m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

15 April 2013

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 15 April 2013 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 on 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 on 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 15 April 2013

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 - 18 MARCH 2013

 

Petitions

 

2.       Petition Received - Parking in Cope Street, Lane Cove West

 

3.       Dettmann Avenue - Petition on Road Condition

 

4.       Petition Received - Parking in Wilona Avenue, Greenwich

 

Notices of Rescission

 

5.       1-25 Marshall Ave St Leonards Planning Proposal - Rescission

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

6.       1-25 Marshall Ave, St Leonards Planning Proposal - Approval

 

7.       Lift for Longueville Road Pedestrian Bridge

 

8.       Dog Walking Companies in Lane Cove

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

9.       LEP Amendment: 266 Longueville Road Planning Proposal

 

10.     Nominations for Community Members on Council's Aboriginal Advisory Committee

 

11.     Proposed Sister Cities Policy - Consultation Results

 

12.     No Smoking Legislative Changes - Signage Strategy

 

13.     Nature Strip Planting on Greenwich Rd

 

14.     Competition to Rename the Lane Cove Seniors Centre

 

15.     Christmas Lights Competition

 

16.     RecycleSmart Household Waste Diversion Research

 

17.     Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 26 March 2013

 

18.     Draft Lane Cove River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan

 

19.     Amended Privacy Management Plan

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

20.     Greenwich Preschool New Crossing

 

21.     Council Snapshot  

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 April 2013

Petition Received - Parking in Cope Street, Lane Cove West

 

 

Subject:          Petition Received - Parking in Cope Street, Lane Cove West    

Record No:    SU1362 - 15839/13

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Khahn Nguyen 

 

 

Executive Summary

A petition has been received by Council containing 26 signatures from residents of Cope Street, Lane Cove West requesting that Council implement a Residential Parking Scheme in Cope Street west of Burns Bay Road.

Cope Street (West) is a cul-de-sac street with unrestricted parking for the whole street. 16 out of 18 households (includes No. 269 & 271 Burns Bay Road) signed the petition in support for a Residential Parking Scheme to be implemented in Cope Street, Lane Cove West.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council prepare a report for the Traffic Committee for consideration of the request for a Residential Parking Scheme in Cope Street, Lane Cove West.

 

2.   The Head Petitioner be informed of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting attachments for this document.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 April 2013

Dettmann Avenue - Petition on Road Condition

 

 

Subject:          Dettmann Avenue - Petition on Road Condition    

Record No:    SU1873 - 15703/13

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A petition has been received by Council containing 61 signatures from residents of Longueville requesting restoration works to the road surface at Dettmann Avenue.

 

Council has undertaken a condition assessment of the entire road network. This data has been analysed by our Asset Management System which provides a works program. At this stage Dettman Avenue has been flagged to be repaired in the next financial year’s budget.

 

It is considered that the works program schedule should be maintained to ensure the most effective management of Council’s assets.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the Head Petitioner be informed of Councils Asset Management Plan and the proposed timetable for work in Dettman Avenue.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting attachments for this document.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 April 2013

Petition Received - Parking in Wilona Avenue, Greenwich

 

 

Subject:          Petition Received - Parking in Wilona Avenue, Greenwich    

Record No:    SU1362 - 15819/13

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Khahn Nguyen 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A petition has been received by Council containing 11 signatures from residents of Wilona Avenue, Greenwich requesting that Council implement a Residential Parking Scheme to the western side of Wilona Avenue, Greenwich.

The western side cul-de-sac of Wilona Avenue is unrestricted parking while the eastern side cul-de-sac contains a 2P 8am – 6pm Residential Parking Scheme for the residents of No. 1 – 14. 11 out of 14 households (excluding the Glenwood Aged Care Centre at No. 34) signed the petition in support for a Residential Parking Scheme to be implemented on the western side cul-de-sac similarly to the situation on the eastern side cul-de-sac of Wilona Avenue.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council prepare a report for the Traffic Committee for consideration of the request for a Residential Parking Scheme on the western side of Wilona Avenue, Greenwich.

 

2.   The Head Petitioner be informed of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting attachments for this document.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 April 2013

1-25 Marshall Ave St Leonards Planning Proposal - Rescission

 

 

Subject:          1-25 Marshall Ave St Leonards Planning Proposal - Rescission    

Record No:    SU3477 - 16577/13

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Pam Palmer; Councillor Karola Brent; Councillor Daniel Strassberg 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council rescind its decision made on 18 March 2013 in relation to the Marshall Ave planning proposal, viz:-

 

“That Council:-

 

1.   Not proceed with the Planning Proposal for 1-25 Marshall Avenue, St Leonards and thereby retain the current controls over the site; and

 

2.   Continue with the St Leonards Masterplan and include 1-25 Marshall Avenue development in this plan.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Pam Palmer

Councillor

 

 

 

Councillor Karola Brent

Councillor

 

 

 

Councillor Daniel Strassberg

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

      


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 April 2013

1-25 Marshall Ave, St Leonards Planning Proposal - Approval

 

 

Subject:          1-25 Marshall Ave, St Leonards Planning Proposal - Approval    

Record No:    SU3477 - 16571/13

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Pam Palmer; Councillor Karola Brent; Councillor Daniel Strassberg 

 

 

Note

 

This motion will only be considered if the previous rescission motion is resolved in the affirmative.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

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

a.         The proposed building height map shows the height of the eastern portion reduced from 78m to 68m.

b.         A 9.5m height limit is retained along the southern boundary of the western portion to a site depth of 7.5m from Marshall Avenue.

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

3.   Council initiate discussions with the proponent regarding the possibility of entering into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) to enhance the public domain in the vicinity of the site;

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

5.   The St Leonards Community Liaison Committee be involved in the development of the DCP.

 

 

 

Councillor Pam Palmer

Councillor

 

 

 

Councillor Karola Brent

Councillor

 

 

 

Councillor Daniel Strassberg

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 April 2013

Lift for Longueville Road Pedestrian Bridge

 

 

Subject:          Lift for Longueville Road Pedestrian Bridge    

Record No:    SU3477 - 16975/13

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Pam Palmer 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   A report come back to Council about the lifts in the Longueville Road pedestrian overpass showing the periods during which each of the lifts has not been working over the past three years and reasons for the breakdowns.

 

2.   The report to include information about the obligations of the parties responsible for the operation of the lift.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Pam Palmer

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 April 2013

Dog Walking Companies in Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          Dog Walking Companies in Lane Cove    

Record No:    SU4924 - 16978/13

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Deborah Hutchens 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive a report on how Council's Open Space is used by dog walking companies, and addressing the following issues:-

 

1.   The number of animals allowed per walker;

 

2.   The responsibilities of the walker as far as safety and public health is concerned;

 

3.   If these dog walking companies have appropriate public liability insurance in line with Council's requirement; and

 

4.   If  these companies have to register with Lane Cove Council as they are a commercial business using Council's off-leash areas for profit.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Deborah Hutchens

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 April 2013

LEP Amendment: 266 Longueville Road Planning Proposal

 

 

Subject:          LEP Amendment: 266 Longueville Road Planning Proposal    

Record No:    SU4645 - 14534/13

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Christopher Pelcz; Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council is requested to adopt for exhibition a planning proposal to rezone part of its property at 266 Longueville Road from the current open space zoning to permit residential development, predominantly seniors’ living, and to reclassify the land from community to operational.

 

This Council-owned site has been identified in Council’s Major Projects Plan 2007-2016 as redevelopment for seniors’ living. The Major Projects Plan is a significant and comprehensive program for the redevelopment of a series of underused Council properties in order to provide public benefits, including modern community facilities, across Lane Cove. The 266 Longueville Rd seniors’ living redevelopment is one of the public infrastructure projects identified in the Plan.

 

The western two-thirds portion of the site proposed for change was formerly occupied by the Lane Cove Ladies Bowling Club, the previous clubhouse is used by the Music and Cultural Centre. To the extent that developments under the Major Projects Plan involve loss of open space, it provides that part of the proceeds would be used to enhance usable open space in other areas.

 

The open space zonings (Environmental Conservation E2 and Public Recreation RE1) and uses of the bushland and golf course in the eastern third of the site are not proposed to be changed.  It is recommended that a site-specific DCP be prepared for 266 Longueville Rd, to provide detailed planning controls for the development’s relationship with residential properties and the public domain, including open space, in the vicinity.  There is also a current planning proposal to redevelop the north-eastern side of the nearby Northwood Centre. Additionally Council is planning to develop a Recreation Facility fronting the golf course. The three proposals are separate, though possibly complementary land uses.

 

Council and the community in 2007 endorsed the purpose of the planning proposal for 266 Longueville Road, to provide seniors’ living housing appropriate for Lane Cove’s ageing population under Metropolitan Strategy residential growth, and to provide public benefit with the income derived from the project including from developer (Section 94) contributions. On this basis, and the fact that the density proposed would be consistent with that of other retirement centres and with the flats adjacent, the proposal is supported.

