m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

16 September 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 16 September 2013 commencing at 6:30pm. 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 16 September 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

 

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

 

Confidential Items

 

1.       Performance Review of the General Manager

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

 

public forum

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

2.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 19 AUGUST 2013

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

3.       Planning Bill

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

4.       Northwood Centre Planning Proposal - Request for determination

 

5.       Procedures for Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor and Councillor Representation on Council Committees for 2013-14

 

6.       Marshall Precinct Draft DCP Finalisation

 

7.       Review of Lane Cove Bicycle Plan

 

8.       Section 94 Contributions Plan Finalisation

 

9.       Draft DCP Amendment - Car Parking for Restaurants Finalisation

 

10.     Review of Community Representatives on Council's Advisory Committees

 

11.     Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 20 August 2013

 

12.     Amendment of Alcohol Free Zones for Special Events

 

13.     Annual Financial Statements for 2012/2013  - Referral for Audit

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

14.     Sister City Visit from Huzhou City, China

 

15.     Meeting House Development - Final Report

 

16.     Council Snapshot Report   

 

 

 

 

                  


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 September 2013

Planning Bill

 

 

Subject:          Planning Bill    

Record No:    SU3477 - 45440/13

Division:         Lane Cove Council

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

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has tried to take a positive, proactive approach to the proposed changes to the NSW planning laws.

 

The Minister, to his credit, took the time to meet with Lane Cove Councillors and staff to discuss some suggested modifications to the proposals which would see them better suited to our community’s expectations.

 

However, there remains considerable concern in the community about the Planning Bill 2013 Exposure Draft. 

 

Local Government NSW, the ICAC and the Law Society have also expressed their concerns to the Minister.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.   Council write to the Premier for New South Wales, The Hon. Barry O'Farrell MP, requesting his commitment to amendments to the Planning Bill 2013 Exposure Draft, citing the major points of concern raised in Council’s and Local Government NSW’s previous submissions on the Planning Legislation.

2.   Council write to Local Government NSW supporting the actions they have taken to date and requesting that the Chief Executive of LGNSW continue to make representations to the Premier and the Minister recommending that the Planning Bill not be passed by Parliament until extensive rewriting and consultation with councils, community groups, the ICAC and the Law Society has occurred.

3.   A copy of the letters be forwarded to the Member for Lane Cove and to NSROC member councils for their information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Pam Palmer

Councillor

 

 

Councillor Daniel Strassberg

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 September 2013

Northwood Centre Planning Proposal - Request for determination

 

 

Subject:          Northwood Centre Planning Proposal - Request for determination    

Record No:    SU4859 - 42844/13

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Christopher Pelcz; Michael Mason 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council is requested to determine Planning Proposal 14 – Northwood Centre under the Local Environmental Plan (LEP 2009) following its recent exhibition. The Planning Proposal seeks to:- 

 

·    Rezone 274 & 274A Longueville Road and part of the rear of 16 Northwood Road to B1 Neighbourhood Centre;

·    Increase the height limit of the entire site to a maximum of 18 metres;

·    Increase the floor space ratio of the entire site to a maximum of FSR 2.25:1; and

·    Amend the neighbourhood shop control to permit a single shop of up to 1,000 m2.

 

Council approved the proposal for exhibition on 3 December 2012, and following the Department of Planning & Infrastructure’s LEP Gateway approval on 8 March 2013, the exhibition was undertaken from 28 June to 9 August.

Accompanying the exhibition was a set of indicative design concept graphics at a range of scales. One set of design plans was submitted with the planning proposal and two lower scales were prepared by Council to assist the public's broad understanding of the relative effects of floor space ratio and height.

The key issues discussed in the majority of public submissions during the exhibition related to: traffic and parking, visual character and scale, bushfire, retail levels, infrastructure and environment.

In summary the exhibition and consultation of this planning proposal highlighted the following:-

 

·    There is significant community objection to the planning proposal to increase the FSR and height of the subject lands;

·    The exhibition and consultation associated with this planning proposal has been detailed and comprehensive with active participation by the community and proponent;

·    If the planning proposal were to be endorsed at either the 1:1.75 or 1:2.25 FSR there would be traffic management implications for the site and River Road that would need to be addressed by both Council and the proponent;

·    The RMS has endorsed in principle the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of River Road and Northwood Road subject to detailed investigations.  Such works are external to this site and would have broader financial/land acquisition and construction implications for both the Council and the proponent;

·    Council supports the installation of lights rather than a roundabout if this proposal was to be adopted;

·    The subject site and adjoining Council lands are identified as bush fire prone lands as sections of land are mapped as buffer to bushfire and would be subject to detailed investigation and imposition of an Asset Protection Zone;

·    In order for an FSR of 2.25:1 to be achieved it is likely that any Asset Protection Zone would need to include private and public lands. The use of public land, would only be suitable, if a substantial public benefit was provided by way of through connection to the open space, which does not appear feasible at the scale proposed;

·    The greater the FSR and height the greater the bulk and scale impact to River Road and adjoining lands. This is seen as inevitable and should be measured against the potential benefits of a revitalized Northwood precinct;

·    Many submissions expressed concerns that would more appropriately relate to any subsequent development of the site should this planning proposal be endorsed.  Such comments should be considered at length and be forwarded to the proponent if Council endorses this planning proposal; and

·    Notwithstanding the issues and concerns above, the planning proposal before Council (FSR 1:2.25; with a maximum height of 18m across the site; and to permit individual shops of a maximum of 1000m2) meets or can meet the threshold concerns and requirements of the various State authorities, Road and Maritime Services (RMS), Rural Fire Service, Sydney Water and others.

 

It is recommended that Council consider this report, the issues raised and options available and determine this planning proposal by resolving to:

 

1)         Finalise this draft LEP amendment as exhibited:-

 

·    Submit the LEP to the Department

·    Call for the preparation of a Development Control Plan in consultation with the community

 

            OR

 

2)         Not proceed with the planning proposal to rezone 274 and 274A Longueville Road and part of the rear of 16 Northwood Road to B1 Neighbourhood Centre; permit an FSR of 2.2.5:1 with a maximum height of 18 metres across the site; and to permit individual shops to a maximum of 1000m2.

 

            OR     

 

3)         Endorse a different specific height and FSR control for the lands described for approval and exhibition.

 

Background

 

The planning proposal was the result of a rezoning request from RPS Australia East Pty Ltd on behalf of EG Property (AT 1 electronic version only).

 

Previous Council Resolution

 

At its Ordinary Council meeting on 3rd December 2012, Council considered the planning proposal and resolved to:

 

1.   Reaffirm its commitment to undertake consultation with the community at the strategic stage of the development

 

2.   It be noted Council has not yet formed a view on what the community deems to be acceptable for revitalisation of the area.

 

3.   It be noted that the State Government’s Gateway Planning Process does not provide for a Planning Proposal to be submitted with a range of height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) values.

 

4.   Having regard to the above, a Planning Proposal be submitted under the Department of Planning Gateway Process seeking a consistent Neighbourhood Centre B1 zoning across the site, with Option 1 being a maximum height of 12 metres an FSR of 1:25, with a maximum shop size of 500m2 and Option 2 being a maximum height of 18 metres and FSR of 2:25, with a maximum shop size of 1000m2.

 

5.   Should the Gateway endorse the planning proposal, Council undertake extensive community consultation to determine the appropriate height and FSR controls that includes use of Council’s 3D modelling software, to ensure the community can visualise what is proposed.

 

6.   It be noted that at the end of the consultation process outlined above, should Council endorse either of the options or a different specific height and FSR controls, the matter will need to be referred to the Department of Planning to obtain the Minister’s approval to vary the proposal, which may then require further community consultation. [It is noted that Council was subsequently issued with delegation so that Ministerial approval is not required for this stage.]

