m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

19 November 2012

The meeting commences at 7.00pm. 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 19 November 2012 commencing at 7:00pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

 

Council Meeting Procedures

 

The Council meeting is chaired by the Mayor, Councillor Scott Bennison. 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 19 November 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

public forum

 

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

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 15 OCTOBER 2012

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

2.       Sister City - Hu Zhou China

 

3.       Purchase of School Camp Site at 'Marney'

 

4.       Development Rosenthal Car Park

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

5.       Bicycle Plan

 

6.       Senior Car Parking

 

7.       Police Parking

 

8.       St. Leonards Community Liasion Committee

 

9.       Town Centre Traffic

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

10.     Petition - Kullah Pde and Mindarie St rezoning

 

11.     Planning Proposal: 8-14 Mindarie St, Lane Cove North

 

12.     1-25 Marshall Avenue Planning Proposal - Additional Information

 

13.     St Leonards South Urban Planning Strategy

 

14.     Policy on Planting or Landscaping of Nature Strips

 

15.     Preparation & Cooking of Food on Council Footpaths

 

16.     Meeting House Redevelopment

 

17.     Contribution for Road Construction to service 316-322 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove

 

18.     Review of DCP Part F - Access & Mobility: Public Exhibition

 

19.     Nominations for Community Members on Council's Advisory Committees

 

20.     Amended Charters for Advisory Committees

 

21.     Request for Reimbursement of Legal Expenses

 

22.     1st Quarter Review of the 2012-2013 Budget

 

23.     Council's Annual Report 2011/12

 

24.     Wildlife Protection Areas in Reserves

 

25.     NSW Planning Review: LEP Plan-making & Delegations

 

26.     Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held Tuesday 23 October 2012

 

27.     LGSA Training - Effective Chair in Local Government and Dynamic Presentation Skills

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

28.     Bushfire Risk

 

29.     1st Quarter Review of the 2012-2013 Delivery Program & Operational Plan

 

30.     Council Snapshot   

 

 

 

 

        


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

Sister City - Hu Zhou China

 

 

Subject:          Sister City - Hu Zhou China    

Record No:    SU3474 - 58325/12

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Scott Bennison 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Mayor of Hu Zhou City in China has forwarded me a CD of their City and has indicated their interest in forming a ‘Sister City’ relationship with Lane Cove to exchange Art and Culture. I have spoken with the management of Centrehouse who indicated their support to host a Chinese Art Show in Gallery Lane Cove and the opportunity to exchange Australian and Chinese items. China has in more recent times shown an interest in sustainable living. This may be an opportunity to showcase Lane Cove sustainable programs and to provide examples to Hu Zhou of sustainable living.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the General Manager report back to Council at the December meeting on:-

 

1.   The process of entering into a Sister City relationship; and

2.   Centrehouse’s willingness to assist in organising and hosting a Chinese Art Show in Gallery Lane Cove and what additional resources would be required to host such an event.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Scott Bennison

Mayor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

Purchase of School Camp Site at 'Marney'

 

 

Subject:          Purchase of School Camp Site at 'Marney'    

Record No:    SU3474 - 58326/12

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Scott Bennison 

 

 

Executive Summary

Chatswood P & C recently resolved to sell its property ‘Marney’ located 15 km outside Rylstone NSW due to Occupational Health & Safety concerns. Chatswood P & C has owned this property for a number of years and until recently it was used by Chatswood High School to hold band camps, Duke of Edinburgh Awards and other activities.  Chatswood P & C have asked for expressions of interest before their next meeting to be held 11 December 2012. This would be a great opportunity for our school children to have their own School Camp site in the country. The area also has significant Aboriginal sites in the area and there are Traditional Owners who would be willing to show the children some of their sites and also take them on archaeological digs when they do Heritage Survey work.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council contact the Chatswood P & C and provide them with an expression of interest to purchase the property and provide a report back to the Council Meeting in December on:-

1.   Details regarding the purchase price and current running costs of the property;

2.   Determine the interest from local Schools regarding the interest and use if Council was to purchase such a property to use as a camp;

3.   Possible grants available to assist with either or both the purchase of the property and refurbishment of the existing building; and

4.   Estimated costs to refurbish or replace the existing building.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Scott Bennison

Mayor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

Development Rosenthal Car Park

 

 

Subject:          Development Rosenthal Car Park    

Record No:    SU3474 - 58618/12

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Scott Bennison 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

In order for Council to progress the redevelopment of the Rosenthal Car Park Site:-

1.         Council prepare concept plans for an underground car park on the site, such to include options for a below ground retail tenant/s; and

2.         Council undertake a community consultation process to determine the design principles for what should occur above ground on the site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Scott Bennison

Mayor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

         


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

Bicycle Plan

 

 

Subject:          Bicycle Plan    

Record No:    SU4925 - 58321/12

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Marc Gold 

 

 

Executive Summary

Since the adoption of the Bicycle Plan by Lane Cove Council there have been a number of new and proposed developments in Lane Cove. There may be an opportunity to review the Bicycle Plan and capitalise on some of the new and proposed developments that may provide better Bicycle path ways.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council :-

1.   Review its current Bicycle Plan in light of new and proposed developments in Lane Cove and report back to Council on any recommendations to the current Bicycle Plan.
 

2.   Request the Lane Cove Bicycle Advisory Committee to also review the current Bicycle Plan       and make a submission to Council regarding any changes to the current Bicycle Plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Marc Gold

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

Senior Car Parking

 

 

Subject:          Senior Car Parking    

Record No:    SU4924 - 58586/12

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Deborah Hutchens 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council allocate Seniors Parking Spaces on the upper level pan handle in the Market Square Car Park. Use of the spaces must display Seniors Parking permits at all times.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Deborah Hutchens

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

Police Parking

 

 

Subject:          Police Parking    

Record No:    SU4924 - 58608/12

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Deborah Hutchens 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has had a request from Rob Critchlow, Commander at NSW Police Force to make available one car space to allow NSW Police vehicles to park and have a more regular presence in Lane Cove again.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council allocates 2 car spaces in front of the old police station for police vehicle use. This will allow for increased Police presence in Lane Cove and these spaces may be used in the future for a police mobile station when it is required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Deborah Hutchens

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

St. Leonards Community Liasion Committee

 

 

Subject:          St. Leonards Community Liasion Committee    

Record No:    SU3476 - 58634/12

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor David Brooks-Horn; Councillor David Karpin 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That :-

1.   Council initiates a “St. Leonards Community Liaison Committee”.  This Committee will assist Council with development of the St. Leonards Master Plan, LEP proposed changes in the St. Leonards area and with consultation with significance DAs in the St. Leonards area.

2.   Council write to the secretaries and presidents of the “St. Leonards/ North Wollstonecraft Community Association” and the “Marshall Avenue Action Group” and invites them to volunteer two representatives each for the St. Leonards Community Liaison Committee.

3.    Other members of the St. Leonards Community Liaison Committee be relevant Council staff as determined by the General Manager, East Ward Councillors and other people as determined by the Committee.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor David Brooks-Horn

Councillor

 

 

 

Councillor David Karpin

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

Town Centre Traffic

 

 

Subject:          Town Centre Traffic    

Record No:    SU3476 - 58648/12

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Soo-Tee Cheong; Councillor David Brooks-Horn 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That a brief be prepared for a traffic study of Lane Cove Town Centre & adjacent areas to be carried out for the purpose of obtaining proposals to alleviate traffic problems and to improve traffic flow in the Town Centre, especially on Longueville Road toward Epping Road junction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Soo-Tee Cheong

Councillor

 

 

 

Councillor David Brooks-Horn

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

Petition - Kullah Pde and Mindarie St rezoning

 

 

Subject:          Petition - Kullah Pde and Mindarie St rezoning    

Record No:    SU4500 - 57856/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A petition dated 29 October 2012 has been received from residents representing sixteen properties in Kullah Parade and Mindarie Street, Lane Cove North. The petition requests that Council maintain High Density Residential R4 zoning for all of Mindarie St and Kullah Pde, rather than rezoning the area to Environmental Living E4 as recommended in the Mowbray Precinct Strategic Review and exhibited in early 2012, and resolved by Council at its meeting of 15 October 2012. 

 

After consideration of the petition and other submissions, in conjunction with the various reports and land use advice of independent consultants and specialist authorities, it is recommended that Council note the petition, and that the proposed Environmental Living E4 zoning, endorsed by Council on 15 October this year for the majority of the block, be confirmed.

 

A copy of the petition and letters received by residents has been circulated separately to Councillors.

 

Background

 

The proposal to rezone certain properties to Environmental Living E4 was the recommendation of the special Mowbray Precinct Strategic Review endorsed by the NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure and Council in December 2011 and exhibited early this year. The factors taken into account in the Review included issues relating to bush fire prone land as a result of the sites’ proximity to Batten Reserve.

 

After the exhibition, and consideration of the unique context of the precinct, Council endorsed the E4 zoning as exhibited for Kullah Pde and Mindarie St, and submitted the proposal to the Department for gazettal. Following the Department’s advice on 28 September 2012 and subsequent discussions with Council, it was agreed that the Environmental Living E4 zoning as exhibited for these properties may proceed to finalisation. On 15 October, Council resolved to submit the E4 zoning to the Department accordingly.

 

Discussion

 

The petition received on 29 October 2012 following this resolution was submitted by residents of the properties shown below:-

 

The petition’s grounds for not rezoning this area to Environmental Living E4 are shown below in italics, followed by staff comments:-

 

·    It is unjust and discriminatory to rezone the properties to E4 when the rest of the precinct remains R4: The E4 zoning was recommended by consultants (JBA Planning) on the basis of the proximity to Batten Reserve bushland and topography which distinguish this part of the precinct from the other section such as Mowbray Road.

 

·    Gordon Crescent is proposed for R4 although it had not been exhibited R4: The consultants had recommended R4 taking into account varying site considerations including the bushfire asset protection zone. It would not appear reasonable to require re-exhibition for the Gordon Crescent properties merely to retain their current R4 zoning applying already under LEP 2009.

 

·    Council claimed that the Asset Protection Zone was the reason for the downzoning, but neither JP Morgan nor the Rural Fire Service stated this was a reason for downzoning the area: It was the Strategic Review consultants, JBA Planning and EcoLogical Australia, and the Department with Council, who endorsed the E4 zoning, following consultation with the NSW Rural Fire Service.

 

Conclusion

 

Council’s resolution of 15 October 2012 confirmed the rezoning to Environmental Living E4 of Kullah Pde and part of Mindarie St. This took into consideration that a  Strategic Review process, using independent consultants, had been undertaken and endorsed by Council and the NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure in December 2011, and that the Review’s  recommendation for the E4 zoning had been subsequently exhibited and approved again by Council after exhibition.

 

The petition is not considered to provide adequate grounds for overturning that Review’s findings in relation, in particular, to bushfire issues, and the E4 zoning is recommended to proceed in accordance with the October resolution.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.   Council note the Petition.

 

2.   The Petitioners be advised in writing of Council’s Decision.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

Planning Proposal: 8-14 Mindarie St, Lane Cove North

 

 

Subject:          Planning Proposal: 8-14 Mindarie St, Lane Cove North    

Record No:    SU1446 - 58223/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Following a Strategic Review of the Mowbray Precinct in 2011 and exhibition of zoning changes earlier this year, Council considered public submissions and requested the Department of Planning and Infrastructure in April this year to rezone properties in Kullah Pde and part of Mindarie St to Environmental  Living E4. Council had also proposed that Nos. 8-14 Mindarie St, located within the northern side of the block, be included in the Environmental Living E4 zoning. The Department advised in September, however, that this would require a separate planning proposal to enable exhibition. In October, Council resolved to discuss the proposal at a workshop, which was held in early November, at which it was decided that a report to Council on the proposal should be prepared.

 

This report recommends that a planning proposal for the potential rezoning of 8-14 Mindarie St now be submitted to the Department to enable community consideration of the planning factors and interrelationship between these three and the other properties within the block, having regard to the topographical and other factors involved in the area and relevant amenity considerations.

 

Background

 

Council exhibited the Draft LEP in July 2008 with the entire Mowbray Precinct zoned High Density Residential R4, as required by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.  In August 2008, following consideration of submissions during the exhibition, Council submitted the DLEP to the Department.  Council requested that the LEP be finalised with high density zoning only over the western third of the precinct, with the majority of the precinct to be zoned low density (houses) and medium density (townhouses), as per Council’s earlier preference.  However in February 2010, the LEP (known as LEP 2009) was finalised by the Department with the whole precinct zoned High Density Residential R4, as exhibited.

 

As development applications were submitted in the following year, the NSW Rural Fire Service expressed concerns about endorsing the DA’s in the absence of precinct-wide traffic studies.  Consequently a Strategic Review was undertaken with independent consultants preparing a Master Planning Study and Traffic Study, endorsed by the Department and Council, in December 2011. Public exhibition of the draft LEP took place from 27 January to 23 March 2012 and on 16 April 2012, Council adopted certain amendments post-exhibition, including:-

 

(i)     To retain the current high density R4 zoning for 46-60 Gordon Crescent and 15 Centennial Avenue, rather than low density as proposed by the consultants, and

(ii)    To rezone 8-14 Mindarie Street from high density to low density.

 

The revised Planning Proposal was submitted to the Department on 30 April.  On 28 September 2012, the Department advised that it intended to finalise the LEP but that it had rejected the post exhibition amendments.  Following further discussions with the Department they subsequently agree to allow two of the three post exhibition amendments, with the only one not agreed being 8 - 14 Mindarie Street.  The Department also stated that “Council can address its major post-exhibition changes through the preparation of a further planning proposal”.

 

On 16 October 2012, Council agreed to request that the Department finalise the LEP as adopted on 16 April 2012, with the exception that 8-14 Mindarie St which would remain High Density R4 as exhibited.  Council also resolved that “Consideration of the proposal to rezone 8-14 Mindarie St to Environmental Living E4 from Residential R4 be deferred to a workshop to consider further options.”  A further planning proposal will now be prepared for Council to consider the matter.

 

A letter (provided to Councillors separately) was received from the owners of No.14 Mindarie St on 23 October 2012 requesting that these three (3) properties remain R4, on grounds including that they are not in a bushfire zone and were recommended for R4 in the Strategic Review.  A workshop was held for Councillors on 5 November, at which it was agreed that a report should be submitted to Council regarding a planning proposal for this potential LEP amendment.

 

Discussion

The site’s location and topography are indicated below:-

 

The Asset Protection Zone identified in the Strategic Review over the site is shown below:-

 

In considering whether to support a draft LEP amendment to rezone 8-14 Mindarie St to E4, Council should take into account that, if the three lots remain high density R4, JBA recommends that they should have a reduced scale compared with the other R4 zones in the Precinct, as shown below. The height recommended for.8-14 Mindarie by JBA Planning in the Strategic Review was a maximum of 11.5 metres (3 storeys). This was a moderation of the 14.5 metres (4 storeys) proposed for the R4 zone to the north.

 

Exhibited height - 11.5 metres

 

 The floor space ratio recommended and exhibited was FSR 1.4:1, similarly less than the FSR 1.6:1 for the R4 zone to the north.

 

Exhibited scale - FSR 1.4:1

 

 

It is recommended, nevertheless, that a planning proposal be put forward for the Environmental Living E4 zoning to be exhibited to enable community discussion. This would provide an opportunity for detailed testing of building design options and their implications for shadowing, visual impact etc taking into account the topography and other site constraints.

 Exhibition submissions had been received from residents concerned in particular about overshadowing, overlooking and noise. The issues which would be investigated and considered within a planning proposal include:-

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

·    Kullah Pde properties are restricted to remaining low density E4 due to the Asset Protection Zone (APZ) constraint, but would otherwise have high density R4 abutting their rear boundary with 8-14 Mindarie St.