 

Council is requested to adopt the planning proposal for submission to the Department of Planning & Infrastructure. If Gateway approval is given for formal exhibition, an independent traffic study should be undertaken prior to the exhibition commences.

 

The planning proposal has been submitted by Don Fox Planning on behalf of Council’s Open Space & Urban Services Division, and reviewed by Council’s Strategic Planning Section. A summary is attached as AT-1 and the full proposal is attached as AT-2.  A range of consultant studies were provided in support of the planning proposal.  Given the large size of these documents they have been attached electronically as AT-3 to AT-11 and can be viewed online.  The planning proposal application covering letter is attached as AT-12 and an excerpt from the Major Projects Plan is provided at AT-13.

 


Background

 

Location

Figure 1: Aerial Photograph

 

 

The site comprises three lots and is currently zoned a combination of RE1 Public Recreation and E2 Environmental Conservation, as shown in the diagram below. The land proposed to be rezoned and reclassified is a portion of that property, being the area to the west of the brown E2 zone line (shown by diagonal lines):-

 

Figure 2: Current Zoning

 


Major Projects Plan

 

The redevelopment of 266 Longueville Road is identified within Council’s Major Projects Plan 2007/2016, which was endorsed by Council in November 2007 and involved in-depth community consultation. The Major Projects Plan provides a comprehensive, orderly program for the redevelopment of a series of Council properties. The purpose of this redevelopment program is to provide up-to-date community facilities, including public car parking, child care, recreational and cultural facilities, in many cases with residential development to provide funding.

 

It was accepted under the Plan that some loss of open space would be involved, but that this related to areas such as disused bowling greens, with the proceeds to be used to contribute to the embellishment of usable open space in other areas.

 

Projects would also in many cases provide funding for development of other facilities. The redevelopment of 266 Longueville Road is one such project, being intended to contribute towards the provision of a new multi-purpose Recreation Facility at the golf course, including youth activities identified in the Social Plan as a need for the locality, such as possible indoor basketball courts.

 

Implementation of the Major Projects Plan commenced with the new Library and car parking for the Village, followed by Meeting House residential flats with increased child care, Little Lane mixed use with car parking and community facilities, and preliminary work underway for Rosenthal Avenue car parking with public plaza and 314 Burns Bay flats with community facility and park. The 266 Longueville Rd seniors’ living redevelopment is the next in this suite of long-term public infrastructure projects.

 

Strategic Context

 

(i)      Current and Future Development

 

The proposed R4 High Density Residential Zone would be consistent with the existing flats’ R4 zone extending to the north and south of the site along the eastern side of Longueville Rd.

 

As discussed, three current proposals have the potential to result in complementary redevelopment and an attractive new precinct as a whole: Council’s redevelopment of 266 Longueville Road and the Recreation Facility proposed at the golf course, with pedestrian links be created between Council’s two sites, as well as the Northwood Centre retail and shoptop housing proposal due for exhibition shortly.

 

Other amenity and facilities in the vicinity of 266 Longueville Rd also include Central Park with the bowling and tennis facilities.

 

(ii)      Metropolitan Strategy

 

Under the Metropolitan Strategy, Council’s population is to be significantly increased. The twenty-five year residential target of 3,900 new dwellings is being realized and may be raised further. The number of seniors in Lane Cove will rise proportionately, and the proposed seniors’ living development would respond to this anticipated demand.

 

Discussion

 

The Site

 

The total property (shown cross-hatched in Figure 2) comprises Lot 1 DP 321353, Pt Lot 322 DP 1102537 and Lot 1 DP 91655. The site proposed to be rezoned and reclassified is a portion (60%) of that property, being the area to the west of the brown E2 zone line. This boundary is located between the lower of the two former bowling greens and the top of a vegetated slope descending eastwards to the golf course.

 

The site at 266 Longueville Road comprises an area of approximately 15,000m2 (1.5ha), of which only 9,200m2 is proposed to be rezoned from RE1 Public Recreation to R4 High Density Residential. This includes a vegetated area 30 metres wide, extending along the northern side of the lower bowling green, which will be retained as mature landscaping within the site.

 

The site was used as a Ladies Bowling Club from 1958 through to 1995. Since then the former club house has been leased to the Lane Cove Music and Cultural Society. The Men’s Bowling Club, located nearby at the intersection of River Road West and Longueville Road, continues to operate as the Longueville Sporting Club.

 

The Major Projects Plan identified the upper part of the site as suitable for residential units including the provision of aged care housing as noted in the Lane Cove Social Plan, adaptable housing or housing designed to include seniors’ living. Only part of the site is suitable for development for seniors housing due to the bushfire affectation caused by the Environmental Conservation zone located at the rear of the property, the zoning of which would remain unchanged.

 

Caveats and trusts are present on each of the three lots proposed for rezoning, relating to the land’s public reserve status. It is proposed to extinguish these through the reclassification of public land process in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

LEP Amendments

 

To achieve the redevelopment of 266 Longueville Rd, the planning proposal would amend Council’s Local Environmental Plan (LEP) as follows:-

 

(i)    Zoning: Rezone the western part of the site from RE1 Public Recreation to R4 High Density Residential, to allow development for residential purposes, including seniors housing.

 

(ii)   FSR: Apply a floor space ratio of FSR 1.1:1 i.e. up to FSR 1.6:1 with a Seniors Living SEPP bonus.

 

(iii)  Height: Permit a height of 2-4 storeys towards Longueville Rd and up to 7 storeys at the rear:-

 

In place of a building height expressed in metres and following the topography, the maximum building height would be expressed as a Relative Level: RL 65.5. This would be a line extending horizontally from the top of a potential building set 3 storeys above road level, so that at the rear of the site, where the land falls away, a taller building of up to 7 storeys could be built without rising above the Longueville Rd façade.

This would take into account possible changes in ground level due to the future need to remove fill from the centre and rear of the site.

 

·     Public land: Reclassify part of the site from community to operational and remove the reserve status and caveats (not from the eastern part of the site) to allow sale or lease of the units.

 


Figure 3: Proposed Rezoning

 

 

Building Scale

 

(i)         Floor Space Ratio

 

 (Note: The floor space ratio is calculated on only the area of the site to be rezoned, not the open space component of the property).

 

The planning proposal seeks a potential floor space ratio of FSR 1.6:1. This is based on two factors:-

(i)    FSR of 1.1:1 was considered as a minimum viable scale by OSUS’ economic consultant, as allowing for a 20 per cent development profit margin.

(ii)   Additionally, the NSW State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 provides for a bonus FSR provision of 0.5:1 for the development of seniors housing, resulting in the total FSR 1.6:1.

 

This scale is consistent with that of other seniors’ living sites under LEP 2009 such as Waterbrook and Caroline Chisholm retirement centres (FSR 1.5:1).

 

It is also comparable with the FSR of 1.5:1 of the adjacent flats at 268-270 Longueville Rd (Timbertops), although Council’s development would be set at a lower level than those flats after the removal of fill from the site.

 

(ii)        Height

 

Don Fox Planning Consultants have recommended that RLs be used as a height control rather than metres, as this provides for greater flexibility in design and built form for this particular site. A Relative Level of RL 65.5 would restrict height to the moderate 3 storeys (plus lift overrun) above street level fronting Longueville Rd, but takes into account possible changes in ground level due to the future need to remove fill from the site at the rear allowing the potential for 7 storeys plus lift overrun at the rear.

 

The consultant has taken into account the existing ground level, topography, surrounding building heights, and views through the site, as well as the desired future character. It was considered that “a suitable height for the subject site is one which retains a consistent bulk and scale at the street frontage and yet responds appropriately to topography and surrounding development”.

 

This includes the relationship with the flats adjacent to the south at 268 Longueville Rd, which are 2 storeys on Longueville Rd and 5 storeys at the rear (4 storeys above ground-level garages). Council’s proposal seeks to respond to this context by providing:-

(i)    3 storeys above street level fronting Longueville Rd (and partly below the street level) to be compatible with the existing streetscape;

(ii)   a central section, continuing the moderate height, set lower (with fill removal) than many of the main balconies of the flats at No. 268, to enable its residents to continue to view trees and sunlight to the north across the new development; and

(iii)  a rear section with the same roof height as those flats but set an additional 2 storeys downhill below them.

 

Figure 4 – Indicative Section

 

 

No.268-270 has an FSR of 1.5:1 and 40% landscaping.

 

As mentioned above, under the new NSW Standard Technical Requirements for LEP Maps (November 2012), the RLs planning approach is now permissible in certain circumstances, especially where topography is variable, as would be the case with the removal of the currently-terraced bowling greens.

 

The low density residential zone to the north, with houses fronting Richardson St West, is separated by a vegetated area 30 metres wide, extending along the northern side of the lower bowling green, which Council does not intend to develop. Nevertheless the building form at the DA stage should seek to minimize the visual impact from this side. These issues would be addressed in the proposed DCP to guide development on this site.

