m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

3 December 2012

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

not interested in any business recommended to be considered in

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

  commence consideration of all other business at 7pm.

 


 

Notice of Meeting

 

Dear Councillors

 

Notice is given of the Ordinary Council Meeting, to be held in the Council Chambers on Monday 3 December 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 3 December 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 - 19 NOVEMBER 2012

 

Orders Of The Day

 

2.       Council Meeting Schedule 2013

 

Notices of Motion

 

3.       Over Crowding Lane Cove Public Schools

 

4.       Traffic Analysis for School Drop Off/Pick-Up Zone, Lane Cove West Public School

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

5.       Lane Cove Art Collection - Offer of Painting on Long Term Loan

 

6.       DCP Amendment 4 - Mowbray Precinct Finalisation

 

7.       Lane Cove Country Club - Lease

 

8.       St Leonards South Planning Study & Community Committee

 

9.       Donation of Sculpture - Greenwich

 

10.     LEP Planning Proposal - Northwood Centre

 

11.     Planning Proposal 7/2011: Building Scale - Pacific Hwy / Longueville Rd Precinct

 

12.     Different Degrees Theatre Ensemble

 

13.     Sister Cities Policy and Chinese Art Exhibition

 

14.     Wildlife Protection Areas in Reserves

 

15.     Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held Tuesday 20 November 2012

 

16.     Delegation of Authority to the General Manager and Christmas Recess Arrangements

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

17.     Purchase of School Camp Site at Marnie  

 

 

 

 

                


Ordinary Council Meeting 3 December 2012

Council Meeting Schedule 2013

 

 

Subject:          Council Meeting Schedule 2013    

Record No:    SU1915 - 60381/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Kirsty Fleming 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

There are no Council Meetings proposed for January 2013.

 

The Ordinary Council Meeting Schedule for February - November 2013 is proposed as follows:-

·    3rd Monday of the Month        Ordinary Council

 

The Ordinary Council Meeting Schedule for December 2013 is proposed as follows:-

·    Monday 9th December                       Ordinary Council

If required an Inspection Committee will meet on the Saturday preceding the Ordinary Council Meeting.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council Meeting Schedule for 2013 be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 3 December 2012

Over Crowding Lane Cove Public Schools

 

 

Subject:          Over Crowding Lane Cove Public Schools     

Record No:    SU4954 - 60458/12

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Daniel  Strassberg 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council support the initiatives being put forward by Willoughby City Council in regards to the over crowding in Lane Cove Public Schools by:-

 

1.   Making representations to the Premier, Minister for Planning, Minister for Education and local State Members of Parliament seeking:-

a)    Emergency major capital works funding for needed buildings for our local schools;

b)    Public school capacity to be included as ‘essential infrastructure’ under State Planning legislation and the Sydney Metro Plan;

c)    Funding for local schools in order to ensure they have the capacity to meet Metro Plan targets; and

d)    Representation on working parties established to prepare long term master plans for individual schools in the Lane Cove.

 

2.    A working party be formed of Councillors and members of the school communities to support and work with other North Shore Councils in their negotiation with the Department of Education on the issues of education, accommodation and playground issues

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Daniel  Strassberg

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 3 December 2012

Traffic Analysis for School Drop Off/Pick-Up Zone, Lane Cove West Public School

 

 

Subject:          Traffic Analysis for School Drop Off/Pick-Up Zone, Lane Cove West Public School    

Record No:    SU4951 - 61092/12

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Karola Brent 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Lane Cove West Public School in our Local Government Area is the fastest growing primary school in the entire North Sydney Region. Since 2006, the school population has grown 86% and this rate of growth is expected to continue. The current student drop-off and pick-up zone is inefficient, overcrowded and endangers children, parents and through traffic alike.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That a traffic study be undertaken around Lane Cove West Public School by Council to identify ways to improve road and pedestrian safety.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Karola Brent

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


Ordinary Council Meeting 3 December 2012

Lane Cove Art Collection - Offer of Painting on Long Term Loan

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove Art Collection - Offer of Painting on Long Term Loan    

Record No:    SU2517 - 60119/12

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Jane Gornall 

 

 

Executive Summary

In 2012, the Lane Cove Art Society (LCAS) commissioned a portrait of Guy Warren to be painted by Pamela Irving.  The portrait was unveiled at the 49th Council Art Exhibition in August 2012. Subsequent to the exhibition, the Lane Cove Art Society have requested Council to consider housing the portrait on a long term loan basis.

 

Background


An extract of the information on Guy Warren from Artists of Lane Cove and from the Visions of a Municipality exhibition Catalogue is shown attached as AT-1.  Artists of Lane Cove was written in 1989 and since that time Guy Warren has continued to produce an enormous array of art works. He recently held an exhibition of works completed in 2011 and 2012. His works are included in Galleries in Australia and overseas. He has also continued to be involved in the life of Lane Cove. He continues to assist with the judging of the Lane Cove Municipal Art Award and with the Lloyd Rees Youth Art Award.   His painting Rainbow Passage 1991 hangs in the Civic Centre foyer.

 

Pamela Irving moved to Australia in the 1970’s and is recognised for her work in drawing and portraiture. She works in a wide range of mediums including oils, pastels and charcoal. She became an Exhibiting Member of the Royal Art Society of New South Wales in 2001 and was elected as an Associate Member of the Royal Art Society of NSW in April 2005. In November 2007 she was elected as a Fellow of Royal Art Society of NSW. She has received numerous prizes at Art Exhibitions throughout New South Wales.

 

Discussion

In 2012, the Lane Cove Art Society commissioned artist Pamela Irving to paint Guy Warren. The painting was first exhibited at the Society’s 49th Council Art Exhibition in August 2012.

 

The President of the Art Society has approached Council suggesting that the painting be added to the Council Municipal Art Collection on a long-term loan basis.

 

The Art Society have requested that Council agree to the following conditions:-

 

(a)        That the portrait be made available to hang at selected Exhibitions, e.g. The Council’s       Annual Art Exhibition; artXtra! (the LCAS Members Exhibition); other exhibitions which may   arise. Advance notice will be given to Council of dates required.

 

(b)        That the portrait be made available to the artist for exhibiting in the 2013 Archibald Prize.              This may require that the portrait (if selected as a finalist) would also be available for any      national/regional tour or related exhibitions.

 

(c)        That the portrait be made available to the artist for exhibiting in the Portia Geach Prize or any other portrait prize as deemed appropriate by the LCAS and/or the artist.

 

(d)        That Council inform the LCAS if the portrait is “to be on loan” to a gallery or exhibition       organised by Council.

(e)        That Council would insure the portrait as part of its Collection.

 

(f)        That the LCAS be informed as to where the portrait may be hung.

 

Conditions (a) to (f) are reasonable for Council to agree to.  There may be in the long-term some issues with keeping the Society informed as to the location of the painting as there have been occasions when paintings have been relocated within the Civic Centre building.

 

Conclusion

The addition of this painting to the Council Art collection will be of great cultural value to Lane Cove.  Guy Warren has been an active member of the Lane Cove community since the early 1960’s and was one of the founders of the Lane Cove Art Society.  It is recommended that Council accept the offer of the painting made by the Lane Cove Art Society.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.    Accept the offer of the Guy Warren portrait painted by Pamela Irving and commissioned by             the Lane Cove Art Society as part of the Lane Cove Art Collection on a long term loan             basis.

 

2.    Write to the Lane Cove Art Society thanking them and accepting the offer of the painting on             a long-term loan basis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Biography of Artist Guy Warren OAM

4 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 3 December 2012

DCP Amendment 4 - Mowbray Precinct Finalisation

 

 

Subject:          DCP Amendment 4 - Mowbray Precinct Finalisation    

Record No:    SU4861 - 59775/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Vivienne Albin 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Development Control Plan (DCP) Draft Amendment 4 – Mowbray Precinct is a result of a Strategic Review for the Mowbray Precinct undertaken and agreed upon by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DOPI) and Council.

 

The DCP draft amendments have been publicly exhibited, submissions considered, and the controls modified where appropriate. The key issues discussed are bushfire, groundwater and stormwater, excavation, deep soil area, objectives for the precinct and the relationship of building to each other. The principle amendments proposed would improve the interface between zones, assist in planning for bushfire and strengthen the objectives for the precinct.

 

Council is requested to adopt the amendments. It is important that the DCP amendments be processed for consistency with the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) amendments currently with the DOPI for imminent finalisation.

 

Background

 

The Lane Cove DCP came into effect on 22 February 2010, supporting the LEP gazetted on 19 February 2010. While the LEP is the statutory document, the DCP is the detailed non-statutory policy containing development standards grouped into seventeen chapters reflecting development types and issues. When the DCP came into force, specific controls for development in the Mowbray precinct were not included, due to community discussion regarding the precinct’s future.

 

However, as the Draft LEP is now heading for finalisation, it is time to finalise specific controls for the Mowbray Precinct to be added into the DCP.

 

At its meeting of 20 August 2012, Council agreed to publicly exhibited DCP Draft Amendment 4 - Mowbray Precinct.

 

DCP Draft Amendment 4 – Mowbray Precinct was publicly exhibited from the 29 August 2012 to the 10 October 2012. During this period, 15 submissions were received which raised issues such as overshadowing, excavation, bushfire and several others.

 

Discussion

 

Submissions

 

As indicated, 15 submissions were received in response to the exhibition of the DCP Draft Amendment 4 – Mowbray Precinct; ten from residents/owners, three from resident associations and two from state government agencies.

 

The submissions received raised several issues. This report considers the major issues in detail and then briefly discusses the more minor issues.

 


Issue 1 – Bushfire

As the Mowbray precinct is contained within a bushfire prone area, several of the submissions raised concerns regarding:-

·    the asset protection zone (APZ) – these will be challenged by developers; they should be measured from the road kerb and not include council land adjacent to Batten Reserve;

·    bushfire generally – lack of acknowledgement that the area is bushfire prone; and

·    building materials – the DCP should include a requirement for building materials to be suitable for bushfire prone areas.

 

Comment

 

The Draft LEP for the precinct includes a map showing indicative APZs for the locality, with the Rural Fire Services indicating the map is indicative only and that each site needs to be assessed individually.

 

A provision is to be added to the DCP for this precinct indicating that any APZ for a site is measured from the southern kerb near Batten Reserve and does not include the Council land between Batten reserve and the kerb. If Council was to allow this land to be included in the APZ it must maintain the land to a certain standard in perpetuity. Council has previously taken a policy decision not to commit to this.

 

It is widely known and understood by Council that the Mowbray Precinct is a bushfire prone area. The Strategic Review included a Bushfire Protection Assessment for the Precinct, which was a background document for the DLEP. The DLEP for Mowbray includes an indicative APZ map and Council's long-standing Bushfire Prone Land Map continues to apply.

 

A provision has now been included for adoption in the DCP for the Mowbray precinct which requires building materials to be compliant with the relevant Australian Standard for building in bushfire prone areas (as per the Bushfire Protection Assessment included as part of the Strategic Review). Although the Standard would be normally considered later in the development process, it is useful to include reference to it in the DCP to clearly alert developers to the issue.

 

Issue 2 – Groundwater and Stormwater

 

Concern was raised in relation to groundwater and stormwater, more specifically in relation to:-

 

·    the volume and speed of runoff onto Batten Reserve and the effects on flora and fauna;

·    need for below ground developments to be tanked to reduce storm water runoff;

·    maximizing pervious areas;

·    Sydney Coastal Council’s Groundwater Handbook;

·    lack of storm water provisions generally; and

·    the Diversi Consultant Report from the Strategic Review.

 

Comment

 

The Comprehensive Lane Cove DCP includes an extensive section in relation to stormwater (see Part O – Stormwater). Many of the queries raised in submissions are covered by these detailed provisions. Council already requires works such as detention tanks, rainwater tanks, gross pollutant traps, amongst many other requirements for the management of stormwater. In combination these measures are likely to reduce the speed and volume of water effecting Batten Reserve.

 

In discussions with Council’s Open Space and Urban Services Section, it is agreed that a review of how other Councils manage groundwater issues may be warranted and will be undertaken along with a review of the Coastal Council’s Groundwater Handbook. It is however, noted that the management of any groundwater issues, highlighted in the submitted geotechnical reports (required with all DA’s involving excavation), are requirements at the construction certificate stage.