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

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

·    The Bushfire Protection Assessment by JBA’s consultant, EcoLogical Australia, identified the APZ as covering the Kullah-Mindarie block up to the boundary of Nos.8-14 Mindarie St.  Consequently the houses downhill of 8-14 Mindarie St would be limited in the designs available for redevelopment in response to apartments built to their north.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to provide the community, and specific property owners, with the opportunity to consider the most appropriate zoning and scale for 8-14 Mindarie St relative to other properties within the one block.

 


Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Consult

Inform

Involve

Form of Participation

Open

Open

Targeted

Targeted

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Lane Cove Community

Property owners in Kullah/ Mindarie block

Property owners in Kullah/ Mindarie block

Proposed Medium

Advertisement, and eNewsletter

Public and website exhibition

Notification letters

Residents meeting

Indicative Timing

December 2012 to January 2013

December 2012 to January 2013

December 2012 to January 2013

December 2012 to January 2013

 

Conclusion

 

Nos. 8-14 Mindarie St are currently zoned High Density Residential R4. Their location, to the north and uphill of residential properties proposed to be zoned low density Environmental  Living E4, has raised concerns among owners in the vicinity regarding the appropriate zoning for Nos.8-14 to ensure reasonable amenity for their neighbouring properties.

 

It is recommended that a planning proposal be submitted to the Department for approval to exhibit the draft zoning of these properties to Environmental Living E4, in order to allow community consultation of the relationship of these properties within the Kullah/ Mindarie block, and design testing in relation to shadowing, visual and other impacts.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.   A planning proposal be submitted to the NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure to enable public exhibition of a draft LEP amendment to rezone 8-14 Mindarie St to Environmental Living E4.

2.   The owners of these properties be notified in writing of Council’s Decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:
There are no supporting documents for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

1-25 Marshall Avenue Planning Proposal - Additional Information

 

 

Subject:          1-25 Marshall Avenue Planning Proposal - Additional Information    

Record No:    SU4630 - 57961/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Vivienne Albin 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The planning proposal for 1-25 Marshall Avenue St Leonards seeks to amend the LEP height and floor space controls to enable a tower structure to be considered at the eastern end of the Marshall Ave block in order to facilitate reduced height and floor space controls over the remainder of the block.

 

The planning proposal was exhibited and 172 submissions were received (including one petition with 534 signatures). An information evening was also held during the exhibition period.

 

The planning proposal with a recommendation for approval, subject to reduction of height from 78m to 65m for the tower block, went to the meeting of 16 July 2012 where Council voted to defer the matter and requested additional information.

 

This report provides the additional information as requested by Council at its meeting of 16 July 2012 in relation to Planning Proposal 11/2011 for 1-25 Marshall Ave St Leonards. 

 

The Planning Proposal as publicly exhibited, along with the height amendment discussed in the report to Council on 16 July 2012 (see AT1) and included in recommendations below, is supported to proceed back to the Department of Planning & Infrastructure requesting finalisation.

 

Background

 

In October 2011, a planning proposal was submitted to Council for an amendment to the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2009 for 1-25 Marshall Avenue, St Leonards. The proposal seeks to amend the LEP Height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) Maps but without changing the overall floor space for the site. The site’s current Mixed Use (B4) zoning is not proposed to be changed.

 

At the meeting of 5 December 2011, Council resolved to submit the planning proposal to the Department of Planning LEP Gateway requesting approval to proceed to exhibition. Accordingly, documentation was submitted to the Department and approval to exhibit the planning proposal was received on 17 April 2012.

Map 1 - The Site

The planning proposal was placed on public exhibition from 2 May to 26 June 2012. During this exhibition period and in response to a Council resolution of 21 May 2012, a public information evening was also held on 20 June 2012, and attended by approximately 60-70 people.

 

A total of 172 submissions, including a petition of approximately 534 signatures, were received. Key issues related to visual impact and overshadowing and other matters.

 

After reviewing the public submissions, it was recommended that the exhibited LEP Amendments remain, overall, a preferable position to the existing LEP controls for the subject site and would allow the currently permitted increased density at a transport hub while reducing impacts on surrounding properties overall.

 

There was a view put by a number of submissions that Council should return to DLEP 2007 controls for height and FSR which is not supported, is outside the scope of this proposal and is not a viable development option.

 

In response to issues raised in the report to Council of 16 July 2012, a variation to the planning proposal was recommended in relation to the height limit for the eastern most part of the site. This variation sought to reduce the height for a portion of the site from 78m to 65m in response to the potential built form.

 

The Planning Proposal publicly exhibited along with the height amendment set out in the report of 16 July 2012 (see AT1) was supported by staff to proceed back to the Department of Planning & Infrastructure requesting finalisation.

 

At the meeting of 16 July 2012, Council voted to defer the matter and requested additional information.  This report provides the additional information as requested by Council.

 

As Council would be aware, a draft scoping paper for a master plan is to be prepared (following Council’s resolution of 15 October 2012) for the St Leonards area, including the site. However, deferring the planning proposal for 1-25 Marshall Avenue until the completion of the master plan would create an unacceptable level of uncertainty for the owner and the public regarding the site and is not supported by the Department. The master plan for St Leonards and the Marshall Ave Planning Proposal are two separate processes. Loftex have written to Council in relation to the preparation of a scoping paper for St Leonards (see AT2)

 

It is of interest to note that on 8 November 2012, the proponent of the planning proposal met with Council for a pre development application meeting to outline a proposal to develop 15-25 Marshall Avenue (the western end of the block). The proposal comprises one building containing residential units and a commercial space. The proposal is designed to comply with both the current LEP controls and proposed controls (height & FSR) contained within the planning proposal. The pre DA proposal, although indicative of the design outcomes if the planning proposal was to proceed as proposed by the proponent, has no formal status.

 

Discussion

 

Information requested by Council includes:-

 

·    Details of the 2007 draft LEP for the area;

·    A report on the suitability of the proposed FSR for the eastern portion of the site given the staff recommendation of a reduction in the proposed height;

·    Amended FSR and height maps of the proposal which correct any drafting errors;

·    A report on the powers of the JRPP to make an LEP amendment;

·    A report on the possible planning / DA outcomes if Council does not proceed with the proposed LEP amendment.

 

Details on the above five issues are included below.

 

1.         Details of the 2007 Draft LEP for the Area

 

Draft LEP 2007 was exhibited for the site with an FSR of 3:1 and heights of 18m and 9.5m. The graduation of heights was to step the development down to Marshall Avenue to improve the interface with low scale dwelling houses to the south.

 

The aim is to encourage market flexibility for revitalisation of the precinct, with potential mixed use redevelopments comprising commercial properties along the Highway redeveloping with residential at the rear (with lane access underground). During consultation of DLEP 2007, however, it was submitted by a number of property owners that the FSR of 3:1 - 4:1 recommended by Hill PDA was not adequate to encourage amalgamation of the block in view of its fragmented ownership.

 

DLEP 2008 consequently exhibited FSR 5:1 and 36 metre height.  After that second exhibition, Council resolved to maintain the FSR of 5:1 but with the built form of height stepping downhill from 36 metres on the Highway, to 18 metres south of the Lane, and 9.5 along the Marshall Avenue frontage. The Department of Planning did not agree to the change and subsequently gazetted the LEP retaining the DLEP 2008 scale as exhibited across the block including 1-25 Marshall Avenue.

 

2.         A report on the suitability of the proposed FSR for the eastern portion of the site given the staff recommendation of a reduction in the proposed height

 

The proposed height reduction for the eastern portion of the site, recommended by staff in July, resulted from robust community concern regarding height and Council staff reconsideration of the proposed height in the St Leonards context. However, it is not intended to change the FSR of the site. The density of the site has not been reconsidered and remains acceptable subject to the applicant fulfilling merit considerations for any building designs and meeting requirements of the site specific DCP which is to be revised to relate to the tower element.

 

3.         Amended FSR and height maps of the proposal which correct any drafting errors

 

After discussions with Council’s Open Space & Urban Services Division staff, it is understood that the suggestion was put to the proponent that the proposed LEP maps indicate both height & FSR extending beyond the Loftex site, over Canberra Ave to the railway land.

 

The reason for this suggestion was to facilitate shifting the tower towards the railway away from the low density housing and linking the tower in with any future proposed railway plaza, should Council develop the railway plaza. It should be noted that the B4 zoning already extends across Canberra Ave to the railway.

 

Extending the height and FSR from the adjacent site over the roadway in no way commits Council to selling the land to the developer, but would facilitate development should Council wish to sell/develop this land at any point.

 

4.         A report on the powers of the JRPP to make an LEP amendment

 

While it is clear that a JRPP can be appointed by the Minister, under Section 54(2) of the EPA Act, to carry out the role of Relevant Planning Authority (RPA) for a proposed LEP, after discussion with the JRPP staff it does not appear that this power has been often exercised.

 

The JRPP website lists two examples where the Minister has appointed a JRPP to undertake the role of RPA for a proposal. 

 

A relevant example was the appointment of the Sydney West Region Joint Regional Planning Panel to determine a planning proposal (rezoning of employment land in Menangle) because Wollondilly Shire Council, at two council meetings, maintained its position not to proceed with a proposal until the “Department of Planning provided a coherent sub-regional and metropolitan approach to employment lands”. Pursuant to this, in a letter to the JRPP from the Minister, the planning proposal was said to relate to a matter of regional environmental planning significance and so to “facilitate the urgent resolution of this matter and ensure there are no further undue delays”, the JRPP was directed to become the RPA under S.54(2).

 

In recent discussions with the JRPP Panel Secretariat, it is clear that the appointment of the JRPP as an RPA is not common and there is no set process for the JRPP to become involved in a planning proposal. It can occur at any point in the planning proposal process. At this point in time, the Minister can only appoint the JRPP as a RPA if the development is considered to be regionally significant. On further inquiry, it is apparent that there is no definition of “regionally significant” for the purposes of appointment of a JRPP as a RPA. However, when related to other situations for the JRPP, regionally significant development constitutes development with a capital investment value (CIV) over $20 million.

 

Since this advice was received however, the NSW Government has amended the EPA Act on 2 November 2012 to expand the potential role of the JRPP in reviewing planning proposals. A proponent (e.g. developer, landowner) may request a pre-Gateway review if (a) the council has notified the proponent that their planning proposal is not supported – they have 40 days to request a review, or (b) the council has failed to indicate its support 90 days after the proponent submitted a request.

 

The Department will decide whether the proposal has merit to be forwarded to the JRPP for review.

 

5.         A report on the possible planning / DA outcomes if Council does not proceed with the proposed LEP amendment

 

A letter was sent by Council to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure on 26 July 2012 requesting: -

 

·    confirmation that Council can decide not to proceed with proposal;

·    confirmation that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure would support in principle deferring the planning proposal until after a master plan was finished; and

·    confirmation that any withdrawal or extension of time of current planning proposal beyond 9 month timeframe quoted in Gateway letter would not activate action under Section 54(2)(d) of the EPA Act.

 

The Department’s response is included at AT3 and states that: -

 

·    Council can decide not to proceed with a planning proposal;

·    Council can defer a planning proposal by outlining the timeframe and purpose of the extension to the Gateway determination and the extension would be subject to merit considerations; and

·    Under Section 54(2) of the EPA Act, the Minister can appoint the Director-General as the relevant planning authority if Council has failed to comply with its plan-making obligations.

 

Importantly, it is worth noting that the Department’s letter concludes by stating that the “planning proposal as presented has considerable merit and Council is encouraged to complete the matter so as to provide certainty to both applicants and the community.”

 

 

Conclusion

 

This report provides information as requested by Council at its meeting of 16 July 2012 in relation to Planning Proposal 11/2011 for 1-25 Marshall Ave St Leonards.  In summary: -

 

·    It is not considered desirable or realistic to revisit the DLEP 2007 given that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure did not accept that stepped form and scale when finalising LEP 2009; 

·    Density of the site is not being reconsidered and remains acceptable subject to the applicant fulfilling merit considerations for any building design or site specific DCP;

·    On the relevant DLEP maps, extending the same FSR and height as the subject site across Canberra Ave, may assist Council in facilitating future development of this portion of land if Council seeks to develop the St Leonards Plaza project. Council is under no obligation to sell this land;

·    The JRPP can be appointed by the Minister to act as the relevant planning authority for a proposed LEP at any point throughout the process and its potential role was strengthened on 2 November 2012; and

·    The Department of Planning and Infrastructure confirmed that: - Council can decide not to proceed with a planning proposal; the Department can defer a planning proposal subject to agreement with merit considerations raised by Council; under Section 54(2) of the EPA Act, the Minister can appoint the Director-General as the relevant planning authority if Council has failed to comply with its plan-making obligations. Importantly, the Department’s letter indicated that the planning proposal has considerable merit and encouraged Council to complete the matter.

 

Council staff remains supportive of the planning proposal, as detailed in the report to Council of 16 July 2012.

 

The planning proposal, subject to reduction of the height from 78m to 65m of the eastern portion of the site, is supported as:-

·    It is considered the visual impact would be appropriate in the site’s context adjacent to the St Leonards specialised centre.

·    The shadow impact of the development under the amended LEP would be an improvement to the current LEP; and

·    The anticipated traffic impact is neutral under the planning proposal as the total floor space allowable for the site remains the same under the current LEP or the planning proposal.

 

Information sought by Council at its meeting of 16 July 2012 has been provided in this report. This additional information is not considered to change the merit of the planning proposal and advice from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure underlines the need for Council to resolve the matter.

 

Council is requested to adopt the exhibited Planning Proposal, subject to the height amendment outlined in the report, for finalisation by the Department.

 

 

 

 


 


RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.   Council adopt the exhibited amendments to the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 relating to 1-25 Marshall Avenue, St Leonards, subject to the following change:-

a.    The proposed building height map show the height of the eastern portion reduced from 78m to 65m.

2.   The Department of Planning & Infrastructure be requested to finalise the Planning Proposal LEP Amendments.

3.   Development Control Plan amendments be prepared in an appropriate timeframe supporting the finalisation of the LEP amendments for the subject site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Report to Council Meeting 16 July 2012: 1-25 Marshall Avenue Planning Proposal

24 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Letter from Loftex - Scoping Paper for St Leonards 26 October 2012

3 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Letter from Department of Planning 16 August 2012

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

St Leonards South Urban Planning Strategy

 

 

Subject:          St Leonards South Urban Planning Strategy    

Record No:    SU4943 - 58124/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

In July this year, Council resolved that a Scoping Brief should be prepared for an urban planning Masterplan for a precinct within the St Leonards south/Greenwich north area of Lane Cove.

 

Scope of the Brief

 

The Report identifies two distinct stages within the masterplanning process:- 

 

(i)   Stage 1 – data collection: This relates to the detailed analysis of the existing situation within the precinct and the wider locality, including the precinct’s physical opportunities and constraints, the implications of LEP 2009 zonings, surrounding suburbs, adjacent local government areas and the Royal North Shore Hospital and other matters.

 

(ii)  Stage 2 – growth scenarios: This would examine a range of scenarios which may possibly be considered appropriate by Council in this second stage at a future date for developing sustainable growth scenarios and infrastructure should additional targets be set by the State Government under the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney.

 

It was considered important to divide the Strategy’s preparation into Stage 1 and Stage 2 to enable Council to consider whether it wishes to undertake these in two different timeframes, or as one integrated study. The timing of the Strategy requires careful consideration.

 

On the one hand, it is important that the Strategy’s Stage 2 does not create an expectation for the public that specific growth is to be facilitated in the immediate future, as this would be premature pending a revision to Lane Cove’s residential and employment targets under the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney. It may create community uncertainly for an unforeseeable extent of time.