 

Density

 

Supporting studies for this proposal, prepared by urban planning and economic consultants and Council staff, indicate that the maximum development potential of this site may be approximately 60 to 100 (depending on bedroom mix) seniors living apartments, with possibly some standard apartments to the rear where bushfire provisions may not permit seniors living, as the rear of property is classified as bushfire prone land.

 

The site is constrained by bushfire prone land. The E2 zone at the rear of the site is reasonably vegetated and is a bushfire issue which may restrict the senior living area towards the rear of the block. A bushfire assessment has been provided as part of the planning proposal. The appropriate asset protection zone is currently being discussed with the NSW Rural Fire Service, with the aim of maximizing the potential number of seniors’ units.

 

At this early stage, only an estimate of dwelling numbers is possible, as such would depend on the balance of seniors and standard units. Firstly, this will affect the floor area for which a bonus FSR may be obtained. For the standard units, the type and configuration of dwellings would be guided by a site-specific DCP that has regard to seniors’ living.

 

Development Control Plan

 

It is recommended that a site-specific DCP be prepared for 266 Longueville Rd, to provide detailed planning controls for the development’s relationship with residential properties and the public domain, including open space, in the vicinity. This would assist in assessing the appropriate bonus floor space to be permitted, according to the proportion of seniors’ living units allowable on the site, after RFS and other matters have been clarified.

 

The DCP should provide setbacks, articulation, varied form and materials, landscaping etc to minimize the relative bulk of the proposed development to all frontages, relating in particular to the neighbouring properties to the south.

 

Filtered views to this 7-storey rear building would also be visible from the golf course, and the ability to supplement trees in the E2 zone to reduce view lines may be limited by bushfire issues, so that any design should be sensitive to this perspective also.

 

The general approach in Lane Cove for apartment developments is to require setbacks for the upper levels, rather than allowing a vertical-wall effect, and this is recommended to be considered within this site’s DCP.

 

Traffic and Access

 

The analysis by Council’s Traffic & Transport Section within the OSUS Division which submitted the application, states that the proposal is supportable on traffic planning grounds.

 

The estimate of up to 100 three-bedroom apartments has been used as an indicative figure representing the maximum likely number of apartments under FSR 1.3:1. Applying that baseline, based on Council’s DCP parking requirements, there is a potential for an additional 225 car spaces (including resident and visitor). The assessment states that “based on trip rates proposed by RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments (October 2002) for ‘Housing for ages and disabled persons’, a development accommodating 100 apartments units for seniors would generate up to 200 vehicle trips per day and up to 40 evening peak hour vehicle trips. This traffic generation would replace the traffic generation that currently exists with the Music and Cultural Centre”.

 

While 100 three bedroom apartments is not considered to be the final number of apartments, it is expected that this may generate 200 vehicle trips per day and up to 40 evening peak hour vehicle trips. The 100 three-bedroom apartment outcome may not be the figure achieved, but represents a reference point for possible traffic impacts.

 

However, it is recommended that an independent traffic assessment be undertaken following Gateway approval, but prior to the formal exhibition commencing, taking into account the traffic impacts of proposals and developments in the precinct generally.

 

Reclassification Process

 

All of one lot and part of the remaining 2 lots are to be reclassified from “community” to “operational” land with reserve status removed (“interests changed”), enabling the units to be leased or sold.

 

In these circumstances relating to Council-owned land, Council is not permitted to use delegated authority to make the LEP amendment, under the NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure’s Guide to Preparing Local Environmental Plans.

 

A Public Hearing will be held after the formal LEP exhibition is completed, as required under the Local Government Act 1993 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 for the reclassification of community land to operational land.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to inform the community and ascertain the level of public support in regards to the Planning Proposal.  Any comments received would be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with the proposal.

 

Consultation is proposed to be undertaken in two stages:-

(i)         Formal exhibition after Gateway approval; and

(ii)        Public Hearing for the reclassification of public land.

 

During the preparation of the Planning Proposal a Public Meeting was held onsite to provide surrounding neighbours with information on the proposal and a section has been included on Council’s website outlining the scheme.

 

Method – Formal Exhibition After Gateway Notification

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Local residents and community associations

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and eNewsletter

Notification Letters

Public Exhibition, Website Exhibition and Public Hearing

Indicative Timing:

6 weeks plus Public Hearing

6 weeks plus Public Hearing

6 weeks plus Public Hearing

 

Conclusion

 

The Planning Proposal to rezone part of 266 Longueville Road from the current open space zoning to permit residential development, and to reclassify that land from community to operational, supports the Major Projects Plan 2007-2016. It is recommended for endorsement by Council, as it aims to provide seniors’ living for the growing population under the Metropolitan Strategy, and the proceeds of leases or sale of units and developer contributions be used to provide further public benefit for Lane Cove, including the development of a Recreation Facility in the locality.

 

It is recommended that a site-specific DCP be prepared for 266 Longueville Rd, while the LEP is on formal exhibition, to provide detailed planning controls for the development’s relationship with residential properties and the public domain, including open space, in the vicinity. This would follow clarification of the appropriate bonus floor space to be permitted, according to the proportion of seniors’ living units allowable on the site, after RFS and other matters have been clarified.

 

It is also recommended that an independent traffic assessment be undertaken following Gateway approval, but prior to the formal exhibition commencing, taking into account the traffic impacts of the site and proposals and developments in the precinct generally.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.       Council adopt the Planning Proposal for submission to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for Gateway approval to rezone the portion of 266 Longueville Rd west of the E2 Environmental Conservation Zone to R4 High Density Residential, with an FSR of 1.1:1 and a height of RL 65.5.

2.       Council commence the process to reclassify the portion of 266 Longueville Rd west of the E2 Environmental Conservation Zone from Community to Operational, with interests changed and reserve status removed, under the Local Government Act 1993 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

3.       Site-specific planning controls be prepared for 266 Longueville Rd for incorporation within the Lane Cove Development Control Plan when the LEP amendment comes into effect.

4.       An independent traffic assessment be undertaken following Gateway approval, but prior to the formal exhibition commencing, taking into account the traffic impacts of the site and proposals and developments in the precinct generally.

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Summary of Don Fox Planning Proposal

4 Pages

Available Online

AT‑2 View

Planning Proposal - Don Fox Planning

46 Pages

Available Online

AT‑3 View

Appendix A Part 1 – Site Survey West                     

1 Page

Available Online

AT‑4 View

Appendix A Part 2 – Site Survey East          

1 Page

Available Online

AT‑5 View

Appendix B – Ecological Impact Assessment           

49 Pages

Available Online

AT‑6 View

Appendix C – Geotech and Environmental Investigation Report

241 Pages

Available Online

AT‑7 View

Appendix D – Bushfire Review Report         

23 Pages

Available Online

AT‑8 View

Appendix E – Economic Feasibility Report   

59 Pages

Available Online

AT‑9 View

Appendix F – Land Reclassification Report - Final   

44 Pages

Available Online

AT‑10 View

Appendix G – SMEC Testing Services – Soil Classification Report  

134 Pages

Available Online

AT‑11 View

Appendix H – Traffic Assessment Statement           

20 Pages

Available Online

AT‑12 View

Planning Proposal Covering Letter from Open Space & Urban Services Division 27 March 2013

2 Pages

AT‑13 View

Major Projects Plan 2007-2016 excerpt

5 Pages


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 April 2013

Nominations for Community Members on Council's Aboriginal Advisory Committee

 

 

Subject:          Nominations for Community Members on Council's Aboriginal Advisory Committee    

Record No:    SU827 - 15657/13

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

During March 2013 Council advertised for nominations for community members for the Aboriginal Advisory Committee. This report details the recommendations of the Council Selection Committee and recommends that Council endorse the recommendations for appointment of community members for the Aboriginal Advisory Committee.

 

Background

 

Council is committed to ensuring the community is informed and encourages community participation in decision making. Council currently operates various Advisory Committees and participates in other committees to engage the community. Council’s Advisory Committees consider and advise on a wide range of local issues by providing a discussion forum for Council representatives, local stakeholders and community members. On 13 March 2013, an advertisement was placed in the Koori Mail (a national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander publication) seeking nominations from members of the community to become community representatives on the Aboriginal Advisory Committee.

 

In addition, information was placed on Council’s website (on the front page and under the ‘News and Events’ section) and E-Newsletters were sent to over 3,500 subscribers via email. Nominees were requested to read Council’s Code of Conduct for Community Members on Council’s Advisory Committees before applying.

 

Discussion

 

The Council Selection Committee met on 8 April 2013 and considered the applications for community members received and has made the following recommendations. All applications  received by Council have been circulated separately to Councillors in full.