 

The Diversi Consulting Civil Infrastructure Report was completed as part of the Strategic Review of the precinct and forms an appendix to the JBA Master Planning Report. The report suggests changes to Council’s Section 94 plan in terms of pavement widening and traffic control works. Changes to Council’s Section 94 can be examined during the review period of Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan.

 

The report also suggests changes to Stormwater Detention in the DCP by stating “future development in the area will need to incorporate best practice stormwater management including OSD systems and water sensitive urban design (WSUD)”.

 

Council already has a strategic policy to implement WSUD measures where possible and detailed OSD standards (see DCP Part O). As such there is no need to amend the DCP as a result of the Diversi Consulting Report.

 

Issue 3 – Excavation

 

The issue of excavation was raised in several submissions in relation to: encroachment of excavation into setback areas, specialist reports that should be required by Council if excavation is to take place, controls needed to manage excavation and lack of provisions such as those included in the Woollahra Council LEP & DCP.

 

Comment

 

The proposed controls contained in the draft LEP for Mowbray coupled with the number of storeys controls to be included in these DCP amendments will assist in reducing excavation.

 

A certain amount of excavation is expected with the development of residential flat buildings, especially on sloping sites. However, there appears to be excessive excavation in several DAs approved for the area. This has largely occurred due to the definition of height in the LEP (which is in the standard LEP templates from the DOPI). Under the LEP height is measured from ground level existing with no control on excavating below the existing ground line to obtain one or two additional levels of residential accommodation.

 

The DLEP height limits, coupled with reduced FSR maximums, and the number of storeys controls being introduced in the DCP for the precinct is expected to greatly assist in reducing excavation in the area. Excavation below ground level existing is no longer attractive to developers, where there is a reasonable overall height in metres coupled with a control for the number of residential storeys.

 

Several submissions made reference to the LEP and DCP Clauses contained in the Woollahra Council controls, in relation to excavation. These clauses/provisions have been considered in terms of their application to the Lane Cove LGA. The Lane Cove LEP, which as previously mentioned is based on the standard NSW templates for LEP’s, contains clauses in relation to earthworks (See Clause 5.1A). Moreover, the DCP generally (see Part C) contains provisions for excavation.

 

The Draft Woollahra DCP provisions are proposed to provide numeric controls to support the LEP objectives. It is not considered that similar numeric controls are relevant to the Lane Cove LGA. Woollahra Council appears to be controlling excessive excavation perhaps where a small number of units with very large floor areas, and large numbers of parking spaces, are being proposed on relatively small sites. It is considered that the typical Lane Cove development is essentially different from the Woollahra example. It is not typical in Lane Cove for developers to be trying to provide many more car parking spaces than is required. The excavation appears to have been from ‘burying’ residential levels to obtain more floor space. As the DLEP controls and proposed DCP will prevent this practice from continuing, excavation is likely to be reduced. It is very costly to excavate into sandstone and it is not likely that developers will excavation any further than is needed to meet Council controls regarding car parking numbers, storage, garbage collection etc.

 

The increase in deep soil requirements for residential flat building in the precinct will also assist in minimising excavation outside the building footprint.

 

Therefore, the Woollahra DCP provisions are not considered to be relevant to the Lane Cove LGA, and our current LEP includes earthwork provisions similar to the Woollahra LEP provisions. The requirement in the Woollahra LEP for specialist reports is covered in our LGA by the DA checklist. No change is proposed to the DCP provisions for the precinct in relation to excavation.

 

Issue 4 – Deep Soil Area

 

Concerns were raised in submissions that the proposed 40% deep soil area is excessive and will unreasonable restrict the redevelopment potential of the precinct.

 

Comment

The exhibited and currently proposed objectives for the Mowbray Precinct underline the importance of its landscape character. While development is clearly progressing in the precinct, it is considered that the landscape character should be retained while not unduly restricting development.

 

Council engaged a consultant to ‘test’ the draft controls for the precinct contained in the DCP (setbacks), DLEP (height and FSR) and DCP Draft Amendment 4 (height in storeys, setbacks and 40% deep soil area). While it is acknowledged that the work undertaken was indicative only, the results showed that the controls can work together shown attached as AT-1.

 

Tree retention and replacement was also raised as an issue, however, the proposed deep soil requirement supported by the proposed objectives should assist this issue. Moreover, currently a consultant is reviewing DCP Part J – Landscaping, where the issues of tree replacement and retention is being considered in a detailed way.

 

It is considered that the exhibited 40% deep soil provision for the precinct should be adopted with a view to monitoring the outcome and compliance with this provision.

 

Issue 5 – Objectives for the Precinct

 

Submissions generally supported the proposed objectives for the DCP amendment for the Mowbray Precinct. However, further objectives were proposed which largely originated from a previously exhibited version of the Mowbray Precinct.

 

Comment

In July 2011, as part of the DCP Draft Amendment 2, objectives for the Mowbray Precinct (then referred to as Locality 6 - Stringybark Creek Precinct) were exhibited. Subsequently, the DCP provisions for the Mowbray Precinct were taken out of Amendment 2 due to the uncertainty of the DLEP for the precinct.

 

Generally, it is supported to reintroduce these previously exhibited objectives which underline the importance of the landscape character of the locality and now have proposed provisions to support them.

 

Issues 6 – Relationship of Buildings to each other

 

Submissions raised concerns in relation to overshadowing, buildings at the zone interface, setbacks and sustainability.

 

Comment

As previously outlined, Council engaged a consultant to consider the provisions of the current DCP, DLEP and draft DCP and how they operate when combined, ie, can development potential be met. The consultant was also required to consider the zone interface.

 

In undertaking this work, the interface between a residential flat building and a one to two storey dwellings houses was considered. The outcome of the work was that at the zone interface, the requirement for an additional setback above the second storey assists markedly in reducing bulk and likely shadow effects.

 

The DCP amendment now includes a provision for development at the zone interface requiring additional setbacks above the second storey.

 

Throughout the Lane Cove LGA, overshadowing is controlled for residential development by provisions in Part C. The application of Part C 3.15 Solar Access requires a development to maintain the 3 hours of solar access to adjacent properties in mid-winter between 9am and 3pm. SEPP 65 also requires development to meet certain criteria within their development. It is acknowledged that overshadowing is exacerbated by the slope of the land in the precinct, however, the existing controls coupled with the new setback provision will assist to retain solar access to properties to the south of developments.

 

Discussion of Minor Issues

 

Detailed below is a discussion on minor issues raised in the submissions:-

 

Building Width


Part C of the DCP includes a building width provision. It is considered that this provision needs to be reconsidered, however, it is not only relevant to the Mowbray Precinct so will be reviewed as part of the general review of the DCP to be undertaken in the coming months.

 

Car Washing Facilities


Runoff from car washing activities cause issues for the stormwater system. It is considered that a new provision needs to be added to the DCP, however the provision will not only be relevant to the Mowbray Precinct and will therefore be included in the general review of the DCP to be undertaken in the coming months.

 

Floor Space Ration (FSR) and Height


These are LEP issues and are not being reconsidered as part of the DCP controls for the Mowbray precinct.

 


Bushland

 

Issues in relation to any impacts on Batten Reserve bushland have been discussed in various sections including proposed objectives, groundwater/stormwater and bushfire.

 

Infrastructure

 

Several submissions raised the issue of the local infrastructure, such as schools, public transport and open space areas, being able to cope with the increase in density for the precinct. While some infrastructure issues such as school capacities are state government responsibilities, Council does lobby State agencies where possible and are currently lobbying the State government for improved bus services in the locality. The DLEP for the precinct includes the provision of a new large area zoned for Public Recreation.

 

Relationship of the Mowbray DCP provisions to other Council planning documents

 

Several submissions questioned whether the provisions will operate alone or part of the existing LEP and DCP. The Mowbray Precinct will form its own “Locality” in the DCP.  Part A of the DCP clearly outlines how the LEP and DCP work together, including provisions for any localities.

 

SEPP 65


Several issues raised compliance with SEPP 65 as an issue. SEPP 65 is a state policy and any proposed residential flat buildings must submit a SEPP 65 compliance report with their DA and demonstrate compliance with the provisions therein.

 

Noise


Several submissions raised noise as an issue. Council has been improving conditions of consent in relation to noise during construction in the Mowbray Precinct over the last year. Noise generated by building once they are occupied (eg, by air conditioning) is not covered by a DCP. Air conditioning units can be constructed as exempt development, subject to certain requirements. The DCP is not able to effectively restrict noise once a building is occupied.

 

Conclusion

 

The purpose of DCP Draft Amendment 4 – Mowbray Precinct is to provide controls consistent with the LEP which is imminently to be finalised. The draft provisions were exhibited and fifteen submissions received. The report has addressed and provided comments on the major issues in detail and the minor issues.

 

The exhibited provisions were largely derived from the recommendations from the Master Planning Study prepared for the Precinct by JBA Planning. Submissions received during the public exhibition raised many issues for consideration and consequently, the proposed provisions have been modified where considered appropriate.

 

The purpose of this report is to:-

 

·    Inform Council of the issues raised in the submissions made during the exhibition of the DCP Draft Amendment 4; and

·    Recommend DCP Draft Amendment 4 for adoption, as attached (see AT3), reflecting the recommendations from the Master Planning study and modifications as a result of community consultation and Council officer consideration.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt as final Development Control Plan Draft Amendment 4 – Mowbray Precinct, shown attached as AT-2, to take effect as soon as is practicable after the LEP is gazetted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Mowbray Precinct Research - Testing Development Controls

1 Page

AT‑2 View

DCP Part C - Locality - Mowbray Precinct

2 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 3 December 2012

Lane Cove Country Club - Lease

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove Country Club - Lease    

Record No:    SU2893 - 57937/12

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The lease agreement for the Lane Cove Country Club’s use of the clubhouse expires on 31 March 2013. Council has been working with the Country Club Board to develop a new lease agreement, under the proviso that Council proposes to replace the existing premises with a new Recreation Facility sometime between 2015 and 2017.

 

It is proposed that the Lane Cove Country Club be provided with two new agreements that will replace the existing Lease Agreement, dated 30 June 1994.

 

The first agreement is for a new lease in respect of the clubhouse facility. It shall be for a maximum of 3 years, with two 1 year options to align with Council’s plan to construct a new Recreation Facility on the existing site. Council has already formed a new Lane Cove Recreation Precinct Liaison Advisory Committee with representation from the Club to assist Council in planning and developing the Precinct. The new lease agreement also ensures that Council will arrange temporary premises for use of the Club at the golf course during the construction period for the new facility.

 

The second agreement is a Heads of Agreement for a future licence for the proposed new facility. It proposes that the Lane Cove Country Club be granted a Licence that will provide them with a guarantee of priority access to play golf within Block Booking Times for a period of 10 years, with an option to extend for a further 10 years. It also guarantees that Club Members are provided with access to all golf related facilities, a dedicated Board Room and Administration Office for their sole use in the new building.

 

Background

 

The Lane Cove Country Club was founded in 1962, celebrating its’ 50th anniversary this year. The current lease agreement for the use of the clubhouse includes obligations on the Club to undertake an agreed works schedule to upgrade and renovate the existing clubhouse facility. The facilitate this, the lease was granted for a 20 year period.

 

Unfortunately, due to a diminishing membership base over the lease period (currently under 200 golf playing members)  and the need to maintain low annual and playing fees to remain competitive with other nearby golf clubs (eg Cammeray & Castle Cove), the Club has been unable to undertake the agreed works schedule contained in the new lease. The lease provided for rental increases in the event the works did not occur, however Council did not enforce these provisions due to the Club’s financial position. The failure to undertake the work has ultimately resulted in the clubhouse becoming outdated and in need of some major upgrade work. A report by financial experts RT Hospitality, dated October 2009, identified over $400,000 worth of major upgrade work that is required just to improve the clubhouse functionality.

 

As a result of the RT Hospitality report, and the Club’s ongoing financial difficulties to maintain operational profitability, Council has started to examine other potential solutions to make the golf course and club more viable as an ongoing concern.

 

The preferred solution is to construct a new Recreation Facility, in which the Country Club will be provided with access to all golf related facilities, a dedicated Board Room and Administration Office for their sole use. It is proposed that management of the whole facility will be undertaken by a suitably qualified company. This arrangement will assist the Country Club to be an ongoing concern that manages golf operations for its’ membership base, without being burdened by the management of the trading operations (i.e. bar, catering, etc).

