion of personnel matters concerning a particular individual; it further being considered that discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to public interest by reason of the foregoing and  the report specifically discusses the personal details of persons who applied. 

 

public forum

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

3.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 16 APRIL 2012

 

Referred Reports FROM Inspection Committee 19 May 2012

 

4.       3 Second Avenue, Lane Cove

 

Orders Of The Day

 

5.       Council and Committee Meeting Schedule - June 2012

 

Notices of Motion

 

6.       Independent Hearing & Assessment Panel (IHAP)  

 


Officer Reports for Determination

 

7.       Proposed Northwood Heritage Conservation Area

 

8.       Mowbray Precinct Construction Working Hours for Saturdays

 

9.       LEP amendment - 69 Longueville Rd

 

10.     Proposed Cameraygal Park

 

11.     Recycling in Shopping Precincts

 

12.     Water Savings Action Plan 2012

 

13.     Policy Manual Review - Phase 2

 

14.     Determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal for Councillors Fees

 

15.     Voting Delegates for One Association to Represent NSW Local Government

 

16.     Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting Held Tuesday 17 April 2012

 

17.     Greenwich Village Games Organising Committee

 

18.     3rd Quarter Review of the 2011 – 2012 Budget

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

19.     3rd Quarter Review of the 2011-2013 Delivery Program & Operational Plan

 

20.     Council Snapshot

 

21.     Shorefest Youth Event  

 

 

 

 

              


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 May 2012

3 Second Avenue, Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          3 Second Avenue, Lane Cove

Inspection Committee after considering this matter referred this Report to the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on the 21 May 2012.   

Record No:    DA10/281-01 - 21199/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Peter Walker 

 

 

Property:                     3 Second Ave, Lane Cove.   

DA No:                                    D281/2010 (Section 82a Review of determination)

Date Lodged:              30 January 2012

Cost of Work:              $8,000.

Owner:                                    E Zadeh

Applicant:                    E Zadeh         

 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL TO APPEAR ON DETERMINATION

Section 82A review of determination for the construction of an access driveway and a double garage.

ZONE

R2 - Low Density Residential under Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

IS THE PROPOSAL PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE ZONE?

Yes

IS THE PROPERTY A HERITAGE ITEM?

No

IS THE PROPERTY WITHIN A CONSERVATION AREA?

No

IS THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO BUSHLAND?

No

BCA CLASSIFICATION

Class 1a, 10a & 10b.

STOP THE CLOCK USED

No

NOTIFICATION

Neighbours                 1,2,5,7& 9 Second Ave, 14,16 & 19 Panorama Road & 46, 48 & 50 Osborne Road.

Ward Councillors       Clr Tudge, Clr Palmer, Clr Brooks-Horn & Clr Gaffney    

Progress Association  Osborne Park Residents Assoc.

 

REASON FOR REFERRAL

 

This Section 82A review of determination of the development application has been called to Council by Councillor Brooks-Horn.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

·    The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 13.74m to Second Avenue and has an area of 954.8m².  The property has a steep embankment at the street alignment and no onsite parking or driveway.

 

·    The current application is a Section 82A review of determination of the refusal of a development application for the construction of an access driveway and a double garage.

·    One submission was received raising concerns with regard to privacy, outlook, setbacks, street character, excavation, no geotechnical report, development cost and suggests that the proposal should be a new application.

 

·    A number of amendments have been submitted which address some of the reasons for refusal. However the proposal does not meet with the requirements of the DCP.

 

·    The applicant suggests that the proposal would result in a more satisfactory outcome in relation to access to the dwelling house from the new garage taking into consideration his current & future mobility needs.

 

·    Whilst it is acknowledged the proposed garage would provide a more convenient access to the dwelling house, there would still be 25 steps from the garage floor level to the dwelling house floor level. The proposed development would not provide disabled access to the existing dwelling house.  

 

·    The proposal is not supported and recommended for refusal. 

 

SITE 

 

The site is located on the western side of Second Avenue. The site and Council’s verge share an embankment parallel to the street which causes the land to rise very steeply from the street for the first 3m and then slope moderately upwards and towards the rear of the property.  Towards the north and south there exist brick dwelling houses.  The Site Plan and Notification Plan are attached as AT-1 and AT-2.

 

PROPOSAL

 

The applicant has requested Council to review it’s determination of refusal of the development application for the construction of an access driveway and a double garage.

 

In this review application, the applicant has made the following amendments to the plans that were refused:-

 

·    The proposed retaining wall at the front of the property has been deleted.

·    Engineering Certificate has been provided.

·    Driveway has been setback 1500mm from the northern boundary to protect trees on the adjoining property towards the north.

·    Proposed driveway gradient meets Australian Standards.

·    Garage level has been reduced and an internal stair access from garage has been provided.

·    Double pedestrian doors have been provided to the garage façade reducing the entrance from 4.8m to 3.9m thus converting the double garage to, effectively, a single car garage.

·    The garage FFL has been reduced from 55.700m to 54.800m, with a change in design of the roof to incorporate a low pitched metal roof with a gable feature.  The garage has a void over with a mezzanine level foyer entry.

·    The three windows on the southern elevation and five windows to the curved stairs have been replaced with glazing and an access door.

·    Stairs have been provided from the street level to the front entry of the dwelling house.

·    On the eastern & northern elevations additional windows have been provided to the mezzanine level.

 

Amended plans were lodged to address issues raised by Council’s Development Engineer with regard to driveway gradients and tree related issues raised by Council’s Senior Tree Assessment Officer.

 

The applicant submitted additional information including plans and photographs of 17 Panorama Road as an example of a steep driveway and significant excavation.

 

The applicant also submitted a copy of his Mobility Parking Scheme Card issued by the Roads & Traffic Authority, to indicate his physical disability.  

 

PREVIOUS APPROVALS / HISTORY

 

DA119/2008 -        Construction of a double garage and formation of layback, concrete stairs, path and retaining walls which was approved.  This consent is valid till 10 June 2013. The proposed works have not commenced.

 

DA281/2010 –       Construction of a driveway to the existing dwelling house. This driveway was to be located to the south of the approved garage which has not been constructed. This application was refused by Council under delegated authority for the following reasons:-

 

·    The construction of the large steep driveway across the whole of the street frontage encroaching approximately 2.4m onto Council property is considered undesirable and would adversely impact on the streetscape and the amenity of the adjoining dwellings.

·    The proposed excavation works for the driveway near the northern boundary would result in extensive damage to three trees in the neighbour’s property.

·    The driveway crossover is partly outside No.5 Second Avenue which is considered to be undesirable.

·    The gradient of the driveway does not comply with the Australian Standard (AS2890).

·    The proposed driveway requires removal of part or all of the crib block wall and the plans do not clearly and accurately show the extent of the wall that must be removed and how it will be replaced. 

Note:  The owner of No.5 Second Avenue advises that the crib-block walls cannot be cut off but must be reconstructed with the appropriate end or corner units which would involve excavation work well inside his property which he would not allow.

·    A topographic survey has not been submitted with the development application showing exactly the criblock wall in relation to the works and how the disturbance to the wall can be managed without affecting No.5 Second Avenue.  Further accurate cross sections are not shown through the wall.

·    As the proposed driveway requires significant excavation into the existing rock shelf, certification and design from a suitable geotechnical engineer of the proposed excavation has not been submitted to ensure the proposal is achievable and no damage to adjoining properties will occur.

·    The pedestrian entry stairs are not shown on the front elevation.

            Note:  Any further applications submitted for this property must have a realistic cost of proposal.

 

 

PROPOSAL DATA / POLICY COMPLIANCE

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning:           R2 - Low Density Residential

Site Area:       954.8m²

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

0.17:1 (159.4 m²)

0.5

Yes

Height of Buildings

5m

9.5m

Yes

 

Comprehensive DCP

 

Part B - General

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Streetscape

Garages/carports & driveways impact on dwelling or streetscape.

Significant excavation for driveway & garage (retaining walls.)

Ensure garages/carports

& driveways do not dominate dwelling or streetscape.

No – Driveway/garage will have significant impact.

Setbacks

Ensure garages/carports & driveways do not dominate dwelling or streetscape.

Driveway & retaining walls.

Maintain predominant street setback, maintain vegetation, maintain amenity.

No - vegetation loss and adverse visual amenity impacts.

 

Part C - Residential Development

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Front setback (min)

7.7-7.8m

Consistent with area or 7.5m where no consistent setback occurs.

No-not consistent with the established setback.

Side setback (min)

1.2m southern & 5.8 northern

1200mm/1500mm

Yes

Rear setback (min)

N/a

<1000m²: 8m or 25%

>1000m²: 10m or 35%

-

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

3.7m garage door side above NGL

7.0m

Yes

Maximum Ridge height

5.8 gable apex

9.5m

Yes

Subfloor height (max)

1m

1.5m

Yes

Number of Storeys (max)

1 + mezzanine

2

Yes

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

610m² approx or 64%

35%

Yes

Cut and Fill      (max)

2m

1m  (more permitted for sloping sites)

No – however sloping site.