 

On the other hand, Stage 2 would progress the overall purpose of the Strategy to prepare Council to respond promptly to the State’s foreshadowed increases in residential and employment targets.

 

Process and Community Involvement

 

It is important that a clear process be established for the community to understand, and be involved in, the masterplanning project from the Strategy’s inception to its finalisation. That process is described below in the Report and Brief, and includes a recommendation to establish a St Leonards Community Liaison Committee for ongoing local community involvement in the project, in addition to the broader participation of stakeholders and the public. A Charter for the Committee is also recommended for Council endorsement.

 

Draft Strategy Briefs for Stages 1 (AT 1) and 2 (AT 2) are submitted to Council with the aim of finalisation with the proposed Community Liaison Committee, with Council retaining the right of final determination of the Brief. The Brief would subsequently be advertised for Expressions of Interest for independent consultants to undertake Stage 1 of the study.

 

Council is asked to determine whether the Strategy is to be undertaken under Stage 1 only at this stage, or with Stage 2 as a single project.

 


Background

 

On 16 July 2012, Council considered a draft LEP amendment for 1-25 Marshall Avenue after its exhibition. A report is provided to Council at tonight’s meeting regarding the detail of the proposal. In brief, the planning proposal aims to vary the massing of the height and floor space ratio, though not altering the overall FSR or its associated vehicle numbers.

 

At that meeting, Council discussed that site within the context of its broader locality, and resolved that:-

 

“Council undertake a master planning process for the area bounded by the Pacific Highway, River Road, Greenwich Road and the Sydney northern rail line to consider future planning parameters for the area in conjunction with the community, with regard to the NSW Government’s Metropolitan Strategy, the St Leonards Strategy (commissioned by Lane Cove, North Sydney and Willoughby Councils and the NSW Department of Planning), the proximity of a major transport hub and commercial district, on-street parking, social, environmental and other issues of the area, including the specific needs as a consequence of a major regional teaching hospital (RNSH) and the high proportion of medical facilities in the area”; and

 

 “That a Scoping Brief for the study comes back to Council and that it includes details of the community consultation which would occur during the development of the Master Plan”.

 

Discussion

 

Purpose of the Strategy

 

The scope of Stage 1 of the Brief is to collect data and describe and analyse the existing situation within and beyond the precinct. This includes physical characteristics such as topography and environmental quality, current zoning and development potential, demography, vegetation, traffic volumes, parking, heritage, open space, pedestrian networks and other urban planning factors. The community would be encouraged to contribute local knowledge of factors affecting the precinct’s amenity and functions. Stage 2 would discuss the range of factors above in relation to the precinct’s future potential character, amenity, density and infrastructure provision.

 

The proposed Strategy would aim to provide a valuable evidence-based framework for Council to present to the Department if and/or when considering the future of this area. The Strategy would explore growth scenarios if required to meet increased residential and employment targets under subsequent reviews of the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney.  The need for a Stage 2 study in the medium-term is foreseeable given the precinct’s proximity to the bus-rail transport interchange and retail/ commercial centre of St Leonards and the potential pressure for redevelopment to contribute to Sydney’s growth.

 

It is proposed that the scope of the Strategy should complement the St Leonards Strategy undertaken in 2006 for the St Leonards Specialised Centre, in particular its commercial district, focussed on the interface with North Sydney and Willoughby Councils. For that reason, the term “strategy” is used in this report rather than “masterplan”.

 

The Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney 2031 residential and employment targets have been met within the current LEP 2009, which has been in force for only two years. Earlier this year, Council had considered a request to rezone properties on the southern side of Marshall Avenue from low density to high density residential, and resolved not to support the proposal.

 

These targets are, however, expected to be increased in the review of the Metropolitan Plan 2036 when its supporting plan, the Draft Inner North Subregional Strategy, is finalised. If and when this occurs, Council would be prepared with Stage 1’s baseline data to explore growth options.

Relationship of the Strategy and 1-25 Marshall Avenue Planning Proposal

 

 It should be noted that the Strategy and the 1-25 Marshall Avenue Planning Proposal are currently two distinct processes, and it is recommended that they remain so. The Planning Proposal is proceeding within a framework set by the Departmental Gateway guidelines. The aim is to remass the building height to allow a residential tower at the eastern end closest to the rail line, with lower flats and townhouses westwards, but it should be noted that the FSR will remain unchanged.

 

If the Masterplan and Planning Proposal were interdependent, this may inhibit or skew the progress of either or both projects. The Strategy would, however, include assessment of the role of all key sites, including 1-25 Marshall Avenue, among the wide range of factors relating to the precinct.

 

Community Consultation

 

It is recommended that a St Leonards Community Liaison Committee be established. The additional input of broader resident, commercial and other/or other community members with staff and interested Councillors would occur as appropriate. The Committee would provide recommendations to the General Manager for consideration by Council.

 

The role of the community is most important in the study process. It is recommended that the draft Brief be finalised with the St Leonards Community Liaison Committee for consultants to then be sought.

 

The broader community would be involved throughout as well, as detailed in the Brief, including key stakeholders such as government agencies.

 

The goals of the consultation include:-

 

(i)               Engaging the community - residential, commercial and other stakeholders - in an integrated consultation to ensure that the widest possible range of issues and local knowledge are taken into consideration.

 

(ii)              Developing a model for future community engagement in accordance with the principles expressed in the NSW Planning Review Green Paper.                     ..

 

Conclusion             

 

Draft Briefs for Stages 1 and 2 of a St Leonards South Strategy are submitted to Council with the recommendation that they be adopted for finalisation with the St Leonards Community Liaison Committee, to be established in a format determined by Council at this meeting. A Charter for the Committee is also recommended for Council endorsement.

 

Following finalisation of the Brief with the Committee, an Expressions of Interest process would then be undertaken to select independent consultants to prepare Stage 1 of the Strategy to collect data on the precinct’s existing situation.

 

Council is also asked determine whether if wishes to proceed with Stage 2 at this stage, in a single integrated study, to provide growth scenarios as a basis for Council to respond promptly should growth targets be increased by the State Government.


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Adopt the St Leonards South Strategy – Stage 1 and Stage 2 Draft Briefs shown attached as AT 1 and 2.

 

2.   Determine whether Stage 2 is to be undertaken at the same time as Stage 1.

 

3.   Adopt the Charter for the St Leonards Community Liaison Committee shown attached as AT 3 and invite nominations for membership of the St Leonards Community Liaison Committee to participate in the study process.

 

4.   Finalise the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Briefs in liaison with the Committee and advertise Expressions of Interest for the consultants to undertake the project, either as Stage 1 or as Stages 1 and 2, as determined by Council in Resolution 2 above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

St Leonards South Strategy - Stage 1 Draft Brief

5 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

St Leonards South Strategy - Indicative Stage 2 scope

1 Page

 

AT‑3 View

Draft Charter for St Leonards Community Liaison Committee

2 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

Policy on Planting or Landscaping of Nature Strips

 

 

Subject:          Policy on Planting or Landscaping of Nature Strips    

Record No:    SU4855 - 51334/12

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Susan Butler  

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The draft Policy on Planting or Landscaping of Nature Strips has been on public exhibition and a number of submissions have been received. Some amendments have been made to the Draft Policy following the consultation period and the final Policy is now ready for adoption by Council.

 

Background

 

There is a need for a policy to set out the standards for planting or landscaping of nature strips in order to maintain an overall consistency and appearance of the nature strips so that they are kept in a safe, clean, healthy and attractive condition. Council resolved at its meeting of 16 April 2012 that such a policy be developed. This was in response to the planting of trees and hedge plants outside a property in Greenwich Rd. Council at this meeting resolved to defer a decision on the nature strip planting at 90 Greenwich Rd until a nature strip planting policy has been adopted.

 

The draft Policy on Planting or Landscaping of Nature Strips was tabled at the Council meeting on 16 July 2012. Community consultation took place for a 6 week period in August and September in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the report. An advertisement was placed in the North Shore Times on 3 August 2012, a press release prepared, e-newsletters were sent out, letters sent to all residents associations, an exhibition of the Draft Policy including a fact sheet and on-line survey and a paper survey was available at the Civic Centre and Lane Cove and Greenwich Libraries.

 

Discussion

 

There were 73 responses to the survey, with most respondents living in detached houses with their own gardens, mostly on quiet residential streets. Respondents came from a broad age range, with the majority aged between 41 and 55. Nearly half the respondents, 48%, are satisfied or very satisfied with the overall standard of nature strips in Lane Cove, 25% are neutral and 27% are dissatisfied. Over half of the respondents, 61%, disagreed with the draft policy and raised a variety of issues, which have been summarised below.

 

There were 19 written submissions from individual residents and 4 submissions from associations or groups. More than half these submissions were in favour of increasing the opportunities for planting and landscaping of nature strips.

 

A summary of the issues and comments raised in the surveys and written submissions is below:-

 

Issue and Comments Received

Response

Sustainability Objectives

·    Seems to contradict sustainability objectives that Council is working towards, lacks reference to sustainability, does not consider sustainable or environmental requirements and obligations of Council.

·    Add objective to encourage residents to use nature strips in a way that enhance residential amenity and ecological sustainability while complying with Council’s safety and access standards.

·    Using local indigenous species enhances environment, habitat for small native fauna and promotes wildlife.

·    Nature strips planted with native plants are far more self-sustaining, drought tolerant, resistent to soil erosion, don’t need to be mown.

·    Wide nature strips are suitable for incorporating rain gardens to help protect waterways from pollution.

·    Grow vegetables and reduce carbon footprint.

 

 

Policy is not inconsistent with Council’s Sustainability Action Plan, but no specific sustainability objective is included in this Policy.

Policy includes objective related to residential amenity.

Policy does not specify plant species that can be used, due to the wide range of potential sites. Policy refers to the Tree Preservation and Landscape Policy.

Community Benefits

·    Great way for residents to take interest in improving the nearby areas, in favour of community gardens as they bring residents together and create a friendly neighbourhood; connects residents to one another tending front verges, encourage neighbourhood conversation and connectivity, look at these as community enriching opportunity, an expression of community, catalyst for residential pride.

·    Planting vegetables has community benefits including educating children.

·    Disappointing Council does not embrace the opportunity to allow residents to activate the nature strip, those few who do landscape their nature strips should be applauded not restricted, Council should display confidence in Lane Cove residents to do the right thing, denies opportunity for creative and talented people to use nature strip for more interesting horticultural possibilities.

 

 

Policy allows for  planting on nature strips. It does not deny opportunity for residents to plant nature strips for community benefit.

 

Landscape Character

·    Disagree with purpose to have overall consistency; variety more appealing, adds diversity and interest, sameness and lack of creativity of grass nature strips.

·    Policy would allow for attractive landscaping, garden plantings on the nature strip make streets more attractive.

·    Verge planting forms visual continuity, un-uniformed landscape which will look an awful and complete mess.

 

 

Variety of views expressed for and against overall consistency of appearance. Policy aims to maintain an overall consistency and appearance of the nature strips.

Grass Verges

·    Neat grass and street trees is what most people want, mowed grass requires the least upkeep, planted nature strips can look untidy and ridiculous.

·    Minority who want to grow vegetables let them do so in their own property.

·    Grass verges require lot of water to look good, not self sustainable, regular mowing is onerous, mowing causes atmospheric and noise pollution, blowers cause further noise pollution, subject to soil erosion, offer no natural protection or habitat.

·    Self sustaining planting on the nature strip should require minimal maintenance especially if local native species are planted.

 

 

Variety of views expressed for and against grass verges. Policy aims to retain grass verges with street trees as the predominant style of nature strip landscaping, but does not exclude planting on nature strips

Street Trees

·    Policy makes no statement about the selection of appropriate trees; should have included draft plan to ensure appropriateness and congruence of the trees on the nature strip; start with a policy applying to Council activities on nature strips and planting of appropriate trees eg trees under power lines.

·    Dislike Council’s policy on street trees, trees are never trimmed, street tree species planted by Council are generally unsuitable, Council does not maintain street trees.

·    Shouldn’t let people plant trees on nature strip without approval.

 

 

This Policy refers to both Tree Preservation and Landscape Policy and Street Tree Planting Policy.

 

Draft Street Tree Master Plan will be developed in 2013.

Type of Vegetation

·    Council should actively encourage the planting of native species endemic to Lane Cove and some food plants, allow for greater flexibility eg planting vegetables.

·    Be upfront about preferences for local native plants, important to expand habitat corridors, policy should included requirements that planting must exclude weed species, all new planting to be native species, exclude vegetable gardens, trees to be species that do not form leaf areas at eye level.

·    Does all vegetation needs to be approved by Council or will a general description be enough

·    Zero tolerance for flowers or vegetables seems very heavy handed and excessive.

·    What to do when neither grass nor low soft leaved plants will grow, where the nature strips are mud patches or dustbowls due to shade and tree roots.

 

 

Policy is high level, strategic document and does not include details of planting requirements.

 

Procedures for the implementation of the Policy will be done administratively.

Nature Strip as Alternate Location

·    Over 50% of residents do not live in free standing house, 40% live in flats, may not have a garden area.

·    Nature strips can be the resident’s only garden or only part that gets sun, garden may not have enough sun to have a vegetable garden, residents should be allowed to convert the nature strip into fruit, herb or vegetable gardens.

 

 

Comments noted. Residents in these circumstances have the potential to be able to apply to plant out their nature strip under this Policy.

 

Height of Vegetation

·    If nature strip is already planted vegetation must be maintained so as not to exceed 1m so as not to interfere with neighbours views; will this be retrospective?

·    Why limit height to under 1 m – if it complies with all safety and amenity terms than should be able to be any height; 1m height restriction applied on a case by case basis.

·    1 m height totally unsuitable, 30 cm would be more approriate height.

·    Only low growing plants for 30 cm either side of path then leave for householder to plant the rest.

 

 

Maximum height of understorey planting on nature strip set at 1 m.

 

This maximum height has also been included under heading ‘Existing gardens on Nature Strip”.

Pedestrian Traffic

·    Nature strip gardens can limit public access, gives appearance it is part of the property, not public land, inhibit uses, forcing walkers out onto road, impairs visibility for motorists.

·    Can be difficult for elderly to navigate planted nature strips, existing nature strips in areas of heavy pedestrian traffic are often worn as people have to walk on the grass to pass each other.

·    Generally support policy not to approve planting except where vegetation is planted far enough from footpath area not to cause obstruction.

·    Default policy should allow people to plant anything provided it does not interfere with cars and pedestrians, in favour of people being able to use their nature strips to grow edible plants so long as they leave room for people to walk safely, space is left at kerb for passengers to alight from a car.

·    Add objective about maintaining nature strips for the safety and visibility of cyclists.

 

 

Comments noted.

 

Policy refers to maintaining nature strips free of obstruction for pedestrian traffic as one of the purposes of this Policy .

 

Policy has been amended to include reference to cyclists as well as pedestrian and vehicle traffic.

Health and Safety and Insurance Issues

·    Concerns about health and safety of others.

·    Council expects residents to maintain nature strips but does not cover basic workers compensation for that work.

·    Council does not insure residents who maintain the nature strip, even though it requires residents to do so at their expense.

·    No mention of homeowners insuring Council against any claims that may arise from their plantings on the nature strip.

·    Allow use of planter boxes according to defined guidelines.

 

 

Public liability issues are a concern for Council. Council is responsible for ensuring that members of the public are not caused injury wherever possible whilst using nature strips.

 

Planter boxes will not be permitted.

Commitment

·    Conversion of grass to vegetables and fruit trees – sounds like a good idea but requires year round attention and need very committed residents to maintain it for the medium to long term.