 

Aboriginal Advisory Committee

 

The structure for the Aboriginal Advisory Committee provides for eight (8) representatives from Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community, one representative of the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council, one representative of the Northern Sydney Aboriginal Heritage Office, two Aboriginal student representatives, two Aboriginal Elders and one Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander representative from the Lane Cove Residents for Reconciliation. Council received ten (10) nominations and are recommended for endorsement by Council as follows:-

·     Gavin Brown;

·     Dale McLeod;

·     Margret Campbell (Elder);

·     Ricky Lyons (Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council);

·     Peter Michael Shine;

·     Natalie Ahmat;

·     Michelle Dickson;

·     Leslie Shayne McLeod; and

·    Max Harrison (Elder).

St Ignatius Riverview have nominated two Year 11 students to be the student representatives. Council will also contact the Northern Sydney Aboriginal Heritage Office and Lane Cove Residents for Reconciliation to request their representative for the committee.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.   Council endorse Gavin Brown, Dale McLeod, Margret Campbell, Ricky Lyons, Peter Michael Shine, Natalie Ahmat, Michelle Dickson, Leslie Shaynee McLeod and Max Harrison for membership on Council’s Aboriginal Advisory Committee; and

2.   All nominees be advised of Councils’ decision.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 April 2013

Proposed Sister Cities Policy - Consultation Results

 

 

Subject:          Proposed Sister Cities Policy - Consultation Results    

Record No:    SU4964 - 12437/13

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Draft Sister Cities Policy was placed on public exhibition from 11 January to 21 February 2013.  The purpose of this consultation was to provide information about and determine the level of community support for the proposed Sister Cities Policy.  A number of submissions have been received, the majority of which were received through Council’s online survey.  Overall, 66% of respondents indicated they did not feel that formal Sister City relationships could offer long term economic, cultural and social benefits for Lane Cove.  It is recommended that Council give consideration to whether it wishes to proceed with adoption of the policy

 

Background

 

In 2012, Council received representations from the Mayor of Hu Zhou City in China expressing interest in establishing a formal Sister City relationship with Lane Cove.  At its meeting of 19 November 2012 Council 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.”

 

A policy was drafted with the aim of ensuring that Sister City relationships would be 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.  The draft policy was to Council at the Ordinary Meeting of 3 December 2013. As the policy involves the wider community and possible Council expenditure, it was resolved 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.”

 

Discussion

 

The Draft Sister Cities Policy was placed on public exhibition from 11 January to 21 February 2013.  Council received 49 responses to the online survey and one (1) paper survey was submitted in addition to seven (7) written submissions and one (1) late written submission.

 

Council’s survey can be broken down into the following categories:-

·    Overall support;

·    Aims of a Sister City relationship;

·    Initiatives that could be undertaken as part of a Sister City relationship;

·    The process for establishing new Sister City relationships;

·    Expenditure related to travelling and other associated costs of a Sister City relationship; and

·    The number of Sister City relationships considered appropriate, if any.

 

A number of ‘Yes / No’ questions were asked to ascertain the general level of support for these different categories.  Follow up questions allowing additional comments were then included to allow respondents to provide additional information on their perspectives.  A number of comments were received in response to the various categories of questions asked in the survey, these are outlined below.  A more comprehensive overview of the survey responses has been circulated to Councillors separately.

 

Overall Support

When asked if they felt that formal Sister City relationships could offer long term economic, cultural and social benefits for Lane Cove, 66% of respondents indicated they did not feel that formal Sister City relationships could offer long term economic, cultural and social benefits for Lane Cove.

Aims of a Sister City Relationship

Council’s draft policy provides that Council will support the establishment of formal relationships that will:-

 

·    Generate harmony, tolerance and goodwill; Allow for the sharing of ideas, knowledge and values;

·    Promote understanding and enhance awareness of the respective regions and their cultures, customs and traditions; Encourage economic and social exchange by:-

Assisting in developing reliable contacts through all sectors of the community; and

Bringing together like interest groups in each region;

·    Foster close civic friendships with other local authorities; and

·    Increase understanding of international, national, state, and local government issues.

 


When asked if they agreed with these aims 42% of respondents agreed and 58% disagreed.

 

 

When asked if they could propose any alternative aims that should be considered the comments received could be broken down into the following categories:-

Expressing concerns regarding cost (waste of resources)

9

 

Don’t support a Sister City relationship with China

4

 

Don’t support Sister Cities at all

1

 

Recommend considering a different culture / area

3

Domestic, Cities w/ hazardous industry challenges, Aboriginal / European Cultures

Don’t perceive Sister City relationship will offer any worthwhile benefits

6

 

Recommending practical / quantifiable outcomes / actions be implemented

2

Generally, Humanitarian

Outdated concept / not required due to globalisation and the internet

4

 

Recommending alternative methods of obtaining same outcomes

4

 

Expressing doubt of motives

4

 

Recommending associated costs be carefully controlled and maximum transparency

1

 

Expressing concern the policy will result in discrimination

1

 

Focus on local government issues

4

 

Recommends amendment to proposed policy

3

 

 


Initiatives that Could be Undertaken as Part of a Sister City Relationship

 

The sorts of initiatives supported by this draft policy include civic exchanges, cultural and education exchanges, commerce and trade exchanges, sporting exchanges, and encouraging interaction and involvement between the young people of each region.

 

When asked if they agreed with these initiatives 34% of respondents agreed and 66% disagreed.

 

 

When asked if they could had any further comments regarding the aims and initiatives outlined in the policy the comments received could be broken down into the following categories:-

Expressing concerns regarding cost (waste of resources)

12

 

Don’t support a Sister City relationship with China

2

 

Don’t support Sister Cities at all

3

 

Recommend considering a different culture / area

1

Aboriginal / European Cultures

Don’t perceive Sister City relationship will offer any worthwhile benefits

7

 

Recommending practical / quantifiable outcomes / actions be implemented

3

Literacy and Education, Education, Youth Exchange

Outdated concept / Not required due to globalisation and the internet

1

 

Recommending alternative methods of obtaining same outcomes

1

 

Expressing doubt of motives

3

 

Expressing concern the policy will result in discrimination

3

 

Focus on local government issues

6

 

Recommend further research be undertaken

1

 

Recommends amendment to proposed policy

2

 

 


The Process for Establishing New Sister City Relationships

 

Then draft policy outlined the proposed procedure for the establishment of new Sister City relationships. It was proposed that, prior to establishing any formal Sister City relationships, a report shall be prepared for Council’s consideration which outlines the potential economic, cultural and social benefits for Lane Cove as well as indicative annual costs. In formalising any relationship it was proposed that a formal heads of agreement, such as a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’, be entered into with the Sister City which outlines the aims and objectives of the arrangement and level of commitment by both parties.

 

When asked if they supported this process 46% of respondents agreed and 52% disagreed.

 

 

When asked if they had any other comments regarding this process the comments received from respondents could be broken down into the following categories:-

 

Expressing concerns regarding cost (waste of resources)

13

Don’t support a Sister City relationship with China

2

Do not support

3

In support of Sister City concept

2

Recommend considering a different culture / area

2

Recommends amendment to proposed policy

2

Outdated concept / Not required due to globalisation and the internet

1

Expressing doubt of motives

1

Make process transparent and account for all expenditure

3

Focus on local government issues

4

 


Expenditure Related to Travelling and Other Associated Costs of a Sister City Relationship

 

In terms of costs, it was 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.

 

When asked if they considered it reasonable for the delegate to pay their own travel related expenses 84% of respondents agreed and 16% disagreed.  Of those who disagreed 37.5% felt Lane Cove Council should be responsible for the travel related expenses and 62.5% indicated that they did not believe it necessary to send delegates to Sister Cities at all.

 

 

I don’t believe it is necessary to send delegates to Sister Cities.

 

 

Council acknowledged that visitors from other cities or regions may lead to costs being incurred by Council in hosting any civic receptions, meals, morning and afternoon teas and the like.  When asked if they thought this expenditure was appropriate 36% of respondents agreed and 62% disagreed.


 

When asked what they thought the limit to expenditure of this type should be the comments received from respondents could be broken down into the following categories:-

 

Limit Indicated

No. of Responses

 

$0

25

 

Minimal

6

e.g. basic necessities only.

$500

1

 

$1,000

1

 

$2,000

1

 

$5,000

2

 

As determined appropriate by Council

3

 

Don't know

3

 

Other

1

Current gazetted sustenance expense is as published by the NSW Public Service

 

When asked if they had any further comments regarding expenses associated with Sister City relationships the comments received from respondents could be broken down into the following categories:-

 

Expressing concerns regarding cost (waste of resources)

13

Do not support expenditure

5

Recommending further research / trial / analysis to substantiate if beneficial

2

Expressing concerns regarding ‘gift giving’ and equity of relationships

3

Supporting Council covering costs of travel

1

Don’t perceive Sister City relationship will offer any worthwhile benefits

3

Recommending practical / quantifiable outcomes / actions be implemented

1

Recommending alternative methods of obtaining same outcomes

1

Recommending consideration of sponsorship of these expenses by private enterprises / businesses

1

Expressing doubt of motives

3

Recommending associated costs be carefully controlled / maximum transparency

3

Focus on local government issues

5

The Number of Sister City Relationships Considered Appropriate

 

When asked if they thought there should be a limit to the number of Sister City relationships established 92% of respondents agreed and 2% disagreed.