Solar Access

3 hrs

3 hrs to north-facing windows

Yes

Provide for view sharing

NA

NA

NA

Heritage Conservation

NA

NA

NA

Deck/Balcony depth (max)

NA

3m

NA

Private open space

>24 m²

>4m depth

24 m² (min)

4m minimum depth

Yes

Basix

NA

NA

NA

 

Car Parking

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Off-street spaces (min)

1

2 per dwelling

No

Driveway width

3m

3m at the lot boundary

Yes

 

REFERRALS

 

Rural Fire Service    

 

The application was referred to Rural Fire Service who has raised no objection to the proposal subject to draft conditions which would be included in the consent in the event Council approves the application. 

 

Manager Urban Design and Assets

 

The application has been referred Council’s Engineer who has advised that On Site Detention system would be required. The proposed excavation has been supported in a report by R & S Consulting Engineers. Draft conditions with regard to excavation and proposed driveway have been provided which would be included in the consent in the event Council approves the application. 

 

Manager Parks

 

The application was referred to Council’s Senior Tree Assessment Officer who has raised no objection to the proposal subject to draft conditions which would be included in the consent in the event Council approves the application. 

 

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

 

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. The proposed development is permissible with development consent from Council.

 

The objective of the R2 Low Density Residential zone is as follows:-

 

To ensure that landscaping is maintained and enhanced as a major element in the residential environment.

 

The proposal involves significant scaring and excavation into the embankment of Council property and of the front garden area of 3 Second Avenue. The driveway and retaining structures would be the major elements in the appearance of the proposal and the existing landscaping would be significantly compromised.    

 


Other Planning Instruments

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Contaminated Land

 

Clause 7 of SEPP 55 requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated. Notwithstanding the fact that site investigations have not been carried out, the current and previous use of the site and adjoining sites for residential uses would substantially reduce the possibilities of contamination. Accordingly, it is considered that contamination of the site is unlikely. 

 

Variations to Council’s Codes/PolicIes (seCTIONS 79c(1)(a), (1)(b), and (1)(c))

 

The preceding policy assessment table identifies those controls that the proposal does not comply with. Each of the departures is discussed below in addition to other non compliances with objectives and provisions.

 

Development Control Plan 2009 - Part C Residential Development

 

·      The objective indicated in Clause C1, subclause 1.1 is as follows:-

“Ensure new dwellings and alterations & additions to existing dwellings are well designed and compatible with the surrounding context and enhance the streetscape within the area.”

Comment:

It is considered that the extensive excavating and paving a significant proportion of the front building setback area to provide for a single car garage is not compatible with the surrounding context and would not enhance the streetscape.  

 

·      The streetscape objective indicated in Clause C1, subclause 1.2 is as follows:-

“Achieve development of a scale and appearance which is in keeping with the predominant traditional or emerging street and neighbourhood character.”

Comment:

The existing streetscape is of garages excavated into the front of properties within steep embankments and dwellings set well back from the street. Driveways exist where the topography allows. It is considered that the proposal would not be in keeping with the streetscape for this section of Second Avenue.  Council has already approved a double garage on the subject site the consent for which is still valid.

“Ensure the existing landscape character of the area is maintained and enhanced.”

Comment:

It is considered the excavation and retaining required for the proposal would not maintain or enhance the landscape character of the area. The landscape character would change to that of hard paved driveway, stairs and retaining structures.

 

“Ensure the existing topography of the site is reinforced by dwelling design.”

Comment:

This section of Second Avenue is affected by steep grades up to 1:3. The subject site is more constrained than 1, 5 & 7 Second Avenue and the next adjoining property at 19 Panorama Road.  The proposal does not reinforce the existing topography of the site. The proposal would cut and alter the topography of the site.  Several amendments were required to achieve driveway grades which are barely adequate and require the garage floor level to be excavated up to 2m below ground in addition to the retaining walls and structures for the driveway. 

The applicant submitted pictures of the driveway and garage to 17 Panorama Road to support his proposal. However the difference in the two properties is that the contours at 17 Panorama Road are not as unfavourable and the garage is excavated under the house within the building footprint of the existing building unlike the proposed extension projecting towards the front of the house and within the front setback. The applicant states that this dwelling was constructed 25 years ago, it should be noted that at that time, controls were less comprehensive than as is the case today.       

 

“Ensure that garages, carports and driveways do not dominate the dwelling or Streetscape.”

Comment:

It is considered the appearance of the driveway, garage, and stairs would dominate the streetscape. The current proposal is out of character for this part of the street.

 

·    The setback objective indicated in Clause C1, subclause 1.3 is as follows:-

“Maintain the predominant street setback.

To enhance and maintain vegetation corridors through landscaping within front and rear gardens and side boundaries.”

Comment:

The proposal has changed from a driveway and attached garage to an extension to the front of the dwelling house containing a garage, mezzanine and entry. This extension does not maintain the predominant street setback.

·    The front setback provision indicated in subclause 1.3.1 is as follows:-

“The front setback of the building shall be consistent with the prevailing setback along the street. Where there is no predominant setback within the street, the setback should be a minimum of 7.5m. Irregular sites may be considered on their merits.”

“In general, no part of a building or above ground structure may encroach into a setback zone. Exceptions are awnings, balconies, blade walls, bay windows and other articulation elements up to a maximum of 500mm.”

Comment:

Second Avenue has an established predominant street setback and the proposed extension to the house to contain the garage, mezzanine & entry would encroach over 7m into the setback zone.

 

·    The cut and fill objective indicated in clause 1.6 is as follows:-

“Retain the natural ground levels as much as possible of a site and its existing landforms particularly in relation to the street or adjacent private open space areas.

To achieve reasonable landscaping within development.

To minimise the extent of cut and fill and its impact along side boundaries.

To create a consistent relationship between the dwelling and the street.

To ensure that excavation and filling of a site does not result in unreasonable amenity impacts to adjoining dwellings.

To minimise change to water run-off patterns.”

Comment:

The proposal would not retain the natural ground levels or existing landforms within the front setback although it is noted sufficient landscaping is available over the entire site. Substantial cut adjacent to side boundaries would be required for the garage and driveway levels and the proposal would result in amenity impacts to the adjoining dwelling at 5 Second Ave.  

·    Cut and fill provision is as follows:-

“Development is limited to a maximum depth of excavation or fill of 1m at any point on the site unless it is demonstrated that the site’s slope is too steep to reasonably construct a 2 storey dwelling with this extent of excavation.”

Comment:

The proposal is not considered to relate to the existing topography. The areas for excavation are not contained within the building footprint. The proposed 2m of excavation exceeds Council’s standard 1m requirement and due to the impacts created, it is not considered reasonable.      

·   The objectives of building design are to ensure alterations and additions reinforce the typical bulk and scale of existing dwellings within the street and the area, maintain the integrity of the design and style of the existing building, ensure elevations to the street and public domain are well proportioned and designed and minimise impact in terms of overshadowing, loss of privacy, light spillage to adjoining properties, loss of views and amenity.

Comment:

It is considered the proposal is an inappropriate design solution to the requirement to provide car parking to the site. Extensive cut is required to the site and from some elevations what appears to be a two level extension, to provide a single car garage to the existing dwelling house.

·    Amenity

Comment:

It is considered the proposed garage extension will create some amenity impacts to the adjoining owner to the south. The neighbours do utilise the front verandah of their house and front garden area for passive recreation. The extension, projecting into the front setback will increase overshadow particular in winter afternoon. As the southern elevation consists of eight windows and a door, privacy would be impacted.       

·    Car Parking

Comment:

Currently the dwelling has no on-site car parking.  However, there is a consent for a double garage on the property at the street alignment. The current proposal before Council appears to provide for two car parking spaces in accordance with Council’s requirement.  However, the narrowness of the driveway and garage entrance results in the garage is impractical for 2 vehicles due to the number of movements required. It is considered that only one car would be accommodated. Therefore the proposal does would not comply with Council’s requirement minimum car parking requirement.

 


RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION (Section 79C(1)(d))

 

One submission was received in response to the notification of the development application. The amended plans altered the proposal to a minor extent and as they addressed Council requirements the amendments were not renotified.  The issues raised in the submission from the adjoining owner to the south (5 Second Avenue) are as follows:-

 

·    Proposed garage & structures differ greatly from previous applications and should not be considered a review of determination rather a new development application.

Comment:

Whilst it is agreed that numerous changes have been made to the original proposal, it is possible to submit amended plans in a Section 82A review as long as the development is substantially the same development. The current proposal is still a driveway and an attached garage and so considered substantially the same development.  

 

·    Proposed upper foyer/entry structure extends 3.2-4.3m above ground level, will cause overshadowing and outlook from front porch in conflict with Section 1.3.1 of DCP, regarding setbacks & character of street.