·    If approved require regular ranger patrols to ensure that guidelines are adhered to, Council will need to be firm in the authorisations it issues to residents.

·    Ongoing maintenance would inevitably be a problem, when the resident moves away or can no longer look after the garden, doesn’t have the interest, intention or strength to maintain garden, garden becomes a dishevelled mess.

 

 

A variety of views on the need for ongoing maintenance were received.

Policy reiterates Council reliance on residents to maintain the nature strip. Ongoing maintenance of planted or landscaped nature strips is the responsibility of the adjoining property owners or occupants.

 

Cost of Maintenance

·    Residents maintain the verge at their own expense so should be able to plant out the area within Council guidelines, conform to reasonable overall standard and design while allowing flexibility.

·    Council should maintain nature strips where there are grass verges, houses that choose to add plants should be responsible for their own verges.

·    Council’s responsibility to maintain public land, Council should maintain all nature strips, like to see Council maintain all verges adjacent to major roads

·    Council should carry out and fund this maintenance if it wants it done a particular way.

·    Incentives eg reduced rates for undertaking regular maintenance.

 

 

Comments noted.

 

Policy reiterates Council reliance on residents to maintain the nature strip.

 

No plans for any incentives other than through existing programs such as Bushcare and plants from the Community nursery.

Consultation

·    Should take a more collaborative approach and send people to consult with those that want a verge garden

·    Policy should include specific recommendations and a comprehensive list of recommended turf and small low growing soft foliaged plants.

·    Nothing in policy for residents who do not maintain nature strips to a satisfactory standard to be offered guidance or assistance to do so.

·    Council should encourage any conflicts to resolved by discussion between neighbours

·    Community groups could form nature strip planting advice teams.

 

 

Any consultation will be limited to what can be achieved within existing resources.

 

Policy is high level, strategic document and does not include details of planting requirements or recommended species as this can vary from site to site.

 

Need for a Policy

·    The policy is open enough to allow people to improve the verge.

·    Rules needed to ensure amenity is maintained, some control/regulation is vital, should be standards.

·    Policy need to be enacted and enforced, Council should reserve the right to remove any unsuitable ones if complaints are made.

·    Rules should be enough, shouldn’t have to formally contact Council to get approval

·    Is a policy really necessary, could lead to more confrontation.

·    Turning something that is currently interesting, spontaneous and unique into something boring and predictable by applying unnecessary controls, undue regulations have been placed on individuals.

·    Last couple of paragraphs at odds with basically positive document, inconsistent message, impression Council is strongly opposed to planting, why have a policy if Council is generally not going to support planting.

 

 

Variety of views expressed for and against the need for a Policy.

 

Council approval for planting/landscaping of nature strips will be required.

 

Policy has been amended to remove the inconsistent message and clarify the requirement to formally apply to get approval prior to undertaking any such works.

 

There are a number of proposed minor amendments to the draft policy. These are including reference to cyclists, understorey plants in existing gardens on nature strips to be kept to a maximum height of 1 m, and clarifying requirement for formal application prior to undertaking any such works.

 

The amended policy dated October 2012 is shown attached as AT1. Amendments to the Draft Policy have been highlighted. Implementation of the new policy will begin following adoption and a suitable article promoting the policy will be included in the next Council newsletter.

 

Conclusion

 

The submissions have been reviewed and a number of amendments made to the Draft Policy. The proposed Policy for Planting or Landscaping of Nature Strips is now ready for adoption by Council.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Policy for Planting or Landscaping of Nature Strips dated October 2012 be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Policy for the Planting/Landscaping of Nature Strips - October 2012

3 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

Preparation & Cooking of Food on Council Footpaths

 

 

Subject:          Preparation & Cooking of Food on Council Footpaths    

Record No:    SU4333 - 57378/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      David Wilson 

 

 

Executive Summary

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 20 August 2012, Council considered a Notice of Motion on Preparation and Cooking of Food on Council Footpaths and resolved:-

1.   “Council provide for the preparation and cooking of food on Council Footpaths in its ‘Tables and Chairs in the Plaza (and Lane Cove shopping Centre) for Commercial Restaurant Use’ policy (U01012); and

2.   This change to the policy to go on public display for comment for a period of 6 weeks.”

The feedback from the community consultation provided a range of opinions for and against the cooking and preparation of food on Council footpaths. Those comments that were against the proposal, included concerns about the impact on the amenity and streetscape of the locality, impact on pedestrian access as well as an impact on air quality (smoke and food odours). Those that were in favour of the proposal highlighted the point of difference in this style of eatery and the opportunities that it would bring to the locality.

Having regard to the public feedback and the regulatory requirements associated with such a use, it is recommended that a trial period of 12 weeks, between 1 December 2012 and 3 March 2013 be undertaken for those businesses that have current approval for footpath dining areas, to allow for the activity to be evaluated and reported upon before a final decision on this concept is made.

 

It should be highlighted that the trial would be conducted under strict controls, so as to not adversely affect the operations of any nearby business.

 

Background

Council’s current Policy U01012 (the Policy) “Tables and Chairs in the Plaza (and Lane Cove Shopping Centre) for Commercial Restaurant Use”, does not allow for the preparation of food on the footpath, with all food currently prepared within the confines of the shop/restaurant, and subsequently delivered to the tables.

 

As with all food businesses, the method of construction for all facilities must be in accordance with the Food Act 2007 and the Food Standards Code. Accordingly for a food preparation area on the footpath the same legislative requirements would apply including:-

 

·    Food preparation area to be fully enclosed on 3 sides and provided with a roof;

·    Provided with hot and cold running water for hand washing and cleaning purposes;

·    Vermin controls; and

·    Provision for food storage to comply with temperature control requirements (above 60 oC or below 5 oC).

 

At this stage, those businesses that have expressed an interest in being given an opportunity to investigate this method of food preparation have not indicated the type of design or structure that they wish to use, and therefore the guideline that has been used to consider this situation are the Temporary Food Event Guideline (NSW Food Authority) and the Food Standards Code.


Discussion

As part of the community consultation process, an Issues Paper was prepared and posted on Council’s website (shown attached as AT -1) to provide an insight into the proposal and to provide a reference for discussion and opinion.

 

Community Consultation

 

As part of the community consultation an advertisement was placed in the North Shore Times in September, letters were delivered to all businesses/property addresses in Lane Cove, Greenwich and St Leonards (approximately 600 in total), E-newsletter was sent to over 3,500 subscribers, letters were sent to Lane Cove Alive, Chamber of Commerce and a number of resident associations for comment, an  Issue Paper was posted on Council’s website and public notices were displayed in the Council Chambers, Lane Cove Library and the Plaza community noticeboard.

 

Considerations

 

As part of this review, other Council areas including the City of Sydney and Adelaide City on street food programs were investigated as to the systems being employed to add vibrancy and dining options in commercial areas. Both of these examples do not allow for the preparation of food on footpaths other than for defined temporary events, such as markets and festivals. On an ongoing basis they have implemented a system where purpose built food vans are allocated areas within their CBD’s to provide alternate dining options to visitors.

 

The City of Sydney provides these locations in the immediate vicinity of Circular Quay and operates on Friday and Saturday evenings. The food vans as stated are self contained and comply with the NSW Food Authority’s Guidelines for the storage, preparation and sale of food.

 

The challenge with the preparation and cooking of food on footpaths on an ongoing basis is defining what a temporary activity is as opposed to permanent. The requirements for a temporary food outlet are more flexible, however, depending on the frequency, it is reasonable to expect that the following issues would need to be addressed by any proponent:-

 

a.   Food storage – where will high risk foods be stored and how?

b.   Hygiene of equipment and staff (hand washing).

c.   Odours from foods being cooked – how will these impact on the locality?

d.   Utilities – water, gas, and sewer – will these be provided?

e.   Cleaning and maintenance – what effect will there be on the footpath surfaces (if any)?

 

Submissions

 

Council received a total of 132 submissions, with 31 written submissions and 101 completed on-line survey responses.

 

The results can be summarised as follows:-

 

 

In Support

Opposed to Proposal

Total

Written

6

25

31

On Line

45

56

101

Total

51

81

132

%

  39%

   61%

 


From the on line survey, the results can be summarised as follows:-

 

·    55% of respondents opposed the proposal (Question 2);

·    73% of respondents (Question 4) stated that the business should be responsible for all costs of building and maintenance of the structures; and

·    69% of respondents (Question7) expressed concerns that the preparation & cooking of food will have an impact on the locality.

 

25 of the 31 written submissions also opposed the proposal for similar reasons as expressed in the on line survey.

 

In addition there were specific concerns expressed by businesses (non food) and commercial property owners that may have their profile and street frontages affected by any structure, that may be positioned near their premises, as well as the impact of odours from the cooking of food, having a detrimental effect on their services

In support of cooking and preparation of food on Council footpaths, comments were submitted that supported the proposal and looked forward to the opportunities that on street food preparation and cooking would provide, and that this concept would invigorate the business district and provide an alternative dining experience.

 

Conclusion

As discussed the results of the community consultation process shows a range of opinions for and against the cooking and preparation of food on Council footpaths. The concerns of non food businesses and the land owners of these premises are reasonable as the proposal may have a detrimental impact on their businesses and as such, if the proposal is to be endorsed, stringent operating times are required to ensure that these businesses are not negatively impacted upon.

 

In evaluating the proposal, submissions have been made that highlight that what is proposed is similar to a market stall. A food stall at a market, as a one off event, is similar in concept to the proposal, but different in the context of an urban commercial business district, where considerations of streetscape, the proximity of nearby sensitive land uses (non food businesses) could be significantly affected by food odours. As such these issues need to be carefully considered to balance the needs of some businesses whilst not having a negative impact on others.

 

Food odours from permanent food outlets are currently controlled by filters and extraction systems that limit the odours associated with the cooking of food. The current situation is that food odours in the Lane Cove commercial area are not experienced to the extent that they are invasive or offensive.

 

In attempting to consider the needs of members of the community in favour, and those against the proposal, the following controls could be used to limit the impact of the proposal on the surrounding businesses:-

 

·    Time restrictions can be implemented that result in no impact from such operations. Cooking will only be allowed after the surrounding non food businesses have ceased operations.

·    The time of day that the on footpath structure will be present and will reduce the impact on the number of pedestrians that will be using these areas.

 

Accordingly with these controls, a trial of the proposal would be a reasonable outcome to ascertain the impact on the locality, whilst not limiting the opportunity for businesses to explore opportunities for business development. It will be necessary for a Development Application to be lodged, any such consent could include an initial trial period of three months.

 

It is proposed that monitoring of the footpath food areas, be undertaken by Council officers and the associated costs of doing so be attributed to the food outlet/business.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.    A 3 month trial be permitted (1 December 2012 to 3 March 2013) for the preparation of food on footpaths in the Lane Cove CBD for those businesses that currently have approval for footpath dining

2.    A food preparation area shall comply with the Temporary Food  Event Guideline (NSW Food Authority) and comply with conditions as determined by Council.

3.    The operation of these food outlets shall not be operated at any time where nearby non food outlets are being operated. Extended operating hours for non food outlets shall take precedence over the footpath food preparation activities. A breach of this arrangement will result in the approval to undertake this activity being withdrawn immediately.

4.    Where any pollution incident is observed as a result of the operation of the temporary food preparation & cooking facility, a breach of this arrangement will result in the approval to undertake this activity being withdrawn until further notice.

5.    A further report be submitted to Council following the 3 month trial period, to consider the findings/operational issues and whether food preparation on footpaths should continue and in what form.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

AT-1 Issues Paper - Preparation & Cooking of Food on Council Footpaths

2 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

Meeting House Redevelopment

 

 

Subject:          Meeting House Redevelopment    

Record No:    SU2742 - 58112/12

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Jane Gornall 

 

 

Executive Summary

This report outlines options for the operation of the Child Care Service with the new Meeting House Community Facility in Stokes Street, Lane Cove North. The report outlines a range of options and recommends Council liaise with The Meeting House Community Committee regarding providing a full Long Day Care Centre or a Combined Preschool/Long Day Care Centre.

 

Background

Council at its meeting of 20 August 2012 resolved that:-

 

•     A report be submitted to Council on the progress of the Meeting House redevelopment and on the planned future use of 47 Burns Bay Road and if necessary a workshop be held;

•     Council write to the Preschool seeking to clarify their intentions for 2013; and

•     Should the preschool wish to remain at 47 Burns Bay Road, that Council support this for 2013 to provide certainty for parents.

 

A letter was sent to The Meeting House on the 30th August, 2012 stating that Council wished to be advised in writing of The Meeting House’s intentions for the preschool in 2013.  It also requested that in addressing this issue the Meeting House Committee advise their preferred wishes for the space currently being built at Stokes Street.

 

Council undertook the rebuilding of the Meeting House Neighbourhood Centre and the Meeting House Kindergarten as part of the Major Projects Plan. The Meeting House was originally housed in two residential buildings at Stokes Street. The buildings had reached the end of their useful life and ceased to offer functional spaces.

 

In the period leading up to the lodging of the Development Application for the redevelopment, Council liaised with the then President of the Meeting House to ensure that The Meeting House’s needs would be met.

 

In 2010, Council also undertook the renovation of the former Lane Cove Police Station at 47 Burns Bay Road to accommodate the existing parents and children at Meeting House Kindergarten and to accommodate the Neighbourhood Centre component of Meeting House.  Meeting House moved into the building at the end of 2010.

 

Work on the redevelopment at Stokes Street commenced in August 2011 with the demolition of the two houses on the site.

 

Councillors will be aware that The Meeting House redevelopment was delayed due to extensive rain at the start of 2012. The building works are now coming to an end with completion due in March 2013.  It is intended that as soon as the building is complete that The Meeting House Neighbourhood Centre move back into their new premises at Stokes Street. This Report discusses a range of options for the running of the Child Care Centre that will also be on the site.

 


Discussion

The Meeting House replied to Council’s letter of on 18th October proposing three options for Council to consider. The options are:-

 

Option 1


 Run a 40 place preschool at Stokes Street for 3-5 year olds during term times with
extended hours from 8.30am – 3.30/4.00 pm (currently 9-3.

 

Option 2

The Meeting House run a 32 place preschool at Stokes Street with extended hours from 8.30 am - 3.30 pm (currently 9 – 3) during school terms only.  This preschool would be for 3-5 year olds and The Meeting House provide a 0-2 long day care 48 weeks per year, 8 hours a day, at Stokes Street for up to 8 children for a period of up to one year while we assess the market.

 

Option 3

Remain at the Burns Bay Road facility as an 18 place preschool with extend hours 8.30 am-3.30 pm (currently (9-3).  Council provide a long day care facility at the new Stokes Street Centre.

 

Council in its Social Planning documents – 2005-2009 and 2010-2014 recognised the need for additional child care facilities in the Lane Cove area in particular in the provision of services for children 0-2 year olds. The design of the Stokes Street redevelopment took into account the current shortage of places for this age group.

 

There has been significant coverage of the shortage of Long Day Care places in the media this year. Lane Cove which has been experiencing a baby boom also has an issue with the shortage of  child care places for its residents.

 

Council’s own Centre, Kindy Cove currently has a waiting list of approximately 90 children waiting for a 0-2 space with 16 places only existing.  It also has a waiting list of 35 children for the 2-4 year old room with 21 spaces existing and 12 children for the 4-5 year room, with 21 spaces existing. The waiting list figures are after 2013 vacancies have been filled.

 

Council has already received requests for information about long day care at the new Stokes Street Child Care Centre without any advertising.

 

Below is an assessment of the options provided by The Meeting House with two additional options provided for Council’s consideration.