 

 

 

Those who responded ‘Yes’ were then asked what they thought this limit should be. The comments received from respondents could be broken down into the following categories:-

 

Limit Indicated

No. of Responses

0

26

1

7

2

2

3

3

Greater than 3

3

Other

4

Not Sure

1

 

Additional Comments

 

When asked if they had any other comments regarding the establishment of Sister City relationships, the comments received from respondents could be broken down into the following categories:-

 

Expressing concerns regarding cost (waste of resources)

12

Don’t support a Sister City relationship with China

5

Don’t support Sister Cities at all

8

In support of Sister City concept

2

Recommend considering a different culture / area

3

Don’t perceive Sister City relationship will offer any worthwhile benefits

5

Recommending practical / quantifiable outcomes / actions be implemented

1

Outdated concept / Not required due to globalisation and the internet

3

Recommending alternative methods of obtaining same outcomes

1

Recommending associated costs be carefully controlled / maximum transparency

1

Expressing concern the policy will result in discrimination

1

Focus on local government issues

8

Recommending further research / trial / analysis to substantiate if beneficial

5

Not appropriate for Lane Cove

3

 

A summary of the issues raised in the seven (7) written submission and one (1) late submission are outlined as follows:-

1

Expressing concerns regarding cost (waste of resources)

2

Expressing doubt of motives

Recommend considering a different culture / area (Brittain)

3

Not appropriate for Lane Cove

4

Expressing concerns regarding cost (waste of resources)

Focus on local government issues

5

In support of the proposal

6

Expressing concerns regarding cost (waste of resources)

Recommending associated costs be carefully controlled / maximum transparency

7

Expressing concerns regarding cost (waste of resources)

Recommending using digital communication methods to facilitate any relationship

Late

Does not support the proposal

 

Some minor amendments were suggested to the draft policy including:-

·    Amending the word 'tolerance' in the first aim to either 'acceptance' or 'understanding’;

·    Including the aim - ‘Fostering connections between the schools of the Sister Cities’;

·    Including a statement regarding Council supporting the establishment of formal relationships with other cities and regions which have a vision and goal to develop sustainability in order to encourage environmental sustainability and exchange of know how;

·    Specifying further the reference to ‘sharing resources’ mentioned in the draft policy- i.e. what this might mean in practice and the inclusion of examples;

·    Inclusion of a mechanism that prevents resources needed for local purposes being diverted;

·    Inclusion of a proviso about gift sharing and the use of resources (both staff time and use of public funds);

·    Inclusion of an additional requirement when choosing who to enter into a relationship with related to how appropriate that relationship would be considering factors such as population size;

·    Limiting the number of Sister City relationships and considering the number of sister cities any proposed new partners may already have; and

·    Implementing a legal contract including clauses that cover the consequences for breaches to any agreements.

 

Five (5) amendments have been made to the policy as a result of these suggestions and matters raised in the public submissions and the Amended Draft Sister Cities Policy is shown attached as AT-1.

 

Conclusion

 

A number of submissions were received regarding the Draft Sister Cities Policy.  The submissions have been reviewed and a majority are opposed to the concept of a Sister City program and hence the adoption of this policy.  Recurrent issues include concerns regarding the resources required for such a program, the perceived lack of benefits these sort of programs would offer the community, doubt over motives behind this sort of program / relationship, the fact that the concept is outdated and unnecessary in the modern age of globalisation and the internet, that it is not applicable at a local government level (or for Lane Cove specifically) and that Council should focus its attention on local issues and core infrastructure.  The Draft Sister Cities Policy has been amended to help address some of the issues raised.  It is recommended that Council determine whether it wishes to proceed with the adoption of the Amended Draft Sister Cities Policy dated 21 November 2012.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council determine whether it wishes to proceed with the adoption of the Amended Draft Sister Cities Policy dated 21 November 2012 and shown attached as AT-1.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Amended Draft Sister Cities Policy - 21 November 2012

1 Page

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 April 2013

No Smoking Legislative Changes - Signage Strategy

 

 

Subject:          No Smoking Legislative Changes - Signage Strategy    

Record No:    SU3598 - 16382/13

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      David Wilson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting of the 18 February 2013, Council resolved to receive a signage strategy to address the changes in Smoking Legislation.

 

Three signage options have been investigated for the Lane Cove CBD and it is proposed that for the consistency of our branding of this initiative, that the “Lets Clear the Air” design be used for signage around the Lane Cove CBD.

 

Signs will be installed at key entry points around the Lane Cove locality to promote the changes to Councils No Smoking Policy and to the NSW Legislation.

 

Background

 

In 2007 Council adopted the Passive Smoking Policy (U01013) in response to concerns regarding adverse impact of passive smoking on the community. At this time, the position taken by Council was both progressive and innovative and reflected the desire of our community to have smoke free public areas including the commercial area of Lane Cove, public parks and bushland.

 

It should be noted that in 2008 this Policy received a Highly Commended Heart Foundation Award at the Local Government & Shires Association Awards.  In the submission for the award it was highlighted by Council that it was in a unique position in having a plaza area which is highly used by the community. This area was able to be made smoke free being Council owned and the implementation of the Policy was able to be integrated with approvals for outdoor dining areas.

 

Over the past 5+ years many Councils have adopted similar Policies to address passive smoking. As a result of further campaigning by the Cancer Council and support of local government across NSW, the NSW Government developed the NSW Tobacco Strategy 2012-2017 and enacted the Tobacco Legislation Amendment Act 2012 that provides a greater level of consistency across NSW in relation to the regulation of smoking.

 

In anticipation of increased public awareness of the legislation, Council placed additional ‘No Smoking Area’ signs in the high pedestrian areas of Lane Cove shopping precinct in December 2012 to complement the existing signage that is located at all entry points to the Plaza, to remind people that they cannot smoke in these precincts.

 

In February 2013, Council amended its No Smoking Policy to incorporate these legislative changes and to also incorporate restrictions for enclosed car parks and areas around the Lane Cove Library.

 

Discussion

 

Currently Council has no smoking signs located at each entry point to the Plaza. These three (3) signs have been recently complemented by installing No Smoking Signs on the posts surrounding the artificial grass play area, around the seating areas along Library Walk and in the seating area in adjacent to the entry point from Birdwood Lane. These additional signs seek to remind those that wish to smoke that it is prohibited in these areas and there has been a significant reduction in complaints being lodged by members of the community in regard to nuisance smokers in and around the Plaza.

From observation of the Plaza, it is apparent that smoking by pedestrians walking through the Plaza and along Longueville Road is relatively low in frequency and it would appear that the caution & move on approach adopted by Council has been effective in managing this issue.

The changes in the No Smoking legislation, seek to achieve a greater level of consistency across the State in terms of pedestrian behaviour and as such it is envisaged that a greater level of awareness will occur as knowledge of these changes become more widespread over time.

 

The options that are proposed to update our current no smoking signage are:-

 

1.   A variation of the “Lets Clear the Air” brochure that will be posted to each household with the latest rates notice. A copy will also be given to each commercial premise in the Lane Cove CBD (AT-1). It should be noted that this sign layout is a draft, but this version provides a basic layout of the style, colours and graphics of what is proposed.

 

The use of the “Lets Clear the Air” design will provide a level of consistency with the brochure and highlight a brand that the community will relate to.

 

2.   NSW Health poster attached as AT-2.  This design will provide a greater level of consistency with surrounding localities and future promotions that will be undertaken by NSW Health

 

3.   Standard No Smoking sign (red circle) attached as AT-3.  This design does not rely on words to communicate the message. The sign is an internationally accepted design and conveys the message that smoking is prohibited to members of the community that are both English and Non English Speaking.

 

The three signage options will target different groups and with the number of signs in and around the Plaza, a point of difference for such a campaign needs to be found.

 

Conclusion

 

To promote the legislative and policy changes, it is proposed to erect signs in the areas as defined in AT-1. Appropriate locations will be found to have the signs erected at the key entry points to high pedestrian areas including but not limited to:-

·    Key entry point to the Plaza and surrounding the Library;

·    Intersection of Longueville Road and Little Street (Longueville Hotel);

·    Intersection of Longueville Road and Birdwood Avenue;

·    Intersection of Longueville Road and Austin Street;

·    Intersection of Longueville Road and Central Avenue;

·    Intersection of Burns Bay Road and Tambourine Bay Road; and

·    Birdwood Lane and entry points to the various arcades.

 

It is proposed that Council distribute the “Lets Clear the Air” brochure (AT-1) to commercial premises, along with the standard ‘No Smoking’ sign (AT-3) to attach to their shop fronts.