Comment:

It is agreed that the proposal would impact upon the amenity of the adjoining property and the streetscape.  These issues have already been addressed within this report.

 

·    Entry structure glazing/windows is unattractive and would create privacy impacts.

Comment:

It is agreed that the proposal contains significant glazed areas on the southern elevation with associated privacy impacts which has been indicated with in the report.

 

·    No geotechnical report submitted.

Comment:

A report from a Structural Engineer has been submitted by the applicant. Council’s Development Engineer has considered this report adequate to determine the application.

 

·    Excavation 3m in depth 2m from (No.5) house in excess of Development Control Plan 2010 guidelines and possibly unstable.  

Comment:

It is agreed that the proposal does not comply with Council’s Development Control Plan in relation to excavation. With regard to stability, the structural Engineers report has required a further Geotechnical report to be submitted so as not to impede on the neighbouring property.    

 

·    Plans make no reference to other retaining walls or batter slopes next to driveway and pedestrian steps. Plans are diagrammatic and downplay the bulk & scale of earthworks.

Comment:

It is considered that the plans do not fully indicate earthworks and comprehensive details of retaining walls. Batter slopes have not been provided at this stage.

 

·    Crib retaining wall

Comment:

This structure would largely be removed in the event the proposal went ahead.

 

·    Cost of the  proposed development is incorrect

Comment:

It is agreed that the applicant has underestimated the cost of the proposed development. In the event that the Council was to approve the application, the applicant would be required to provide a registered  Quantity Surveyor’s estimate and pay Council the balance of the DA fee as a condition of consent.  

 

CONCLUSION

 

The amended proposal has been considered in relation to section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Lane Cove LEP 2009 and Development Control Plan 2009 and the proposal cannot be supported for a number of reasons including non compliance with Council’s LEP 2009 and Development Control Plan 2009. In relation to access, whilst the garage as proposed will improve convenience to the dwelling, the proposal will still involve 25 steps and is not accessible for people with mobility needs.  Further, it is considered that the construction works above ground (as proposed) on Council’s property, sets an undesirable precedent and should not be supported.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the determination of development consent  D281/2010, refused on 4 April 2011 for the Construction of an access driveway and a double garage on lot 22 DP19003 and known as 3 Second Avenue, Lane Cove is reaffirmed and the review of the application refused for the following reasons:-

1.       The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove LEP 2009 objective which requires that landscaping is maintained and enhanced as a major element in the residential environment.

2.       The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan, which requires that alterations & additions to existing dwellings are well designed and compatible with the surrounding context and enhance the streetscape within the area.

3.       The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan, which requires that the scale and appearance should be in keeping with the predominant traditional or emerging street and neighbourhood character; ensure the existing landscape character of the area is maintained and enhanced; ensure the existing topography of the site is reinforced by dwelling design; ensure that garages, carports and driveways do not dominate the dwelling or streetscape.

4.       The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan as the proposal does not maintain the predominant street setback and encroaches into that predominant setback by up to 7m.

5.       The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan with regard to cut & fill as the proposal will not retain natural ground levels or existing landforms and substantial cut over 1m adjacent to side boundaries will be required for the garage and driveway levels.

6.       The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan as the proposal is an inappropriate design solution to meet the requirement to provide onsite car parking space.

7.       The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan as the proposal would impact upon the amenity of the adjoining dwelling to the south with regard to shadowing and privacy.

8.       The proposal does not comply with Lane Cove Development Control Plan Car Parking requirement as the proposal would provide for only one onsite car parking space. 

9.       The construction of a driveway, retaining structures and stairs on Council’s property is considered undesirable. 

10.     The proposed development would not provide disabled access to the existing dwelling house as there would still be 25 steps from the garage floor level to the dwelling house floor level.  

11.     The proposed development is not in public interest and would set an undesirable precedent.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site Location Plan

1 Page

AT‑2 View

Neighbour Notification Plan

2 Pages

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 May 2012

Council and Committee Meeting Schedule - June 2012

 

 

Subject:          Council and Committee Meeting Schedule - June 2012    

Record No:    SU1915 - 21864/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Kirsty Fleming 

 

 

 

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

June    16        Inspection Committee (if required)

June    18        Ordinary Council

June    27        Extraordinary Council Meeting

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 May 2012

Independent Hearing & Assessment Panel (IHAP)

 

 

Subject:          Independent Hearing & Assessment Panel (IHAP)     

Record No:    SU4720 - 23034/12

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Councillor Pam Palmer 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At its meeting of 5 March 2012, Council resolved to implement an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) to determine development applications.  However, the impact of this change has not been communicated to residents.  It is recommended that Council hold a residents’ forum to explain the changes.

 

Discussion

 

Although the IHAP has not yet commenced operation, development applications which have already been lodged could be subject to IHAP determination.  Council should be fully informing residents about how their development applications will be determined.

 

Residents have already expressed concerns about the changes in letters to Council, Councillors and in the local press.  By arranging a forum to explain the process and to answer residents’ questions, Council would be fulfilling its commitment to consultation with the community.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council hold a residents’ forum about the IHAP implementation as soon as practicable and in any case prior to the first meeting of the IHAP.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Pam Palmer

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 May 2012

Proposed Northwood Heritage Conservation Area

 

 

Subject:          Proposed Northwood Heritage Conservation Area    

Record No:    SU4526 - 21157/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Vivienne Albin 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A Conservation Areas Study was undertaken by Godden Mackay Logan (GML) Heritage Consultants in 2006 which recommended Council “adopt Northwood Heritage Conservation Area as a HCA in the LEP.”  This matter was considered by Council in 2006 and did not proceed.  As a result of a request from the Northwood Action Group (NAG) (letter dated 26 September 2011), and ensuing discussions over the past few months, Council is now being asked by NAG to reconsider the classification of Northwood as a Heritage Conservation Area.

 

Background

 

·    In March 2005 Council resolved to “undertake Stage 1 of a Heritage Review, to assess potential areas for listing as conservation areas, conduct public consultation about those areas and if appropriate prepare a Draft Conservation Development Control Plan.”

·    In September 2005 Council engaged Godden Mackay Logan (GML), Heritage Consultants, to undertake Stage 1 of the Lane Cove Heritage Review to assess the heritage and streetscape qualities of the existing Greenwich Point and potential Northwood Heritage Conservation Areas (HCAs).

·    The Draft GML report was put before Council on 1 May 2006 and Council resolved to publicly exhibit the report and notify progress associations and affected properties.

·    The Draft GML report was put on public exhibition from 2 June to 31 July 2006 and 60 submissions were received.

·    Following the public exhibition of the report, the matter was put before Council again on 4 December 2006. The report recommended a public forum be held to discuss appropriate planning principles, objectives, controls and guidelines for the future character of Northwood. This consultation was absorbed into the extensive consultation sessions held over the course of 2007-2009 in relation to the comprehensive LEP and DCP process.

A significant number of people attended the meeting and appeared to be evenly divided on the issue. At the meeting Council resolved that - ”No further action be taken in relation to the proposed Northwood Conservation area.”

·    On 15 September 2011 the Northwood Action Group (NAG) organised a Heritage Conservation Area Public Information Evening. Two Council staff attended as observers and to provide technical expertise on matters such as the LEP and DCP.

·    On 27 September 2011 a letter was received from NAG shown as AT-1 requesting Council commence the process of classifying Northwood as a Heritage Conservation Area. Subsequently, and until recently, discussions with NAG have continued in relation to the process.

 

Discussion

 

In 2005, GML were commissioned by Council to prepare a Conservation Areas Study. The purpose was, in particular, to assess the heritage and streetscape qualities of the potential Northwood Heritage Conservation Area (HCA). The final report is included as AT-2.

 

The Figure below (extracted form the GML report) outlines the Northwood Study area.

 

Map 1: GML Northwood Study Area (Figure 1.1, p.4)

 

The report considered the area’s historic development, character, heritage values, heritage & contributory items, undertook a planning policy review, developed management policies, development guidelines and controls and presented several recommendations.

 

In the report, Section 4.4 Statement of Significance: Potential Northwood HCA (Heritage Conservation Area), concluded by stating:-

 

“The potential Northwood HCA is therefore considered to have Local and Regional significance arising from its historic, social and aesthetic interest.  In terms of the NSW Heritage Assessment Criteria it is submitted that the HCA would have significance arising from:-

·    Its place in both the cultural and natural history of the local area and in particular Sydney Harbour, and Sydney as a ‘harbour city’ (Criterion a);

·    Its association with persons of interest in the cultural history of the local area (Criterion b);

·    Its demonstration of aesthetic achievement in the qualities and values of its streetscapes, vistas and component houses and gardens (Criterion c);

·    Its social and community values to people of the local area, including those who live there and the larger community of the Municipality of which it is part (Criterion d); and

 

·    Its importance as one of the early-settled, historically important waterside suburbs of Sydney which remain culturally important residential places (Criterion g).” (p,43-44).