 

Option 1

Run a 40 place preschool at Stokes Street for 3-5 year olds during term times with extended hours from 8.30am – 3.30/4.00 pm (currently 9-3).

 

Comment

While this option will provide for more preschool places in the area it does not meet the need for the 0-2 age group. It is also unlikely that 40 children could be accommodated as the cot room and 0-2 year old rooms as currently configured would limit effective use of the space. It is noted that the Birrahlee Community Preschool in Lane Cove does not have a waiting list for 2013.

 


Option 2

The Meeting House run a 32 place preschool at Stokes Street with extended hours from 8.30 am - 3.30 pm (currently 9 – 3) during school terms only.  This preschool would be for 3-5 year olds

And The Meeting House provide a 0-2 long day care 48 weeks per year, 8 hours a day, at Stokes Street for up to 8 children for a period of up to one year while we assess the market.

 

Comment

This option would mean that once children have reached the age of 2 years they would no longer be accommodated at the Centre.  Such disruption would have a negative effect on the children and would pose difficulties for parents due to the lack of continuity and changing hours of the services between the two different services. It would also be difficult to find ongoing places in centres for children who have just turned two.  The cost of providing the 0-2 places would be prohibitive. Nearly all child centres subsidise the cost of 0-2 child care across the whole of a child care centre, based on the assumption that most 0-2 children remain at the Centre until they are ready for school. The staffing ratio for 0-2 age group is 1 staff member for every 4 children as against 1 staff member for every 8 children 2-3 years and 1 staff member for every 10 children 3-5 years.

 

Option 3

Remain at the Burns Bay Road facility as an 18 place preschool with extend hours 8.30 am-3.30 pm (currently (9-3).  Council provide a long day care facility at the new Stokes Street Centre.

 

Comment

The Meeting House remaining in this location would limit the uses that the Council could use this property for into the future. It is intended that once The Meeting House has vacated the building, that the building will be used as a temporary home for children attending Council’s Kindy Cove Child Care Centre while the Centre, built in 1976, is being refurbished.

In addition, The Meeting House is currently housed at the Centre with few costs being levied. Council pays for electricity, water, security, air-conditioning maintenance and other maintenance. No rent has ever been levied for the Meeting House as the now demolished building was recognised as being below standard and as the new building was planned.  The Meeting House is the only child care centre in a Council building that has such favourable treatment. It is estimated that the imposition of such charges would increase the daily fee of the Centre and may make the Preschool unviable. The size of the outdoor area limits the number of children who can be housed at the Centre making expanding the Centre to accommodate more children not possible.

 

Two other options are put forward for Council’s consideration. These options have not been proposed by The Meeting House:-

 

Option A

That a 40 place long day centre be established on the site.  There would be 8 places for children 0-2 years; 14 places for those 2-4 years and 18 places for 4-5 year olds.

 

Comment


This would be the best use of the space and would meet community need.  In Option 3 listed above, The Meeting House has indicated that they would not be interested in running such a Centre. Based on this advice from The Meeting House, Council would call for Expressions of Interest from recognised child care providers to establish and run the child care service.

 

Option B

When Council initially held discussions with The Meeting House, the idea of a long day care centre or a hybrid centre was discussed. Option B looks at the possibility of establishing a centre that caters for eight 0-2 year olds as long day care; fourteen 2-4 year olds with 9/10 long day care places and 4/5 preschool places and eighteen 4-5 year olds with 10 long day care spaces and 8 preschool places.

 

The long day care would operate for approx. 50 weeks of the year with the preschool operating during school terms.

 

Option B would meet the needs of most of the parents currently enrolled for 2013 at The Meeting House and also provide much needed long day care places. The current teachers could operate at the new centre without any major changes.

 

National Quality Framework (NQF)

There is often comment that the preschool progress in Long Day Care Centres are somehow inferior to Preschools. This is not the case and from January 2012, a uniform national quality framework applies to all long day care and preschool and outside school hours care. As part of the framework a single National Quality Standard (NQS) applies. The NQS includes quality based principles and indicators and key regulatory requirements.

 

The NQS incorporates seven quality areas: educational program and practice; children’s health and safety; physical environment; staffing arrangements, including staff-to-children ratios and qualifications; relationships with children; collaborative partnerships with families and communities and leadership and service management.

 

As the NQS applies to both long day care and preschools, therefore the standards that will be in force in either Option A or B would be the same as that if only a preschool was offered. In addition, the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) is the common standard for providing early education programs and would be implemented as part of the establishment of the Centre.

 

The Meeting House Relocation

The Meeting House will be undergoing enormous changes in the next twelve months. The Neighbourhood Centre will be moving back into the Stokes Street environment and will need to re-establish itself and its services after an absence of more than two years. Many of its current drop-in patrons may live closer to 47 Burns Bay Road than to Stokes Street and some of the current services will need to be reviewed to ensure that new patrons are attracted to the services.

 

In addition to the above, the establishment of a new child care facility or the expansion of an existing service into a new venue will be time consuming and exacting for a voluntary committee.

 

Having regard to this, it is proposed that the following actions be undertaken:-

1.   Council continue to liaise with The Meeting House Committee having particular regard to implementing Option A or B as outlined above.

2.   If the Meeting House Committee is happy to proceed with either option, Council will:-

a)   Form a joint committee to plan the development of the new Centre;

b)   Appoint and fund a consultant, such as Gowrie NSW to assist in  all areas of the establishment of the new Centre;

c)   Establish a time line for the appointment of a Director for the Centre;

d)   Provide ongoing support for the Centre through providing access to Council’s Co-Directors at Kindy Cove for advice if required;

e)   Assess the need for financial assistance with the establishment of the service in particular with capital purchases and report to Council if necessary, including in the report a method of repayment for such purchases; and

f)    Formulate a lease for the Centre, which clearly outlines the responsibilities of Council and of the lessee in regard to lease payments; maintenance and reporting.

 

The Meeting House may notify Council that it does not wish to participate in the establishment of a new Centre using Option A or B. If this is the case, Council will then need to move to an Expression of Interest process for the establishment of a new Child Care Centre.

 

The Meeting House preschool would then be able to remain at 47 Burns Bay Road until the end of 2013. A lease would be prepared to ensure that both parties are aware of their responsibilities. At the end of 2013 or the start of 2014 it is intended that the building will be needed to accommodate Council’s Kindy Cove Child Care Centre children and staff while the Kindy Cove building is progressively renovated.

 

It is anticipated that the refurbishment will take approximately eight months to complete. Once Council understands the length of time that Kindy Cove will utilise the space at 47 Burns Bay Road, a plan can be undertaken for further uses of the building.

 

Conclusion

Council will liaise with The Meeting House regarding Option A and B listed above.

 

If the Meeting House decline to be involved in either Option A or B, Council proceed to an Expression of Interest for provision of these child care services.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That :-

 

1.   Council continue to liaise with The Meeting House in regard to the establishment of a new child care service at Stokes Street. The options to be canvassed include:-

            Option A

            That a 40 Place Long Day Centre be established on the site. There would be 8 places for             children 0-2 years; 14 places for those 2-4 years and 18 places for 4-5 year olds; or

 

            Option B

            That a centre that caters for 8 – 0-2 year olds as long day care; 14 2-4 year olds with 9/10             long day care places and 4/5 preschool places and 18 4-5 year olds with 10 long day care             spaces and 8 preschool places be established on the site.

 

2.   If the Meeting House Committee agrees to proceed with either option, Council will:-

a)   Form a joint committee to plan the development of the new centre;

b)   Appoint and fund a consultant, such as Gowrie NSW to assist in  all areas of the establishment of the new Centre;

c)   Establish a time line for the appointment of a Director for the Centre;

 

d)   Provide ongoing support for the Centre through providing access to Council’s Co-Directors at Kindy Cove for advice if required;

e)   Assess the need for financial assistance with the establishment of the Service in particular with capital purchases and report to Council if necessary, including in the Report a method of repayment for such purchases.; and

f)    Formulate a lease for the Centre, which clearly outlines the responsibilities of Council and of the less in regard to lease payments; maintenance and reporting.

 

3.   If The Meeting House decline to be involved in either Option A or B, Council proceed to an Expression of Interest for provision of these child care services.

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

Contribution for Road Construction to service 316-322 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          Contribution for Road Construction to service 316-322 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove    

Record No:    SU4900 - 58646/12

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The owners of 316-322 Burns Bay Road have approached Council to enter into a Deed which provides for Council to construct an access road to their site, across Council land. Their contribution has been assessed at $680,000 and it is recommended Council agree to the contribution and execute a Deed committing the parties.

 

Background

 

Then redevelopment of this site dates back to the early year 2000’s. From the outset Council has been concerned that any intensification of use of this property would require improved access arrangements. The Master Plan developed for the site by the applicant's planning & architectural consultants, Harry Sidaway & Associates (HAS) in July 2004 detailed that there was a need to "Provide a dedicated access road across the Bowling Club Land (304-314 Burns Bay Road, owned by Lane Cove Council) to serve car parking, recreational open space, community facilities and residential development on the Bowling Club Land as well as residential development on the Tuta Laboratories Site (316-322 Burns Bay Road)."

 

In line with this, and subsequent studies, the current DCP envisages the installation of an access road utilising Council’s adjacent site, connecting up with the G-Turn traffic signals. This will provide the capability for traffic exiting the site, visitors to Carisbrook and Council’s site to travel in a northern direction along Burns Bay Road, without using either View Street (involving an illegal u-turn) or the Loop Road at Figtree Bridge.

 

To improve capacity at the G-Turn, Council resolved at its last meeting resolved to resume additional land to form a round-about, which would also improve the approaches to this proposed road. It should be noted that the two are not interdependent, as this road can connect to the G-Turn without the resumption, the resumed land will merely improve the approach.

 

The owners of 316-322 Burns Bay Road have lodged a Development Application, which is to be further considered by the JRPP on 6 December, 2012. The conditions currently provide for a deferred commencement with the applicant to enter into a Deed with Council as the adjacent land owner, to secure provision of the access road. The applicant has approached Council to agree on the terms of the deed prior to the meeting, so that the need for a deferred commencement consent is avoided.

 

Discussion

 

Discussions have been held with the owners of the adjoining land and agreement has been reached on a contribution of $680,000. This is based on the cost to extend the road from the driveway of the development proposed by Council on its own land to the property boundary of 316 Burns Bay Road (refer AT 1). This section of the road, in conjunction with the remainder of the road (which is necessary for Council’s future development on its site), will also provide access to Carisbrook, the park and proposed community facility and or kiosk to be located under the road.

 

Road Length to Proposed Driveway of Council Development

53.1 metres

Road Width - 2 vehicle lane and 2 pedestrian paths

12.3 metres

Estimated Construction Cost Rate

$1,041 per square metre

Total

$679,908

The estimated construction costs are based on conventional construction (retaining walls and pavement) utilising the schedules of rates in Rawlinsons Construction Cost Guide and Council’s own rates that it receives for construction works. The overall road length is approximately 101 metres. As mentioned, rather than using conventional construction, Council has engaged Craig and Rhodes Surveyors and Structural; Engineers to design the road to accommodate a shell for a community building and/or café to address the park, which is expected to be completed by the end of November 2012. This will allow Council to call tenders, for a decision in February/March 2013 on awarding the contract. Upon completion of the road, Council will look to commence consultation and then subsequent construction of the improved park and fit-out of the under road space.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.         Council accept a contribution of $680,000 towards the construction of an access road across to service the development at 316-322 Burns Bay Road; and

 

2.         Authority be granted to the Mayor and General Manager to execute the Deed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Access Road

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

Nominations for Community Members on Council's Advisory Committees

 

 

Subject:          Review of DCP Part F - Access & Mobility: Public Exhibition    

Record No:    SU4916 - 50555/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Vivienne Albin 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Comprehensive Development Control Plan Part F - Access and Mobility is due to be updated to reflect recent legislative changes, in particular, the Access to Premises Standards. Council appointed AE&D Access Consultants to review Part F of the DCP.

 

The consultants have met with the Lane Cove Access Committee and Council staff on several occasions to discuss proposed amendments. A revised Part F – Access and Mobility has now been completed by the consultants. Changes include reference to and inclusion of new legislation, minor policy changes and updating of existing provisions in light of new legislation.

 

Council is requested to adopt DCP Draft Amendment 5 - Part F Access and Mobility, shown attached as AT-1, for the purpose of public exhibition until January 2013.

 

Background

 

Council’s Comprehensive Development Control Plan (DCP) came into force in February 2010. The DCP comprises approximately 20 chapters covering all facets of development. Part F of the DCP includes objectives and provisions in relation to access and mobility.

 

The amendment to the DCP is needed to update Part F: Access and Mobility to reflect legislative changes introduced by the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010, which took effect from May 2011. Other proposed changes are to improve the chapter and bring it into line with best practice in the area of access requirements.

 

On 29 May 2012, AE & D Access, Access Consultants were appointed by Council to review Part F of the DCP.

 

To date, AE & D Access Consultants have:-

 

·    Attended an inception meeting with relevant Council staff;

·    Attended and addressed the Access Committee meeting on 25 June 2012;

·    Provided a Draft Part F which was circulated to the Access Committee prior to their scheduled meeting;

·    Attended and addressed the Access Committee meeting on 27 August 2012; and

·    Provided an updated Draft Part F after the Access Committee meeting and including comments from Council Staff of the Human Services and Environmental Services Divisions.

 

Discussion

 

The amendments proposed by the consultants reflect the legislative changes introduced by the Premises Standards and also include other amendments to bring the DCP Part F in line with best practice in access & mobility. The consultants have undertaken a review of other documents including the Senior Living SEPP and other council plans.

 

The proposed amendments are included below together with an explanatory comment.

 

1.  Inclusion of relevant requirements from the new legislation; Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standard 2010 (known as the Premises Standards).

 

Comment

 

This legislation commenced operation on 1 May 2011 in line with the adoption of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) 2011 which was revised to align with the Access Code in the Premises Standards

 

2.  Several revised objectives and the inclusion of objectives from the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and the Premises Standards.

 

Comment

 

The objectives now proposed strengthen the DCP by directly linking it back with the DDA and Premises Standards. Other objectives reiterate the need for a qualified access consultant to complete an Access Report for submission with any development application (DA) or construction certificate (CC).

 

3.  Inclusion of a requirement stating that the access provisions apply to a DA and CC for all new developments, subdivisions, and to alterations and additions affecting more than 50% of the total floor area over a combined 3 year period.

 

Comment

 

This provision ensures that developments that undertake incremental work or work which substantially changes the building but does not add to the overall floor area is not exempt from the access provisions.

 

4.  Emphasis on the requirement for an Access Report, prepared by a suitably qualified Access Consultant, to accompany development applications submitted to Council.

 

Comment

 

This requirement has been raised up from the DA checklist into the DCP to strengthen its importance and visibility.

 

5.  New sections in relation to public transport and Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs).

 

Comment

 

This requirement is important to increase the accessibility of Lane Cove LGA.

 

6.  The table regarding BCA access requirements for different classes of buildings included at the end of chapter has been revised.

 

Comment

 

This revised table summarises the revised access requirements under the BCA.

 


Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to inform the public regarding the revised Part F – Access and Mobility. Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine the final form of the DCP’s part F.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and Community Groups

Key Message Givers e.g. Progress Associations

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and

eNewsletter

Notification Letters

Public and Website Exhibition

Indicative Timing

November 2012- January 2013

November 2012- January 2013

November 2012  - January 2013

 

Conclusion

 

Updated legislative requirements have necessitated the revision of DCP Part F – Access and Mobility. Council engaged AE & D Access, Access Consultants, to undertake the review. The consultants met with Council staff and Council’s Access Committee on several occasions to discuss issues and the proposed amendments.