 

7.   The remaining adjacent commercial property at 18 Northwood Road, be included in the planning proposal.

 

In accordance with these resolutions, the Planning Proposal was amended to include 18 Northwood Road and submitted to the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure for Gateway approval. The other resolutions were complied with during the public exhibition phase of the LEP amendment as detailed below. On 8 March 2013, the Department’s Gateway issued approval to exhibit the Planning Proposal under delegation as shown attached AT 2.

 

The Gateway Determination noted that Council sought to include a range of values (in accordance with Council’s resolution) as part of the Planning Proposal submission. This request was not supported as the standards Council sought to amend were maximum limits and therefore ranges were not deemed appropriate. However, this did not preclude Council from publicly exhibiting a range of building scale options and deciding on the most appropriate scale.  Any changed scale would need to be re-exhibited as an amended planning proposal.

 

Community Consultation methods

In accordance with the Council resolutions above, a range of building scales was exhibited with the Planning Proposal. These indicative design concepts were based on the following scales:

 

·    The higher-level scale endorsed by Council for exhibition and approved by the Gateway: 

FSR of 2.25:1 and 18 metre height limit

·    The lower-level scale also endorsed by Council for exhibition:

FSR of 1.25:1 and 12 metre height limit

·    A mid-range scale option being Council staff’s recommended maximum was also included on the basis that Council’s independent evaluation advice suggested redevelopment was viable at that scale.

FSR of 1.75:1 and 15 metre height limit (Council Option 2).

 

These design concepts were indicative only. They do not represent a final design. Subsequent to Council approval, a detailed architectural design, with landscaping and other supporting plans, would be provided by a developer at the Development Application stage in accordance with any DCP prepared with the community.

 

In accordance with Council’s resolution, Council undertook extensive consultation with the community using a variety of consultation methods, during the six-week period of Council’s Consultation Policy:-

 

-     Advertisements in the North Shore Times;

-     Creation of an online survey on Council’s website;

-     A fact sheet distributed to property owners in the nearby suburbs by letter;

-     Website and hard copy documents for viewing at Council;

-     Two community information sessions held on the 19th and 20th July 2013; and

-     Use of Council’s 3D modeling software to create alternative building scale options in conjunction with the developer’s preferred scheme.

 

The consultation exceeded the requirements of the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure's Guide to Preparing Local Environmental Plans.

 

Public Exhibition

 

The LEP amendment for 4-18 Northwood Road and 274 & 274A Longueville Road (Planning Proposal 14) was publicly exhibited from 28 June to 9 August 2013 with a total of 463 submissions received. This total included:-

 

-     257 submissions via written submissions; and

-     206 submissions via Council’s online survey.

 

The written submissions indicated that there was a strong response against redevelopment of any kind at the proposed Northwood Centre with only 15 submissions (6%) in favour of the proposal. However the online surveys indicated a willingness to consider redevelopment of the centre to some level. Of the 206 online surveys:-

 

51 percent of online surveys did not support the proposed LEP amendment scale and wanted the current LEP planning controls to remain, while

40 percent of surveys supported Council’s proposed scales; with most support for the lowest scale option, which is not viable in the short term, as advised by Council’s consultant. 

9 percent of surveys were in favour of developer’s proposal.

 

This is discussed further in the Discussion section of this report.

 

Council was required to consult with a number of public authorities as part of the Gateway determination:-

 

·    Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Authority;

·    Office of Environment and Heritage;

·    Fire and Rescue NSW;

·    NSW Rural Fire Service;

·    Transport for NSW – Roads and Maritime Services;

·    Sydney Water; and

·    Adjoining LGAs (Hunters Hill, Ryde, Willoughby and North Sydney).

 

Three of the ten public authorities provided input to the proposal. Copies of these responses are attached at AT-3.The NSW Office of Environment & Heritage response provided no comment on the proposed LEP amendment. Sydney Water’s response did not specifically state a preferred position but did provide comments which related to the Development Application stage. The NSW Rural Fire Service sent an acknowledgement letter only.

 

NSW Roads & Maritime Services response raised no objection to the proposed LEP amendment, and grants in-principle agreement to the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of River Rd and Northwood Rd.

 

Discussion

 

A summary of the main issues raised in submissions is included below with staff comment.  In order that the reader receive an overview of concerns for and against the exhibited draft LEP submissions have been paraphrased and grouped under the headings Support this LEP and Not this LEP.

 

Issue 1

 

Traffic and parking

 

Support this LEP – Providing it has sufficient parking for residents and visitors incorporated into the design. Will help cars to get out of Northwood Rd on to River Road (i.e. from the south. Incorporate bike path through the site. Relate to bus stop.

 

Not this LEPProposed access and parking arrangements are inadequate. There will be construction traffic and an increase in rat-running local streets as well as traffic delays and congestion. No consideration has been given to impacts on public transport. There are alternative traffic management options available.

 

Comment

 

A significant number of the submissions commented on traffic and the proposed traffic arrangements.

 

The developer’s traffic consultants have provided a number of studies addressing traffic concerns.

 

(i)    Access:

 

The access arrangements proposed by the applicant have been the subject of ongoing discussions with Council and Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) since late 2012. RMS advised that the left-in, left-out site access arrangement from Northwood Road is optimal in terms of traffic operations and road safety.

 

(ii)   Vehicle numbers:

 

In terms of additional traffic through local streets, the proponent consultants Traffix report, assessed the increase in cars due to access to the site from the east and south being via Northwood Road – Arabella Street – Woodford Street – Kenneth Street and determined:-

 

·    The increase in vehicles due to the new centre would increase and remedial traffic measures would be required to meet RMS standards

·    The traffic data is detailed in AT-4. It should be noted that the precise numbers would depend on final dwelling numbers, bedroom mix etc.

 

Council’s Traffic and Transport section is not in agreement with the conclusions contained within the Traffix report. Specifically concerns are raised about additional traffic being routed through the Northwood Road / River Road intersection which is a known accident blackspot.  In 5 years (July 2007 – June 2012) there have been 4 casualty and 10 towaway crashes at this intersection. The Traffix report has indicated that the EG Property Group proposal will increase traffic on local streets by up to 82%, a large proportion of which will be required to turn right at the Northwood Road / River Road intersection.

 

It is acknowledged that the proposed roundabout would remove the right turn conflicts in to Northwood Road, which is the main cause of accidents at this location. As such it is my view that the roundabout is not a discretionary improvement as indicated by the developer but is in fact essential in order to mitigate the traffic generation impacts of the development. Council’s preferred treatment at this intersection remains traffic signals (as per Fred Gennaoui Report dated June 2009), which would also cater for safer pedestrian movements across River Road.

 

It is noted that the proponents round-about design would be significantly more expensive than traffic lights, due to the large number of land resumptions required. However, in terms of height, the proposed 18 metres is significantly higher than the 9.5 metre height limit in the Village. The buildings within the Village present as a maximum of three storeys to the street, while to accommodate the 2.25:1 on the subject site, 5 storeys would need to be presented to the street.

 

Whilst the site has a slope to the rear, which can accommodate more height, whilst minimising the visual bulk, due to the setbacks required for the APZ zone, development is ‘pushed’ towards the front of the site. This effectively means greater massing to the street that would otherwise be necessary if the floor space could be spread across the whole site. The development therefore presents at a scale greater than the village, despite it being lower in the retail hierarchy. The two options proposed by Council addressed this issue, by being able to accommodate a lower height of the street with a maximum height of 3 storeys.

 

(iii)       Parking: The number of parking spaces proposed by the applicant would be assessed against the requirements of Council’s Development Control Plan (DCP) at a DA Stage. The indicative proposal displayed was designed to comply with the DCP controls current at the time of preparation.