 

The following figure indicates the proposed Northwood HCA with heritage and contributory items identified within the HCA. The NSW Government LEP template does not allow for the inclusion of contributory items. Consequently these have not been included in Council’s planning documents and therefore have no official status.

 

Map 2: GML Potential Northwood Heritage Conservation Area (Figure 5.2, p.54)

 

The GML report included 5 recommendations. These recommendations are set out below with a comment indicating whether the recommendation has already been carried out or would form part of the process of delineating Northwood as a heritage conservation area.

No.

Recommendation

Staff Comments

1

Adopt Northwood Heritage Conservation Area as a HCA in the LEP

This report recommends that Council determine whether a Northwood Heritage Conservation Area should proceed to a draft LEP amendment.

2

Adopt the Heritage Council’s Infill Guidelines

The Heritage Council’s Infill Guidelines are a set of case studies and set out principles for character, scale, form, siting, materials, colour and detailing. During development of the Locality in the DCP for Northwood HCA, the Heritage Council’s Infill Guidelines will be utilised.

3

Preparation of Heritage DCP

DCP Locality 5 – Greenwich Conservation Area sets out objectives & provisions for development in the Greenwich HCA. This Locality is almost entirely directly from the guidelines and controls set out in GML’s report. It would be proposed to use the Greenwich controls as a template for DCP controls to be developed for the proposed Northwood HCA if it were to proceed.

4

Review of Potential Heritage Items:

- 62 Cliff Rd

- Sandstone wall 2, 4 & 5 Upper Cliff Rd

Shortly, as part of the Department of Planning’s gateway process, these potential items will be publicly exhibited for future inclusion in the LEP heritage item list.

5

 Community Consultation

The consultation process is part of the Gateway process and includes 6 weeks public exhibition (Council policy).

Table 1: Recommendations from GML Conservation Areas Report, p.75, and Staff Comments

 

Consultation & the Process of Establishing a Heritage Conservation Area

 

The GML Conservation Areas Study was publicly exhibited in 2006. However, the public would have another chance to once again view this document and comment on the proposed conservation area should the proposal go ahead as an LEP amendment.

 

The process of establishing a heritage conservation area has been amended since 2006 when the Northwood HCA was first considered.

 

If support was obtained from Council, any LEP amendment would need to proceed through the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s (DPI) Gateway process.

 

The DPI then would consider the proposal and if supported, the matter would proceed to public exhibition. In Lane Cove, LEP amendments generally are exhibited for a period of six weeks. Any studies supporting the LEP amendments are generally required to be placed on exhibition with the proposed amendment; in this case it would be the GML Conservation Areas Study.

 

After the public exhibition the matter would once again put before Council for its consideration of submissions received. Council could then put the matter back to the DPI for gazettal.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

The consultation would be designed to (i) conform with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s requirements as may be advised at the LEP Gateway stage and (ii) seek the views of the community on the potential draft Northwood Heritage Conservation Area (LEP amendment). Any comments received would be reviewed and evaluated and reported to Council prior to a final determination whether or not to proceed, with or without variation, with the HCA.

 


Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Involve

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups. 

Key stakeholders eg. Relevant property owners

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisements, Notification Letters, and

E-newsletter

Public Hearing

 

Public Exhibition, and

Website Exhibition

 

Indicative Timing

 Mid 2012

 Mid 2012

Mid 2012

 

Conclusion

 

The Northwood Action Group has recently requested the reconsideration of the proposed Northwood Heritage Conservation Area by Council.  The report by GML, independent heritage experts, finalised in 2007, recommended the establishment of the Northwood Heritage Conservation Area.  Council is asked to note the request and determine whether a Northwood Heritage Conservation Area should proceed.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

1.   Note the letter submitted by Northwood Action Group dated 26 September 2011 requesting Council to “commence the process of classification of Northwood as a Heritage Conservation Area”; and

2.   Determine whether a Northwood Heritage Conservation Area should proceed to a draft LEP amendment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Letter from Northwood Action Group 26 September 2011

1 Page

AT‑2 View

Conservation Areas Study, Godden Mackay Logan 2007

87 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 May 2012

Mowbray Precinct Construction Working Hours for Saturdays

 

 

Subject:          Mowbray Precinct Construction Working Hours for Saturdays    

Record No:    SU1802 - 21865/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Michael Mason 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council at it’s meeting of April 2012 resolved that a report come back to Council regarding any action that can be taken regarding building times on Saturday afternoons in the Mowbray Road Precinct.

 

This report describes the relationship between Council’s LEP, DCP and Development Consents with regard to existing amenity and what is a reasonable expectation to undertake construction.  The report acknowledges the strong development pressures expected to occur in the Mowbray Precinct in the short to middle time frame.  In considering the request by Council the approved construction times of our adjoining Councils are referred to.

 

While the Mowbray Precinct may be under unusual development pressure due to topography and the restricted road system it is not proposed to reduce construction times on Saturday for consistency and regulatory control reasons.

 

It is recommended that Council consider adjusting the type of work to be undertaken on Saturdays.

 

Background

 

With the commencement of multi-unit construction activity in the Mowbray Precinct there is increasing concern by adjoining and nearby residents that the local amenity is being adversely impacted.

 

Particular concern has been expressed that truck movements and excavation (including rock pick activities) is unreasonable on Saturday afternoon.

 

“74       RESOLVED on the motion of Councillors Palmer and McIlroy that a report come back to Council regarding any action that can be taken regarding restricting building times on Saturday afternoons in the Mowbray Precinct.”

 

This concern has been echoed by the above matter arising calling for a report to Council.

 

LEP, DCP and DAs

 

As Council would be aware there is a relationship between the Local Environmental Plan, the Development Control Plan and development consents.  The principles and objectives of the LEP are reflected in the various chapters of the DCP and given substance in a development consent issued by Council.  Council and the community have accepted the principles and objectives of the LEP and DCP as being reasonable and, where appropriate, should form part of the development consent conditions drafted by staff and endorsed by Council.  In this case applications endorsed by Council can be taken to be applications determined by Council, by staff under delegated authority or the Land and Environment Court where an appeal has been upheld.

 

Over time standard conditions have been drafted to ensure development proposals do not unreasonably impact on adjoining and nearby properties.  These standard conditions are imposed to minimise disturbance to neighbours during the construction phase of development as well as post development construction.

The Mowbray Precinct is zoned R4 – High Density Residential under the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009.  A prime objective of the R4 zone is:-

 

            “To ensure that the existing amenity of residences in the neighbourhood are respected.”

 

Comment

 

The key words are ‘amenity and respected’.  This may be interpreted to mean that all reasonable effort should be made to not unduly disturb the amenity of adjoining and nearby residents.

 

Clearly, some aspects of constructing a multi level residential flat building will generate noise, dust and traffic.  Standard conditions of consent seek to minimise those impacts to reasonable levels.  The provisions of Chapter 3 – Residential Flat Building of the Council’s comprehensive Development Control Plan support this view in the general objective 3.1.

 

            “To achieve a reasonable level of amenity for the residential flat building, neighbouring properties and the surrounding area”.

 

Standard condition (35) is imposed on development proposals for multi level residential flat buildings as follows:-.

 

            “(35) All demolition, building construction work, including earthworks, deliveries of building materials to and from the site  to be restricted to the following hours:-

 

                        Monday to Friday (inclusive)              7am to 5.30pm

                        Saturday                                             7am to 4pm

 

            No work to be carried out on Sundays or any Public Holidays.”

 

The construction times for surrounding Local Government Areas are as follows:-

 

Ryde City Council                               Monday to Friday                    7am to 7pm

                                                            Saturday                                 7am to 4pm

                                                            Sunday                                    No work

 

Willoughby City Council                      Monday to Friday                    7am to 5pm

                                                            Saturday                                 8am – 12 noon

                                                            Sunday                                    No work

 

Hunters Hill Council                            Monday to Friday                    7am to 6pm

                                                            Saturday                                 7am to 1pm

                                                            Sunday                                    No work

 

North Sydney Council                                    Monday to Friday                    7am to 5pm

                                                            Saturday                                 9am to 1pm

                                                            Sunday                                    No work

 

State Complying Development          Monday to Saturday               7am to 5pm

 

Council is faced with balancing the reasonable expectations of both the developer and residents when drafting construction time conditions of consent.

 

The above standard condition has been imposed on all multi-level residential flat approvals granted under Council’s 2009 LEP.

 

In general, I would be reluctant to suggest that Council amend the working hours for future development approvals on the basis that a number of construction sites would operate under differing construction times.  I am of the view such would be confusing for residents, create implementation difficulties and pose a conflict point between regulatory staff and contractors.

 

Notwithstanding the above concerns it is clear that the Mowbray Precinct will be exposed to construction noise for some time and it may be reasonable to maintain the same construction times but fine tune the most unreasonable disturbance to the local amenity in the following manner.