 

DCP Part F – Access and Mobility has been revised accordingly and is ready for public exhibition. Changes include reference to and inclusion of new legislation, minor policy changes and updating of existing provisions in light of new legislation.  It is recommended that Council adopt DCP Draft Amendment 5 - Part F Access and Mobility for public exhibition.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Endorse DCP Draft Amendment 5: Part F – Access and Mobility, dated 12 September 2012, for the purpose of Public Exhibition;

2.   Place DCP Draft Amendment 5: Part F – Access and Mobility on Public Exhibition until January 2013 in accordance with the Consultation Strategy outlined in this report; and

3.   Receive a further report on the results of the community consultation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

DCP Draft Amendment 5 - Part F: Access and Mobililty

14 Pages

 

 Subject:         Nominations for Community Members on Council's Advisory Committees    

Record No:    SU827 - 57573/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At the Council Meeting on 15 October 2012, Council resolved to reopen nominations for community members on Council’s Advisory Committees and refer all nominations to the Council Selection Committee for consideration. This report details the recommendations of the Council Selection Committee and recommends that Council endorse the recommendations for appointment of community members for Council’s Advisory Committees.

 

Background

 

Council is committed to ensuring the community is informed and encourages community participation in decision making. Council currently operates various Advisory Committees and participates in other committees to engage the community. Council’s Advisory Committees consider and advise on a wide range of local issues by providing a discussion forum for Council representatives, local stakeholders and community members.

 

On 12 September 2012, an advertisement was placed in the local paper North Shore Times seeking nominations from members of the community to become community representatives on the following committees:-

 

·    Lane Cove Bicycle Advisory Committee;

·    Bushland Management Advisory Committee;

·    Cameraygal Festival Committee;

·    Lane Cove Access Advisory Committee ;

·    Lane Cove Cultural Advisory Committee; and

·    Sustainability Advisory Committee.

 

In addition, information was placed on Council’s website (on the front page and under the ‘News and Events’ section) and E-Newsletters were sent to over 3,500 subscribers via email. Letters of thanks were also provided to community representatives who served on Advisory Committees during the last Council term for their valuable contribution and they were also advised when nominations were advertised for the new Council term. Nominees were requested to read Council’s Code of Conduct for Community Members on Council’s Advisory Committees before applying.

 

At the Council Meeting of 15 October 2012, Council resolved to reopen nominations for community members on Council’s Advisory Committees and refer all nominations to the Council Selection Committee for consideration. Nominations were re-opened until midday on 9 November 2012 and once again, information was placed on Council’s website (on the front page and under the ‘News and Events’ section) and E-Newsletters were sent to over 3,500 subscribers via email to advise that nominations had been reopened and that previous applicants did not need to reapply.

 

Discussion

 

The Council Selection Committee met on 12 November 2012 and considered all applications for community members received over the two advertising periods and has made the following recommendations. A complete list of nominations received by Council has been circulated separately to Councillors.


Lane Cove Bicycle Advisory Committee

 

It has been proposed to increase representation on the Lane Cove Bicycle Advisory committee from five (5) to six (6) community representatives. A total of eleven (11) applications were received and considered for nomination. Six (6) of those nominations are recommended for endorsement by Council as follows:-

 

·    Susan Loane;

·    Russell Webber;

·    Don Murchinson;

·    Maggie Burke;

·    Gavin Imhof; and

·    Rod Taylor.

 

 

Bushland Management Advisory Committee

 

It has been proposed to increase representation on the Bushland Management Advisory Committee from three (3) to four (4) community representatives. The following four (4) applications were received and considered and subsequently recommended for endorsement by Council:-

 

·    Ruth Neumann;

·    Lynne McLoughlin;

·    Frances Vissel; and

·    Graeme Pratt.

 

In addition, the charter also requires three (3) representatives from the Lane Cove Bushland & Conservation Society, who have advised that their nominations are; Shauna Forrest, Norma Stuart and Yvonne Barber. It is also recommended that the three (3) nominees from the Lane Cove Bushland and Conservation Society be endorsed by Council.

 

 

Cameraygal Festival Committee 

 

The Cameraygal Festival Committee has 12 community representatives. Twelve (12) of those nominations are recommended for endorsement by Council as follows:-

 

·    Rod Tudge;

·    Pat Madson;

·    Lyndall McNally;

·    Sarah Balzer;

·    Anthony Nolan;

·    Marie James;

·    Joy Archer;

·    Shirin Kanji;

·    Paul McGregor;

·    Shideh Modabber;

·    Susan Morrison; and

·    James Shevlin.

 

 

 

 

The Committee’s constitution has the power to co-opt further members over the life of the Committee and it is expected that this initial group will be supplemented with such additional members as the Committee sees fit.

 

Lane Cove Access Advisory Committee

 

The Lane Cove Access Committee has five (5) community representatives. A total of four (4) applications were received and considered. The Council Selection Committee recommended that  Anthony Melinz, Kay Freedman and John Baxter be appointed. However, Council can determine whether 3 or 4 community representatives shall be appointed. Applications were received from:-

 

·    Anthony Melinz;

·    Kay Freedman;

·    John Baxter; and

·    Mark Edward Twynam Horn.

 

 

Lane Cove Cultural Advisory Committee

 

The Lane Cove Cultural Advisory Committee has twelve (12) community representatives. The committee also has the power to co-opt temporary members. However, only ten (10) applications were received and all of those nominations are recommended for endorsement by Council as follows:-

 

·    Chrissie Lloyd;

·    Graham Ball;

·    Bill McLaughlin;

·    Kathy Elton;

·    Anthony Nolan;

·    Emily Patterson;

·    Dr Anne Power;

·    Kay Freedman;

·    Margo Easton; and

·    Jonghee (Jo) Kim.

 

 

Sustainability Advisory Committee

 

The Sustainability Advisory Committee has five (5) community representatives, one alternate community representative, one youth representative, one representative appointed by the Lane Cove Bushland Management Advisory Committee and one business representative appointed by the Lane Cove Chamber of Commerce. A total of seventeen (17) applications were received and considered for nomination. No applications were received for the youth representative and in this circumstance the charter allows for an additional community representative to be appointed. Therefore, six (6) of the nominations received are recommended for endorsement by Council as follows:-

 

·    Jane Blackmore;

·    Sjirk Bangma;

·    Paul McGregor;

·    Christina Kim;

·    Erin Cini; and

·    Anthony Melinz.

 

The Lane Cove Chamber of Commerce have advised that David McLeod is their nominated representative and the Bushland Management Advisory Committee will consider their nomination at their first meeting.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

1.    That Council increase community representation on the Lane Cove Bicycle Advisory       Committee from five (5) to six (6) representatives and the Bushland Management Advisory       Committee from three (3) to four (4) representatives.

 

2.   That Council endorse the following nominations for Councils Advisory Committees:-  

 

a)    Susan Loane,Russell Webber, Don Murchinson, Maggie Burke, Gavin Imhof and Rod Taylor be  appointed as the community representatives for the Lane Cove Bicycle Advisory Committee.

 

b)    Ruth Neuman, Lynne McLoughlin, Frances Vissel and Graeme Pratt be appointed as the community representatives for the Bushland Management Advisory Committee.

 

c)    Rod Tudge, Pat Madson, Lyndall McNally, Sarah Balzer, Anthony Nolan, Marie James, Joy Archer, Shirin Kanji, Paul McGregor, Shideh Modabber, Susan Morrison and James Shevlin be appointed as the community representatives for the Cameraygal Festival Committee

 

d)    Chrissie Lloyd, Graham Ball, Bill McLaughlin, Kathy Elton, Anthony Nolan, Emily Patterson, Dr Anne Power, Kay Freedman, Margo Easton and Jonghee (Jo) Kim be appointed as community representatives for the Lane Cove Cultural Advisory Committee.

 

e)    Jane Blackmore, Sjirk Bangma, Paul McGregor, Christina Kim, Erin Cini and Anthony Melinz be appointed as the community representatives for the Sustainability Advisory Committee.

 

3.    That Council determine whether to appoint 3 or 4 community representatives for the Lane Cove Access Committee.

 

4.    That all nominees be advised of Councils decision.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager

Corporate Dervices Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

Amended Charters for Advisory Committees

 

 

Subject:          Amended Charters for Advisory Committees    

Record No:    SU827 - 56805/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council at its Meeting on 15 October 2012 resolved to adopt an amended structure for Council Advisory Committees for the next 12 months. This new structure resulted in a change to the Awards Nomination Committee and for the Lane Cove Golf Course Advisory Committee to be replaced by the Lane Cove Recreation Precinct Liaison Advisory Committee. The purpose of this report is to provide amended charters for these two committees for consideration by Council. The report recommends adopting the amended charters and advertising for community representatives for the Lane Cove Recreation Precinct Liaison Advisory Committee.

 

Background

 

At the Council Meeting on 15 October 2012, Council considered a report on the structure of and representation on its Advisory Committees and resolved to adopt an amended structure for the next 12 months. The amended structure requires Council to adopt an amended charter for the Council Selection Committee (previously the Awards Nomination Committee) and a new charter for the Lane Cove Recreation Precinct Liaison Advisory Committee which replaces the Lane Cove Golf Course Advisory Committee.

 

Discussion

 

Council Selection Committee

 

As part of the amended structure of Council’s Advisory Committees, Council resolved to change the name and functions of the Awards Nomination Committee. This committee has been renamed the Council Selection Committee and its functions include considering nominations for Council's Citizenship Awards, Australia Day Awards, community appointment to Council’s Advisory Committees, tenders, grants, and other awards as required. A draft charter for the Council Selection Committee is shown attached as AT 1 for consideration by Council.

 

Lane Cove Recreation Precinct Liaison Advisory Committee

 

As part of the amended structure of Council’s Advisory Committees, Council resolved that the Lane Cove Golf Course Advisory Committee be replaced by the Lane Cove Recreation Precinct Liaison Advisory Committee. Council is currently exploring the potential of creating a recreation precinct on the existing site of the Lane Cove Country Club and tennis facility on River Road, Lane Cove. This Committee would assist Council in planning and developing the recreation precinct.

 

It is proposed that the Committee’s functions would include:-

·    To provide input and advice on the planning, consultation and implementation of a multi purpose sports facility as part of a recreation precinct, with minimal disruption to ongoing activities during the implementation phase;

·    To provide input and feedback on Council documentation relating to the design and implementation of the Recreation Precinct; and

·    To monitor progress on the implementation of the Recreation Precinct.

 

A draft charter for the Lane Cove Recreation Precinct Liaison Advisory Committee is shown attached as AT 2 for consideration by Council. The membership of the Committee includes two community representatives with an interest in town planning, urban design and or/architecture. The Committee also provides for two community members with an interest in multiple sports to be appointed at the implementation stage of the project. Prior to the first meeting of this Committee, Council will need to advertise for nominations for community representatives with an interest in town planning, urban design and or/architecture and again at the implementation stage of the project for two community members with an interest in multiple sports.  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Adopt the draft charters for the Council Selection Committee and the Lane Cove Recreation Precinct Liaison Advisory Committee shown attached as AT 1 and AT 2.

 

2.   Advertise for nominations for community representatives for the Lane Cove Recreation Precinct Liaison Advisory Committee with an interest in town planning, urban design and or/architecture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Charter for Council Selection Committee

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Draft Charter for Lane Cove Recreation Precinct Liasion Advisory Committee

2 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

1st Quarter Review of the 2012-2013 Budget

 

 

Subject:          Request for Reimbursement of Legal Expenses    

Record No:    SU834 - 56615/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

In the last Council term, the General Manager received a request from the then Councillor Longbottom for reimbursement of legal expenses he incurred as a result of an investigation by the Department of Local Government in 2004. The purpose of this report is to provide information about the request and the provisions for reimbursement of legal expenses under Council’s Policy on the Payment of Expenses and Facilities to Councillors. The report recommends that Council make a determination on whether to provide reimbursement of legal expenses under this policy.

 

Background

 

Prior to the end of the last Council term, Councillor Longbottom submitted a request to the General Manager for reimbursement of legal expenses incurred in 2004, under Council’s Policy on the Payment of Expenses and Facilities to Councillors. In order to substantiate the request, Council’s Manager – Governance, requested from the Division of Local Government copies of confidential letters sent to Councillor Longbottom regarding the investigation.

 

The Division of Local Government subsequently provided copies of the relevant documentation relating to the complaint and investigation to the Manager - Governance in October 2012. The documentation revealed that in June 2003 the then Department of Local Government (now known as Division of Local Government) wrote confidentially to Councillor Longbottom to advise that they had received a complaint about Councillor Longbottom not disclosing a conflict of interest at a Council Meeting in relation to the reclassification of the Rosenthal Avenue Carpark, and were investigating the complaint.

 

The documentation provided to the General Manager from Councillor Longbottom shows that legal advice was sought in June 2004 and the expenses incurred by Councillor Longbottom totalled $1467.40.

 

The then Director General of the Department of Local Government sent a confidential letter to Councillor Longbottom in June 2005 stating “The Department has considered all of the information provided to it in relation to these matters. I am of the opinion that the information does not warrant further action”.

 

Discussion

 

Council’s Policy on the Payment of Expenses and Facilities to Councillors details the criteria for consideration of reimbursement of legal expenses incurred by councillors. The policy states:-

 

“Legal Assistance for Councillors

 

In the event of:-

 

a.      A Councillor defending an action arising from the performance in good faith of a function under the Local Government Act (refer Section 731 of the Local Government Act, 1993); or

 

b.      A Councillor defending an action in defamation provided the statements complained of were made in good faith in the course of exercising a function under the Act; or

 

c.      A Councillor for proceedings before the Local Government Pecuniary Interest Tribunal or an investigative body, provided:-

 

·      the subject of the proceedings arises from the performance in good faith of a function under the Act and the Tribunal;

·      the matter before the investigative/review body has proceeded past any initial assessment phase to a formal investigation or review; and

·      the investigative body makes a finding that is not substantially unfavourable to the Councillor; or

 

d.      A Councillor defending a conduct complaint, where the matter has been referred by the General Manager to a Conduct Reviewer / Conduct Review Committee to make formal enquiries into the matter in accordance with the procedures in the Code of Conduct.

 

Council shall reimburse such Councillor, at times approved by Council from time to time, for all expenses properly and reasonably incurred given the nature of the matter on a solicitor/client basis, PROVIDED THAT:-

 

a.      The amount of such reimbursements shall be reduced by the amount of any monies that may be or are recouped by the Councillor on any basis; and

 

b.      A Councillor's performance or exercise of the civic duty or function was in the opinion of the Council undertaken in good faith; and

 

c.      The amount of such reimbursement shall be limited to the equivalent hourly rate being charged by Council's solicitors to undertake such a course of action.

 

A Council will not meet the costs of:-

 

(i)      an action in defamation taken by a councillor or council employee as plaintiff in any circumstances;

 

(ii)      a councillor or council employee seeking advice in respect of possible defamation, or in seeking a non-litigious remedy for possible defamation; and

 

(iii)     legal proceedings that do not involve a councillor performing their role as a councillor.”

 

Conclusion

 

The request from former Councillor Longbottom does fall within the criteria for reimbursement under the Policy on Payment of Expenses and Facilities for Councillors as at the time of the complaint he was performing a function under the Local Government Act, ie., a Councillor making a decision on a matter in a Council Meeting, the legal expenses were incurred during the course of the investigation by an investigative body and the finding was “not substantially unfavourable” as no further action was warranted. The Policy is silent on the time period in which requests for reimbursement of legal expenses are to be made and therefore reimbursement is recommended.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That former Councillor Longbottom’s legal expenses of $1,467.40 be reimbursed to him.