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   The “Lets Clear the Air” design be used for the no smoking signage in the Lane Cove CBD and surrounding areas; and

 

2.   The signage strategy be implemented as outlined in the report.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Lets Clear the Air  - Draft Sign Design

2 Pages

AT‑2 View

NSW Health No Smoking Poster/Sign Design

1 Page

AT‑3 View

No Smoking Symbol

1 Page

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 April 2013

Nature Strip Planting on Greenwich Rd

 

 

Subject:          Nature Strip Planting on Greenwich Rd    

Record No:    SU4855 - 11543/13

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Susan Butler 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The residents at 90 Greenwich Rd planted five (5) ornamental pear trees and 45 box hedge plants on the nature strip outside the property.  In February 2012, Council issued an Order to the residents requiring all plant material, mulch etc must be removed from the nature strip area in front of the property and for turf to be established in the affected area following removal of all landscape materials and vegetation.  The residents requested that the planting as it is be retained.  In April 2012 Council resolved to defer a decision on this nature strip planting until a Policy for Planting or Landscaping of Nature Strips was adopted.  Council’s Policy for Planting or Landscaping of Nature Strips was adopted on 19 November 2012.  The planting outside 90 Greenwich Rd is inconsistent with this Policy and so the Order should now be enforced.

 

Background

 

The nature strip planting outside 90 Greenwich Rd was done following the completion of the building works at 90 Greenwich Rd and replaced a bottlebrush street tree that was damaged during construction.  This planting consists of five (5) ornamental pear trees and 45 box hedge plants.  Three (3) pear trees and some of the box plants are planted on the verge either side of the entry path between the footpath and the kerb and another two (2) pear trees with box plants are planted in the garden area between the footpath and the front fence opposite the entry path. 

 

Discussion

 

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

 

In September 2011, Council issued a Notice under Section 124 of the Local Government Act 1993 requiring the residents “to remove these plants on the grounds that the landscape works established on Council land are causing an encroachment on the nature strip area adjacent to the property and the encroachment is not authorised by or under any Act.”  This work was not done and the residents responded with a list of 106 addresses and some photographs from the surrounding area where there are other nature strip plantings.  Council staff inspected the 106 addresses provided and found that in the vast majority the landscaped areas were low growing, strap-leafed plants, typically agapanthus, dianella, clivea and other herbs and/low shrubs, planted in the narrow strip between the front fence and the footpath, with grass and street tree on the kerb side of the footpath.  There were a small number of nature strips with plants on both sides of the footpath. 

 

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

 

The residents at 90 Greenwich Rd then requested that the planting as it is be retained. They were concerned that they were being targeted unfairly and have provided a petition signed by 63 residents in Greenwich requesting the retention of their nature strip planting.  The petition was referred to the Council of 16 April 2012. Council resolved at this meeting to defer a decision on the nature strip planting at 90 Greenwich Rd until a Policy for Planting or Landscaping of Nature Strips was adopted.

 

A Draft Policy for Planting or Landscaping of Nature Strips was endorsed at the Council meeting on 16 July 2012 for the purpose of public exhibition.  The policy sets out the standards for planting or landscaping of nature strips in order to maintain an overall consistency and appearance of the nature strips so that they are kept in a safe, clean, healthy and attractive condition.  One of Council’s concerns has been the alienation of public land, where public land including nature strips is being made to look like private land and/or used for private purpose.  Other matter are the effect on access to kerbside parking, the effect on access to adjacent properties, the effect on access along the street to the general public and public liability issues. Photographs of the area are shown attached as AT-1.

 

The Policy for Planting or Landscaping of Nature Strips was adopted on 19 November 2012 and is shown attached at AT-2.

 

Conclusion

 

The landscaping outside 90 Greenwich Rd is inconsistent with Council’s Policy for Planting or Landscaping of Nature Strips.  The five (5) ornamental pear trees and understorey box hedge plants should be removed as they are not appropriate for the streetscape and not in the interest of public safety or convenience. 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council proceeds with enforcing the Order for the removal of all plant material, mulch etc from the nature strip area in front of the property at 90 Greenwich Rd.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Photographs showing nature strip planting at 90 Greenwich Rd

1 Page

AT‑2 View

Nature Strip Planting Policy

3 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 April 2013

Competition to Rename the Lane Cove Seniors Centre

 

 

Subject:          Competition to Rename the Lane Cove Seniors Centre    

Record No:    SU129 - 16549/13

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Carol Sinclair 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

On 4 March 2013 a report was made to Council suggesting the name of the building at 180 Longueville Road, ‘The Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother Centenary Centre’ commonly known as the ‘Seniors Centre’ be changed to reflect the current and future use of the centre.

 

At this meeting Council resolved to:-

“1.     Hold a competition to find a new name that accurately reflects the use of the Lane Cove Seniors Centre; and

2.       A full report on the suggested name be brought back to Council’s Selection Committee and then brought to Council

 

Discussion

 

The competition to find a new name for the seniors centre was advertised on the Council Website, in the autumn issue of the ‘Lane Cove Council News’ and in the March issue of the seniors newsletter, ‘The Lane Cove Connection’.  Applications were received until close of business on Tuesday 3 April.

 

A total of 18 names were received as shown below:-

·        Lane Cove Cultural Centre;

·        Lane Cove Village Centre;

·        Lane Cove Living and Learning Centre;

·        Lane Cove Learning Centre;

·        Lane Cove Community Hub;

·        Lane Cove Village Community Centre;

·        The Cameraygal Community Centre;

·        Lane Cove Lifestyle Centre;

·        Lane Cove Time Out Centre;

·        Lane Cove Leisure Centre;

·        Lane Cove Vitality Centre;

·        Lane Cove Serendipity Centre;

·        Lane Cove Network Centre;

·        Lane Cove Hub Building;

·        The Lane Cove Hub;

·        Governor Marie Bashir Centre;

·        The Queen Mother Community Centre; and

·        Claudia Leach Inclusive Seniors and Community Centre

 

Conclusion

The above names have been submitted for Council’s consideration. Following discussion and consideration at the Council Selection Committee Meeting, it is recommended that Council rename the Centre the ‘Lane Cove Living and Learning Centre’.


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council rename the Lane Cove Seniors Centre the ‘Lane Cove Living and Learning Centre’.

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 April 2013

Christmas Lights Competition

 

 

Subject:          Christmas Lights Competition    

Record No:    SU4985 - 16702/13

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Corinne Dickinson 

 

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to respond to a Notice of Motion at the Council Meeting of 18 March 2013 to provide a report on the suitability of having a Christmas Lighting Street Competition. It is recommended that Council organise a Christmas Lights Competition.

 

Background

 

Christmas celebrations in Lane Cove take place during Council’s annual Sunset in the Village Festival.  Each year Council organises the Lighting of the Christmas Tree event which includes live entertainment and switching on the Christmas Tree lights in the Plaza.  Other events during this time include Lane Cove ALIVE’s Christmas window-dressing competition, the Combined Churches Christmas Carols and community-run Christmas parties in local parks and community venues.  At the meeting on 15 March Council requested a report on the option of local residents participating in a street lighting competition at Christmas

 

Christmas Light Competitions

 

During Christmas, many homes across Sydney are decorated in colourful lights as a sign of their Christmas spirit. At times, entire streets join together to participate and families enjoy discovering the ‘best’ lights in the lead up to Christmas.

 

In some neighbourhoods homes, businesses and entire streets are encouraged to participate through a Christmas lights competition. A variety of different organisations have initiated competitions including radio and newspaper outlets, businesses, charities and Councils.

 

In Sydney’s north, light competitions have been run through the Hills Shire Council’s Deck the Hills competition and, the Light Up Willoughby competition. Light Up Willoughby was an initiative of local businesses in Willoughby established in 2012. It was open to residents across the North Shore, including Lane Cove, and was supported by the North Shore Times.

 

The scale of competitions and their structure vary depending on the organisation it is initiated by. Almost all involve a submission by the resident and voting takes place either by judging or popular vote. Entries are usually received by the beginning of December with winners announced just prior to Christmas or early in January.

 

Council-run competitions, both interstate and in regional NSW, generally provide for additional areas of consideration such as safety, signage and extra categories for winners that are consistent with other Council initiatives such as sustainability. Those arranged by businesses or media-agencies ask for submissions or nominations and generally focus on coverage of the winning houses just prior to Christmas.

 

Lists of the best lights in Sydney often feature independent of the street light competitions through publication on tourism/event websites and newspaper features.

 

Discussion

 

Council is keen to provide residents with opportunities to promote community spirit. Some residents may already decorate their house with lights and many may have considered doing so. A Christmas Lights competition in Lane Cove offers local residents a chance to explore other areas within the municipality, meet neighbours and share in the spirit of the festive season.

 

Some key considerations would need to be integrated into the format of the competition. This includes addressing the opportunity for multi unit dwellings to get involved as almost half of the homes in Lane Cove are units.

 

Also, as many streets within Lane Cove are quite narrow and increased traffic may be generated by those visiting homes participating in the competition, local traffic impacts will need to be monitored. This would be dependent on the location of the lights throughout the municipality and will not be known until participating homes register closer to the event.