 

A possible amended construction time for any development approval issued in the Mowbray Precinct.

 

“All demolition, building construction work, including earthworks, deliveries of building materials to and from the site to be restricted as follows:

 

Monday to Friday (inclusive)         7am to 5.30pm

Saturday                                        7am to 4pm with no excavation, haulage truck movement, rock picking, sawing or jack hammering to be undertaken.  Failure to fully comply will result in the issue of a breach of consent P.I.N.

Sunday                                          No work Sunday or any Public Holiday.”

 

Council has no power to amend any of the current approvals retrospectively and any resolution would only apply to future development consents issued by Council.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council amend construction times for all development consents issued in the Mowbray Road Precinct as follows:-

 

“All demolition, building construction work, including earthworks, deliveries of building materials to and from the site to be restricted as follows:

 

Monday to Friday (inclusive)         7am to 5.30pm

Saturday                                        7am to 4pm with no excavation, haulage truck movement, rock picking, sawing or jack hammering to be undertaken.  Failure to fully comply will result in the issue of a breach of consent P.I.N.

Sunday                                          No work Sunday or any Public Holiday.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 May 2012

LEP amendment - 69 Longueville Rd

 

 

Subject:          LEP Amendment - 69 Longueville Rd    

Record No:    SU4784 - 23195/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

This report proposes that Council rezone 69 Longueville Road to Public Recreation RE1, by submitting a planning proposal to amend the Local Environmental Plan 2009 to the Department of Planning & Infrastructure for exhibition.

Background

Number 69 Longueville Rd is located at the south-western corner of the intersection of Epping and Longueville Roads, opposite Council’s offices. It is of irregular shape, with an area of approximately 830m2, and is asphalted with peripheral landscaping.

           

The land, which is owned by NSW Roads & Maritime, had been understood to have been retained for potential road use since the construction of Epping Rd in the 1930s. It had not, however, been proclaimed as a road.

The site has become redundant for roads purposes since the completion of the Lane Cove Tunnel and surface works. Its former use for car parking ceased recently.

Council had sought to purchase the land when it was recently on the market, but a commercial agreement was not achieved and the site remains in RMS ownership. At the time of those discussions, however, Council prepared a concept plan for the site to become an attractive gateway to the Lane Cove town centre, with an innovative aboriginal cultural feature and other community uses set within a park.  A separate report in relation to the park proposal is included in this Agenda.

Discussion

Zoning

The proposed Public Recreation RE1 zoning is intended to permit the concept described above. The proposed rezoning is recommended on the following grounds:-

·     The current B2 zoning does not reflect the site’s past purpose or use by the Roads & Traffic Authority (now within the RMS).

·     The current zoning of Local Centre B2 results from an anomaly under the Standard LEP, by which all unzoned lands were required to be zoned to the adjacent zone.

·     There has never been policy expressed by Council that the site was either appropriate or intended for commercial use.

·     The site’s principal use has been only for public car parking for the past seventy years.

·     Adjacent developments have been designed and permitted on the assumption that the land was intended for public purposes. This is particularly evident in the location of the four-storey building adjacent to the south, No.71 Longueville Rd, on the boundary of the two properties.

·     In fact, the land allotment was not shown in the cadastre of the former NSW Lands Department until only recently, having been corrected since the introduction of the LEP in 2010:-

                                   

It is not necessary to amend the FSR and height maps in the LEP. The site had not been given a specified floor space ratio or height under LEP 2009, as this was not a requirement in preparing the LEP. This accords with the open space zones throughout the LGA, none of which have FSR or height controls, as these matters are considered on a merit basis for any community facilities on open space.

Note:  Land uses which the Public Recreation RE 1 Zone permits, with consent:, include-

Child care centres; community facilities; environmental facilities; kiosks; recreation areas; recreation facilities (indoor); recreation facilities (outdoor); respite day care centres; restaurants or cafes; roads; signage; take away food and drink premises.

Community Consultation

Statement of Intent

The consultation is designed to exhibit the proposed rezoning to RE1.  Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with the LEP amendment.

Method

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Adjacent property owners

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement, Press Release and eNewsletter

Notification Letters

 

Public Exhibition,

Website Exhibition

Indicative Timing

Exhibition of 6 weeks, starting within 2 months of  Gateway approval

Commencement of the 6 weeks exhibition period

Commencement of the 6 weeks exhibition period

 

 


Conclusion

 

The recommendation to rezone 69 Longueville Road to Public Recreation RE1 is made on the grounds of the site’s potential as a public park at the gateway to the Lane Cove town centre. The current Local Centre B2 zoning does not appropriately reflect the site’s configuration, historical usage or long-standing planning policy.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That a planning proposal to rezone 69 Longueville Rd to Public Recreation RE1 be submitted by Council to the Department of Planning & Infrastructure seeking approval for exhibition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting attachments to this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 May 2012

Proposed Cameraygal Park

 

 

Subject:          Proposed Cameraygal Park    

Record No:    SU4486 - 20987/12

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Susan Butler 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has developed a proposal for the vacant land at 69 Longueville Rd Lane Cove to become a ‘gateway’ park for the Lane Cove Town Centre designed with Aboriginal interpretation and culture as the key theme. As a mark of respect for our local aboriginal heritage, the proposal has been designed with the Cameraygal Clan as the theme.

 

The concept plans were placed on public exhibition from November 2011 to February 2012 and 32 responses were received. Council has also had a number of discussions with the NSW Government seeking assistance in transferring ownership of the land to Council. These discussions have been unsuccessful to date, with Council receiving an unfavourable reply from the Parliamentary Secretary for Roads with respect to the land transfer.

 

It is proposed that Council approach the Minister for Roads and Ports, the Honorable Duncan Gay, to seek his assistance to progress Council’s initiative to promote our region’s aboriginal heritage and culture through the development of the Cameraygal Park.

 

Background

 

The subject piece of vacant land enjoys a prominent position at the intersection of Longueville and Epping Roads and was identified in the Village Structure Plan as providing a ‘gateway’ to the Lane Cove Village. In early 2011, Council was advised by the RTA that it was planning to auction the property, with the intent to allow development of a six (6) storey mixed use tower. The property was subsequently passed in at auction on 12 March 2011, with the bidding in the low one millions. The RTA’s representatives then advised Council that a reserve of $1.4 million had been placed on the site.

 

In July 2011 Council wrote to the Minister for Roads, the Hon Duncan Gay requesting the transfer of the land to Council for development by Council as a Gateway Park to Lane Cove.

 

Council’s Landscape Architect then developed concept plans for the site with Aboriginal interpretation and culture as the key objective. The concept plans were presented to Council on 17 October 2011 and then placed on public exhibition in order to gauge community awareness of the project.

 

Following the above actions, Council then met with the Hon John Ajaka MLC, Parliamentary Secretary for Transport and Roads in early November 2011. Mr Ajaka indicated that he would consider Council’s requests and then arrange to meet again to discuss what action he would take.  In February 2012, he wrote back to Council stating that 69 Longueville Road will be marketed as per the wishes of Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) for disposal through public competition following establishment through the Council of its potential for development. Mr Ajaka’s letter is provided as AT-1.  The General Manager responded to Mr Ajaka’s letter on 8 March 2012 expressing Council’s disappointment, this response is attached as AT-2.

 


Discussion

 

The concepts designs for the proposed Cameraygal Park were placed on public exhibition from November 2011 to February 2012. The exhibition included a website exhibition, e-newsletter and public advertisement. The North Shore Times also provided editorial on the concepts.

 

There were 31 written submission received during the exhibition, from 22 individuals, eight (8) associations and one petition with 57 signatures. This petition has been circulated separately.

 

·    Nine (9) responses in favour of the site becoming a park and in support of the proposed design;

·    Nine (9) responses in favour of the site becoming a park, with some reservations about the proposed design;

·    Two (2) responses in favour of the site becoming a park but not the proposed design;

·    Four (4) responses in favour of a park at another location;

·    Seven (7) not in favour of the proposal, including the petition.

 

Reasons in Support of the Proposal Included

 

·    Welcome entry;

·    Creative use of prominent corner;

·    Ideas are attractive;

·    Bring beauty to the area;

·    Symbolically showing respect and paying tribute to the traditional owners; and

·    Treed greenness as entry statement.

 

Concerns About the Design Included

 

·    Concerns about scale and nature of proposed glass wall; concerns about vandalism and graffiti;

·    Cost of construction;

·    Cost of upkeep;

·    Limited access to viewing platforms;

·    Concerns about debris from gum trees; and

·    Question appropriateness of structure as a commemoration to the Cameraygal.

 

Reasons for Objection to the Proposal Included

 

·    Cost of construction;

·    Waste of Council funds;

·    Impractical access for people with disabilities;

·    Traffic noise and fumes especially in peak hour traffic;

·    Position unsuitable for play area for children;

·    Insufficient adjacent parking; and

·    Land better used for more parking, turning lane, bus interchange or for redevelopment of adjacent buildings.