 

 

Discussion

 

Council staff have been working with the Country Club Board and their representatives over the past couple of years, attempting to come to an agreement on a new lease agreement that would replace the existing one that expires on 31 March 2013.

 

On 29 March 2012, Council’s then Mayor, Deputy Mayor, General Manager and Senior Executives met with the Country Club representatives (including Board representation) to discuss the need for a Heads of Agreement for a new lease and Block Booking arrangements beyond the existing lease agreement. The Country Club agreed to send Council a draft proposal based on the discussions from that meeting.

 

On 5 April 2012, the Country Club provided their proposed Heads of Agreement for a Lease, and for Block Booking Times and Fees. With the Lease Agreement, the Club claimed that the lease should be for the land and not the building (ie the clubhouse as they had originally built it), that it should be for a minimum period of 10 years, with an option for a further 10 years, that the rent should commence at a lower rate than what it currently is, be reduced to $100 during the period of the redevelopment of the golf course precinct, and that any future rental increases should be limited to CPI.

 

A workshop was then held with all Councillors on 14 May 2012, in which the Country Club’s proposed Heads of Agreement for the Lease and the Block Booking Times and Fees were discussed and Council’s position was developed. The two positions on the leases are shown in the table following:

 

                                                                       

 

 

Country Club Position

Council Position

1

Lease of land … to Lane Cove Country Club Ltd

 

Lease is for the building and land, not the land. Under the law, premises constructed on another persons land, revert to the land owner at the end of the lease term.

 

2

Period of the agreement is to be 10 years with Lane Cove Country Club having an option to extend for a further period of 10 years.

 

Lease should be for a maximum of 3 years, with two one year options to align with Council’s plan to construct a new facility.

 

3

Annual rent of the land is to be $5,000 per annum, to be reduced to $100 during the period of re-development of the golf course precinct.

 

Rent for the building is to be as per the current arrangement ($5,496 per annum plus CPI), to be amended accordingly with what type of intermediary facility that the Club is placed into between demolition of existing facility and construction of new facility.

 

4

Annual increases of the rent to be limited to CPI.

 

Refer 3.

5

Both parties will negotiate in good faith on any reasonable re-development of the precinct, with the Country Club retaining facilities in the new development not substantially diminished from those of the existing clubhouse. This lease may be varied by mutual consent to reflect any clubhouse demolition or replacement. In the meantime, the Country Club is to carry out all necessary repairs and replacements to keep the existing premises in good condition. The Country Club will have the right to undertake alterations and additions to the existing buildings as approved by Council, however there will be no compulsory obligation to do so.

 

It is generally agreed, but the first sentence in (5) should be altered to; “Both parties will negotiate in good faith on any reasonable re-development of the precinct, with the Country Club members provided access to golf member facilities (i.e change rooms, function room, dining room, bar area, meeting room for Board, & administration office)”

 

6

Dispute resolutions are to be the same as in the existing lease document.

 

Agreed

 

At the workshop, there was agreement that the best way forward was to:-

 

1.   Provide the Country Club with a long term agreement to continue managing membership golf at the Lane Cove Golf Course with a Heads of Agreement – Future Licence (containing a 10yr initial term + 10 yr option as requested).

2.   Provide the Course Manager with the ability to better manage the Block Booking Times to maximise use of the golf course. This is to be performed in cooperation with the Country Club Board.

3.   The Block Booking Fee structure is only to be linked to CPI under the existing course/facility arrangement. Once the new facility is constructed and any golf course upgrades are undertaken the fee structure should be amended accordingly.

4.   The lease for the building should only be for a 3 year period, with two further 1 year options, dependent on construction timing of the new facility.

5.   Council and the Country Club will need to negotiate in good faith on any reasonable re-development of the precinct, with the Country Club members provided access to golf member facilities (i.e change rooms, function room, dining room, bar area, meeting room for Board, & administration office).

 

The General Manager then wrote to the Country Club on 11 July 2012, providing the two Heads of Agreement as per the workshop. Those Heads of Agreement are as shown in AT-1, with subsequent amendments underlined.

 

The Heads of Agreement for the new lease allows the Country Club to remain in the existing clubhouse facility for an initial time period of 3 years, with two 1 year options to align with Council’s plan to construct the new Recreation Facility on the existing site. It takes into account of the project being either delayed or cancelled. It ensures that Council will arrange temporary premises for use of the Club at the golf course during the construction period for the new facility. It also guarantees that Club Members are provided with access to all golf related facilities, a dedicated Board Room and Administration Office for their sole use in any new building that Council constructs on/or in the vicinity of the existing clubhouse site.

 

Further to this lease agreement, a Heads of Agreement for a Future Licence provides the Lane Cove Country Club membership with a guarantee of priority access to play golf within Block Booking Times for a period of 10 years, with an option to extend for a further 10 years.

 

On the 13 August the General Manager and Senior Executive, met with Country Club representatives (including Board members) and the following matters were discussed as being the remaining issues. Adjustments were subsequently made to the Agreements and sent to the Board for their ratification:-

 

1.   The requirement of the Club to have a 10 year agreement, which was not agreed by the parties at the meeting.

2.   The temporary facility is to be available prior to exiting the current clubhouse.

3.   The new rent be fair, equitable and market competitive and in accordance with Council’s Policy C2003 – Leasing of Council Property, which states “Leases/licenses to a local community organisation will attract an 80% subsidy of the commercial market rental valuation for the premises”. 

4.   Council and the Club will negotiate in good faith on the development of a fee structure for golf play to apply once the new facility is built. Such fee shall be payable either as a Capitation or Round Fee, and will be fair, equitable and market competitive relative to Cammeray and Castle Cove Golf Courses. In the event of a disagreement on the fee structure, Golf NSW shall be called upon to nominate an appropriately qualified independent person to adjudicate.

5.   Council and the Club will negotiate in good faith and having regard to the principles of equity, fairness and market competitiveness on any future block booking structure having regard to membership levels, member golf participation rates within the membership levels, such that that flexibility will be provided equitably  in any adjustment of Block Booking Times.

6.   In the event that the licence proposed under this agreement does not occur due to Council not proceeding with the new facility, the Club shall be entitled to a 10 year lease, subject to any requirements under the Local Government Act, under the same terms and conditions as outlined in this agreement.

 

On 17 August 2012, Council provided the amended Heads of Agreement (shown as At-1, with amendments to the original underlined). On 29 August 2012, the Country Club wrote to Council requesting a range of new terms for how they should be accommodated. The letter is shown as AT-2. These terms, and response to them, are detailed in the following table:-

 

 

 

 

Country Club Position

Council Position

1

10 year Lease to be offered on expiry of current Lease in March next year.

Not agreed, as Landlord it is not Council’s intention to have the facility available for a 10 year period. Council would not be negotiating in good faith if it were to offer a longer term than proposed.

2

Rental on current basis.

No change required, refer to Clause 3 which maintains current rent of $5,496 p.a. + CPI increases.

 

If proposed Facility proceeds then

 

3

Lease terminated and replaced by an Occupier Agreement for temporary accommodation.

No change required, lease agreement continues on and provides certainty on arrangements for temporary facility.

4

Temporary accommodation to be ready when Club asked to leave its Clubhouse.

No change required, refer to Clause 4.

5

Rental to be based on the standard of temporary accommodation (not cost) compared with

existing Clubhouse, but no higher than existing rental.

Agreed, Refer Clause 4, agree to delete reference to cost, the intent is to provide basic accommodation to allow the Club to continue to trade.

6

Rental paid 12 monthly in arrears and discounted pro rata for any fall in Club membership.

Not agreed, there is no basis to defer payment. If membership declines to a point where fees cannot be made, application can be made at the time for dispensation, the same way Council agreed to not enforce the rent increases payable due to the non-completion of the works program in the current agreement.

7

No rent after 12 months if still in Temporary accommodation.

Not agreed, The building program would not be completed within 12 months. If accommodation is provided as intended, there is no basis for non payment of rent.

8

Council to reimburse Club for relocation costs incurred. (The adverse impact on the Club's

Balance Sheet also needs to be discussed).

Not agreed, the fit-out of the temporary premises has not been determined therefore assistance is premature. As a reference, Meeting House paid for their own relocation expenses. Similarly, compensation for the impact on the Club’s Balance Sheet is matter for the Club. Based on the work of RT Hospitality, the Club’s financial position is considered unsustainable in the current building configuration.

 

Upon Completion of new Facility

 

9

New facility to be ready before leaving Temporary accommodation.

Agreed, this was implicit but can be made explicit.

10

New Lease or Occupier Agreement for 10 years.

No change required, refer to Clause 1. A lease would not be granted, but rather a licence as the Club will not have exclusive use or control of the premises.

11

Rental basis to apply to be agreed NOW (ie. before Club enters into Lease in March 2013). Basis to be either current rental basis OR same basis as Council applies to all sporting clubs

in Lane Cove of similar sized accommodation and frequency of revaluation. Rental will NOT be based on a "commercial" valuation.

No change required, refer to Clause 2, which restates Council’s policy of an 80% subsidy, this is the basis applicable to other sporting clubs.

12

Accommodation must be adjacent to and overlooking the 9/18 green, not as currently shown on Council's plans. To include a verandah or balcony of current size to accommodate viewing of the 18th green. Bar facilities to be included in Club accommodation. Other features to be agreed.

The initial plans are only preliminary, Council has established the Lane Cove Recreation Precinct Liaison Advisory Committee to develop the proposal. It is not intended to provide separate bar facilities, however the request to have separate “Club” Bar facilities can be considered as part of the feasibility assessment.

 

13

Relocation costs from Temporary facility to new accommodation to be reimbursed by Council.

 

Not agreed, the fit-out of the new premises has not been determined, therefore assistance is premature.

14

Renegotiation of Member fees and Block Booking Times.

Fees: This renegotiation to take place "in good faith" after the club has moved in to new accommodation and after the 10 year Lease/Agreement has been executed.

Fees to be no higher than 90% of the average of Cammeray and Castle Cove member fees on

a 'like for like' basis having regard for the higher standard of golf courses offered members at

those clubs.

 

Not Agreed, the reference to the other clubs is relevant and included in Clause 5, but locking in 90% is not as it is an arbitrary figure, and has no regard to any improvements provided by the proposed new facilities. The new pricing should apply from the opening as per any normal facility, not after, as suggested by the Club. The Clause provides for Golf NSW to arbitrate if there is an issue with the quantum. Any fees will have to be set at a level that attract patronage, otherwise the operator will not make a profit.

15

Block Booking Times: Club and Council to negotiate "in good faith" after the Club has moved into new accommodation and after the 10 year Lease/Agreement has been executed. Negotiation

of times will not involve moving Club Block Times away from Saturday and Sunday times.

Memorandum of Understanding to form the basis for future Agreements between Council and the

Club on this matter, and to be binding on each party.

 

Agreed, Clause 6 can be modified to ensure options to play on Saturdays and Sundays are maintained.

 

Although it would appear at times that the Club and Council have been converging on consensus on the main issues relating to a new lease agreement, from this most recent correspondence and the Club’s October Links Newsletter (shown as AT-3) it would appear that not withstanding the fact that Council has made significant changes to accommodate the Club, the two parties are still some distance apart, particularly in relation to the lease term.

 

In order to ensure that the Club members fully understood the Council’s proposed new agreements and to answer any specific questions, Council’s General Manager requested the opportunity to address the Country Club membership at their Annual General Meeting on Monday, 26 November 2012. However, a Club Director responded that the AGM was not considered by the Board as an appropriate forum for Council to do this. Further, it was stated that the “Board has sole carriage of this matter on behalf of its members”.

 

The existing clubhouse is considered to be well past its use by date, particularly in light of the fact that little has been done in the past decade to upkeep the facility. Council’s vision is to replace the existing facilities within the golf course precinct (i.e. clubhouse, tennis courts, pro-shop, greenkeeper’s cottage and sheds) with a new Recreation Facility that could accommodate all of the previous facilities and numerous new facilities (i.e. multi-purpose indoor sports courts, function rooms, café, crèche and meeting rooms/administration offices). Council is proposing to provide a new Recreation Facility by 2017.


Conclusion

 

As discussed above, the Lane Cove Country Club’s current lease agreement for the clubhouse expires on 31 March 2013. To provide ongoing certainty for the Country Club membership that they will have clubhouse facilities into the future and will be provided with a guarantee of priority access to play golf within Block Booking Times, staff have developed new Heads of Agreement for a New Lease of clubhouse facilities, and a Future Licence for golf play.