 

(iv)       Construction: Impacts related to the construction phase would be considered at the DA stage through Council requesting a Construction Traffic Management Plan prepared by the applicant. The Plan would detail: the timing for construction activities, the traffic generated by construction activities, lorry routes, proposed lorry holding areas and other mitigation measures.

 

Issue 2

 

Scale/Character

 

Support this LEP - Set a new benchmark for sustainable design, be something the community is proud of and part of throughout its design. Like the design. Fine for 4-5 storeys at front with 6 cascading down the hill. Want creative vision, give us some 'wow', not just shops. The development proposal improves the aesthetics of the site which at the moment needs refurbishment. More people will have access to the beauty of the golf course and reserve.

 

Not this LEP – Scale is too large and is out of character for the area. The proposed development is the largest retail/commercial area in Lane Cove and will affect the preservation of the “Village” aspects of the Lane Cove LGA. Proposed height, coupled with direct on-street frontage will create a tunnel effect. There are areas of non compliance with development codes. A smaller scale development within the bounds of the LEP would be more appropriate.

 

 

 

Comment

 

Scale

 

The question of an area’s future character is important.  It is understandable that many members of the community express concern at any change in the building scale for this area. The scale proposed at 2.25:1 is a significant increase compared to other neighbourhood shopping precincts. The Lane Cove Village has an FSR of 2:1 with a 0.5 bonus for shop top housing. The proposed FSR is therefore marginally lower than the village.

 

Should the LEP amendment proceed it would be supported by a Development Control Plan. This would be prepared in detailed consultation with the community (while the LEP was being finalised at State level).

 

It is unquestionable that this neighbourhood centre would be different in character from its current appearance, and this is supported in principle by staff, as it was in several submissions.

 

Character and precedent

 

Northwood and Longueville peninsulas are low-density residential suburbs and there is no proposal to change that zoning. A small number of comments expressed concerns that this proposal would establish a precedent for further high-rise apartments. This is not the case and Council has no intention to rezone residential lands to higher densities. The planning controls for long-standing neighbourhood centre shops zoning would not affect the residential suburbs’ zoning, any more than it has over past decades.

 

The established Northwood Centre is immediately at the southern end of a long- standing high density flats zone (R4) extending to the north, between Northwood Centre and Lane Cove Village. Shoptop housing is already permissible in all B1 zones in the Lane Cove LGA. This provision has been in place since LEP 1987. It is the case that a shops precinct would have a distinctly different character from a surrounding residential district. The existing centre is different in character from its surroundings and has been stated in several submissions to be an unattractive entry to Longueville and Northwood.

 

There was no heritage significance identified on the site either by Council or the Aboriginal Heritage Office.

 

Issue 3

 

Retail/ Shoptop housing

 

Support this LEP - Activate it economically to be a vibrant successful space for small local businesses. Activate it for people to meet, able to walk to eat/ convenience shop. Differentiate this space from others in Lane Cove (organic restaurants / retailers etc). The retail space with a fresh food market is long overdue. Downsizer housing has merit.  We need a small supermarket. This is a return to the Neighbourhood Shopping  area which was the area’s intended use.

 

Not this LEP - Question the need for retail – Lane Cove is already well serviced for its retail needs; additional shops are not needed given that many of the shops in the Lane Cove Village are already vacant. Such a large retail store is not needed in that location along a busy road. The site is not appropriate given its lack of parking.

 

Comment

 

It is important to put into perspective the comparison of the Northwood neighbourhood centre proposal with the Lane Cove Village.

 

The retail space component in Northwood would be 1,460 m2 in total (0.146 hectares). By contrast, the Lane Cove Village covers a total area of approximately 5.75 hectares, at ground level alone. That is, the Northwood proposal would be only 0.02% the size of the Village’s “footprint”.

 

The fresh food market would be 1,000m2 maximum in area (600m2 retail and 400m2 storage). Compared with the Coles supermarket (3000m2) and the Lane Cove Market Square (3000+ m2), the proposed fresh food market would be only a third of the size of either one of those two major stores.

 

This proposal aims to reinstate similar types of shops as were formerly in the Northwood neighbourhood centre, such as specialty butcher and chemist, with cafes etc. In response to comments on fragmentation of retail services, the Northwood Centre Analysis in the Planning Proposal indicates that Lane Cove is relatively underserviced in terms of food retailers and fresh food markets in comparison with other adjoining LGAs.

 

The proposal is not expected to compete with the Lane Cove Village, given the size and range of retail available in the Village. The Village would not be impacted on in that it may shortly experience growth in customers as the new residential multi unit buildings are completed in the Finlayson/ Birdwood precinct and the other new high density zones required under LEP 2009.

 

A comparison has been considered with Cammeray Square in the proponent’s urban design report. Although the amenity and conditions at and near that centre differ from Northwood, it is considered to be a comparable worth noting, particularly as it has become a successful meeting place for the Cammeray community, a facility that Northwood / Longueville currently lacks. The main comparisons are in terms of building form and design; the mix of uses; the requirement for an anchor tenant; the successful combination of retail with up-market residential uses and the concept of entering the apartments from the internal public courtyard rather than directly from the street.

 

Locating retail premises along major roads is an appropriate planning and transport policy. The peninsulas would not be affected by the proposal (as distinct from some streets in the immediate vicinity of the main road, are discussed above). The Planning Proposal is in accordance with the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure's Improving Transport Choice – Guidelines for planning and development, and The Right Place for Business and Services – Planning Policy. The junction on which the Northwood centre is located provides bus services along Longueville Road, the bus interchange, Pacific Highway and Chatswood, and along River Road towards North Sydney and the CBD.

 

The parking aspects of this comment are addressed earlier; however the parking requirements for this centre would be the subject of a future DA and would have to comply with any relevant DCP requirements and Roads & Maritime Services guidelines for such centres. This proposal would be the first to provide public underground parking in the centre. This is now typical  even in small shopping centres to meet modern shopping expectations and amenity.

 

Issue 4 

 

Environment & Open Space

 

Support this LEP – Open up views for  public to enjoy overlooking open space – the first café area in Lane Cove for this – walk across the centre and through the bush.

 

Not this LEP - There will be alienation of bushland and destructive impacts on the adjoining bushland as the result of this development. What is to become of the green spaces presently zoned RE1 (Public Recreation) and E2 (Environmental)? The public space shown is broken up and does not appear to be of much use to the public.

 

Comment

 

(i)      Environmental protection


The rezoning of E2 land would not alienate the adjacent 6,000 m2 of adjoining Environmental Conservation bushland, as only the incorrectly E2 zoned land parcels are proposed to be rezoned; these parcels are privately owned land, not public. No rezoning of public E2 land is being considered, as the rezoning is simply correcting a mapping anomaly. Furthermore, no RE1 zoned land is being rezoned as part of this development.

Council’s Open Space Manager has advised that the Section has no objection to the LEP amendment proceeding, provided:-

 

(i)    The two small lots of private land being rezoned to B1;

(ii)   The vegetation on the site being considered at DA stage, as with any development on private property; and

(iii)   The relationship of a future proposal with Council’s bushland adjacent being assessed at DA stage, on the basis by which developments adjacent to bushland are assessed across Lane Cove routinely.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas (SEPP 1) does not preclude development provided that development conditions, including construction management plans, are resolved to Council’s satisfaction.

 

(ii)        Public space and open space

 

One purpose of the proposal is to open up bushland vistas and access between the open space on both sides of the centre and to provide a public plaza with cafes where people can meet socially.

 

The proposal includes a connection from Longueville Road to the Council-managed open space to the east.  The width of the connection through the site ranges from 5 metres wide to over 10 metres wide, which may provide limited public benefit, as it utilises the normal building setback area. The scale is such that it may be perceived as private rather than public land.

 

The public plaza space in the developer’s indicative design concept is fragmented, and a better-integrated plaza would be required in any Development Control Plan. 