 

Conclusion

 

It is recommended that staff write again to the Minister for Roads and Ports, the Honorable Duncan Gay MP and also the Premier, the Honorable Barry O’Farrell MP seeking their assistance and support for transfer of the land to Council to allow the a park. Staff are still of the view that the park should be designed with an aboriginal culture theme, but it may be appropriate for a number of options to be explored, still ensuring the land is utilised as a ‘gateway’ site to the Lane Cove Town Centre.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council write to the Minister for Roads and Ports, the Honorable Duncan Gay MP and also the Premier, the Honorable Barry O’Farrell MP seeking their assistance and support for transfer of 69 Longueville Road to Council to allow the provision of a ‘gateway’ park for the Lane Cove Town Centre.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Letter from John Ajaka, Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Ports

2 Pages

AT‑2 View

Response to Hon. John Ajaka MLC

1 Page

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 May 2012

Recycling in Shopping Precincts

 

 

Subject:          Recycling in Shopping Precincts    

Record No:    SU1667 - 16379/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      David Wilson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report discusses the current recycling facilities in the LGA and recommends that the current number of recycling bins be increased from one (1) recycling location to three (3) in the Lane Cove Plaza to facilitate greater opportunities for recycling.

 

It is proposed to increase the number of recycling bins in the Plaza for the interim and then after monitoring the effectiveness of these bins, consider the placement of recycling facilities at other shopping centres and parks.

 

The provision of 2 additional recycling bins would result in an additional annual cost of approximately $3,500 for the recycling collection service from the plaza.  In addition a cost of $35,000 would be incurred for the civil works made necessary to accommodate the 3 bin bays.

 

Background

 

Existing Facilities - Lane Cove Plaza

 

Council introduced public place recycling in the Lane Cove Plaza during National Recycling Week in November 2009 and the pilot program included a comprehensive public place bin utilisation audit study and was completed in December 2009.

 

The objective of the pilot program was aimed at achieving the following:-

 

·    To improve resource recovery and reduce litter;

·    Facilitate a better understanding prior to introducing a public place recycling/waste management facility;

·    Identify suitable locations of the system should the facility be introduced in other open space locations; and

·    Provide an opportunity for improved awareness by implementing a public place recycling facility.

 

Recycling bins were provided at 2 locations in the Plaza. The bin audits comprised of two stages:-

 

·    Stage 1 – Prior to recycling facility being introduced; and

·    Stage 2 – After the recycling facility was introduced.

 

The following methodology was applied:-

 

·    Monitor typical daily volume of waste and recyclables;

·    Monitor typical daily weight of the waste and recyclables;

·    Monitor daily contamination in recycling bin; and

·    Monitor daily use of recycling bins.


The table below shows the amount of waste and recyclable materials recycled during the trial.

Trial Stages

waste type

Amount (in kgs)

Stage 1 – before recycling bin

Garbage

438.53

Recycling

546.86

Total

 

985.39

 

Potential recyclable quantity (%)

55%

Stage 2 –

after recycling bin

Garbage

445.04

Recycling

237.29

Total

 

682.33

 

Actual recycled quantity (%)

35%

 

Discussion

 

The study highlighted limited success with only 35% recyclables being recovered from the waste stream as opposed to a potential 55%. 

 

Lane Cove Council currently has 191 public place bins across the LGA, of which 18 bins are currently in use in the Plaza. With an expansion of the number of recycling bins  for collection and sorting of recyclables in the Plaza, the total number of bins provided will be 15 garbage bins and 3 recycling bins and will be provided at an added cost to Council of approximately $3,500 per annum.

 

Three Plaza locations are proposed for the waste and recycling bin systems shown attached as AT-2:-

 

·    Western side of pedestrian crossing within the circular garden bed (Longueville Road);

·    Western end of timber deck (existing bin location); and

·    In retaining wall next to bike rack (Burns Bay Road).

 

Cost

 

At present the collection costs of all public place bins is approximately $213,463. With the proposed expansion of existing facility in the Lane Cove Plaza, this cost would increase to approximately $216,950 an increase of approximately $3,500.

 

The modification of retaining walls and the construction of defined bin bays/enclosures are estimated to cost approximately $35,000.

 

Current Municipal Collection/Disposal Contract

 

The current collection and disposal contracts are nearing the end of their tenure period, and making changes to expand the recycling collection services to all shopping precincts would require significant price variations to the existing collection contract.  For this reason it is proposed to only increase public recycling collection points in the Plaza.

 

Until the review of current waste contracts (collection & disposal) are finalised, it is proposed that making minor adjustments to recycling facility in the Plaza is reasonable and can be implemented.

 

Conclusion

 

The provision of additional recycling bins in the Plaza would provide shoppers with improved access to recycling facilities and increase the amount of waste being recycling and diverted from landfill.

 

Due to the conditions of Council’s current waste contracts it is considered prudent to not expand recycling services beyond the Plaza for the time being.  The opportunity to investigate the feasibility of more advanced methods of recycling including the processing of municipal waste through Alternative Waste Treatment technologies should also be considered at the time of the tender process.  In doing so, Council would have the opportunity to enhance all Public Place waste management systems, improve overall recovery of recyclable materials from public spaces and optimise environmental benefits. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Increase the number of recycling bins in the Lane Cove Plaza for the interim; and

2.   Allocate additional funds of $35,000 in the Budget for the introduction of recycling bins in the Plaza.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Proposed Recycling Bin Station Plan 2012 Lane Cove Plaza

1 Page

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 May 2012

Water Savings Action Plan 2012

 

 

Subject:          Water Savings Action Plan 2012    

Record No:    SU4472 - 18945/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Richard Li 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

In 2008, then Department of Climate Change, Environment and Water (currently Office of Environment and Heritage) approved Council’s Water Savings Action Plan under the condition that the plan was to be reviewed every four (4) years. In 2012, a revised edition of the Water Savings Action Plan was produced. The revised report identified the top ten (10) water consumption sites owned/operated by Council. The report also identified opportunities where further water savings can be achieved through retro fitting and improvements to existing infrastructure. It is proposed that Council’s Water Savings Action Plan 2012 attached as AT-1 be endorsed and the recommendations identified in the report be implemented.

 

Background

 

In 2008, a Water Savings Action Plan was produced by Council as part of the standards required under NSW Government’s WASIP (Waste and Sustainability Improvement Program). As a result of this report, a number of water saving projects were carried out at a number of Council owned sites, including Blackman Park, Tantallon Oval, and Pottery Green Oval. These locations have benefited from this program and achieved a significant reduction in water consumption. The results have been highlighted in the revised Water Savings Action Plan 2012.

 

The 2012 Water Savings Action Plan highlights the achievements of the previous plan and identifies opportunities where further savings can be achieved by analysing water consumption across all Council owned/operated facilities including parks and reserves. The new top ten (10) water consumption sites are:-

 

·    Blackman Park;

·    Bob Campbell Oval;

·    Pottery Green;

·    Tantallon Oval;

·    Council Administration Building (Civic Centre);

·    Council Depot;

·    Azalea Garden;

·    Lane Cove Aquatic Centre;

·    Lane Cove Golf Course; and

·    Kingsford Smith Oval.

 

Over a 30-day period, technical walkthroughs were conducted by Council staff to record and analyse the water consumption patterns in these ten (10) sites; and subsequently recommendations were made to achieve further water saving targets within these ten (10) sites.

 

Discussion

 

The review of water consumption has identified that none of the higher water use sites require significant capital investment at this time. Considering most of the top ten (10) sites have already received infrastructure upgrades/installations through the previous action plan, this result is not unexpected.

 

The report showed that some sites including Blackman Park, Tantallon Oval, and Pottery Green Oval have reached or are approaching maximum water saving potential through upgrades, which means return on investment (ROI) will be significantly lower compared with sites which have not been retro-fitted or upgraded.

 

A separate report undertaken by ARUP, a consultancy company identified water savings projects including irrigation upgrades and soil improvement programs, however as this report is not funded under the WASIP program, it was not considered under the 2012 Water Savings Action Plan.

 

The report also showed that sites which are used extensively by the community such as the Lane Cove Aquatic Centre and Civic Centre can benefit from low cost awareness raising campaigns such as reducing shower times.

 

Conclusion

 

The 2012 Water Savings Action Plan identifies water saving opportunities in the following categories:-

·    Retro-fitting existing water consumption devices;

·    Community awareness raising campaigns; and

·    Modification of existing work practice.