 

Extensive consultation has been ongoing with the Club over the past year. With the end of the current lease being imminent, Council should formalise the agreements with the Club to allow Council’s plans for the precinct to proceed.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Endorse the proposed Head of Agreement – New Lease to replace the Lease Agreement, dated 30 June 1994, which expires on 31 March 2013 subject to the reference to cost being deleted from Clause 4.

 

2.   Endorse the proposed Head of Agreement – Future Licence subject to the following changes:-

 

a)   Provision be made that the new facility is to be available to the Club prior to them vacating the temporary facility;

b)   Clause 6 be modified to ensure options to play on Saturdays and Sundays are maintained.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Heads of Agreement; New Lease & Future Licence

4 Pages

AT‑2 View

Country Club letter of 29 August 2012

2 Pages

AT‑3 View

Lane Cove Country Club October 2012 Links Newsletter

2 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 3 December 2012

St Leonards South Planning Study & Community Committee

 

 

Subject:          St Leonards South Planning Study & Community Committee    

Record No:    SU4943 - 61334/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The St Leonards Community Liaison Committee has been established by Council resolution and held its first meeting on Tuesday 27 November.

 

Council, on 19 November, also considered a draft brief for a consultancy to undertake a St Leonards South Urban Planning Strategy and resolved that this brief should be referred to the new committee and a report submitted to the meeting in December.

 

This report provides an overview of the matters discussed by the Community Liaison Committee at the meeting on 27 November.

 

Background

 

At its meeting on 19 November 2012, Council resolved as follows in relation to two matters relating to planning for St Leonards.

In relation to the St Leonards Community Liaison Committee:-

1. Council initiate a “St. Leonards Community Liaison Committee” to assist Council with the development of the St. Leonards Master Plan, proposed LEP changes in the St. Leonards area and with consultation for significant DA’s 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 invite them to nominate two (2) 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.

In relation to the St Leonards South Urban Planning Strategy:-

1.  That the proposed study be referred to the newly formed “St Leonards Community Liaison Committee” for discussion and a report be submitted to the next Council meeting.

 

Discussion

 

The meeting was attended by two representatives of the Marshall Avenue Action Group, three representatives of the St Leonards/ North Wollstonecraft Community Association and the three Ward Councillors. It was chaired by Michael Mason, Executive Manager, Environmental Services.

 

The first meeting provided an opportunity for the groups’ members to express their concerns and issues relating to the locality. These included:-

·    The residential tower proposed by Loftex for 1-25 Marshall Avenue – its scale, design, potential impacts and other matters.

·    The flow-on or “creep” effect for residences downhill of the Marshall Avenue redevelopment if piecemeal rezoning were to occur – avoid prolonged uncertainty and community division – a clear timeframe for change is wanted.

·    Some members commented that they accepted the strong possibility that Loftex would achieve its planning proposal, so that the issue would then be to work towards getting the best outcome subsequently.

·    Aesthetics, building design - a nuanced, subtler blend of built form sought, so that the tower does not present as a “cliff” or “block” for people viewing it uphill from the south - the appearance of the flats for residents in particular in of 2-12 Marshall Avenue.

·    The Duntroon Avenue apartments were considered a successful outcome

·    Overshadowing.

·    SEPP 65 effects on residential flats design e.g. cross-ventilation requirements tend to produce tall, slim buildings.

·    The transition from low to high density should be well-designed.

·    Economic and physical effects – residents should not be disadvantaged.

·    Property values should not be lowered.

·    Liveability lifestyle, amenity - the village atmosphere desired for residents on the southern side of the Highway, shops, cafes, and avoiding the Forum’s wind tunnel effect and limited takeaway shops.

·    St Leonards Rail Plaza –support was expressed by some members, with all wanting further information at the earliest opportunity on the concept and its potential implications for properties to the south and west – and it should not become a hangout”” place.

·    Traffic and parking – cars building up already in peak times, existing parking demand.

·    Infrastructure demands, e.g. schools, trains, resulting from increased residential population

·    Social effects e.g. smokers outside their flats.

·    Consultation should be thorough and include all residents in the area – decision-making should not be confined to a few people, whether community associations or developer.

·    The community should have better information about all the relevant planning matters.

 

In relation to the planning proposal, it was pointed out by staff that in a few months Loftex will need to know what its viable options are.

 

There was discussion about the Strategy’s staging and its boundaries, proposed by Council to be: Pacific Highway, River Rd, Greenwich Rd and the rail line.

 

It was concluded that a further meeting of the Committee should be held this year to focus discussion regarding the Strategy Brief, and the date is to be set shortly. If Council wishes to progress the brief  once this meeting has been held, it could delegate authority to the Mayor and General Manager to approve the brief in consultation with the East Ward Councillors, to enable quotations to be called for the work during the January period.

 

Conclusion

 

The Committee has held its inception meeting and discussed a range of issues relating to St Leonards planning. There were no suggestions to alter the brief, although the staging was not resolved. Council is asked to note the report on the first meeting.

 

Council is also requested to determine the number of representatives to attend meetings on behalf of each community association, having regard to the previous resolution for two, the request of the St Leonards/ North Wollstonecraft Community Association for three having regard to the size of area it relates to, and the equal representation requested by the Marshall Avenue Action Group.


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.        Note this report;

2.        Determine the number of representatives to attend meetings on behalf of each community association; and

3.        Determine whether it wishes to delegate authority to approve the Mayor and General Manager to approve the brief after consideration by the St Leonards Community Liaison Committee in consultation with the East Ward Councillors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 3 December 2012

Donation of Sculpture - Greenwich

 

 

Subject:          Donation of Sculpture - Greenwich    

Record No:    SU2511 - 59980/12

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Jane Gornall 

 

 

Executive Summary

In 2011, Council was approached by the widow of the late John Purdy to name a small part of the reserve at Greenwich Baths in honour of her late husband.  After considerable discussion within Council it was decided not to proceed with this request. Further discussions with the Purdy Family have resulted in an offer of donation of a sculpture. This Report discusses the sculpture offer and suggests that Council agree in principle to the offer and outlines the suggested approval path.

 

Background

Council in 2011 was approached by the family of the late John Purdy to rename the small reserve adjacent to the Greenwich Baths after him. Council officers reviewed the request and replied to the family they felt that they were unable to agree to the request. Part of the letter advising the outcome of the request is listed below:-

 

“Council receives numerous such requests, and while Lane Cove is fortunate to have an excellent community with many residents making outstanding contributions to society, it is only rare that one is formally distinguished from the others by naming of a location.

 

For those reasons, Mrs Purdy, and the fact that part of the foreshore land concerned is not owned by Council, Council will not proceed to name the small reserve in honour of your husband; however, I would like to highlight another option that you may not have considered. From time to time residents in a similar situation to yourself offer to donate a part seat in memory of their loved one. These are then placed at a location that has some significance for the deceased family member.”

 

An information sheet on the late John Spencer Purdy is shown attached as AT-1. The family did take up the offer a placing a plaque on one of the newly installed seats at Greenwich Baths. In addition they have advised Council staff that they would to donate a sculpture to Council to be placed in the small reserve adjacent to the Baths.

 

Discussion

Since the initial discussion and the resolution of the plaque issue, the family have advised that they would like Council to consider a donation of a sculpture to be placed in the park near the Greenwich Baths. John Purdy’s son, Michael, is an award winning sculptor and has advised that he would design and produce the sculpture.  Michael has a website – www.michaelpurdy.com.au which lists the range of his achievements:-

 

Michael Purdy uses the material he grew up close to - Sydney sandstone - to create his works.

 

Purdy is a multi-award winning Australian artist. His works are found in private collections as well as in public spaces and corporate interiors.

 

Recent large commissions include: Fraser’s Motorcycles showroom, Sydney; Steel Restaurant, Sydney; The Argyle nightclub, The Rocks, Sydney; Sydney Seafood School, Darling Harbour.

 

His awards include: Bondi SXS inaugural Sculpture Inside Curators’ Prize 2010; Andrea Stretton Memorial Invitation to Cottesloe 2009; Allens Arthur Robinson People’s Choice Award 2005.

 

A photograph of the 2012 Sculpture by the Sea entry – Spinal Column is shown attached as AT-2.

The family have advised that they would be prepared to pay the cost of the production of the sculpture.

 

Public Art Policy

Council’s adopted Public Art Policy provides for an initial criteria for the acceptance of Public Art Donations. The following five criteria will be the “starting point” against which any proposed donation to the Council will be assessed:-

 

a)                     An appropriate location under the Council’s control can be designated from the outset for the donated object’s placement. 

 

b)         The site designated for the object’s placement provides appropriate protection to the work from environmental deterioration in terms of the daily ultraviolet light levels and fluctuating humidity to which it is exposed, protection from vandalism, and protection from theft, all without the need for provision of display cases or environmentally-controlled display boxes.

 

c)         The costs of any initial restoration, cleaning, or repair of the object upon acceptance, of annual upkeep of the object, and of ongoing maintenance/ preservation over its expected lifetime can be committed and ensured within existing Council budgets. 

 

d)         The object has direct significance to its proposed Lane Cove location or site, whether through its context, past usage, aesthetic quality, community context and resonance, or other evidence of “connectedness” to the proposed site.

 

e)         An appropriate means of “de-accessioning” the object has already been discussed and agreed as an in-principle approach with the proposed donor, should the work inadvertently decay, be damaged, no longer be appropriate to its proposed location through change of building or landscape function, or no longer be in keeping with Council policy, etc.

 

The Donation of the Michael Purdy Sculpture will meet all of the above criteria. In regard to item (d) the sculpture will be designed with the specific location in mind.

 

Public Art Advisory Committee

Council has not previously called for expressions of interest for the Public Art Advisory Committee as significant Public Art projects were not underway. However, this suggested donation prompts Council to now establish the Committee. In this instance the Committee will ensure that the design proposed by the artist is in keeping with the location adjacent to the Greenwich Baths and agrees to the final location of the artwork with the artist. A Copy of the Charter for this Committee is shown attached as At-3. It is suggested that nominations for the Committee be advertised in early 2013.

 

There is also an Internal Public Art Committee which has looked at small scale Public Art projects in the area. The internal Public Art Committee consists of: Executive Manager, Human Services (Convenor); Manager, Open Space; Manager, Strategic Planning; Manager, Library Services, Cultural Development Officer; Landscape Architects and Strategic Planner.

 

In addition, Council has been using Artscape Consulting to assist with a number of public art related projects including the new seats at Greenwich Baths; furniture in Library Square and the new signage strategy. Part of Artscape’s role in these projects has been to deal with suppliers to ensure that the finished objects meet Council’s needs; are produced to Council’s satisfaction; fit into the environment that they are designed for and are safe to install and be used in public areas. All of these aspects will apply to this public art project.

 

If Council agrees in principle to the donation of a sculpture from the Purdy family, the following steps will be taken:-

1.   Write to the family and advise that Council has agreed in principle to the donation;

2.   Arrange for further discussion to be held with the family regarding the design of the sculpture and timeframes;

3.   Call for nominations for the Public Art Committee; and

4.   If the family wants to discuss the design before the Public Art Committee is established it is recommended  that members of the Internal Art Committee; the appointed Councillor to the Public Art Committee and the Public Art consultant meet with the family and the artist to progress this project.

 

Conclusion

The offer of a donation of a sculpture from a noted sculptor is an exciting prospect for the Lane Cove area and is an opportunity that Council should embrace.  The work will be designed specifically to be placed at the reserve near the Greenwich Baths.It may well raise the community’s interest in other public art projects.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Agree in principle to the donation of a sculpture from the Purdy Family to be located in the         park adjacent to the Greenwich Baths.

 

2.    Call for nominations on the Public Art Advisory Committee.

 

3.    Appoint a Councillor to the Public Art Committee.

 

4.    Proceed with this project in the manner outlined:-
(a)   Write to the family and advise that Council has agreed in principle to the donation.

(b)   Arranges for further discussions to be held with the family regarding the design of the sculpture and timeframes.

(c)   If the family wants to discuss the design before the Public Art Committee is established that members of the Internal Art Committee; the appointed Councillor to the Public Art Committee and the Public Art consultant meet with the family and the artist to progress this project.