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 Subject:         1st Quarter Review of the 2012-2013 Budget    

Record No:    SU757 - 56253/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

The first Quarter 2012 - 2013 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 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005. This report is prepared in accordance with the clause for the period ending 30 September 2012. The Division of Local Government has issued a prescribed format for reviews which is included as an attachment to this report.  The purpose of these reviews is to ensure that the impact of financial variations are reflected in the forecast of Council’s global budgetary position to 30 June 2013, and the adopted Budget adjusted accordingly.

 

Discussion

The following is a summary of Council’s adopted Budget for 2012 - 2013 and the revised Budget following the adjustments included in this report:-

 

 

Original Budget

Adjustment

Revised Budget

Expenditure

$35,355k

$75k

$35,430k

Revenue

$36,961k

$1,645k

$38,606k

Surplus/ (Deficit)

$1,606k

$1,570k

    $3,176k

 

Recurrent Expenditure

The review includes provision for funding of $74,815 for two Bushland projects where the cash grants received last financial year were partly unspent as at 30 June 2012 and are now carried-over to the 2012/2013 Budget.

Capital Expenditure

The major item requiring review and provision for an increase of $875,000 is the Meeting House Redevelopment which was underspent on budget last year and is now carried-over to the 2012/2013 Budget.

Income

The reduction of $475,348 in the Federal Government Financial Assistance Grant (FAG) reflects the fact that the money was advanced to all Councils last financial year based on a Federal Government Budget strategy decision – that is $475,348 was received prior to 30 June 2012.

Capital Income

The increase of $2,120,000 in Section 94 Developer Contributions directly reflects the actual amount of S94 funds received year-to-date as at 30 September 2012. The level of redevelopment start-ups has far exceeded Council’s estimates.

 


Conclusion

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

It is my opinion that the quarterly Budget Review Statement for Lane Cove Council for the quarter ended 30 September 2012 indicates that Council's projected financial position will be satisfactory at year end 30 June 2013, having regard to the projected estimates of income and expenditure and the original budgeted income and expenditure.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the 2012 – 2013 Budget be varied as follows:-

 

 

Original Budget

Adjustment

Revised Budget

Expenditure

$35,355k

$75k

$35,430k

Revenue

$36,961k

$1,645k

$38,606k

Surplus/ (Deficit)

$1,606k

$1,570k

    $3,176k

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Budget Review for Quarter ended 30 September 2012

6 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

Council's Annual Report 2011/12

 

 

Subject:          Council's Annual Report 2011/12    

Record No:    SU245 - 57134/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Local Government Act requires all NSW Councils to prepare an Annual Report for the previous financial year by 30 November each year. Lane Cove Council’s Draft Annual Report for 2011/12 has been produced and this report recommends that Council adopt the Draft Annual Report and send a copy to the Minister for Local Government as required by the Local Government Act.

 

Discussion

 

Council’s Draft Annual Report for 2011/2012 is shown attached as AT-1 and covers all of the matters listed in the Local Government Act to be addressed, in particular the financial information included in the Audited Financial Statements, the End of Term Report which details the progress on achieving the objectives, goals and strategies of Lane Cove 2025, Community Strategic Plan, the progress on achieving the projects and activities listed in the 2011-12 Delivery Program and Operational Plan and NSROC’s State of the Environment Report.

 

In order to maintain consistency amongst our Corporate Planning documents, the Draft Annual Report is organised into Council’s Six Strategic Planning Themes in the same way as the Lane Cove 2025, Community Strategic Plan and Delivery Program and Operational Plan. This makes the Annual Report more user-friendly to the Lane Cove community as it groups information under each planning theme rather than by Council’s internal organisation structure.

 

The Draft Annual Report contains an introduction by the Mayor and General Manager which describes the highlights for 2011/12. These highlights are reprinted below for the Councillors and community’s information:-

 

“On behalf of the staff and Councillors of Lane Cove Council we are proud to present the Lane Cove Council Annual Report for 2011-12. This report outlines our progress towards achieving the goals, objectives and strategies outlined in our Community Strategic Plan, Lane Cove 2025.

There have been a number of improvements for our community during this time such as the introduction of an Infrastructure Levy, implementation of a new integrated planning framework, upgrades to community facilities and the introduction of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel to name a few.  

 

One of our most significant projects during the year was the introduction of the Infrastructure Levy. The Levy was introduced to help fund the gap in infrastructure funding for roads, footpaths, stormwater and facilities. The additional funds collected via this levy will fund $10million of the $22.9million identified funding gap over the first 10 years with Council funding the remainder through adjustment to its spending priorities. In addition to using the levy to repair and upgrade roads, footpaths, guttering, drainage stormwater pipes and shared cycle paths, Council has been able to complete a number of significant projects for the benefit of the community.

 

In conjunction with Centrehouse, the top floor of the community centre in Longueville Road was converted into an Art Gallery. Gallery Lane Cove was opened in February 2012 and has already hosted a number of exhibitions including works from Council’s Sister City Gunnedah.

 

Following extensive community consultation, Stage 1 of the landscape works to upgrade the Lane Cove Plaza was completed in 2011. The upgrade has made the popular grassed area more spacious and the raised shade sails have opened up the views to the bandstand. The bandstand canopy has been lifted and the performance platform expanded. The links between the arcades have been improved with the use of high quality paving materials and new LED lighting.

 

Greenwich Shops streetscape was improved in 2012. The pedestrian crossing was relocated and bus stop refurbished to provide a safer environment for the school children and the public. New bench seats, paving, garden areas and landscaping has been provided and the existing outdoor café area has been extended. A landscape upgrade of Library Square has also been completed which included new paving, public art display plinth, seats, tables and the planting of Yellow Bloodwood trees to provide shade to the Square.

 

One of Council’s major projects, the redevelopment of Meeting House, is now well on the way to completion. Meeting House in Stokes Street Lane Cove North has been offering child care and neighbourhood services since 1980.  Redevelopment of the facility was highlighted in Council’s Major Projects Plan (2007 – 2016) and Council’s Social Plan (2005-2009) which also identified the need for Meeting House to continue to provide neighbourhood and childcare services. Construction works commenced in early August 2011 and are scheduled for completion in early 2013. 

 

The completed development will comprise: community meeting rooms and community kitchen facility; 40 place Childcare Centre for 0-5 year olds; and six residential units.  The new childcare facility effectively doubles the Centre’s previous capacity by offering 40 places across three development groups. For the first time the Centre will offer 0-2 year old placements, which was identified as a critical need in the Social Plan. We would like to thank the representatives from Meeting House for assisting Council in all the planning stages of the project. The new Meeting House will be a wonderful facility and no doubt a greatly valued asset in the community.

 

Council continues to the journey towards a more sustainable Lane Cove through the installation of 19.7 kW of solar panels at the Lane Cove Seniors Centre, Kindy Cove Childcare Centre and Lane Cove Occasional Childcare Centre, solar-powered lighting at Osborne Park and energy and water saving initiatives in the new Gallery Lane Cove. To help the community to live more sustainably, a  series of sustainability Q&A forums were held featuring well-known personalities such as author and TV presenter Tanya Ha, former Masterchef contestant Billy Law, Gardening Australia host Costa Georgiadis and Planet Ark co-founder Jon Dee. The annual Captured Photography Competition was held with participants invited to submit photographs inspired by the colours found in Lane Cove’s natural and built environment. Over 300 entries were received with an exhibition of photographs being held in the new Gallery Lane Cove.

 

In March 2012, Council made the decision to introduce an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel to improve transparency in decision-making of development applications. The Lane Cove Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel is comprised of appropriately qualified people independent of Council charged with determining the small number of applications not dealt with under delegated authority by staff. This would include any of Council’s own developments valued at $100,000 or more.

 

A new integrated planning framework commenced during this time which integrates strategic, operational, financial, asset and resourcing actions into one reporting system. The framework includes the Community Strategic Plan Lane Cove 2025, , the Delivery Program and Operational Plan, Asset Management Plans and associated resourcing strategies. Lane Cove 2025 is comprised of goals, objectives and strategies for each planning theme, which have been developed with the community through extensive community consultation. The Delivery Program and Operational Plan outlines the actions Council will undertake to achieve its goals and how we will measure progress in attaining them.

 

Over the past 12 months Council again undertook a Community Grants Program where 35 organisations received $416,000 in funding to assist with the provision of their valuable services to the Lane Cove community. The program is the most generous local government community grants program on the North Shore. Our annual Citizenship Awards ceremony again recognised the achievements of local volunteers and professionals who work hard to improve the Lane Cove community.  Council continued to provide a wide variety of cultural events for the community to enjoy including the celebration of Lane Cove 21st Cameraygal Festival.

 

Thank you to the 203 staff members employed by Council along with the Councillors and members of the community who have made valuable contributions to these achievements.

On behalf of the community we welcome all new residents and encourage them to embrace our wonderful village lifestyle. To find out how you can become involved in community events and activities please visit Council’s website www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au

 

Conclusion

 

The Draft Annual Report has been prepared to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act. Upon adoption of the Report, a copy will be forwarded to the Minister as required by the Act and will be publicly accessible via Council’s website, http://www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.  Council adopt the Draft Annual Report at AT1 -for 2011/2012;

 

2.  The adopted Annual Report be forwarded to the Minister for Local Government; and

 

3.  The Annual Report be published on Council’s website.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Annual Report 2011 - 2012

155 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

Wildlife Protection Areas in Reserves

 

 

Subject:          Wildlife Protection Areas in Reserves    

Record No:    SU4914 - 34356/12

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Kerry Heatley 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Protection for native fauna from feral and domestic animals can be provided through the implementation of Wildlife Protection Areas (WPA) under the Companion Animals Act 1998.  WPA’s can be established in designated bushland reserves within the Lane Cove Local Government Area (LGA).  A Draft Policy on Wildlife Protection Areas shown attached as AT-1 and dated 13 November 2012, has been developed which sets out the process for the declaration of Wildlife Protection Areas, identifies which bushland reserves are proposed to be classified as WPA’s, and provides information on the enforcement of these areas.   It is recommended Council proceed with public exhibition of the draft policy.

 

Background

 

Council previously resolved to consider the introduction of Wildlife Protection Areas in Lane Cove in accordance with the Lane Cove Bushland Plan of Management 2007.

 

The Plan of Management for Bushland in Lane Cove 2007, Section 3.3.4 Domestic and Feral Animals in Bushland includes a management action to: ‘Consider classifying all bushland reserves as wildlife protection areas under the Companion Animals Act, 1998 as part of a strategy to discourage residents allowing their pets to hunt or disturb wildlife in bushland reserves.’ The establishment of Wildlife Protection Areas would then be in keeping with Council’s goals to protect bushland values. 

 

Council also resolved to consult with Aboriginal elders, the Aboriginal Heritage Office, Metropolitan Aboriginal Lands Council and local Residents for Reconciliation with regards to the introduction of Wildlife Protection Areas in Lane Cove. This consultation has been completed.

 

Discussion

 

In response to the above, a Draft Policy for Wildlife Protection Areas has been developed. This Draft Policy sets out the requirements for the declaration of Wildlife Protection Areas, identifies which bushland reserves are proposed to be classified as WPA’s and provides information on the enforcement of these areas.

 

Council is responsible for the management of approximately 90 hectares of bushland. The bushland is located in small, narrow, fragmented reserves in gullies and along the foreshore. The reserves are criss-crossed by drainage lines and walking tracks. There are residential or industrial properties within 100m of any part of these reserves. Urban pressures on this bushland for both native vegetation and native wildlife are immense.

 

A search of the Atlas of NSW Wildlife for wildlife sightings in the Lane Cove LGA reveals that there have been around 95 different native fauna species observed. Council’s own wildlife database, compiled from observations made by bush regenerators, contractors and local residents, has identified around 180 different native species which includes a number of frogs, reptiles, birds and mammals.

 


Some of the key threatening processes listed on the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 impacting on native fauna within Lane Cove Council are:-

·   Predation by the European Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes);

·   Predation by Feral Cats (Felis catus); and

·   Competition and grazing by the feral European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus).

 

Currently foxes and rabbits are being controlled through baiting and shooting programs through a regional program coordinated by the Urban Feral Animal Action Group, of which Council is a member. The fox management program has proven to be successful in recovering and expanding the number of native fauna species across the Sydney-north region. However, there is little protection provided for native fauna from the presence of feral cats. Under the Companion Animals Act 1998, a cat can be injured or destroyed if a person believes the cat will cause harm to another animal, other than vermin. However, the likelihood of a cat actually being observed in the act of injuring native wildlife is highly improbable.

 

Through the establishment of Wildlife Protection Areas (WPA) under the Companion Animals Act 1998, cats would be prohibited from entering WPA’s. This would then provide Council with the ability to eliminate feral cat populations thus minimising the impact on native fauna.

 

Implementation of such areas would also further enhance the support of native fauna in Sydney’s north region.  Hornsby, Ku-ring-gai, Warringah, Pittwater, Manly, Willoughby and North Sydney Councils have already implemented WPA’s in selected reserves. The designation of Smoothey Park and Gore Cove Reserve in North Sydney LGA as WPA’s is of particular relevance as these reserves directly border with Lane Cove’s Greendale and Holloway Parks and a collaborative effort will help to achieve more efficient management of feral cats in the bushland along Berry Creek.

 

The following reserves are a proposed as Wildlife Protection Areas:

 

Reserve

Wildlife Species diversity

Wildlife Threatened Species

Lane Cove Bushland Park

59

3

Gore Creek Reserve

112

3

Greendale Park and Holloway Park

48

1

Lovetts Reserve

36

0

Tennyson Park

53

2

Stringybark Reserve and Batten Reserve

64

1

Ventemans Reach

37

2

Warraroon Reserve

76

3

 

The wildlife species diversity indicates the number of identified native animal species observed in the reserve which includes birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. The wildlife threatened species indicates the number of species listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Reserves selected mostly have homes and yards backing into reserves making them accessible for domestic animals, therefore WPA’s are a very important management tool to control feral and domestic animals.

 

Once the selected reserves have been declared as a WPA, Council will notify neighbours of the “live” status of the WPA. Council would be required to install appropriate signage at all formal entrances to the reserve, whilst also informing reserve neighbours of the amended status of the reserve and their subsequent legal obligations.

 

An extensive education program will be prepared in conjunction with the current responsible pet ownership education material. Highlighted, in particular, would be measures to ensure cats remain confined to non-WPA areas at all times and reinforcing that dogs must remain leashed at all times within WPA areas.

 

Declaration will see the introduction of periodic trapping programs to remove resident feral cats from the reserve. A protocol based on the requirements of the Companion Animals Act 1998 would be developed to deal with domestic cats intercepted in the WPA during a trapping program. For example, on the first occasion a domestic cat is found in the WPA, it is returned to its owner with a caution. Any subsequent occasions where the same cat is intercepted in the WPA, the owner could be fined for breaching the WPA conditions. The Companion Animals Act 1998 allows for fines up to $880 for offences relating to cats in WPA’s.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to provide information about the proposal and determine the level of community support for the establishment of Wildlife Protection Areas in selected reserves and the Draft Policy for Wildlife Protection Areas.  Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with the implementation of the Wildlife Protection Areas.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community

Key Message Givers eg. Lane Cove Bushland Conservation Society, local resident associations, neighbouring residents of identified reserves and park users.

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement, Press Release, Newsletter, Notification Signage at Park/Reserve entrances.

 

Notification letter and Fact Sheet.

Website and Public Exhibition and Survey

 

Indicative Timing

November 2012 – January 2013

 November 2012 – January 2013

 November 2012 – January 2013

 

Conclusion

 

Pressure from introduced predators on our local native wildlife is a contributing factor to the decline of species diversity in Council’s bushland reserves and the ability of our resident wildlife populations to remain viable in the future. Council’s management of wildlife predation by cats and dogs in bushland, whether they are domestic or stray/feral, would be considerably improved through an integrated approach of community education and statutory regulation.