 

The following table is the summary of the recommended water saving actions to be undertaken:-

 

Site Name

Recommended Actions

Cost

Blackman Park

Using rainwater for amenity block

$3000

Pottery Green Oval

Separate water meter to service Occasional Day Care

$3000

Tantallon Oval

Maintenance program to fix existing pipe works

$500

Civic Centre

Staff Education Program

$3000

Council Depot

Separate water meter to service Girls Guide Hall, Scout Hall and Tennis Clubhouse

$3000

Azalea Garden

Installation of rain sensors to control the drip irrigation system

$2000

Kingsford Smith Oval

Retro-fitting existing water use devices

$1000

Lane Cove Aquatic Centre

Community Education Program

$2000

Asset NSW Water Saver Monitor

$1000

Lane Cove Golf Course

Upgrade projects have been identified in a separate report by ARUP

n/a

Bob Campbell Oval

Upgrade projects have been identified in a separate report by ARUP

n/a

Total

$18,500

*Costs are indicative only

 

If endorsed by Council, the 2012 Water Savings Action and the list of recommended actions will be forwarded to Office of Environment and Heritage for grant funding allocation.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorse the 2012 Water Savings Action Plan dated February 2012 and the following actions:-

 

Blackman Park-

Investigate using rainwater for amenity block;

Pottery Green Oval-

Install separate water meter to service Occasional Day Care;

Tantallon Oval-

Carry out maintenance program to fix existing pipe works;

Civic Centre-

Initiate Staff Education Program on water saving;

Council Depot- 

Install separate water meter to service Girls Guide Hall, Scout Hall and Tennis Clubhouse;

Azalea Garden-

Investigate installation of rain sensor for drip irrigation system;

Kingsford Smith Oval-

Retro-fit existing water use devices;

Lane Cove Aquatic Centre-

Initiate Community Education Program on water saving; and

Install Asset NSW Water Saver Monitor on secondary water meter.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Water Savings Action Plan 2012

67 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 May 2012

Policy Manual Review - Phase 2

 

 

Subject:          Policy Manual Review - Phase 2    

Record No:    SU241 - 19736/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

This report forms the second phase of an organisational review of Council’s Policy Manual (“Policy Manual”), which provides a reference for all policies adopted by Council.  The purpose of this report is to make further recommendations to Council for the amendment of the Policy Manual.

Background

At its meeting on 16 April 2012, Council considered the report Policy Manual Review – Phase 1. Phase 1 of the review looked at the policies under headings A to D and the report recommended amendments to those policies. Council resolved at that meeting to:-

“Amend the policies in the Policy Manual as listed in AT-1 – Policy Manual Recommended Amendments (from A-D) dated 10 April 2012, subject to

a.  The Code of Meeting Practice being amended to reflect Council’s new Meeting Cycle; and

b.  Policy A3007, Keeping of Animals be amended to make it clear that the owner must ensure they do not create a nuisance (physical, noise or odours) in any public place.”

Discussion

Stage 2 Recommended Amendments

Attached as AT-1 is the Policy Manual from headings E to L (inclusive) with the recommended amendments shown throughout.  The following provides commentary on the policies to be amended.  Only policies recommended for amendment are listed. 

F01001 – Fences –Common Boundary Fences

It is recommended that this policy be revoked as it is covered under State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008; Subdivision 18 Fences (non-forward of the building line); and in Council’s DCP, Part C, 1.4 Fences.

 

F01003 – Fences – Contributions to Common Boundary Fences

Amendments have been made to reference and ensure consistency with current associated legislation (i.e. the Dividing Fences Act 1991).  It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly. 

 

F03000 – Flag Poles – Flag Poles

It is recommended the policy be revoked as applications are considered on a case by case basis and a formal policy is not considered necessary.

 

F04002 – Foreshores – Rock Faces and Flora

A minor amendment has been made to align the policy with current practice. It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly. 

 

F04003 – Foreshores – Boat Sheds

It is recommended the policy be revoked as each application is assessed on its own merits and a formal policy is not considered necessary.

 

F04004 – Foreshores – Waterfront Structures Becoming Available for Lease by Council

A minor amendment has been made to correctly reference Council’s ‘Leasing of Council Property’ Policy.  It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly.

 

I02001 – Information Technology Policy – Internet and E-Mail Management Policy

Amendments have been made to incorporate new technology and inherent capabilities such as mobility.  It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly. 

 

L01002 – Lane Use and Subdivision – Strata Subdivisions

Amendments have been made to include all residential zones not just Residential (A1) or (A2) zones. It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly. 

 

L01004 – Lane Use and Subdivision –Subdivision Applications – Easement through Reserves

Amendments have been made to ensure consistency with Council’s DCP 2010, Part O - Stormwater Management. It is recommended that this policy be amended accordingly. 

 

L02003 – Library Policies – Membership Identification Criteria

A minor amendment which removes the words ‘Municipal Council’ from the title has been made to correctly reference the Lane Cove Library.  It is recommended this policy be amended accordingly.

 

L02004 – Library Policies – Library Hours

A minor amendment has been made to correctly reference the Lane Cove Library’s opening hours on Tuesday’s.  It is recommended this policy be amended accordingly.

 

L02017 – Library Policies – Corporate Library

It is recommended that this policy be revoked.  As the Corporate Library was integrated into the full library collection it is considered redundant.  

 

L02024 – Library Policies Photographing of the Lane Cove LGA on a Regular Basis

Amendments have been made to replace references to ‘Municipality’ with ‘Local Government Area (LGA)’.  It is recommended this policy be amended accordingly.

 

Conclusion

 

This report forms the second stage of an organisational review of Council’s Policy Manual. This report makes further recommendations to Council for the amendment of the Policy Manual.  None of the amendments or deletions are such that it is considered necessary to undertake community consultation. A further report will be submitted in relation to the remainder of the Policy Manual at the Council meeting of 16 July 2012.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council amend the policies in the Policy Manual as listed in AT-1 – Policy Manual Recommended Amendments (from E-L) 10 May 2012.

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Policy Manual Recommended Amendments (From E01000 - L02000)

96 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 May 2012

Determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal for Councillors Fees

 

 

Subject:          Determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal for Councillors Fees    

Record No:    SU839 - 21579/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

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

 

Discussion

 

The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal has handed down a determination (see link below for more detail) on 27 April 2012 under Sections 239 and 241 of the Local Government Act on the level of fees to be paid to Councillors and Mayors from 1 July 2012:-

 

http://www.dpc.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/141399/2012_Report_and_determination_gazette_copy.pdf

 

The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal has increased all minimum and maximum fees for Mayors and Councillors by 2.5%.  The table below shows the current annual fees paid to Lane Cove Councillors and the new minimum and maximum annual fees as determined by the tribunal:-

 

 

Current Annual Fee

New Minimum Annual Fee

New Maximum Annual Fee

Mayor (in addition to the Councillor Fee)

$36,320

 

$16,480

 

$37,230

 

Councillors

$16,640

$  7,740

$17,060

 

The program in Council’s adopted Budget for 2012/13 provides for these increases.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council determine the appropriate fee to be paid to the Mayor and Councillors for 2012/2013.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 May 2012

Voting Delegates for One Association to Represent NSW Local Government

 

 

Subject:          Voting Delegates for One Association to Represent NSW Local Government    

Record No:    SU896 - 22221/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has received correspondence from the Local Government Association of NSW advising that a vote to amalgamate the Local Government Association of NSW and the Shires Association into One Association may occur before the Local Government Elections in September.  In order to proceed to a postal ballot, the Local Government Association of NSW has requested Council advise their current voting delegates.  This report recommends that Council determine which three Councillors are to be its voting delegates for the ballot to deal with the matter of One Association.

 

Discussion

 

Council has received correspondence shown attached as AT-1 from the Local Government Association of NSW advising that both the Executives of the Local Government Association of NSW and the Shires Association have adopted resolutions to jointly apply to Fair Work Australia for approval to vote on amalgamating into One Association.  If, Fair Work Australia give this approval, then the Associations will request the Australian Electoral Commission to independently manage the voting process and conduct a secret postal ballot.  The correspondence states that if a yes vote is received it would not be until at least March 2013 that One Association will take effect.

The correspondence also provides details on the ballot, consultation on One Association and delegates voting rights under One Association.

 

Under current Local Government Association of NSW rules Council is entitled to 3 voting delegates.  The Local Government Association of NSW has requested that each council advise their voting delegates, including their personal postal addresses by 31 May 2012.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council determine the three (3) Councillors to be nominated as Councils voting delegates to take part in the forthcoming secret postal ballot to deal with the matter of One Association, and that their names and personal postal addresses be forwarded to the Associations to form the Roll of Voters.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Correspondence from the LGA on One Association

6 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 May 2012

Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting Held Tuesday 17 April 2012

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting Held Tuesday 17 April 2012    

Record No:    SU1326 - 22230/12

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Nick Karahlis 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday 17 April 2012.  The Agenda is included as AT-1.  The Traffic Committee recommendations are shown in the Minutes of the Meeting, included at AT-2.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the recommendations of the Lane Cove Traffic Committee held Tuesday 17 April 2012 be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Agenda - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 17 April 2012

6 Pages

AT‑2 View

Minutes - Lane Covel Traffic Committee 17 April 2012

2 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 May 2012

Greenwich Village Games Organising Committee

 

 

Subject:          Greenwich Village Games Organising Committee    

Record No:    SU2741 - 16360/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Greenwich Village Games is conducted by the Greenwich Village Games Organising Committee on behalf of Council.  It is recommended that the 2012 Games be conducted by the Committee, consisting of nominated community representatives and the three (3) East Ward Councillors.