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

John Spencer Purdy (1935-2011)

2 Pages

AT‑2 View

Sculpture - Greenwich

1 Page

AT‑3 View

Charter of the Public Art Advisory Committee

4 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 3 December 2012

LEP Planning Proposal - Northwood Centre

 

 

Subject:          LEP Planning Proposal - Northwood Centre    

Record No:    SU4731 - 60632/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has received a planning proposal to amend the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2009’s zoning, height and floor space ratio for shoptop housing in the Northwood Centre.  The rezoning would permit site consolidation of 4-16 Northwood Rd (currently retail/ commercial) and 274 and 274A Longueville Rd (residential) to complete Neighbourhood Centre B1 zoning across the whole site. The planning proposal, submitted by RPS Australia East Pty Ltd for EG Property, requests a height of 25 metres (up to approximately 7 storeys) and FSR 2.5:1, and related matters to facilitate a shoptop housing redevelopment. 

 

The redevelopment would comprise approximately 85-105 residential flats and 1,460m2 of retail/commercial with cafes and restaurants, including a supermarket of up to 1,000m2. A copy of the planning proposal received on 12 October 2012 has been circulated to Councillors electronically, and additional attachments are provided with this report.

 

Council’s aims, as indicated in the DCP 2010, are for the Northwood Centre to become an attractive meeting place for the local community, open up vistas to the bush and golf course and support the Lane Cove Town Centre in providing adequate local retail for residential growth as is already occurring under the Metropolitan Strategy targets.  The key issues, however, are building and development scale and traffic/access.

 

In support of these objectives for the centre, it is recommended that Council seek exhibition approval for a planning proposal for a moderate increase in the centre’s scale in principle, with a modification to a lower height and FSR than that submitted by the developer. 

 

This conservative approach is based on concerns including: site constraints including vehicle access and bushfire asset protection zone (APZ) requirements, which limit the distribution of floor space across the site, and the economic feasibility analysis by Council’s consultant proposing a viable FSR of 1.75:1 rather than 2.5:1. Although the concept design is not a development application, it is indicative of outcomes for the site if the LEP’s FSR and height were to be increased as requested, and it is considered that these would result in an overdevelopment of the site at 2.5:1.

 

It is recommended that Council submit an amended planning proposal to the Department seeking consistent Neighbourhood Centre B1 zoning across the site, with height of 15 metres maximum and FSR 1.75:1 and a maximum shop area of up to 500 m2.

 

DCP amendments would be designed with setbacks limiting the building to 3 storeys stepped back from the Northwood Rd frontage, and up to 41/2 storeys at the rear. This would be consistent with the Lane Cove DCP 2010’s desired future character, and within the developer’s low range of feasible development, in order to revitalise the Northwood centre.

 

Background

 

The current LEP 2009 had retained the scale under LEP 1987 applying to all neighbourhood centres of 9.5 metres and FSR 1:1.  The DCP 2010 foreshadowed growth in Lane Cove by indicating a desired future character of 3-4 storeys, as recommended by GMU independent urban design consultants.  It was intended that, if the LEP’s height and FSR were amended to match this or another scale increase, the DCP would then be updated in detail accordingly.

 

In 2008, when the LEP was drafted, it had been considered appropriate to wait for the opening of the Town Centre’s Market Square before expanding other centres. In 2012, however, residential construction is occurring rapidly under the new LEP and it is timely to review the LEP scale for the Northwood centre having regard to its location on a regional road network, in contrast to most of the other neighbourhood centres, and development potential.

 

In February 2012, a presentation was made to the Councillor Workshop of a proposal for a 6-9 storey shoptop housing development for 4-16 Northwood Road.  Councillors’ response, without committing to an outcome, was that although the scale was not acceptable, additional density may be considered.

 

 

The developer subsequently purchased 274 and 274A Longueville Road with a view to providing vehicle access at the intersection of Longueville Road, River Road and Northwood Road.  These properties, occupied by two houses, are zoned High Density Residential R4 and are proposed to be rezoned to Neighbourhood Centre B1 for a site consolidation with 4-16 Northwood Road, already zoned B1. Options are understood to be held over the commercial properties. Additionally a portion of the site zoned Environmental Conservation, which is not considered by Council’s Open Space Section as having environmental significance and is likely to be an historical mapping anomaly, would be amended to B1 (zoning currently).  The total site area is approximately 4,435m2 .

 

A revised concept was submitted in late April 2012 for a 4-6 storey shoptop housing development.  Having regard to the implications for traffic, visual impacts, land uses and scale on the southwestern side of the centre, Council requested a masterplan overview to be provided with the proposal, and the developer then submitted that study, undertaken by Jan McCredie, urban design consultant.  Consideration of the proposal was deferred until after the September elections.  In the interim, further information from EGP had been requested by Council regarding RMS’ views on traffic and access. Council also undertook an independent economic assessment by consultant, Jumer Property Group P/L. 

 

The final planning proposal was submitted to Council on 12 October this year.  A presentation was made to a Councillor Workshop by the proponents on 12 November. The scale of development is indicated in the elevation below.

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion

 

The planning proposal, submitted by RPS Australia East P/L for EG Property includes a considerable range of studies by specialist consultants.  A list of these studies and their conclusions is attached at AT1.   They comprise:

 

Appendix B:                Indicative Design Concept by Candalepas Associates

Appendix C:                Northwood Neighbourhood Centre Master Plan Design Principles and Block Study Options by Jan McCredie, Urban Design

Appendix D:                Ecology Assessment by Travers Bushfire & Ecology

Appendix E:                Traffic Assessment by Traffix

Appendix F:                 Economic Impact Assessment by Urbis

Appendix G:                Northwood Centre Analysis by MacroPlan Dimasi

Appendix H:                Compliance with DCP controls

Appendix I:                  Survey by Watson Buchan Surveyors

Additionally:                 Northwood Neighbourhood Centre Precedent Studies by Jan McCredie, 1 November 2012

 



Objectives

 

Specifically, the Planning Proposal is seeking to:-

·    rezone part of the site from E2 Environmental Conservation to B1 Neighbourhood Centre;

·    rezone the R2 High Density Residential to B1 Neighbourhood Centre;

·    amend the FSR control applying to the site to 2.5:1;

·    amend the height control applying to the site to 25m; and

·    amend the neighbourhood shop control applying to the site to permit a single retail tenancy to exceed 400m2  but be less than or equal to 1,000m2 .  All other retail premises would be compliant with the 400m2  maximum.

 

 

The proposal provides for:-

 

·    Approximately 1,460m2 of non-residential floor space at the ground level, including a mix of employment-generating business, offices and retail premises with cafes, restaurants and shops.

·    Shopfronts to Northwood Road to improve activation and the pedestrian experience.

·    Approximately 85-105 residential apartments in buildings of the 4 to 6 levels, with a mix of apartment types and sizes.

·    Dedication of a significant public plaza space as an extension to the Northwood Road footway, providing pedestrian access to all part of the development and acting as an important visual and pedestrian link to the adjacent bushland and allowing distant views to the Pacific Highway ridge line to the north.

 

·    Removal and consolidation of the four existing driveway crossings on Northwood Road into two driveways providing separate ingress and egress to access basement levels including undercover, off-street parking for approximately 175 cars, plant rooms, loading facilities, storage and bicycle parking; and

·    Creation of a new 20m interface with the natural bushland to the east, including an Asset Protection Zone to safeguard against the unlikely event of a bushfire and to better protect the natural setting of the area.  The works proposed include bushland regeneration and weed removal.

 

Key issues relating to the proposal and relevant reports are discussed below. 

 

Strategic context

 

Current and future development in the precinct

 

A redevelopment of the north-eastern side of the Northwood neighbourhood centre would fit within an arc of redevelopment which may attract increased numbers of the public to the precinct. Council has a major project planned to redevelop the Lane Cove Golf Club and tennis courts site as a multi-purpose Recreational Centre, two hundred metres to the east of the planning proposal site.

 

A substantial seniors’ living development is proposed for the former bowling club site seventy metres to the north.

 

Both of these developments would attract custom to the proposed retail area. It is intended as well that pedestrian links be created between Council’s two properties, and a potential new shoptop housing/ cafe development would be able to connect with those links. An attractive new precinct for the public would benefit from the additional amenity in the area.

 

The three sites would be complementary with each other’s land uses, with a sense of local community being encouraged by the coordination of recreational, residential and retail uses, as well as providing a local meeting-place for Longueville and Northwood residents being provided which is currently lacking.

 

Council has already shown its general support for redevelopment of this area with the approval of a development application in 2008, still active, for 4 Northwood Road for a Harris Farm-style fresh food market and other retail.

 

Comparison of other Centres

 

In relation to the issue of Northwood centre’s appropriateness for additional retail development, the developer’s Northwood Centre Analysis by MacroPlan Dimasi indicates the following:-

 

·    The Northwood Centre delivers a limited retail offering.  It is the only centre in the short to medium term expected to be able to develop to meet population growth, although Lane Cove West, also on regional roads, has longer term potential also to supplement the Town Centre.

·    There is a substantial under supply of supermarket floorspace in the Lane Cove LGA.  The addition of a supermarket with 1,000m2 of floorspace at the subject site, would raise the LGA’s provision of 0.22m2  per person.

·    For comparison, Hunters Hill has four supermarkets, a provision of 0.29m2  per person.

·    Passing traffic would be unlikely to flow to the two major supermarkets at Lane Cove, located adjacent to the heavily congested Pacific Highway and Epping Road intersections with Longueville Road.

·    From ten examples examined in the study, the FSRs for mixed-use centres in comparable locations are all above 1.4:1 and achieve FSRs as high as 4.0:1.

·    The Northwood Centre at an FSR of 2.5:1 and a maximum height of 6 storeys, is consistent with comparable centres around Sydney.

·    Only one medium-sized supermarket would be viable within Northwood Neighbourhood Centre.

·    It is difficult to conceive of non-residential building applications that would be feasible for the western precinct.  The western precinct is not a very efficient site for residential development [being partly triangular] and given the current fragmented ownership structure, it may be years before it develops.

·    It is preferable for Council to consider the proposed project as the cornerstone for the Northwood Neighbourhood Centre.  A similar approach has been taken at Balgowlah and at Cammeray, where Stockland’s redevelopment has anchored a neighbourhood shopping centre but is not expected to be reproduced across all other commercially zoned lands.

·    The incorporation of a medium-sized supermarket at the site will improve the level of supermarket convenience for the Lane Cove LGA without impact on Council’s established retail hierarchy.  Notably, given the low rate of supermarket space per capita across the LGA, the provision of a supermarket at the Northwood Neighbourhood Centre will not compromise the predominance of the Lane Cove Town Centre.  Instead it will anchor the necessary and overdue redevelopment of Northwood Neighbourhood Centre.  This outcome ought to be encouraged.

 

The ten centres referred to by MacroPlan Dimasi are shown in a table at AT 2.  The lowest FSR of 1.4:1 is for Cammeray Square, with three others being at FSR 2:1 or less, and six centres being higher.  Each site would, of course, have unique economic and site factors.

 

There is a case, however, for providing a larger scale than the typical neighbourhood centres, to serve the retail needs of the growing population. Its location on the opposite side of the Northwood Centre would enable it to serve a broader catchment and to be “quarantined” away from the smaller-scale café-precinct for local residents envisaged by GMU on the Kenneth Street side. This would be highly dependent on the traffic/ access issues being resolved to the satisfaction of Council and the RMS however.

 

This new scale of retail in Lane Cove is supported by the Jan McCredie Precedent Studies at AT 5, which indicates:-

 

·    A generic zoning with related heights and capacities will not facilitate the desired development in centres with such different physical characteristics, ownership patterns.

·    Effectively land costs must include the purchase of the business where sites are being amalgamated and where there are existing business operations. This is the reason that so little “ shop top” housing has been developed in Sydney despite being a permissible use in many Councils for a long time

·    Where a large number of sites in multiple ownerships are required to be amalgamated, the land costs may be greater than the current valuation of the land.

·    Increasing the height and FSR in the Northwood centre can only ever set a precedent for the Lane Cove West shops. The other neighbourhood centres at Greenwich, Yorks Corner, Burns Bay Rd/Figtree St and Innes Rd cannot be developed at higher densities in the short or medium term due to their limited physical capacity, multiple ownerships, topography and the value of the existing businesses.