 

It has been proposed that some of the sandstone from an old wall at the rear of the site may be used as flagging on the open space at the rear of the property. This would be a matter for consideration at the DA stage.

 

 

 

Issue 5

 

Bushfire/Asset Protection Zone

 

Not this LEP – Does not support use of Council Land as an asset protection zone for bushfire. As per the Rural Fire Service directives on APZs, they “should be located wholly within the development property”. There should be no expectation/precedent that the E2 land in public ownership can be used to satisfy any requirement for an APZ for this site. APZ width is incorrect as the slope has been understated and the vegetation category is wrong.

 

Comment

 

Asset Protection Zones are indicative buffers between a bushfire hazard and buildings. The Planning for Bushfire Protection guidelines allow for certain circumstances in which an APZ may be applied on land adjacent to a development site. This includes, for example, where a better bush fire risk outcome would be obtained than if the development did not proceed. In this context it is noted that the existing uses include a petrol station directly adjoining bushfire prone land.

 

At the DA stage the APZ’s location would be assessed by technical experts. It is noted that the RFS has not commented at this LEP amendment stage. The proponent has suggested that part of the APZ would be on public land, according to the circumstances of the development, public safety considerations and the proposed level of public amenity.

 

It is emphasized that in order for Council to consider the use of public land for a partial APZ the developer would need to demonstrate substantial public benefit, such as a significant public plaza space and visual and pedestrian/cycling access to the open space.  The current proposal does not provide for this and therefore is not supported.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue 6

 

LEP process

 

Not this LEP – Development is inconsistent with Council’s LEP and there is no need to change it. The development is clearly outside of the regulations and standards set by the LEP therefore it should be rejected. Redevelopment must be possible in accordance Council’s current planning standards for the area. Zoning laws should not be extinguished for any developer for extra contributions.

 

Comment

 

The LEP Gateway process allows for variations to any Council LEP to be considered. The proposal does envisage change to the area. The developer’s and Council's independent Economic Consultant, as well as architectural studies, indicated that this would not likely occur under the present LEP controls in the short term.

 

Accordingly, zoning as well as other planning standards, may be amended under the current planning system to respond to changes in the market as well as community values. Given that both economic and design studies, as mentioned above, conceded that the site would not likely be viably redeveloped in the short term under the current LEP standards (or FSR 1.25:1), a variation is being considered.

 

In response to the developer contributions comment, these contributions are charged to provide improvement to amenities or services in an area. They are not a consideration in an LEP amendment.

Other Issues raised during the Public Exhibition period

 

Infrastructure impacts

 

A small number of comments related to impacts on local infrastructure such as roads, parking, public transport, schools etc. The existing site is already serviced by bus stops in both directions and Council will continue to liaise with the State Traffic Authority as demand for services grows. Should the LEP amendment be approved, the proposed development would provide parking facilities in accordance with Council's DCP requirements. As per impacts on the local roads, in particular for heavy trucks using local roads, these roads can be upgraded in the future subject to demand, and road condition.

 

The cumulative impacts, particularly on traffic, of this proposal were also raised during the exhibition period, given that this area is identified by Council’s Major Projects Plan as the preferred precinct for a new Recreation Facility and a proposed Seniors Living development. Council resolved to undertake an independent traffic assessment, taking into account the traffic impacts of the site and proposals and developments in the precinct generally, prior to the proposal for 266 Longueville Rd’s seniors living being exhibited. That study is currently being undertaken for Council’s Traffic Department. This does not alter the Gateway’s approval for the Northwood LEP to follow its own process. 

 

The issue of schools capacity affects Lane Cove and other localities and is an ongoing matter for discussion at a higher policy level with the State Government. Its resolution is expected to require broad policy changes and should provide for significant growth levels. It is not considered a reason not to proceed with the revitalisation of this centre through a mixed use type of redevelopment.

 

 

 

 

Consultation issues  

 

A few questions arose during the public exhibition period querying whether the current LEP controls have been inadequate to allow appropriate re-development of the site, also whether Council has been transparent about the details of the development.

 

Regarding the first question, LEPs can be amended for many reasons including responding to market trends and viability. The current State planning laws recognize this and the ‘Gateway’ process provide the mechanism to do so.

 

The second question implies that Council has not genuinely ‘consulted’ with the local community. Council has had extensive consultation with the community, using many different formats. The fact sheet provided to the community contained a concise summary of what was being proposed. The consultation exceeded the requirements of the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s Guide to preparing Local Environmental Plans

 

Health impacts

 

The presence of a mobile tower being amalgamated in the proposed unit site is an issue that can be resolved at the Development Application stage through conditions of consent. This issue would have to be resolved in any development of the site regardless of its scale.

 

General comments

 

·    Construction impacts

 

Concerns were raised regarding the impacts of construction on the surrounds should the development be approved. This would be assessed as part of a future DA if the LEP amendment proceeds. Conditions of consent as well as Council policies regarding working hours, traffic management etc control this issue, as for any development in Lane Cove.

 

·    Contamination

 

It was submitted that soil testing and substantive remediation should be undertaken, and that the contamination assessment does not demonstrate that the site is suitable for rezoning.

 

Council’s Environmental Health Manager has advised that the correct level of studies, which were updated to include 18 Northwood Rd, have been provided to allow the LEP proposal to proceed and have been undertaken in accordance with State legislation. They conclude that the site could be rendered suitable for the proposed mixed-use land zoning subject to remediation requiring further testing. This is usually done at the Development Application stage. Further intrusive testing can only be done during the construction phase of development.

 

·    Property values

 

There is no evidence that the proposed development will decrease property values. The intended aim is to improve the local neighbourhood centre’s qualities and services for the locality.

 

·    Economic Feasibility

 

Some comments criticized the economic feasibility of the development claiming that economic feasibility should not have been a factor in allowing the proposal to pass through the Gateway process.

 

Any amendment to the LEP must consider the likely environmental, social and economic impacts during the decision making process under State LEP guidelines. Economic feasibility was considered during the process, but it was not the sole determinant for submitting the proposal through the LEP Gateway process.

 

·    Inconsistency of survey plans

 

During the public exhibition process, members of the public commented that the original attached survey plan was illegible and it did not include 274 & 274A Longueville Road properties. The applicant’s planning consultants updated the survey  and it was placed with the exhibition material.

 

The survey’s purpose at the LEP stage was principally to confirm the property boundaries. A detailed survey indicating topographical, vegetation and other site features would be required at the DA stage.

 

Conclusion

 

The formal LEP exhibition approved by the Gateway related to one option – that is, to amend the planning controls to a building height of 18 metres with FSR of 2.25:1, a maximum shop size of 1,000m2 and consistent zoning across the B1 Neighbourhood Centre.

 

Although the exhibition was accompanied by a series of indicative design concepts graphics at various scales, including FSR 1.75:1 and 15 metres height, these were not the subject of the formal LEP exhibition. Nor were they development applications for assessment. If the LEP proceeds, a Development Control Plan would be prepared in consultation with the community to guide the form of a subsequent DA design.

 

The public submissions focused on key issues of visual impact/ scale and traffic in particular, as well as bushfire, environment, infrastructure and other matters.

 

There is a range of measures which would need to be considered at the DCP and DA stage including traffic, such as a roundabout or lights at the River Rd/ Northwood Rds intersection, and improvements to mitigate the impacts of additional vehicles in existing problem locations identified in submissions.

 

In terms of the broader issues relating to impacts, in particular increased vehicle movements and visual scale, the public’s concern at changes in the centre are understandable as typical for any area proposed for transition. Measures to mitigate impacts on specific locations, such as certain intersections, would be of high importance if the proposal is to proceed.

 

The benefits of the proposal, however, are considered to be the modernization of an ageing and long-standing neighbourhood centre to restore its former role of providing goods and services overlooking open space and introducing underground public parking for the centre, with housing above providing downsizer opportunities for locals within their community.