 

Background

 

The Greenwich Village Games are conducted by a Council Committee, the Greenwich Village Games Organising Committee, which was constituted as an official Council Committee for the last two games in 2004 and 2008.  The Games are a community run event with some 20 events conducted over a weekend, which are conducted on a cost neutral basis.

 

Discussion

 

The next Greenwich Village Games are scheduled to be held on the 8th and 9th of December 2012. The constitution of the Committee (AT-1) requires Council to make the appointments to the committee. It is therefore proposed to update the membership of the Committee as new members of the community have been nominated since the last games.  Council is represented on the organising committee by the three (3) East Ward Councillors and it is proposed to appoint the following community representatives to the General Committee, Jack Ford, Chairman, Christine Kirkwood, Secretary, Lynda Wehipeihana, Treasurer, Cindy Brown, Karen Macalister-Hohnen, David Pumphrey, Christine Lopacinski , Jo Cunningham, Michael Armati and Lynne Spencer. The following are also appointed as team captains/representatives, Dennis Karp, Tony King, Joanne Cunningham, Sandy Calder, Tony Crossley, Chris Rossiter, Chris Scougall, Maureen Miller, Michael Noetel, Leanne Keene, Mary Ed Hartnell, Hugh Chisholm, Karen Chisholm, and Glenda Cameron-Strange.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That: -

1.    The Report be received and noted;

2.    The 2012 Greenwich Village Games be conducted by the Greenwich Village Games Organising Committee; and

       3.    Council appoint the following representatives to the 2012 Organising Committee the three (3) East Ward Councillors, Jack Ford, Chairman, Christine Kirkwood, Secretary, Lynda Wehipeihana, Treasurer, Cindy Brown, Karen Macalister-Hohnen, David Pumphrey, Christine Lopacinski , Jo Cunningham, Michael Armati, Lynne Spencer, Dennis Karp, Tony King, Joanne Cunningham, Sandy Calder, Tony Crossley, Chris Rossiter, Chris Scougall, Maureen Miller, Michael Noetel, Leanne Keene, Mary Ed Hartnell, Hugh Chisholm, Karen Chisholm, and Glenda Cameron-Strange.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Charter of the Greenwich Village Games Organising Committee

3 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 May 2012

3rd Quarter Review of the 2011 – 2012 Budget

 

 

Subject:          3rd Quarter Review of the 2011 – 2012 Budget    

Record No:    SU757 - 22348/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

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

 

Background

 

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

 

Discussion

 

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

 

 

Original Budget

           Qtr 1 Adjustment

Qtr 2 Adjustment

Qtr 3 Adjustment

Revised Budget

Expenditure

$33,885k

$376k

$90k

$287k

$34,638k

Revenue

$34,855k

$610k

$1,064k

$301k

$36,830k

Surplus/(Deficit)

$970k

$234k

$974k

$14k

$2,192k

 

Expenditure

 

The major expenditure adjustments include an increase in restorations expenses ($235,000) offser by a $485,000 increase in income, unscheduled maintenance and modifications to the exit gate in the Market Square Car Park ($40,000). In addition a new excavator has been purchased due to increased drainage works funded by the Infrastructure Levy and additional vehicle replacements in the light vehicle fleet. There will be a decrease in Fire Brigades Levy of $60,000, compared to the budget estimate.

 

Income

 

The income adjustment relates mainly to an increase in Operating Contributions (Restorations) ($485,000) offset by a decrease in Capital Contributions from the RMS to fund Regional Roads of $210,000 was withdrawn.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the 2011 – 2013 Budget be varied as follows:-

 

 

Original Budget

           Qtr 1 Adjustment

Qtr 2 Adjustment

Qtr 3 Adjustment

Revised Budget

Expenditure

$33,885k

$376k

$90k`

$287k

$34,638k

Revenue

$34,855k

$610k

$1,064k

$301k

$36,830k

Surplus/(Deficit)

$970k

$234k

$974k

$14k

$2,192k

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Attachment for Council Report - March 2012 - 3rd Quarter Budget Review

6 Pages

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 May 2012

3rd Quarter Review of the 2011-2013 Delivery Program & Operational Plan

 

 

Subject:          3rd Quarter Review of the 2011-2013 Delivery Program & Operational Plan    

Record No:    SU238 - 21571/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The report outlines Council’s 3rd Quarter progress on the activities and projects listed in the Delivery Program and Operational Plan.  It is recommended that the report be received and noted.

 

Discussion

 

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

 

Some of the highlights for the quarter include:-

 

·      Gallery Lane Cove Opened (February).

·      Official Opening of Library Square (February).

·      Sunset in the Village and Autumn Harmony Festivals events were held (January – March).

·      Quotations for Property Management Services Undertaken (February).

·      Update of Water Savings Action Plan completed (February).

·      Workshops held for Year 10 students addressing the issues of bullying, self harm, image, alcohol and drug use (March).

·      The Youngpla Meri held a very successful Birthing Kit Day, 1,000 birthing kits will be sent to PNG (March).

·      Woodford Bay Dinghy Rack Concept Plan completed (March).

·      Enviromentors program undertaken which provides information to schools on waste reduction and best practice for residents (March).

·      Upgrade of Goodlet Reserve underway (March).

·      Upgrade of Greenwich Shops Stage 2 underway (March).

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the 3rd quarter review of the 2011-2013 Delivery Program and Operational Plan be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

Executive Manager                                                                                               

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

3rd Quarter Review of 2011 - 2013 Operational Plan

50 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 May 2012

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot     

Record No:    SU220 - 22177/12

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

Council Snapshot

57 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 May 2012

Shorefest Youth Event

 

 

Subject:          Shorefest Youth Event    

Record No:    SU4017 - 22400/12

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Kylie Gleeson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The flagship annual youth event for Council and the community, ‘Shorefest’, was held in St Leonards Park on Saturday 14 April 2012. The concert, the peak event in Youth Week, attracted approximately 2,000 young people over the course of the day. The event was organised in collaboration with North Sydney, Mosman, Willoughby, Ryde and Ku-ring-gai Councils.

 

The event was a huge success and included performances by an international band as well as a number of local bands. A local youth services information area was well-attended, and proved to be an ideal way of promoting local youth services.

Background

 

Some of the key priorities for local young people, as highlighted in the Lane Cove Social Plan 2010-2014, include:-

·    Provide appropriate socialisation and recreation opportunities;

·    Continue to maximise musical activities in Lane Cove; and

·    Increase awareness and knowledge of services and facilities which are available to support young people.

 

Shorefest was established in 2010, due to increasing demands from local young people for a music event following the end of ‘Shoreshocked’ after the 2007 festival. ‘Shoreshocked’ was stopped due to rising costs and issues around crowd control and police management.

 

Shorefest took its place in 2010 and was organised on a much smaller scale after negotiations with North Sydney Police. The event has proved to be very popular since it was re-established and has created a name for itself across the North Shore.

 

Discussion

 

Shorefest was held during National Youth Week, on Saturday 14 April from 10am–5pm at St Leonards Park in North Sydney, with participating Councils including Lane Cove, North Sydney, Willoughby, Mosman, Ryde and Ku-ring-gai Councils. Approximately 2,000 young people attended the event, mostly from Northern Sydney but included others from as far as Penrith and Wollongong.

 

The event comprised 11 bands and they were mostly from the hardcore rock genre. The headlining band was a band called Veil of Maya from the U.S.A. Young people were very excited to have been given an opportunity to see an international band at a free youth event.

The event not only provided an opportunity for young people to experience a fun day of entertainment in a drug and alcohol free environment, but also gave local youth service providers an opportunity to promote their services to young people. In attendance were the Youth Health Promotion Team, North Sydney PCYC, Streetwork, Clinic 16 and Phoenix House Youth Services. Young people filtered through the services area throughout the day, talking to staff and participating in interactive activities and receiving information and giveaways such as fairy floss.

 

The general atmosphere was one of fun and respect for others, with young people out to enjoy the music. Crowd behaviour was commendable with no police arrests and organisers were very pleased with the day.

Conclusion

 

Shorefest addresses a real need for the provision of social and recreational activities, musical opportunities, and increasing awareness regarding local youth services.

The event was a credit to all the Councils involved in the organisation of the event, to young people across the area, the Police and security, and the services who attended to give information. An evaluation meeting was undertaken and members of the Organising Committee from the six Councils involved are committed to providing Shorefest again in 2013.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.       Receive and note the Report; and

2.       Support Shorefest in 2013 and other future similar youth related initiatives that focus on music and entertainment.

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.