·    For either Northwood or Greenwich to reach new development potential will otherwise require the existing businesses currently operating to reach the end of their ‘economic lives. This may be a matter that could only be revisited 10-15 years from now.

 

The FSR of 1.75:1 proposed by staff would, however, retain a lower scale in the retail hierarchy than the Town Centre’s 2.5:1 for shoptop housing. The potential 500m2 supermarket would allow for a more limited retail range than the Market Square Woolworths. For comparison, the Greenwich IGA is approximately 200m2 and the Woolworths is approximately 3,800m2 of retail square.

 

 

Building Scale

 

Floor space ratio

 

The developer indicates that FSR 2.5:1 would provide a profit margin of around 21%. This is shown in the developer’s above Centres Analysis table at AT 3.  Their study states:-

 

·    “At an FSR of 1.5:1 and 2:1, the proposed redevelopment would generate a minor development profit, however, with the rate of profit margin (on total costs) calculated to be 11.6% and 14.0% respectively. These project margins would not meet the financial feasibility criteria required to commence such projects.

·    At an FSR of 2.25:1, profit margin is calculated to be 17.4%, a borderline proposition.  An FSR of 2.5:1 would deliver more acceptable margins of 21.4%.”

 

Council’s independent economic analysis, by Jumar Property Group P/L, is at AT 4 and concludes, however, that the Northwood site’s redevelopment would be viable at 1.75:1 and above:-

 

FSR

1.25:1

1.5:1

1.75:1

..2:1

2.5:1

Height

2-3 storeys

2-3 storeys

3-4 storeys

4 storeys

5 storeys

Development Land Value

$6,900,000

$8,500,000

$10,000,000

$11,500,000

$12,200,000

Redevelopment Viability

Not Viable

Marginal

Viable

Viable

Viable

 

This development feasibility study allowed for a development profit margin of 20%, to provide a comparison with the 20% assumption in the developer’s study. 

 

In regard to a possibility that the point of different between the developer’s study and Council’s study may be land cost, the Jumar study notes that:  “It is not uncommon that land owners create an unrealistic expectation to what the land is worth as a development site” (p.4).  On that basis, “it it not the purpose of this study to determine the value of the existing properties”, and the asking price is an unknown for individual sites. 

 

In regard to floor space ratio, this should be conservative having regard to:-

 

·    the need for a bushfire asset protection zone, which Council’s economic feasibility study notes would reduce the developable site area considerably below the total site’s 4,435m2 to a readily developable 3,600m2. As a result, there would not be as much site area for the allowable FSR to be distributed across and so buildings would need to be concentrated on a smaller area of the site, resulting in the bulk and scale of a higher FSR;

·    the recent amendment to Council’s car parking rate for supermarkets and fresh food markets to 1 space per 23m2 (from 1 per 40m2), so that additional car parking area will be required;

·    the lowered dwelling numbers would reduce vehicle generation impacting on local streets.

 


Height

 

The DCP 2010 by Council’s urban designer, GMU Urban Consultants, identified this site as being underdeveloped land and stated that the desired future character of the centre should be to create a vibrant and active neighbourhood centre for local residents, with residential above retail of up to 4 storeys.  The DCP is focussed on the Kenneth Street precinct; however 4 storeys on the north-eastern side would mirror that scale appropriately and the topography may allow for a fifth storey downhill at the rear.

 

The applicant’s urban designer, Jan McCredie, recommends four storeys on Northwood Rd and an additional storey above that level at the rear of the site. The RPS planning proposal, however, exceeds that in requesting six storeys above an air space level with an LEP control of 25 metres, which could equate to at least 7 storeys, and is not supported by staff.

 

Buildings set down the slope would have reduced visibility from the public domain, including Kenneth Street.  The tree canopy at the rear would be likely to provide visual screening of the development from the golf course and properties to the north.  Owing to the angling of the site, view lines to the lower parts of the site are limited on approaches from River Road from east and west.  The site would be more visible from Central Park, although being partially obscured by the shops on that side of the centre.

 

However, the levels above the fourth storey, unless well set back, would tend to dominate the public plaza visually and increase overshadowing owing to the orientation of any proposed wall of flats facing the bush above a supermarket. This would not be in keeping with the public space amenity envisaged by Council for the site. Jan McCredie advises only four storeys should be visible facing the site, and with only one above at the rear. This would provide a new offering in the Lane Cove retail hierarchy, as is appropriate on a regional road, rather than retaining only the smaller neighbourhood centres on local streets such as in Greenwich, and allow for a more modern form of neighbourhood centre, comparable with centres in other local government areas such as Cammeray Square.

 

A maximum height of 15 metres across the site is proposed, to be set, rather than the developer’s proposed 25 metres. The LEP would permit up to 3 storeys with an increased setback on Northwood Rd and additional height to allow for approximately 41/2 storeys at the rear. This has regard to the tree canopy and road layout which obscure view lines to the site from many approaches.

 

The proposed floor space allows for a building too bulky in relation to  its visual context, even for a centre in transition, and exceeding the developer’s urban design consultant’s recommendations. The public plaza is fragmented into two very small open air sections, of 22m2 and 32m2, with the balance of the 220m2 public plaza being covered in overhanging flats. These small open areas would be dominated by the proposed wall of flats. Council’s proposed scale is aimed to provide amenity for the plaza, which in any case should be redesigned to improve its space for genuine community interaction.

 

The concept has been changed several times and it is suggested that the design still needs reworking, in particular to improve the layout of the plaza and the building’s interface with the bushland. This should have regard to the appearance viewed from the proposed public path downhill. At that point, at present, it is intended to locate a blank supermarket wall with six storey flats above. This is unacceptable in a location agreed by the developer to be aesthetically- sensitive bushland. A future DCP would aim for well-articulated buildings with setbacks to minimise building bulk.

 


Traffic and Access

 

The developer’s consultant, Traffix, concludes that:

 

            “The Planning Proposal is supportable on traffic planning grounds.  The impacts associated with the proposal are considered moderate and will have a manageable impact on the operation of critical intersections in the locality, based on the proposed access arrangements, which will be subject also to further detailed merit assessment.

 

            It is also expected that a further assessment of local traffic impacts will occur during subsequent development application stages once the final yields are known.  However, it is expected that impacts on local roads will be moderate and manageable.”(p.5).

 

The Traffic study attaches advice from the RMS of 7 September 2012 that:-

 

            “RMS grants in principle agreement to the construction and signalisation of a fourth leg of the Northwood Road and Kenneth Street (TCS 936) intersection, (opposite Kenneth Street) into the proposed development, subject to modelling and intersection design etc. information being supplied, to RMS satisfaction with the development application.

 

RMS in principle agreement is limited to:-

1.        

a)      a through traffic movement into the site from Kenneth Street; and

b)      left turn only into the site from Northwood Road (from the north) preferably with a declaration lane into the site.

            2.         Egress being located to the south of the site via a left out only.

            3.         A full upgrade of pedestrian facilities.

 

            The comments are informal and are not binding upon the RMS and may change following formal assessment of a submitted development application.”

 

Council’s Open Space & Urban Services Division has expressed reservations regarding traffic issues, in particular that it has requested written advice not provided to date, as to whether RMS would consider an entry at the intersection of River Road, Longueville Road and Northwood Road.  It had been understood that the developer had bought the two house lots at 274 and 274A Longueville Road for this purpose.  This is Council’s preferred location for entry and exit as allowing access from catchments from all directions.  The Traffic proposal (above) would instead encourage traffic through quiet local streets (Arabella Street, Woodford Street and Kenneth Street), conflicting with GMU’s DCP 2010 goal of a pedestrian/café precinct near the park.

 

It should be noted, however, that the resolution of this important issue may be more readily achieved by seeking Gateway approval for Council to consult the RMS in preparation for an exhibition of the planning proposal.  The access issue would arise regardless of the specific FSR approval.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed redevelopment of the northeastern side of Northwood Road for shoptop housing, fresh food market and public plaza could offer benefits to Lane Cove and the local community, with a meeting place overlooking open space, and balancing the growth pressures on the Town Centre due to population increases under the Metropolitan Strategy.


Council has supported redevelopment in this site in principle in a 2008 DA for a Harris Farm market, also in DCP 2010, at the February 2012 Councillor Workshop and in staff discussions over the past year. These strategic objectives include the site’s central location in an arc of revitalisation between two major Council projects:  the golf course recreation centre to the east and the seniors’ living centre at 266 Longueville Road to the north.

 

The developer has undertaken a considerable range of studies analysing the site, including urban design, traffic, ecology, bushfire, economic and shopping centre assessment and others.  The master planning study for the centre as a whole reinforces the north-eastern side as most appropriate for the first stage of the centre’s revitalisation, due to the more limited site configuration on the southwestern side.  The redevelopment for market and cafes would be expected to attract a wider catchment and is suitably directed to the northeastern side, allowing smaller scale cafes facing the Central Park at a later stage.


Two key issues to be resolved are traffic/access and building scale.

 

Traffic generation has been assessed by the developer’s consultant as acceptable subject to traffic measures.  Council has not yet been able to discuss this directly with the RMS, but notes that the vehicle generation would be relative to the regional volumes along River Road/Northwood Road.

 

Access is expected to be more important to local traffic movements in the Northwood Centre’s southeastern side as, depending on its location on the site, cars may circulate around Kenneth and Woodford Streets and the catchments to south, east and west would be affected.  This is a significant issue but it would be the case, however, for whatever redevelopment occurs on the site.  The opportunity for Council to further discuss the issue with the RMS would be provided by Gateway approval for exhibition.

 

Building scale is the second issue of importance as potentially determining the centre’s visual character, functionality and traffic generation, as above.  The planning principles and priorities of Council are to provide an adequate public meeting space, residential amenity with buildings stepped back from the road and FSR moderate enough to allow flexibility in designing for these principles.  Council’s independent urban design and economic consultant studies are consistent with a scale of 3-4 storeys and FSR 1.75:1, respectively, to achieve these outcomes. 

 

In conclusion, it is recommended that Council submit a planning proposal for the site to the Department’s Gateway, but at the moderate scale supported by Council’s consultants, rather than the higher scale requested by the developer.  The proposal would allow for Neighbourhood Centre B1 zoning across the site, with maximum height of 15 metres and FSR 1.75:1.

 

DCP amendments would be designed with setbacks limiting the building to up to 3 storeys stepped back from the Northwood Rd frontage, and a maximum of 4 storeys at the rear with an additional half-storey above this section.

 

Note: This submission was received by Council on 12 October 2012.  In recommending that Council address the issue, it is noted that since 2 November an applicant may seek a Departmental review if Council has not responded within 90 days of a planning proposal being lodged.  If Council does not support the proposal, a review may be sought within 40 days of the decision (mid-January in either case).

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council submit a planning proposal to the Department seeking consistent Neighbourhood Centre B1 zoning across the site, with height of 15 metres maximum and FSR 1.75:1, shop size to be 500m2 maximum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Summary of Studies in RPS Planning Proposal

4 Pages

AT‑2 View

MacroPlan Dimasi - Centres comparison

1 Page

AT‑3 View

MacroPlan Dimasi - Centres - Viability

1 Page

AT‑4 View

Northwood Centre Economic Feasibility Study, Jumar 24 9 12

28 Pages

AT‑5 View

McCredie Report Final re Precedent 1 11 12

35 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 3 December 2012

Planning Proposal 7/2011: Building Scale - Pacific Hwy / Longueville Rd Precinct

 

 

Subject:          Planning Proposal 7/2011: Building Scale - Pacific Hwy / Longueville Rd Precinct    

Record No:    SU4497 - 61316/12

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Vivienne Albin; Christopher Pelcz 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

It is requested that a planning proposal to amend the building scale for a precinct in the vicinity of the intersection of the Pacific Highway and Longueville Road, Lane Cove, be finalised.

 

The planning proposal publicly exhibited, but retaining R4 High Density Development for No.5 Allison Avenue, is supported to proceed back to the Department of Planning & Infrastructure requesting finalisation.

 

The planning proposal is being finalised to redress mapping anomalies in the gazetted planning controls, and confirms Council’s policies held since 2008 for the precinct.