 

There has been qualification but no objection raised by the government authorities consulted in accordance with the Gateway requirements. Support in principle has been expressed by NSW Roads & Maritime Services subject to remedial and augmentation works being undertaken by Council.

 

There was an strong response in the written submissions stating their preference for the current LEP controls or Council Option 1 (FSR of 1.25:1 and 12 metre height limit), the latter however being economically questionable in the short term. Acknowledging that the submissions predominantly raised significant issues, it is nevertheless considered that comments in a number of these, such as that the character and amenity of the Longueville and Northwood peninsulas would be adversely impacted are noted.

 

There was an interest expressed in the online surveys in the middle ground of redeveloping the centre, but at some more moderate scale than in the larger concepts designs displayed.

Lane Cove will experience significant growth under Sydney’s Metropolitan Strategy, including under the draft Strategy of March 2013. This growth should be undertaken while managing foreseeable impacts within reasonable limits, in an integrated strategic approach for Lane Cove as a whole, rather than requiring the Village and other centres to bear the brunt of all growth by default. The Northwood centre is visibly due for revitalization and currently offers a low level of service and amenity for the locality relative to the area of land it occupies.

 

It is recommended that Council consider this report, the issues raised and options available and determine this planning proposal by resolving to:

 

1)         Finalise this draft LEP amendment as exhibited:-

 

·    Submit the LEP to the Department

·    Call for the preparation of a Development Control Plan in consultation with the community

 

            OR

 

2)         Not proceed with the planning proposal to rezone 274 and 274A Longueville Road and part of the rear of 16 Northwood Road to B1 Neighbourhood Centre; permit an FSR of 2.2.5:1 with a maximum height of 18 metres across the site; and to permit individual shops to a maximum of 1000m2.

 

            OR     

 

3)         Endorse a different specific height and FSR control for the lands described for approval and further exhibition.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council determine whether, and if so in what way, it wishes to proceed with the exhibited LEP planning proposal.

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Revised Planning Proposal  (link to electronic version only)

291 Pages

Available Online

AT‑2 View

Gateway Determination

6 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Government authorities responses to Northwood draft LEP

9 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

RMS/ RTA Guidelines for Traffic-Generating Developments

2 Pages

 

AT‑5 View

Supplementary information from proponent, August 2013

27 Pages

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 September 2013

Procedures for Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor and Councillor Representation on Council Committees for 2013-14

 

 

Subject:          Procedures for Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor and Councillor Representation on Council Committees for 2013-14    

Record No:    SU868 - 43222/13

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to outline the procedures for election of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor and to appoint Councillor representation on Advisory and External Committees for the next 12 months.

 

Discussion

 

Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor

 

Councillors have previously been provided nomination forms for the position of Mayor and Deputy Mayor for the next 12 months. Clause 3 of the Regulation provides that if more than one Councillor is nominated, the Council is to resolve whether the election is to proceed by preferential ballot, by ordinary ballot (secret ballot) or by open voting (show of hands).

Councillor Representation on Committees

 

Council currently operates various advisory committees, and participates in other external committees to provide a forum for discussion of broad, local and regional issues among council representatives, local agencies and community members. 

 

Councillors should also note the following procedures apply to committees:-

 

·    The Mayor is an ex-officio member of all Internal Advisory Committees and has the right to give notice of business for the Agenda, move and second recommendations and vote on matters;

·    All Councillors can attend Internal Advisory Committees, however non-members of the Committee cannot;  give notice of business for the Agenda, move and second recommendations or vote on matters ; and

·    All Councillor representatives on Internal Advisory Committees may arrange an alternate Councillor to attend as required.

 

Councillors represent Council on a number of Advisory and External Committees, a list of these Committees, their purpose, proposed representation and meeting frequency is shown below:-

 

Aboriginal Art Exhibition Taskforce

 

As all matters relating to increasing the knowledge and understanding of Aboriginal culture are now dealt with by the Aboriginal Advisory Committee, it is recommended that this committee be dissolved.

 

Aboriginal Education Working Party

 

As all matters relating to increasing the knowledge and understanding of Aboriginal culture are now dealt with by the Aboriginal Advisory Committee, it is recommended that this committee be dissolved.


Aboriginal Advisory Committee

 

This committee was formed on 18 February 2013 to increase knowledge and understanding of Aboriginal culture, to foster positive relationships between Council and Aboriginal people and provide advice to Council regarding aboriginal education, health, tourism, employment, culture and customs. The Meetings are held monthly on the 4th Monday in the Training Room at 7.15pm. The role of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on issues relevant to Aboriginal people.

 

Current Representation: Councillors Bennison and Karpin and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

 

Bushland Management Advisory Committee

 

Commenced in the 1980’s to discuss bushland management issues and monitor implementation of Bushland Plan of Management. This committee provides advice and recommendations to the General Manager on bushland management within Lane Cove. Includes 3 Community Representatives and 3 Representatives of the Lane Cove Bushland and Conservation Society. The committee will meet monthly on a Wednesday at 6:00pm in the Committee Room.

 

Current Representation: Councillor Strassberg and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Cameraygal Festival Committee

 

Formed in 1991 to formulate, plan, develop, promote activities within Lane Cove. The Committee will meet from February to August and also in October on the 3rd Thursday of the month at 6pm in the Committee Room. The role of the committee is to organise the Festival and provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on the Festival.

 

Current Representation: Councillor Palmer with Councillor Strassberg as an alternate and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Carisbrook Advisory Committee

 

Carisbrook is the oldest surviving house in its area, purchased by Council in 1969. The House and Gardens are managed and maintained by Council, and the Lane Cove Historical Society manages the furnishing and showing of the House.  This committee assists in setting the direction for Carisbrook House and will meet every 6 weeks on Wednesdays at 9.30am in the Human Services Committee Room. The role of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on Carisbrook House.

 

Current Representation:  Councillor Hutchens and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Centrehouse Management Committee

 

Centrehouse is a not-for-profit community art and leisure centre offering leisure learning for the community, including various courses for children to adults and facilities for hire. The Management Committee meets the 1st Wednesday of each month at Centrehouse at 5.30pm. As this is an external committee, the role of the committee is governed by Centrehouse.

 

Current Representation: Councillors Brent and Gold.

 

Council Selection Committee

 

This committee considers nominations for Council's Citizenship Awards, Australia Day Awards, community appointments to Councils advisory committees, Tenders, Grants, and other awards as required and will meet when required. The Meetings are held as required during Council Workshops on 2nd Monday of the month. The role of the committee is to provide recommendations on award nominations, committee appointments, tenders, grants and other awards to the General Manager.

 

Current Representation: All Councillors and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Internal Audit Committee

 

Formed in 2009 to provide independent assurance and assistance to Council on risk management, control, governance, and external accountability responsibilities. The DLG Guidelines recommend that the Mayor not be the Councillor representative on this committee. The committee will meet quarterly in the Cobra Room at 2.30pm on a Wednesday. The role of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on internal audit functions.

 

Current Representation: Councillor Karpin and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP)

 

The JRPP determines development applications for the following types of development:-

·    Development with a Capital Investment Value (CIV) over $20 million;

·    Development with a CIV over $5 million which is:-

council related;

lodged by or on behalf of the Crown (State of NSW);

private infrastructure and community facilities; or

eco-tourist facilities.

·    Extractive industries, waste facilities and marinas that are designated development;

·    Certain coastal subdivisions;

·    Development with a CIV between $10 million and $20 million which are referred to the regional panel by the applicant after 120 days; and

·    Crown development applications (with a CIV under $5 million) referred to the regional panel by the applicant or local council after 70 days from lodgement as undetermined, including where recommended conditions are in dispute.