 

Promoting responsible cat ownership in Lane Cove, particularly in those areas that interface directly with our bushland reserve system, would prove more effective if the onus of responsibility was borne by cat owners to ensure their cats do not enter critical habitat areas. Ensuring that dog owners keep their dogs leashed whilst in WPA’s will also prevent attacks on native wildlife.

 

These enforcements could be achieved through the declaration of bushland reserves as Wildlife Protection Areas under the NSW Companion Animals Act 1998. The Draft Policy for Wildlife Protection Areas will be exhibited for a period of 6 weeks and following this time a report will be submitted to Council on the results of the community consultation.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.       Endorse the Draft Policy for Wildlife Protection Areas dated 13 November 2012 for the purposes of public exhibition;

2.       Place the Draft Policy for Wildlife Protection Areas on Public Exhibition until January 2013 in accordance with the Consultation Strategy outlined in the report; and

3.       Receive a further report on the establishment of Wildlife Protection Areas in Reserves following the exhibition period to consider the results of the community consultation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Wildlife Protection Area Policy

4 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

NSW Planning Review: LEP Plan-making & Delegations

 

 

Subject:          NSW Planning Review: LEP Plan-making & Delegations    

Record No:    SU4198 - 57947/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The NSW Minster for Planning and Infrastructure has announced two key changes to the plan-making process for Local Environmental Plans (LEPs), which commenced on Friday 2 November 2012.

 

1.   The making of some LEPs will now be delegated back to councils, to return local planning powers to local councils and their communities.

 

2.   Independent reviews of some council and departmental decisions in the plan-making process will be introduced.

 

The Minister has written to all councils advising that plan-making powers are to be delegated under section 23 of the Act.  Council must formally accept the delegation, and sub-delegate the power to a nominated Council officer, by 30 November 2012, in order then to request the Department to issue an authorisation in respect of any individual draft LEP. A copy of the letter from the Minister is shown attached as AT-1.

 

This Report recommends that Council resolve to submit the formal request to the Department for delegation to make local environmental plans, and sub-delegate the plan-making responsibility to Mr Craig Wrightson, General Manager. The Report also describes other planning changes introduced to the LEP-making process, including provision to review Gateway decisions. It provides comment on a Bill before the NSW Parliament currently to clarify the subordinate role of DCPs relative to LEPs, and other matters, and provides a summary form the Department of the amendments.

 

Background

 

In April 2012, the NSW Government called for public submissions on a draft policy statement to improve the local plan-making process by returning local planning decisions to local councils and their communities, and by making the process more accountable.  The proposed changes included formalising the existing statutory arrangements for two reviews within the plan-making process (at both the pre- and post-Gateway determination stage) and introducing delegations to local government to make plans in certain circumstances.


The Minster has proposed to introduce those changes after consideration of the submissions received by the Department of Planning & Infrastructure. This decision also took into account the reports of the Chairs of the Independent Review into the NSW Planning System, the Hon Tim Moore and the Hon Ron Dyer, which recommended that the reviews be implemented. 

 

Discussion

 

The New LEP-making Process

 

In 2009 the Department had introduced an “LEP Gateway” process, which required councils to seek its determination that an LEP may be prepared, what studies were required in drafting the LEP and which authorities had to be consulted. This included all LEPs, whether complex plans for major locations or minor editing issues.

The new process aims reduce the Department’s involvement in relatively straightforward LEPs, to speed up the plan-making process, remove unnecessary red tape and increase transparency for the public. The steps involved include:-

 

·    Council, by 30 November 2012, is to formally request the Department for delegation to make LEPs, and nominate the responsible officer – it is recommended that this role be delegated to Craig Wrightson, General Manager.

·    When submitting each individual planning proposal, Councils will then be required to identify whether they wish to exercise delegation for it. Following this initial step, on receipt by Council of a Written Authorisation to Exercise Delegation, Council will have the power to finalise an LEP. 

·    The council will then deal directly with Parliamentary Counsel’s Office (PCO), rather than needing to resubmit the plan to the Department first, to negotiate and agree the final wording of the instrument.

·    A template has been prepared for reporting on timeframes (e.g. exhibition dates, dates of council resolution and/or delegated decisions to proceed with the planning proposal after exhibition, request for drafting, making of plan, and forwarding to department to arrange notification).

 

Delegation will be routinely issued for particular types of LEPs:-

 

·    mapping alterations;

·    section 73A matters (e.g. amending references to documents/agencies, minor

errors and anomalies);

·    reclassifications of land;

·    heritage LEPs related to specific local heritage items supported by an Office of Environment and Heritage endorsed study; and

·    spot rezoning consistent with an endorsed strategy and/or surrounding zones.

 

Other draft LEPs of local significance may also be delegated by the Gateway to Council. Any planning proposal which has already been through the Gateway will need to follow the existing pathway and be submitted to the Department to be finalised. The changes are being made now, rather than waiting for the White Paper and new planning legislation, as they do not require any amendment to the Environmental Planning & Assessment (EPA) Act.

 

Review Process

 

Two review stages have been introduced for councils and proponents to have LEP determinations reviewed, to increase transparency and accountability in the plan-making process. 

 

·    Pre-Gateway Reviews

 

A proponent (e.g. developer, landowner) may request a pre-Gateway review if (a) the council has notified the proponent that their planning proposal is not supported – they have 40 days to request review, or (b) the council has failed to indicate its support 90  days after the proponent submitted a request. A fee of $5,000 is required to request a review.

The Department will decide whether the proposal has merit to be forwarded to the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) for review. A further fee of $15,000 is required to request a review.

 

·    Gateway Reviews

 

These may be requested by a council or proponent following a Gateway determination, but before community consultation on the planning proposal has commenced. These reviews are to be considered by the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC). Councils or proponents who seek a Gateway Review will not be required to pay a fee.

 

Details relating to the changes are provided in the Department’s Frequently Asked Questions of November 2012 and Planning Circular of 29 October 2012, attached to this report at AT 2 and AT3. 

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill 2012.

Legislation is currently before the NSW Parliament to introduce amendments to the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, ahead of the imminent Planning Review White Paper. Key changes are discussed below. A summary by the Department, stating that the Bill “removes impediments to the supply of housing”, is attached at AT 4.

The Bill provides that:-

(a)  Development Control Plans (DCPs)

·    DCPs are ‘guideline’ documents only, having less status than local environmental plans (LEP) or State environmental planning policies (SEPP)

Comment

The changes may affect some councils to differing extents. For example, some councils have a heritage DCP and are concerned at the implications for this. In Lane Cove, however, there is no heritage DCP, but rather site-specific heritage assessments are required to be submitted by each applicant are then assessed by Council’s independent heritage consultants. This individualised approach has been Council’s basis for assessment rather than generic DCP heritage controls. In general terms, Council has to date understood that a DCP was subordinate to the LEP.

 

·    It also allows applicants to provide alternative design solutions to meet identified outcomes and have these alternatives considered on merit.

 

Comment

Council has over some years permitted flexible design solutions, where merited, in the interest of addressing individual site constraints given that it is an area of varying topography and environmental characteristics requiring site-specific considerations.

 

(b)  Bushfire

 

·    Removes the need to re-assess bush fire issues at the building stage where those issues have been assessed at the subdivision stage under the Rural Fires Act. In these circumstances the bush fire risk status of the land does not warrant such re-assessment. 

 

Comment

Council should add provisions to its Subdivision Policy to ensure mechanism exists to condition DAs.

 

·    Rural Fire Commissioner able to update the bush fire maps for an area.

 


Comment

This may be a matter for strong concern if it is not to be done in consultation with Council.

 

      (c) Building certification and the accreditation of certifiers

 

Comment

These changes are supported as strengthening the responsibility of certifiers.

 

Conclusion

 

The changes by the Minster to the process for making local environmental plans, which were notified to Council on Friday 2 November 2012, are supported, having regard to the Department’s goals of streamlining the plan-making process and increasing transparency and decision-making for local communities.

 

It is recommended that Council accept the Minster’s proposal by applying formally in writing to be given delegation to prepare Local Environmental Plans. It is also recommended that Mr Craig Wrightson, General Manager be nominated as the officer to whom the role is sub-delegated by Council.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.         Write to the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, by 30 November 2012, to formally accept the Minister’s delegation to make Local Environmental Plans in accordance with the Minister’s letter received on 2 November 2012 and shown attached as AT-1.

 

2.         Sub-delegate the plan-making responsibility to Mr Craig Wrightson, General Manager and advise the Department accordingly.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Minster’s letter re Planning Reforms received 2 November 2012

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Frequently Asked Questions, November 2012

4 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Department’s Planning Circular of 29 October 2012 (PS12-006)

4 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

Environmental Planning & Assessment Amendment Bill 2012 - Department's summary

2 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held Tuesday 23 October 2012

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held Tuesday 23 October 2012    

Record No:    SU1326 - 56594/12

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Tim Sullivan 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held Tuesday 23 October 2012.  The Agenda is included as AT-1.  The traffic recommendations are shown in the Minutes of the Meeting, included as AT-2.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the recommendations of the Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held 23 October 2012 be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Agenda - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 23 October 2012

15 Pages

AT‑2 View

Minutes - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 23 October 2012

3 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

LGSA Training - Effective Chair in Local Government and Dynamic Presentation Skills

 

 

Subject:          LGSA Training - Effective Chair in Local Government and Dynamic Presentation Skills    

Record No:    SU2742 - 58154/12

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Millie Stephen 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

To assist the Mayor with performing his duties as Chair, and in other speaking engagements, Councillor Bennison has indicated that he wishes to attend two training courses conducted by Local Government Learning Solutions, the member training unit of the Local Government Association and Shires Association of NSW. Council’s policy requires all training incurring fees to be approved by Council.

 

Discussion

 

The Mayor wishes to attend the following course. It is recommended approval be granted.  

 

Effective Chair in Local Government:            26 November, 2012 -  Cost: $440 inc GST

 

·   The different types of meeting and chairperson’s roles.

·   Different leadership styles when chairing meetings.

·   Skills to facilitate a rigorous debate.

·   Approaches to create a good meeting ambience.

·   How to maintain control and keep order.

·   Ways to avoid defaming fellow councillors and other parties.

 

Dynamic Presentation Skills:                          5 June 2013  - Cost: $550 inc GST

 

·   Tips to reduce anxiety.

·   How to use a presentation checklist.

·   Dynamic hooks and how to use them.

·   How to finish on a high with a “call to action”.

·   Tips for using equipment more effectively.

 

There are sufficient funds in the Councillors Continuing Education account  to meet the costs.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council approve the attendance of the Mayor for two training courses through Local Government Learning Solutions:- Effective Chair in Local Government and Dynamic Presentation Skills.

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

Bushfire Risk

 

 

Subject:          Bushfire Risk    

Record No:    SU3580 - 58186/12

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Susan Butler 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Bush Fire Risk Management Plan was prepared in 2008/09 to identify the assets at risk and prioritise hazard reduction works over the following 5 years. Hazard reduction works include hazard reduction burns as well as manual hazard reduction works done as part of Council’s Bush Regeneration Program.

 

Background

 

At the Council meeting of 29 October 2012 Council officers were requested to provide a report identifying:-

 

1.   The bushfire risk areas in the Lane Cove Local Government Area, and

 

2.   What options are available to mitigate the risks identified in point 1.

 

Discussion.

 

The Bush Fire Risk Management Plan (BFRMP) was prepared in 2008/09 by the District Bush Fire Management Committee (BFMC), which has representatives from Lane Cove, Hunters Hill, Ryde and Willoughby Councils, Lane Cove National Park and NSW Fire and Rescue. The draft plan was on public exhibition for 6 weeks in July and August 2009.

 

This plan identifies assets at risk, ranked in priority across the district. It has been based on site specific information including factors such as slope, aspect, fire history, previous hazard reduction works, heritage sites and threatened species. This plan forms the basis of how the councils will treat these risks over a 5 year period and is used to develop the bush fire hazard reduction works that are to be carried out in the local bushland reserves.

 

The District Bush Fire Management Committee meets regularly to plan and prioritise hazard reduction burns in the district. A Bush Fire Fuel Management Program was prepared in 2008 to accompany the Plan, and this has formed the basis for the hazard reduction works undertaken by NSW Fire and Rescue.

 

A hazard reduction burn was carried out recently in bushland at Osborne Park and work is progressing to prepare part of Batten Reserve for hazard reduction burns in the near future. Other hazard reduction work in Council’s bushland reserves is carried out by Council staff and contractors as part of the ongoing bush regeneration program.

 

A copy of the Bush Fire Risk Management Plan is shown attached as AT 1.

 

Conclusion

 

Council continues to work with NSW Fire and Rescue to plan and prioritise hazard reduction works in the bushland reserves, according to the priorities set out in the District Bush Fire Risk Management Plan prepared in 2008/09.


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

District Bush Fire Risk Management Plan 2008

42 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

1st Quarter Review of the 2012-2013 Delivery Program & Operational Plan

 

 

Subject:          1st Quarter Review of the 2012-2013 Delivery Program & Operational Plan    

Record No:    SU238 - 56395/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

This report outlines the 1st Quarter progress towards achieving the projects listed in the adopted 2012-2013 Delivery Program and Operational Plan.  It is recommended that the report be received and noted.

Discussion

Council’s adopted 2012-2013 Delivery Program and Operational Plan details the projects proposed to be undertaken during this financial year in order to meet the goals and objectives of Lane Cove 2025 - Community Strategic Plan. Council reports quarterly on the progress towards completing these projects and achieving the targets for the adopted performance measurements. The 1st Quarter Review of the 2012-2013 Delivery Program and Operational Plan is shown attached as AT-1

 

The projects in the Quarterly Review are listed by the responsible Council Division and where the project has a completion date the ‘Action Status’ column graphically demonstrates the progress towards completion. The Review also includes a comment on the status of each project.

 

Progress towards completing projects is on track with approximately 27% of projects completed.  A breakdown of this progress by Division is provided below:-

·                                                               Corporate Services      36%

·                                                               Environmental Services          35%

·                                                               Human Services          28%

·                                                               Open Space and Urban Services       9%

 

The Quarterly Review also provides a report on progress towards achieving the targets set for performance measurement for each Division of Council. A cumulative figure for performance measurement is shown so that performance can be tracked each quarter towards achieving the required target.

The highlights of the projects completed for the 1st quarter include:-

·      Reviewed Council’s policies to ensure relevancy (July).

·      Reviewed Community Consultation Framework (July).

·      Irrigation System at Lane Cove Bowling and Recreation Club installed. (July).

·      Development Application approved for Phase 1 of the Lane Cove Aquatic Centre Master Plan. (July).

·      Better Business Partnership Program launched. (July).

·      Contractors engaged to construct new playground at Goodlet Reserve (August).

·      New bicycle racks installed at various locations in town centre (August).

·      Cheque presentation for Financial Assistance Grants program held with $416,000 allocated to 35 community organisations (August).

·      Launch of Cameraygal Festival (August).

·      Access audit completed for Seniors Centre, Gallery Lane Cove, and Library (September).

·      Sponsorship obtained for Cameraygal, Kaleidoscope and Sunset in the Village in line with Council’s Sponsorship Policy (September).

·      Distributed Private Certification Manual to Provide Guidance on the Interpretation of Council Codes. (September).

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the 1st Quarter Review of the 2012-2013 Delivery Program and Operational Plan be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

1st Quarter Review of 2012 - 2013 Operational Plan

47 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 November 2012

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot     

Record No:    SU220 - 57945/12

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Council Snapshot

59 Pages