 

This event should complement other festive celebrations taking place and could be used as an opportunity to cross-promote or link to the lighting of the Christmas Tree in the Plaza as a launch or similar occasion.

 

In some competitions a principal sponsor has either provided media coverage or a prize to the winning home(s). Prizes ranged from movie vouchers in some competitions and up to $1,000 cash or vouchers from sponsors in other examples. As this is a Council-run event it is suggested that the naming rights stay with Council but that sponsorship of prizes or similar promotion is considered. Judging should therefore also involve members of Council, in partnership with any sponsor bodies or representatives from suitable organisations.

 

Popular voting would be difficult to manage for all categories and one solution could be to have a ‘People’s Choice’ category amongst the broader categories. A general prize draw for those who vote may also assist in promoting participation in the competition

 

Conclusion

 

A Christmas Light Competition would complement other Christmas activities taking place in Lane Cove during the festive season.  The competition should be open to all residents and businesses in the local area with categories that ensure the event is accessible to those living in units and complement Council’s existing work with residents on energy-efficiency. Categories should be judged by a panel consisting of Councillors and any affiliated sponsors with one category for ‘Most Popular’ which can be voted by the community. Nominations and voting would take place through Council’s website.

 

Promotion of the event would predominantly be through Council’s website. This would also include a map of the location of those lights registered by the resident/owner.

 

It is anticipated that the majority of costs associated with running this event would be staff time with direct costs being associated with the prizes, advertising and promotional material. If prizes of up to $1,500 value can be sourced through sponsorship then the competition promotion and advertising would likely amount to $5,000.  

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council organise a Christmas Lights competition for Lane Cove residents.

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 April 2013

RecycleSmart Household Waste Diversion Research

 

 

Subject:          RecycleSmart Household Waste Diversion Research    

Record No:    SU4929 - 15543/13

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Richard Li 

 

 

Executive Summary 

 

This report provides an overview of a study program proposed by RecycleSmart Pty Ltd to conduct a three (3) month research program within Lane Cove Local Government Area. The research program would provide valuable information on the effectiveness of an incentive program to increase household waste diversion rates. The program would also allow Council to refine its own waste education programs. It is recommended that Council support a three (3) month trial of this research program.

 

Background

 

Council recently received a proposal to participate in a research program to study the effectiveness of an incentive reward system on household waste diversion behaviour. RecycleSmart, a local environmental education company, designed the program to encourage residents to increase waste diversion at the source. In order to further refine the program methodology, RecycleSmart requires real live data from a suburban residential cluster. The dataset collected from the research would assist in gauging the perceptions of such a program from the participants. Waste disposal data collected over the research period would assist Council in determining whether such program would have positive impact on waste diversion behavior.

 

Positive feedback from the research would also allow RecycleSmart to engage a wider variety of reward sponsors.

 

The proposal asks Council to allow RecycleSmart to approach residents in a pre-determined area and encourage residents to sign up to the research program. Should the research project be undertaken, all program costs would be borne by RecycleSmart.

 

Council and RecycleSmart would share the information collected from the program. Evaluation of the collected data would allow Council to refine its current waste education programs and promotions and enhance our future environmental education programs.

 

Discussion

 

Program Structure

 

Time Period:                           May 2013 – August 2013

 

Targeted Area:                        Single Unit Dwellings (Houses) located in the Lane Cove Local                   Government Area.

 

Number of Residencies:         Approximately 400 households to be invited to participate in the                                                      program

The program would start with a mail out by Council with a RecycleSmart program brochure. The Council letter will describe Councils initiatives on waste diversion and briefly introduce the research opportunity. The RecycleSmart brochure would explain how the program will work, how the resident can sign up to the survey and also the rewards for participating in the program.

Participants who sign up to the program would receive barcode labels which are used to track their recycling performance. The barcodes are attached to each waste bin and are used to identify each participant in the program.

RecycleSmart would then conduct routine waste bin audits over the survey period and depending on the contamination rate of the recycling bin, they notify the residents of their performance.

 

Rewards:         $20 Rewards Cards for the initial signing up to the program, and $ 10 Rewards Cards thereafter for three month if the resident maintains a satisfactory recycling performance.

 

Performances Measure

 

The measurement of recycling efforts is based on a combination of visual inspection and improvement in recycling behavior. The current research methodology uses a penalty point system.

 

Participants would be notified of any contamination in their recycling bins, such as the presence of plastic bags, food waste etc via email or SMS. One penalty point would be given to the particular participant for each contamination occurrence.

 

Once a participant accumulates three (3) penalty points, the current month’s reward card (during this research period, the amount is set as $10) would be forfeited.

 

Performance Aim

 

The aim of the auditing process as well as the recurring monthly reward cards is to encourage residents to continuously monitor and improve their own recycling behavior.

It is hoped that the financial incentive offered through such program can be used to assist in designing future waste education campaigns through Council.

 

Council’s Contribution

 

Council’s waste management officer would collect weekly waste collection and disposal data based on the study area.

 

This data would be maintained in a spreadsheet for data analyse purpose when the research is concluded.

 

Should Council agree to this research project, Council would share the collected data with RecycleSmart, who would then use this data to further refine their reward and audit system.

RecycleSmart has agreed to share with Council the evaluation of the collected data at the conclusion of the research program.

 

Cost of the Program

 

Should the research program be undertaken, RecycleSmart would cover the cost of the program, including designing, printing and advertising of the community letters; the cost of the bar codes; the cost for the reward cards; and any labour costs associated with the auditing of the bin systems.

Council would not pay for any of the program costs occurred during the research period. Council would not be obliged to participate in any further research following the conclusion of the 3 month trial.

 

Conclusion

 

Increasing waste diversion from landfill is a key objective of Council’s operations. In order to increase Councils waste diversion rate options and meet the NSW Government’s target diversion rate of 66%, there is a need to investigate innovative and new methodologies to approach this challenging issue. Council’s current waste diversion rate is between 40% and 45%.

 

The research opportunity proposed by RecycleSmart would allow Council to obtain valuable data to gauge and assist in Council’s planning and development of future waste education programs, at no cost to Council.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.       Council endorse the three (3) months Household Waste Diversion Research Program proposed by RecycleSmart Pty. Ltd.

2.       A report be submitted to Council at the conclusion of the 3 month trial on the outcomes of the research program.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 April 2013

Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 26 March 2013

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 26 March 2013    

Record No:    SU1326 - 16225/13

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Tim Sullivan 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday, 26 March 2013.  The Agenda is included as AT-1.  The Traffic Committee recommendations are shown in the Minutes of the Meeting, included as AT-2.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the recommendations of the Lane Cove Traffic Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 26 March 2013.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Agenda - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 26 March 2013

34 Pages

AT‑2 View

Minutes - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 26 March 2013

6 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 April 2013

Draft Lane Cove River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan

 

 

Subject:          Draft Lane Cove River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan    

Record No:    SU3598 - 15731/13

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Susan Butler 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has worked in partnership with Hunters Hill Council, the City of Ryde and Willoughby City Council on the preparation of the Draft Lane Cove River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP). BMT WBM Pty Ltd was engaged to prepare the Draft CZMP, which is now ready for public exhibition.

 

Due to the size of the Draft CZMP it has been attached electronically and is available online.

 

Background

 

The Lane Cove River Estuary is the tidal part of the river between the weir at Lane Cove National Park and the mouth of the river between Greenwich Point and Clarkes Point at Woolwich. The four Estuary Councils are Lane Cove, Hunters Hill, the City of Ryde and Willoughby City.

 

The Lane Cove River is a highly valued estuary within the Sydney Metropolitan Area close to the CBD. It preserves significant ecological value and also acts as a resource for a variety of recreational pursuits. Although the estuary and its catchment have undergone considerable environmental change since European settlement in the 1790s, large sections of the estuary and its shoreline still remain as an important natural remnant in an urban setting. This association of natural and urban environments surrounding the Lane Cove River Estuary demands that special management considerations are made to ensure the long term balance and sustainability of this precious resource.

 

Discussion

 

In order to address these problems and help improve the health of the Lane Cove River, Council in partnership with Hunters Hill Council, the City of Ryde and Willoughby City Council engaged consultants BMT WBM Pty Ltd to prepare a CZMP,  in accordance with the NSW Government’s Guidelines for Preparation of Coastal Zone Management Plans (2010). This was undertaken with technical and financial support from the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and the member Councils.  Due to the size of the Draft CZMP it has been attached electronically at AT-1 and can be viewed online.

 

The Draft CZMP is a strategic level document which presents a coordinated and integrated approach to address many of the issues facing the estuary and to protect its important values. It provides the four Estuary Councils with a targeted list of actions to improve the health of the estuary. It also provides an opportunity for the Councils to apply for state and federal government grant funding to implement actions.