 

Two (2) Council representatives are appointed by each council that is situated in a part of the State for which a Regional Panel is established. At least one (1) Council representative is required to have expertise in one (1) or more of the following areas: planning, architecture, heritage, the environment, urban design, land economics, traffic and transport, law, engineering or tourism. As this is an external committee, the role of the committee is governed by the NSW State Government.

 

Current Representation: Councillor Cheong with Councillor Brooks-Horn as an alternate.


Kindy Cove Management Advisory Committee

 

This committee provides advice to the Management of the Long Day Care Centre, from a parent and community perspective. The committee will meet on the 3rd Wednesday of every month at 7.00pm, usually at Kindy Cove. The role of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on the operation of Kindy Cove.

 

Current Representation: Councillor Brent and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Lane Cove Access Committee

 

The committee's objectives are to increase and promote general awareness of access, mobility and safety issues in the community.  The committee will meet on the last Wednesday of every second month at 10am. The committee includes five (5) representatives of access related service providers and up to five (5) community representatives. The role of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on access issues.

 

Current Representation: Councillors Karpin and Palmer and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Lane Cove Bicycle Advisory Committee

 

Formed in 1995 to provide advice on bicycle facilities. The committee provided significant input into the development of the Lane Cove Bicycle Plan. This committee will meet quarterly to consider the provision of bicycle facilities in accordance with the Bicycle Plan in the Committee Room at 6pm. The role of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on bicycle issues.

 

Current Representation: Councillor Gold and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Lane Cove and North Side Community Services Board of Directors

 

Founded in 1961 to provide health and community services to people in need and was initially based at Council but became independent from Council in 1962. Community Aid is an incorporated association which provides direct services to the elderly, disabled and their carers in Lane Cove. The Board meets on the 2nd Thursday of every second month at 7:30am at the Community Aid Centre. As this is an external committee the role of the committee is governed by Lane Cove and North Side Community Services.

 

Current Representation: Councillors Brooks-Horn and Hutchens.

 

Lane Cove Cultural Advisory Committee

 

This committee assists in the formulation of cultural planning strategies and initiatives.  The committee meets quarterly on a Wednesday at 6pm in the Training Room.  The role of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on cultural issues.

 

Current Representation:  Councillors Brent and Cheong and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 


Lane Cove Historical Society

 

The Society meets on the third Tuesday of each month at 2.30pm and provides a forum for the promotion and discussion of history in Lane Cove. As this is an external committee the role of the committee is governed by the Lane Cove Historical Society.

 

Current Representation:  Councillor Palmer.

 

Lane Cove Occasional Child Care Centre

 

This committee considers management issues of the Child Care Centre. The committee meets on the 4th Monday of each month at 7.30pm in the Centre. The role of the committee is to provide advice to the Management of the Occasional Child Care Centre.

 

Current Representation: Councillor Brent.

 

Lane Cove Public Art Advisory Committee

 

Formed on 1 November 2010 to provide Council with expert advice, critique, and comment on the ongoing development, guidance, and implementation of the Lane Cove Council Public Art Policy in relation to each Council or developer-based project including public art commissions. This committee will meet when public art projects arise. The role of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on public art issues.

 

Representation:

 

One (1) Councillor and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Lane Cove Recreation Precinct Liaison Advisory Committee

 

With the proposed development of the site within the next 5 years, the committee will discuss issues with the current tenants and other stakeholders that will affect them during the time of development and assist with the design of the new club house. This committee meets quarterly on a Tuesday at 6pm. The role of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on the proposed development.

 

Current Representation: Councillors Brooks-Horn, Cheong and Karpin and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Lane Cove Retirement Units Association Ltd Board

 

Council purchased land in Central Avenue in 1966 for the constructions of units and transferred the land to the Association in 1994. The Association, a company limited by Guarantee, seeks to provide suitable accommodation for aged persons capable of independent living, and manages the land and buildings at Pottery Gardens to this end. The Board meets six times a year on a Tuesday at 6.45pm. As this is an external committee the role of the committee is governed by the Lane Cove Retirement Units Association, whose constitution provides for two (2) Councillor representatives.

 

Current Representation: Councillors Hutchens and Karpin.

 


Marjorie Propsting Memorial Library Consultative Forum

 

Established in 1988 to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on matters affecting Library services at the Marjorie Propsting Memorial Library. The committee includes the General Manager's representative, a representative of the Greenwich Library staff, up to 3 representatives of the Greenwich Community Association, 1 representative of the Greenwich Kindergarten, 1 representative of the Greenwich Senior Citizens’ Association, and 1 East Ward Councillor and will meet twice a year in the Greenwich Library on a Tuesday at 4pm.

 

Current Representation: Councillor Karpin and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Metro Pool/UIP Boards

 

Established in 1990, Metro Pool is made up of nine (9) Councils which self insure against Public Liability claims and purchase excess layers of insurance. United Independent Pools is a joint partnership of 18 councils established in 2005 to manage first party losses including property, motor vehicle and crime cover. The Boards comprise an Elected Representative and the General Managers of each Council and has the responsibility of ratifying decisions made by the Management Committee and ensuring the ongoing viability of the Pools. The Boards meet quarterly on a Wednesday at 10am at a host council. . As this is an external committee, the role of the Boards are governed by Metrol Pool/UIP

 

Current Representation: Councillor Karpin with Councillor Strassberg as an alternate and the General Manager or their nominee.

 

Mowbray Precinct Working Party

 

This committee was formed on 3 December 2012 to liaise with Council on issues relating to the precinct’s transition during the current and future development of properties and infrastructure in the Mowbray Precinct. However, this committee is not to be engaged in strategic planning issues such as rezonings. This committee meets quarterly on a Tuesday at 6:00pm in the Committee Room. The role of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on the Mowbray Precinct.

 

Current Representation: All Councillors and appropriate staff as appointed by the General Manager.

 

Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils - (NSROC)

 

Established in 1989, NSROC is a voluntary group of seven (7) Northern Sydney Councils who have joined together as a service organisation to support the needs and further the interests of the communities represented by member Councils. Main activities are policy advocacy for the region, professional development of staff and shared procurement. The board of the organisation meets quarterly at 6:00pm on the second Thursday of February, May, September and November at a rotating venue between member Councils. As this is an external committee, the role of the board is governed by the constitution of NSROC, which is an incorporated association.  The Mayor’s alternate must be the person acting as Mayor at the time, the Deputy Mayor ordinarily.  

 

Current Representation: The Mayor and Deputy Mayor with Councillors Cheong and Karpin as alternates.

 


NSW Metropolitan Public Libraries Association (Inc.)

 

The NSW Metropolitan Public Libraries Association (NSW MPLA) is the peak body that represents the interests and development of public libraries in metropolitan New South Wales.

The Association was established to ensure resource sharing programs, and for exchanging ideas. The Association meets quarterly on a Friday at alternate venues.  As this is an external committee, the role of the Association is governed by the constitution of the NSW MPLA.

 

Current Representation: Councillor Karpin with Councillor Palmer as an alternate and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Publications Editorial TaskForce

 

This committee provides advice to the General Manager on the draft Quarterly Newsletter to the community and any other relevant publications. The committee will meet on an as required basis in the Committee Room in the Civic Centre at 6pm prior to Council Meetings.

 

Current Representation: Councillors Bennison, Brent and Hutchens and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

 

Shell Consultative Committee

 

Established in 1993 to provide a forum to discuss environmental and community issues. This committee is convened by Shell Australia and provides advice on the operation of the Refinery at Gore Bay. The committee meets quarterly on a Wednesday at 7pm. As this is an external committee, the role of the committee is governed by Shell.