 

Background

 

The purposes of the planning proposal (shown attached as AT-1), as outlined in the document submitted to the Gateway, are to:-

 

(i)         correct mapping anomalies between the LEP’s current FSR (4.1:1) and inconsistent height (12 metres) in the precincts around the intersection of Pacific Highway and Longueville Road. The proposal would allow for:-

a)   8-storey apartments at the corners of the LGA’s “gateway” on Pacific Highway (this approach was supported both by residents in Mafeking Ave and commercial owners, as allowing sunlight between the towers to residences to the south, while modernising the area).

b)   6-storey apartments on the north side of Longueville Rd, to allow for updating ageing flats south of the interface with a medium-density zone in Kara St; shadowing would fall on the roadway (three 1930s blocks are resolved to be removed from the heritage register in a separate planning proposal).

c)   FSR of 2:1 as appropriate on a main road in the context of the Lane Cove Town Centre:-

·    retail-commercial (2:1 /shoptop housing 2.5:1);

·    the 1-5 Little Street mixed use zone (2.7:1);

·    Finlayson/Birdwood R4 precinct (1.7:1);

·    the R3 zone in Kara St (0.7:1); and

·    the low density zone in Mafeking, Gatacre and Allison Avenues (0.5:1).

 

- in Willoughby opposite, the FSRs vary from FSR 1:1 (predominant in the Artarmon industrial area) to 1.7:1 (apartments directly opposite the Pacific/Longueville intersection) - and

 

(ii)        the proposal exhibited low density residential R2 for 5 Allison Ave due to its location at the interface between the Highway and low density properties. This is not supported to proceed (see below).

 

Gateway approval from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to proceed to exhibition was granted on 9 March 2012 (shown attached as AT-2).

Planning Proposal 7/2011: Building Scale – Pacific Hwy / Longueville Rd Precinct, has been publicly exhibited from 2 May to 12 June 2012. Twenty seven (27) submissions were received including:-

·    twenty (20) from individuals;

·    four (4) from other interested parties;

·    one (1) from a resident association;

·    one (1) from a state government agency; and

·    one (1) petition including forty three (43) signatures.

 

A summary of these submissions has been circulated separately to Councillors.

 

Issues raised included development viability, amenity impacts on existing residential areas, traffic & parking and the future of the former RTA site etc.

 

Discussion

 

Issue 1: Objects to proposed change of FSR on lots on the Pacific Highway as no developer will develop the area. Recommends that FSR be increased to 3:1 to encourage redevelopment of the Pacific Highway/Longueville Road area and increasing the height of buildings to 25 metres.

 

Comment

 

The proposed FSR is supported. There are examples of comparable sites (apartments directly opposite this precinct in Willoughby Council area) where a lower FSR has not prevented the construction of an apartment building.

 

Issue 2: Objects to increase in height of buildings from 12 to 18 metres.

 

Comment

 

The proposed height is supported. Increasing the height yet decreasing the FSR will encourage slimmer buildings. The benefits of a slimmer building form include narrower shadows and therefore shadows that move quickly and also providing for bands of sunlight to come through the development sites. This is important for the established residential areas surrounding the subject precinct.

 

Issue 3: The Pacific Highway/Longueville Road portion of the proposal will negatively impact on sunlight, outlook, property value, street parking and traffic flow along Kara Street (see attached petition). There are already issues with proximity of Lane Cove Bus Interchange, traffic flow and parking for Kara Street residents.

 

 

Comment

 

Development of the subject precinct will not affect sunlight to Kara Street properties as it is to the south of Kara St. There may be some effect on outlook from Kara St, but as slim buildings are likely to be the outcome of the proposed FSR & height, it is likely that a reasonable amount of outlook will be retained. Council does not normally comment on local property values. Parking and traffic in the locality generally will be considered at the development application stage. More importantly, as the precinct is ideally located for public transport use, it is considered that over time the number of cars in the locality may decline. Where requested, Council does consider resident parking schemes in some areas.

 

Issue 4: Residences in Kara Street experienced water inundation after the last heavy rain event and development is likely to cause further water runoff.

 

Comment



The area is already highly developed and the changes outlined in the planning proposal are likely to have a negligible effect on the amount of runoff in the locality.

Issue 5: Former RTA site was previously identified as a green space, area should be maintained for this purpose as there is currently no play areas for children in the locality.

Comment

 

The vacant land bounded by Longueville Road, Pacific Highway and Burley Street is owned by the Roads and Maritime Authority (RMS) formerly, the RTA. Council is not in ownership of this land and did not previously identify the area as green space. It is possible that the RMS at some point during the development of the Lane Cove Tunnel discussed the future use of this site being open space; however it is not a Council site.

 

Issue 6: Excavation could cause land instability

 

Comment

 

Council requires a Geotechnical Report to be submitted with any development application including excavation.

 

Issue 7: Existing old buildings along the Pacific Highway provide an excellent sound barrier and should be maintained

 

Comment

 

Although the existing buildings along the Pacific Highway may assist in noise reduction, that is not a reason along to retain these buildings. Future development could assist in noise reduction through several means, eg, building placement, solid fences and/or landscaping.

 

Issue 8: Rezoning 5 Allison Ave from R4 to R2 would be grossly detrimental to the owners, unfair, unjust and devalue the property.

 

Comment

 

The rezoning of this lot was proposed to reflect its location within a low density residential precinct. However, in light of submissions made and issues raised, the proposal to change the zoning, scale & lot size for 5 Allison Ave no longer forms part of the planning proposal. The site should stay R4 as it would form a more rectangular site with the other R4 lots, whereas otherwise it would have flats on two of its three boundaries.

 

Conclusion

 

It is requested that a planning proposal to amend the building scale for a precinct in the vicinity of the intersection of the Pacific Highway and Longueville Road, Lane Cove, be finalised.

 

The planning proposal publicly exhibited, but retaining R4 High Density Development for No.5 Allison Avenue, is supported to proceed back to the Department of Planning & Infrastructure requesting finalisation.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.      Council adopt the exhibited amendment to the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 relating to the Pacific Hwy / Longueville Rd Precinct, subject to the following change:-

 

a)   Retain the R4 High Density zoning for 5 Allison Avenue.

 

2.      The Department of Planning and 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

Planning proposal 7/2011: Pacific Hwy/Longueville Rd Precinct

7 Pages

AT‑2 View

Gateway Determination - Pacific Hwy / Longueville Rd Precinct

3 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 3 December 2012

Different Degrees Theatre Ensemble

 

 

Subject:          Different Degrees Theatre Ensemble    

Record No:    SU129 - 60521/12

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Carol Sinclair 

 

 

Executive Summary

Different Degrees Theatre Ensemble is a drama group for people with disabilities and people of all abilities. The Ensemble is directed by Larry Boyd, a local resident and Director of Fusion Theatre.  It is supported by staff from Lane Cove and North Side Community Services and Lane Cove Council.

 

The Ensemble have given public performances of their self devised theatre pieces at the Powerhouse Museum for the Local Government and Shires Association (LGSA) Arts and Culture Summit and Awards in 2012 and at The Theatre on the Concourse at Chatswood as part of ‘All the World’s a Stage’, a celebration of ability for International Day for People with Disability in 2011.

 

The project has just won the ‘Accessibility in the Arts’ Award at the LGSA Arts and Culture Awards.

 

Background

The Different Degrees Theatre Ensemble began 17 months ago when Larry Boyd approached the Aged and Disability Community Development Officer to discuss the possibility of setting up a drama group for people with disabilities in Lane Cove.  Larry Boyd had recently returned to Sydney after 15 years in Melbourne where he had established ‘Fusion Theatre’. A meeting was organised between Council, Larry Boyd and Recreation Rendezvous to discuss ways we could work collaboratively on the project and several weeks later, on 20 July 2011 the first drama workshop was held.

 

The drama workshops are held every Wednesday evening at the Lane Cove Seniors Centre and the Senior Disability Support Worker from Recreation Rendezvous, a project of Lane Cove and North Side Community Services and the Manager, Community Services, Lane Cove Council attend to assist Mr Boyd as he conducts the sessions. Musician and music composer Sarah de Jong also assists the cast with voice, singing and music composition. The Ensemble members are all adults with varying forms of intellectual disability and/or mental illness who live in the community, on their own or with some support from disability services or, with their families. Photos of a recent performance are shown attached as AT-1.

 

Discussion

The Different Degrees Theatre Ensemble provides an inclusive drama program for people of all abilities to come together and learn a range of drama and performance skills such as movement, singing, improvisation, body language and imagery, dance and stagecraft. Each workshop is specifically planned and follows from what took place in the preceding workshops. On average 11 people attend each session and the program has seen 20 people attend since its inception.  

 

In the sessions members are engaged in interesting and challenging activities in a relaxed, caring and fun environment.  Everybody is valued for their contribution and are confident that nothing they suggest or do is ‘wrong’ allowing for confidence and self-esteem to grow. Together the group make new and original works of self devised theatre.

 

Last year Different Degrees Theatre Ensemble performed at the Concourse in Chatswood for the ‘All the World’s a Stage’ to celebrate International Day for People with Disability and will do again in November this year. The cast performed their new performance piece ‘The Idea of Water’ at the Arts and Culture Summit on 13 November to a rousing applause.

 

Lane Cove Council received an Arts and Culture Award from the LGSA at the Powerhouse Museum on Wednesday 14 November 2012.  The category of the award was ‘Accessibility in the Arts’ and was for the Different Degrees Theatre Ensemble.

 

Conclusion

The Different Degrees Theatre Ensemble has become a very successful program and has provided the members with the opportunity to learn a range of dramatic skills, provided an opportunity for socialisation and inclusion in the community, the opportunity for public performance, respite for the carers of the members who live at home and the opportunity to participate in the community in a meaningful and age appropriate way. It has been a vehicle for showcasing ability rather than focussing on disability.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.    Receive and note the report.

 

2.    Send a letter to each member of the Different Degrees Theatre Ensemble congratulating           them on receiving an “Accessibility in the Arts” Award from the LGSA.

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Two photos from the Different Degrees Theatre Ensemble

2 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 3 December 2012

Sister Cities Policy and Chinese Art Exhibition

 

 

Subject:          Sister Cities Policy and Chinese Art Exhibition    

Record No:    SU4914 - 60380/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Ian Naylor; Jane Gornall 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report provides a policy for Council’s consideration regarding the establishment of formal Sister City relationships and discusses the possibility of hosting a Chinese Art Show through Centrehouse at Gallery Lane Cove.

 

Background

 

Council recently received representations from the Mayor of Hu Zhou City in China expressing interest in establishing a formal Sister City relationship with Lane Cove.  As a result, Council at its meeting of 19 November 2012, viewed a presentation on Hu Zhou City and resolved to receive a report on:-

 

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

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; and

3.   A policy be developed outlining Council’s aims and level of involvement with the Sister City.”

 

Discussion

 

A policy has been drafted and attached as AT-1, which aims to ensure that Sister City relationships are relevant and effective in delivering long term economic, cultural and social benefits for Lane Cove and to clearly identify Council’s level of involvement in Sister City relationships. 

 

This draft policy also outlines the proposed procedure for the establishment of new Sister City relationships. It is proposed that a formal heads of agreement such as a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ be entered into with any Sister City which outlines the aims and objectives of the arrangement and level of commitment by both parties. In terms of costs, it is proposed that travel and any other costs associated with visitations be at the expense of the city sending the delegation.

 

Therefore any Councillors, staff or delegates from Lane Cove participating in a visit to another city or region, will be required to meet their own travel and accommodation costs, except where the host agrees to meet these costs. It is acknowledged that visitors from other cities or regions may result in costs being incurred by Council in hosting any civic receptions, meals, morning and afternoon teas and the like.

 

As the policy involves the wider community and possible Council expenditure, community consultation will be undertaken.

 

Chinese Art Exhibition

 

Discussions have been held with the President of the Centrehouse Management Committee and the Gallery Manager regarding hosting a Chinese Art Exhibition.  Centrehouse have indicated that they would be pleased to be able to host such an exhibition. As Centrehouse’s intention is to have an ongoing series of exhibitions and to ensure that the Gallery always has an exhibition in it, reasonable notice of possible dates will be required to properly house the exhibition.

 

A broad range of resources would be required to host the exhibition, such as:-

·    A Curator who would be responsible for amongst other things writing labels, catalogue entries and other supporting content for the exhibition;

·    Translator/Interpreter;

·    Installation team;

·    Catalogue of works;

·    Protocol assistance;

·    Additional and targeted Marketing;

·    Accommodation for artist/s; and

·    Assistance with the opening event.