 

The Draft CZMP has the following five (5) aims:-

1.   Water Quality - To optimise water quality within the Lane Cove River Estuary and its tributaries;

2.   Climate Change - To plan for and adapt to the potential impacts of climate change on the natural and built environments of the estuary;

3.   Aquatic and Riparian Habitat - To protect, enhance and restore aquatic habitats and foreshore vegetation;

4.   Foreshore Protection - To manage existing built foreshore assets while maximising environmental values and minimise negative impacts of development on catchment and waterway health; and

5.   Estuary Health Monitoring and Evaluation - To develop and support coordinated monitoring, reporting and evaluation programs for the Lane Cove River Estuary.

 

A review of the previous Lane Cove River Estuary Management Plan 2004 was done as part of the preparation of the CZMP. The Draft CZMP also includes a number of actions that had been identified previously in a number of preliminary studies and reports that had been undertaken in recent years to provide more detailed information on the estuary. These are:-

 

Saltmarsh Management Tools for the Lane Cove River Estuary, April 2010, prepared by Applied Ecology. This consists of a Saltmarsh Planning Manual, Saltmarsh Monitoring Manual, Saltmarsh Site Assessment Manual and 4 maps.

 

Lane Cove River Estuary Recreation and Public Health Facilities Needs Study, July 2011, prepared by Gondwana Consulting.

 

Lane Cove River – Our Backyard, Lane Cove River Estuary Community Education Kit, prepared by T Issues Consultancy & terra cordis, undated

 

The Draft Plan includes a Strategic Action Plan based on defined packets of works including ongoing actions, policy driven actions, works driven actions and funding dependent actions. The Strategic Action Plan also identifies the ‘approach’ of action, indicating the department or section of the Councils that would nominally be given the responsibility for implementation. These include:

·     Strategic Planning and Development Controls;

·     Engineering Works and Asset Management;

·     Communications and Education;

·     Recreation and Heritage;

·     Environmental Planning;

·     Environmental Rehabilitation and Monitoring; and

·     Compliance.

 

The Draft CZMP is now ready for public exhibition. It will be placed on exhibition in all four Local Government Areas concurrently for a period of 6 weeks, with an indicative exhibition period of Monday 13 May through to Friday 21 June 2013, subject to confirmation from the other Councils. Advertisements will be placed in the local newspapers that cover the four Local Government Areas.

 

Members of the public are invited to comment on the plan by providing submissions in writing, that are as detailed and specific as possible.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to determine if there are any necessary modifications to be made to the Draft CZMP. Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated by relevant staff from the four Estuary Councils and the consultants to determine if there are any changes to be made to the Plan prior to its adoption by the four (4) councils.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Involve

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Key Message givers eg. Rowing and sailing clubs, local residents associations

Sustainability and Bushland Management Advisory Committees

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement in the North Shore Times, Public exhibition, community newsletters and eNewsletter

Notification Letters

Worshop

Public Exhibition and

Website Exhibition

 

Indicative Timing

Public exhibition from Monday 13 May to Friday 21 June 2013

 

Conclusion

 

The Draft CZMP has been prepared in line with the requirements set out in the NSW Government’s Guidelines for Preparation of Coastal Zone Management Plans (2010). It will be on public exhibition for 6 weeks in the four Estuary Council areas simultaneously. Advertisements inviting interested parties to have their say will be placed in the local papers that service the four Local Government Areas.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.       Adopt the Draft Lane Cove River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan dated March 2013 for the purposes of public exhibition.

2.       Place the Draft Lane Cove River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan on public exhibition for 6 weeks in accordance with the Consultation Strategy outlined in the report.

3.       Receive a further report following the exhibition period to consider the results of the community consultation.

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Lane Cove River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan March 2013

181 Pages

Available Online

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 April 2013

Amended Privacy Management Plan

 

 

Subject:          Amended Privacy Management Plan    

Record No:    SU981 - 15863/13

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Division of Local Government has released a Revised Model Privacy Management Plan for NSW councils.  Council has subsequently reviewed and amended its Privacy Management Plan in accordance with the Revised Model Privacy Management Plan. It is recommended that Council adopt the amended Plan.

 

 Discussion

 

The purpose of a Privacy Management Plan is to guide Council in managing the collection, usage and storage of personal information obtained by Council in its business activities.  The Plan includes guiding principles and definitions in respect of privacy issues, as well as acknowledges the type of personal information held and access and use provisions. Council was advised that a Revised Model Privacy Management Plan for NSW councils has been released by the Division of Local Government (Circular 13-03).  Part of the expectation of the release is that Council will revise its Privacy Management Plan and send a copy of the revised Plan to the Privacy Commissioner once adopted.  The amended Privacy Management Plan dated 15 April 2013 is shown attached as AT-1.

 

Council has had a Privacy Management Plan since 2000, with the most recent revision being in 2010 to incorporate the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 which came into effect at that time.  The new Model Privacy Management Plan has incorporated the Health Privacy Principles from the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002, in addition to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009. 

 

As with the Model Code of Conduct recently adopted by Council, additional requirements and clarification has been added to the Model Privacy Management Plan in order to better reflect  Council’s current practice, these changes are highlighted in red and italics in the Plan.

 

Community Consultation

 

No community consultation is required as this is an internal policy.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Adopt the Amended Privacy Management Plan dated 15 April 2013 and shown attached as AT-1 and update Council’s Policy Manual; and

2.   Send a copy of the Adopted Privacy Management Plan to the NSW Privacy Commissioner.

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Amended Privacy Management Plan Dated 15 April 2013

59 Pages


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 April 2013

Greenwich Preschool New Crossing

 

 

Subject:          Greenwich Preschool New Crossing    

Record No:    SU2365 - 16318/13

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Tim Sullivan 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

As a result of the Council resolution from the Council Meeting of 15 October 2012 an investigation was conducted into the feasibility of a new pedestrian crossing on Greenwich Road outside the preschool.

 

Results from the investigation confirm that a proposed pedestrian (zebra) crossing is not warranted under RMS guidelines due to the lack of pedestrian and traffic volumes. There is also an existing pedestrian refuge near Oscar Street which is approximately 50 metres south of the Greenwich Preschool. Hence, it is not recommended to install a pedestrian (zebra) crossing in Greenwich Road, outside Greenwich Preschool/Library/Seniors Centre.

 

Background

 

At the Meeting of 15 October 2012 Council received a petition containing eight (8) signatures requesting that Council investigate the installation of a formal pedestrian crossing over Greenwich Road, outside Greenwich Preschool / Library / Seniors Centre.  Council resolved that:-

“1.      Council receive a report on options for improved pedestrian crossing facilities in the vicinity of Greenwich Preschool; and

2.      The Head Petitioner be informed of Council’s decision”.

 

Council staff have carried out investigations into feasibility of a pedestrian crossing in vicinity of the Greenwich Preschool throughout November 2012 and March 2013, the results of these investigations are discussed below.

 

Discussion

 

A recent traffic survey conducted late in November 2012 and a pedestrian count survey conducted on 11th March 2013 reveals that the traffic volumes and pedestrians flow do not meet the normal warrants or the special warrants for a pedestrian (zebra) crossing. The numerical warrants for pedestrian (zebra) crossings are outlined in the RMS Supplement to AS1742.10-2009 Pedestrian Control and Protection (January 2011).

 

The warrants are outlined in the Table 1. Traffic and pedestrian volumes obtained from surveys are summarised in Table 2 and Table 3. A summary of the data showing pedestrian and vehicle volumes are not sufficient to warrant a pedestrian (zebra) crossing is shown in Table 4.

 

Table 1

 

Table 2

 

 

Pedestrian Count

 

Date

11/03/2013

Greenwich Road Outside Pre-School between Oscar St & Coolabah Ave

 

 

 

Time

Pedestrians

 

2:30 - 2:45

1

 

2:45 - 3:00

6

 

3:00 - 3:15

10

 

3:15 - 3:30

5

 

Total

22

 

 

Table 3

 

Pedestrian Volumes (Recorded on 11/03/2013)

Vehicle Volumes (Highest 3 Recorded)

P x V

P = > 30

V = > 500

P xV = 60,000

22

574

12,628

No

Yes

No

22

559

12,298

No

Yes

No

22

555

12,210

No

Yes

No

Table 4

 

The analysis confirms that a proposed pedestrian (zebra) crossing is not warranted under RMS guidelines. There is also an existing refuge approximately 50 metres south of the pre-school near the intersection of Oscar Street and Greenwich Road.

 

Conclusion

 

Given the low traffic and very low pedestrian volumes not meeting the warrants for pedestrian (zebra) crossings and a pedestrian refuge approximately 50 metres away near Oscar Street, it is not recommended to install a pedestrian (zebra) crossing facility outside the Greenwich Preschool/ Library / Seniors Centre. However, Council could consider moving the existing pedestrian refuge further north or installing a new refuge (subject to approval of Traffic Committee).

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 April 2013

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot    

Record No:    SU220 - 16471/13

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Millie Stephen 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Attached for the information of Councillors is a review of Council’s recent activities, entitled Council Snapshot.  This report provides a summary of the operations of each Division.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Council Snapshot

52 Pages