 

Current Representation: East Ward Councillors and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Shorelink Committee

 

The Shorelink Library Network was established in 1983 when five participating councils signed a Deed of Agreement. This committee discusses the Shorelink Library Network and comprises a Councillor and Manager – Library Services from Lane Cove, Manly, Mosman, North Sydney and Willoughby Councils. This committee meets five (5) times a year, at 6:00pm on a Wednesday and rotates its venues between Councils. As this is an external committee, the role of the committee is governed by Shorelink.

 

Current Representation: Councillor Karpin with Councillor Palmer as an alternate and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Sustainability Advisory Committee

 

Established in 2005 to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on the formulation, prioritisation and implementation of strategies and initiatives to achieve sustainability as primarily set out in the Sustainability Action Plan. The committee meets five times a year on a Wednesday at 6pm, in the Council Chambers.

 

Current Representation: Councillors Cheong, Gold and Strassberg and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 


Willoughby/Ryde/Hunters Hill/Lane Cove District Bushfire Committee

 

This committee was established to meet the requirements of the Rural Fires Act in minimising the impact of bushfires on the community. Its functions include approving priorities and locations for hazard reduction works. Representatives are from the four (4) Councils, National Parks and Wildlife Service, NSW Police Service, TollAust and NSW Fire Brigades. The committee meets quarterly at the Lane Cove Fire Station, Artarmon at 10am on a Thursday. As this is an external committee, the role of the committee is governed by the NSW Fire Brigades.

 

Current Representation: Councillor Palmer and staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.    Council conduct the Election for Mayor and Deputy Mayor for the next 12 months.

2.    If two or more nominations are received for Mayor or Deputy Mayor, Council resolve whether the election is to proceed by preferential ballot, by ordinary ballot or by open voting.

3.    Council determine Councillor representation on Advisory and External Committees for  2013-14, with it being noted that the Mayor is an ex-officio on all Council Advisory Committees.

4.    It be noted that any available Councillor may attend Internal Advisory Committees;

5.    Council authorise all Councillor representatives on Internal Advisory Committees to arrange an alternate as required;

6.    Advisory Committee Charters be amended where necessary to reflect Councillor Representation; and

7.    Council dissolve the Aboriginal Art Exhibition Taskforce and Aboriginal Education Working Party.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 September 2013

Marshall Precinct Draft DCP Finalisation

 

 

Subject:          Marshall Precinct Draft DCP Finalisation    

Record No:    SU4824 - 43518/13

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Vivienne Albin 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At its meeting of 17 June 2013 Council adopted for exhibition a Draft Development Control Plan for the Marshall Precinct that seeks to detail development controls in support of the soon to be finalised Planning Proposal for the Precinct. The Draft DCP was exhibited with nine (9) submissions received and five (5) on-line surveys were completed.

 

Issues raised in submissions/surveys include potential open space within the precinct, complexities relating to the uncertainty of the railway plaza, impact on views from the north resulting from the Draft DCP, traffic and parking, adjustment of numeric setbacks and removal of the maximum tower floor-plate.

 

As a result of issues raised in submissions/surveys, and Council officer discussions, some amendments are proposed to the Draft DCP, which include:-

 

-     minor changes to the DCP objectives;

-     adjustments to building separation;

-     deletion of heights in the DCP (where already dictated by the LEP);

-     inclusion of an isolated sites objective and provision; and

-     several minor edits.

 

Council is requested to review the amendments proposed and adopt the Draft DCP. Should Council support the Draft DCP, it would come into force after the planning proposal for the Marshall Precinct is notified (gazetted).

 

Background

 

Following Council’s resolution of 15 April 2013, the Marshall Avenue Planning Proposal was submitted to the Department of Planning and awaits finalisation. The planning proposal amends the current height and floor space ratio (FSR) of the block between Marshall Avenue and Marshall Lane, reducing the height and FSR for the western two thirds while increasing height and FSR on the eastern third of the block to allow a tower building form near the railway.

 

Site specific development controls are required to support the proposed Local Environmental Plan (LEP) changes. The current Lane Cove DCP contains a specific section in relation to the subject locality; however, this section of the DCP requires amendment to reflect the planning proposal. This Draft DCP was prepared with input from staff, the St Leonards Community Liaison Committee, Loftex and another commercial property owner.

 

Council exhibited draft amendments to the DCP for the Marshall Precinct shown attached as AT-1 from Friday 28 June 2013 to Friday 9 August 2013.

 

Nine (9) submissions were received in total; three (3) from residents, two (2) from community associations, one (1) from a commercial property owner and three (3) from consultants representing commercial/residential property owners. An on-line survey was also available during the community consultation period and five (5) responses were received. A copy of the submissions have been circulated separately to Councillors.

 

 

 Discussion

 

Issues raised in submissions are summarised as follows:-

 

1.   Plaza - bus bay, open space and activation

 

There is uncertainty as to whether the Plaza would eventuate. As the Plaza is proposed to contain the open space for the Precinct along with a relocated bus bay, if the Plaza does not proceed, concern is raised in relation to the provision of the proposed open space and an improved bus bay. In addition, if the Plaza does proceed, there is concern that the “active” uses encouraged along Canberra Ave would become deserted and the area would be a pedestrian ‘wasteland’.

 

Comment

 

While Council is committed to the development of the Plaza, it is acknowledged that it is difficult to plan for the Precinct adjoining the proposed railway plaza site as the Plaza is not yet certain in terms of status, formal State Government Agency support and likely development approvals, date of construction or detailed design.

 

Notwithstanding the above, it is considered to be sound planning practice to develop the Marshall Precinct in the context of the long-term vision for the locality, which includes the Plaza (containing public open space) and relocation of the bus bay.

 

Public open space provided in the Plaza would function as pedestrian circulation space and a passive recreation area. The St Leonards South Strategy, currently underway, will consider the broader question of open space needs in the St Leonards South Precinct, which contains the Marshall Precinct area.

 

In relation to the bus stop, it should be noted that any proposal for the Pacific Highway block in the vicinity of the current bus stop would need to be mindful of constraints for development in the area. Moreover, Council would review any proposal in light of current circumstances. The DCP calls for increased public circulation space in a colonnade along the Highway around the existing bus stop.

 

Active uses (as shown in the draft DCP) along the Pacific Highway, Canberra Ave (near the Highway) and Berry Road are supported. The number of people working and living in the Precinct will increase over time and support greater demand for retail. As indicated above, Council would review any proposal in light of current circumstances (eg, the Plaza). The activation could occur either at the lower (street) level or higher (Plaza) level.

 

2.   Public domain eastern end of the precinct – views and open space

 

The Block Plan in the current DCP indicates “Urban Plaza” over the two eastern most sites on the Pacific Highway. Retention of this proposed open space area is requested as it would help retain views from the commercial buildings to the north and would provide open space for the precinct even if the plaza does not proceed.

 

Comment

 

The current DCP shown attached as AT-2 proposed a new area of open space near the railway line at 2-4 Pacific Highway, St Leonards. However, it should be noted that this particular Block Plan in the current DCP is “deferred” (see note in current DCP) and has been since the DCP was adopted due to building form gazetted over the Precinct which was not anticipated by Council.

 

This piece of open space was intended to improve pedestrian circulation rather than provide an area for recreation. The open space on the proposed Plaza would be for improved pedestrian circulation and passive recreation. If the Plaza were not to proceed, various options for improved circulation would be considered in the broader context as part of any required colonnade and future open space needs.

 

It is not proposed to retain the open space in the position shown on the current block plan as:-

 

-     The open space is now proposed in the Draft DCP over the railway line;

-     If Council indicates future open space on a DCP map but have not acquired the site, the development of that site may be adversely affected; and

-     The two sites in question contain the same development rights as their neighbour to the west; which is a 36m height and an 5:1 FSR. The DCP is not intended to curtail the development of these sites to a point where they cannot be redeveloped.