 

However, until it has been established what materials will be in the exhibition (e.g. paintings, sculpture or ceramics) it is not possible to produce an exact listing or cost estimate for the required additional resources. As such, this listing will be reviewed and updated when the type of art exhibition to be held is determined.

 

It would be of great benefit to be able to host an artist or artists who could talk about the works being exhibited and if possible hold public workshops or demonstrations while the exhibition is on.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to provide information about and determine the level of community support for the proposed Sister Cities Policy.  Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with the adoption of this policy.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and Community Groups

Lane Cove Cultural Groups

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and

eNewsletter

Notification Letter

Survey and Public / Website Exhibition

Indicative Timing

January – February 2013

January – February 2013

January – February 2013

 

Conclusion

 

A policy has been developed which aims to ensure that Sister City relationships are relevant and effective in delivering long term economic, cultural and social benefits for Lane Cove and to clearly identify Council’s level of involvement in Sister City relationships. This policy supports initiatives including cultural and education exchanges, with associated expenses for delegations to be met by the visiting city. 

 

One such exchange could be facilitated through hosting a Chinese Art Exhibition at Gallery Lane Cove.  Centrehouse were approached and have confirmed their interest in hosting such an exhibition, provided reasonable notice is given to enable scheduling of the exhibition.  A more precise listing of the additional resources required to host the exhibition can be produced once the type of art to be exhibited is determined.


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.   Council endorse the Draft Sister Cities Policy dated 21 November 2012, and included as AT-1, for the purpose of public exhibition;

2.   Council place the draft policy on Public Exhibition for a period of 6 weeks in accordance with the Consultation Strategy outlined in the report; and

3.   Following the community consultation process, the matter be reported back to Council for consideration including details of any submissions received from the community.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Sister Cities Policy - 21 November 2012

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 3 December 2012

Wildlife Protection Areas in Reserves

 

 

Subject:          Wildlife Protection Areas in Reserves    

Record No:    SU4914 - 60464/12

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Kerry Heatley 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council at its Meeting on 19 November 2012 considered a report on Wildlife Protection Areas in Reserves and resolved to defer the report to the December Council Meeting and further information be provided on the feasibility of a trial trapping program to determine the extent of any feral cat population in Reserves. It is recommended that Council proceed with public exhibition of the draft policy and undertake a trial trapping program.

 

Discussion

 

The report considered by Council at its previous meeting is shown attached as AT1.  The report recommended adopting for the purposes of public exhibition a Draft Policy on Wildlife Protection Areas which is shown attached as AT 2.

 

Council also resolved at its Meeting on 19 November 2012, that a report be provided on the feasibility of a trial trapping program. The observations of staff of feral cats in bushland reserves and the feasibility of such a program is discussed below. 

 

There are a number of observational records from Bush Regeneration staff, contractors and Bushcare volunteers about the presence of cats in Bushland Reserves. The cats sighted may be roaming domestic pets, unwanted cats that have been dumped in the reserve or feral cats that are breeding in the reserves. No trapping of cats in bushland has been done to date, but anecdotally, the cats seen in Lane Cove’s bushland reserves are thought to be either roaming domestic pets or unwanted cats that have been dumped.

 

It is proposed that, concurrently with the community consultation of the Draft Wildlife Protection Policy as set out below, a 6 week trial trapping program will be run to determine the extent of any feral cat population within the bushland reserves in Lane Cove. The trial will use sand plots to confirm where cats are present, followed by a cage trapping program using wire box traps. The cage trapping program will follow the guide ‘Trapping of feral cats using cage traps’ (Sharp and Saunders, 2004) in order to ensure that cat welfare is maintained. During the trial trapped cats will be taken to a vet to identify whether they are microchipped or not. Microchipped cats will be returned to their owners and non-microchipped cats will be taken to the pound following Council’s general procedures. A positive identification of a feral cat will require the euthanasia of the cat to be conducted by a vet or approved officer. The results of this trial will be included in the report to Council following the community consultation on the Draft Wildlife Protection Policy.

 

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

January 2012 – February 2013

January 2012 – February 2013

January 2012 – February 2013

 

 

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 7 February 2013 in accordance with the Consultation Strategy outlined in the report;

3.       Undertake a trial trapping program to determine the extent of any feral cat population in bushland reserves using sand plots and cage trapping; and

4.       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 and the trial feral cat trapping program.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

REPORT Wildlife Protection Areas in Reserves

4 Pages

AT‑2 View

Draft Policy for Wildlife Protection Areas v070812

4 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 3 December 2012

Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held Tuesday 20 November 2012

 

 

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

Record No:    SU1326 - 60469/12

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Tim Sullivan 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held Tuesday 20 November 2012.  The Agenda is included as AT-1.  The traffic recommendations are show in the Minutes of the Meeting, included as AT-2.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the recommendations of the Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on 20 November 2012 be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Agenda - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 20 November 2012

12 Pages

AT‑2 View

Minutes - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 20 November 2012

4 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 3 December 2012

Delegation of Authority to the General Manager and Christmas Recess Arrangements

 

 

Subject:          Delegation of Authority to the General Manager and Christmas Recess Arrangements    

Record No:    SU1282 - 59877/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Section 380 of the Local Government Act (1993) requires Council to review its delegations and make any changes considered appropriate within 12 months after each ordinary election. It is recommended Council endorse the existing delegations to the General Manager.

 

Additionally, in past years it has been Council’s practice to delegate authority to a Committee comprising of the Mayor and the General Manager to deal with urgent matters arising during the Christmas recess.  In such cases, Council’s policies are applied and if no such policies exist, due caution is exercised.

 

Discussion

General Manager’s Delegations

 

A Council may, by resolution, delegate to the General Manager or any other person or body (not including another employee of the Council) any of the functions of the Council other than matters set out in s377 of the Local Government Act (AT 1). In turn, the General Manager may delegate, or sub delegate, any of the functions of a General Manager, other than this power of delegation, to any person or body, including another employee of the Council.

 

Council has previously resolved to delegate its functions, as per the above, to the General Manager who in turn delegates functions to designated staff. The General Manager's delegation (AT 2) was last reviewed by Council at its meeting on 2 February 2009 (Delegation of Authority to the General Manager). The following amendments are proposed:-

 

1.   The authority to write off debts up to and including an amount of $1,000. Council previously resolved on 6 November 1995 to set this amount at $100. It is uncommon to utilise the delegation, however, increasing it to $1,000 will make it more useable should the need arise ; and

2.   The authority to make Local Environment Plans as resolved by Council at its Meeting on 19 November 2012.

 

The delegations are granted to the position of General Manager, not the individual. Council has achieved a great deal of efficiency through the utilisation of delegated authority. The General Manager's delegations to staff undergo regular review, with the next review proposed for February 2013.

 

Christmas Recess Delegations

 

Over the Christmas period the notification period for new Development Applications is extended until February to ensure that notifications are effective even with the vast majority of the community on holidays. No IHAP meeting is proposed until February. It is the normal practice to grant authority to the Mayor and General Manager to determine any matters which may arise during the Christmas, which is consistent with s266 of the Local Government Act, “to exercise, in cases of necessity, the policy-making functions of the governing body of the council between meetings of the council.”

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.         The Council pursuant to the powers of delegation conferred to it by Section 377 and Section 381 of the NSW Local Government Act, 1993, and pursuant to every other power it hereunto enabling, Lane Cove Council, hereby delegates to the holder for the time being of the office of General Manager the power to exercise all the functions, powers, duties and authorities conferred upon the Council pursuant to:-

a)      The NSW Local Government Act, 1993 and

b)      The Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979; and

c)      State Emergency & Rescue Management Act 1989; and

d)      All other Acts, whatsoever under which Council has functions, powers, duties and authorities; and

e)      All regulations, by-laws, rules and the like made by, or under any other Act referred to in a, b, or c above.

 

Always subject to any resolution made from time to time by the said Council and provided that such delegation of powers shall not and shall not be deemed to be extended to:

f)       Any of the matters expressly reserved to the Council in Section 377 of the Local Government Act, 1993; and

g)      The alteration of the meeting cycle of Council; and

h)      The overview and direction of business activities; and

i)       The role of the Mayor as provided for and determined under Section 226 of the Local Government Act 1993; and

j)       Major unique items where no policy, practice or code of the Council exists; and

k)      Adoption of local environmental plans (other than where the relevant Minister has delegated such authority to the General Manager), development control plans and S94 contribution plans pursuant to the Environmental Planning Assessment Act 1979; and

l)       Adoption of Council policies and codes; and

m)    Items in respect of which the Mayor or a Councillor has specifically requested the General Manager, in writing, to place before Council for determination by Council;

n)      Items in respect of which Council has specifically resolved that they be placed before Council.

o)      Write off debts above $1,000.

 

2.         Subject to the provisions of Section 377 of the Local Government Act, 1993, and point 3 below, Council appoint a Committee comprising of the Mayor and the General Manager, or in their absence a delegate of the Mayor and/or the person acting as General Manager, to deal with and determine, urgent matters arising during the Council recess until 18 February 2013, in such cases applying Council’s policies, or where no such policies exist, exercising due caution.

 

3.         No Section 96 or Section 82A reviews of development applications be undertaken under delegated authority in relation to any matter that has been determined by Council, the former Planning and Building Committee and the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel.

 

4.         Authority be granted to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor to affix the Common Seal of Council to the Instrument of Delegation to the General Manager.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Section 377 of the Local Government Act - General power of the Council to Delegate

1 Page

AT‑2 View

MINUTE Delegation of Authority to the General Manager (Ordinary Council - 2/02/2009)

1 Page

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 3 December 2012

Purchase of School Camp Site at Marnie

 

 

Subject:          Purchase of School Camp Site at Marnie    

Record No:    SU266 - 60578/12

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary


This report provides an update on the contact and investigations carried out to date in relation to the possible purchase of a rural property for use by local schools. It is recommended that further investigations be carried out and reported back to Council including the outcomes of consultation with local schools, value of the site and any costs to refurbish or replace the existing buildings, as well as ongoing operational costs.

 

Background

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 19 November 2012, Council considered a Mayoral Minute on the purchase of School Camp Site known as 'Marnie' and resolved:-

“That Council contact the Chatswood P&C and provide them with an expression of interest to purchase the property known as ‘Marnie’ 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 and other potential user groups 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”.


The property, Marnie, is located a few kilometres from Rylestone in NSW's Central West. Marnie boasts a cottage with accommodation for about 10, some sheds, an ablutions block, and is near the Wollemi National Park. It is understood that the famous "living fossils" - the Wollemi pines, are located only a few kilometres from Marnie.

In summer, visitors make use of kayaks and canoes on the nearby Dunn's Swamp. The "Swamp" is actually a dammed up valley, in parts resembling a canyon, with a number of walks of varying lengths.

 

Marnie has been used to accommodate students on band and year camps and it has also been used as a base for the 120 km through-walks by students from the North Harbour Unit which is linked with Chatswood High School. Students on qualifying expeditions for Duke of Edinburgh awards have typically started and ended at Marnie. Additionally, the area also has significant Aboriginal sites which could be inspected by school groups and interpreted by traditional owners.

Marnie can serve as a base for visiting Mudgee (wine making, honey, and other agriculture), Gulgong (significant collection of Australiana, boasting its own opera house), Hill End (early gold mining town, and source of enormous wealth), Sofala (historic gold town, gold panning, trout fishing in the Turon River) and other nearby centres. It is understood that the facility has been closed since 2010 due to its condition and need for refurbishment.

In accordance with the Council resolution, contact has been made with Chatswood P & C expressing an interest in the purchase of the property. Whilst the P & C have confirmed they wish to sell the property, they have advised that they will be meeting on 11 December 2012, to decide on the method of sale and the selling price. A request has been made to Chatswood P & C to grant Council an exclusive period to investigate the purchase of the property, prior to them considering any alternate proposals.

In the interim contact is being made with local Schools P & C Committees to determine the level of interest in utilising the facility and contributing to the purchase cost. Consultation with schools is continuing at this stage, with no confirmed responses at the time of preparing the report. Should there be a sufficient level of interest from the schools in the purchase of the property, independent valuation advice will be obtained to determine the market value of the property and costs identified for refurbishing the facility as well as ongoing operational costs for the property identified. Following that, the proposal will be reported back to Council for consideration.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the report and the matter be reported back for determination following the outcome of consultation with local schools and detailed investigations regarding the purchase price and costs for refurbishing and operating the facility.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.