 

3.   Mid-block pedestrian connection and open space provision

 

Although no strong opposition to the removal of the mid-block pedestrian link from the current DCP was received, concern was raised that open space should be provided somewhere else in the Precinct. For example, it was considered that the Marshall Ave redevelopment should include an open space area for both local residents and future residents of the development.

 

Comment

 

The mid-block pedestrian connection shown in the current DCP was designed to provide a pedestrian route north-south between the Pacific Highway and Marshall Ave. However, there are several sound reasons for the deletion of this link, including: lack of a clear desire line (as it does not lead to traffic lights, and the bus stop may be moved), retention of Marshall Lane as a service lane (not traditionally attractive pedestrian environments), adversely affecting the potential development of a property where a future link is shown and the existence of an attractive pedestrian route along Marshall Ave to Canberra Ave (and a future Plaza).

 

Furthermore, a pedestrian through-link would not provide recreational opportunities. Therefore, as listed above, there are sound reasons for the deletion of the through site link and it is not considered to be a loss of open space.

 

As detailed earlier in this report, the proposed Plaza would provide open space for residents and workers in the locality. Any other consideration of open space is likely to occur as part of the St Leonards South Strategy.

 

The DCP stipulates large building separation for the mixed use developments on Marshall Ave. The space between these buildings is likely to enhance the streetscape; however, using these areas for public open space may not be effective in providing open space that feels public. The space is likely to feel like communal open space for the development only.

 

4.   Impact of Draft DCP on views from commercial development to the north (namely No. 207 Pacific Highway)

 

To the north, opposite the eastern end of the Marshall Precinct, is a commercial development at No.207 Pacific Highway containing two buildings; Building A (7 storeys) and Building B (11 storeys). A Visual Impact Analysis (VIA) was submitted that states each floor from at least level 3 and higher currently have 180 degree views over Marshall Precinct to Sydney Harbour, Sydney CBD, Sydney Harbour Bridge and the eastern & western suburbs. The submission goes on to say that the draft DCP would have a significant and unacceptable impact on views from 207 Pacific Highway. The VIA states that the impact on important and iconic views from Level 9 and above "can only be described as significant, devastating and unacceptable."

 

The submission states that to minimise view impact and meet the principles of view sharing, Council must revisit building heights across the Marshall Precinct, setbacks and tower floor-plate controls. Views have already been heavily affected by current DCP and should not be affected by Draft DCP.

 

[A copy of this submission including the VIA has been circulated to the Councillors separately].

 

Comment

 

No. 207 Pacific Highway is a commercial development comprising 2 buildings. Building A is 7 storeys and Building B is 11 storeys. The VIA submitted shows that views from Building A would be affected by both the current and Draft DCP for all levels similarly.

 

The VIA “Compilation of views” photographs indicates that views from Building B are affected at the top level (Level 10) by the Draft DCP.

 

The current DCP when it came into force included "Deferred" over the Block Plan for the Marshall Precinct as when the LEP was gazetted in 2009 the heights imposed on the Marshall Ave block were not as expected. Therefore the DCP Block Plan that had been designed to guide development was no longer appropriate for the block. Council recognised this in showing the block plan as "Deferred". Since then, lot amalgamations have occurred east-west in the Precinct and the Plaza has been planned, rendering the current DCP even less relevant.

 

It is worth noting that the height of the Pacific Highway block in the Marshall Precinct has a height limit of 36m under the LEP 2009, allowing commercial development of a commensurate height to 207 Pacific Highway, on the opposite side of the road, which would affect any views.

 

It is considered that the effect on 207 Pacific Highway is minimal and not relevant to the DCP. It would also be a reasonable expectation that the southern side of the Pacific Highway and surrounds would be developed to a height commensurate with 207 Pacific Highway and even taller buildings in the St Leonards centre. Moreover, it is noted that many competing issues are being considered and prioritised in the formulation of development controls for the Marshall Precinct such as, sunlight to existing residents, achievement of development potential and pedestrian circulation space near a transport node. 

 

It is emphasized that the LEP sets the zoning, height and floor space ratio for development in Lane Cove Local Government Area, not a DCP such as the subject of this report. Such issues were considered at the LEP proposal stage. The submission by 207 Pacific Highway fails to raise any issue that would call for a review of heights in the Precinct.

 

5.   Numerics - Maximum tower floor plate and building setbacks/separation

 

The draft DCP includes a maximum tower floor plate provision of 625m2 for Block D. Council has received a request from the owner to remove this provision to allow the reasonable achievement of floor space for any proposed tower on the site.

 

In addition, it was requested that Council reduce the setbacks of Block C to Marshall Lane and Block D (the tower) to Marshall Ave and Marshall Lane to allow the achievement of more floor space for the tower.

 

The separation between buildings is shown on the Draft DCP as 20m. It has been requested to reduce this setback to 18m, in accordance with Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC) supported by SEPP65.

 


Comment

 

While it is acknowledged that development of the site should be able to approach the maximum floor space permitted, it is emphasized that it is a maximum that cannot always be fully achieved.

 

Notwithstanding the above, it is understood that some flexibility is needed for the tower design within Block D and that the maximum tower floor plate provision unreasonably constrains the potential of this site.

 

Removal of this provision is supported. Moreover, the maximum envelope is controlled by the setbacks and height limit in DCP & LEP. In addition, SEPP 65 provides controls for building width and depth.

 

The reduction of setbacks for the tower to Marshall Ave and Marshall Lane is not supported.

 

The draft DCP requires a 20m separation between buildings in the Marshall Block. It is agreed to reduce this separation to 18m as per the RFDC, supported by SEPP 65.

 

The above comments have been supported by Council’s Urban Design Consultant.

 

6.   Commercial sites along Highway – uses, development potential/viability

 

One submission requested a greater range of uses for commercial areas along the Highway, namely residential use.

 

Concern was raised that the draft DCP takes away development potential from the Pacific Highway block in favour of the Marshall Block, to the point where development of the Pacific Highway strip is unviable.

 

Comment

 

Land uses are an LEP issue not a DCP issue. Land uses in the St Leonards Centre were considered in detail during the formulation of the LEP 2009.

 

LEP 2009 provided a large uplift in development potential along the Pacific Highway in the subject precinct through substantial increases in maximum FSR and height. The draft DCP intends to facilitate development equitably while protecting amenity and solar access of both blocks within the Marshall Precinct. Moreover, development potential under draft DCP has been tested by Council’s consultant, including along the Pacific Highway block, and FSRs in the vicinity of LEP maximum FSR controls can be achieved.

 

7.         Traffic and parking

 

Several submissions raised concerns regarding traffic and parking in the Precinct and requested the investigation of:-

 

-    A roundabout on the corner of Holdsworth & Marshall Ave;

-    Functioning of the Berry Rd lights (ie, lengthening of green time and delay caused by pedestrians for left turning vehicles);

-    Removal of the parking from western side of Berry Rd between Marshall & Pacific Hwy from 7-9am weekdays (allowing 2 lanes to queue for lights);

-    Making Marshall Lane only left turn out weekdays 7-9am;

-    Making 2 lanes into the Berry Rd roundabout when heading south from highway (to help with queuing) and considering speed approaching this roundabout;

-    Duntroon Ave seagull concrete barrier to give 2 longer queuing lanes; and

-    Widening usable part of Duntroon (may affect park) to address safety issues with increased future traffic.

 

Comment

 

The DCP does not affect the height and FSR of the precinct and therefore would not increase the development yield of the precinct. Consideration of traffic and parking issues would be included in any DA for the precinct and would be reviewed by Council’s Traffic and Transport Section. In addition, Council is currently undertaking a Traffic Study for St Leonards. This is due to be finalised this year and would include a base model for St Leonards which would readily allow the effective analysis of the potential impact of future development on the existing road system.

 

8.         Isolated Sites – Council staff issue

 

In addition to amendments to the Draft DCP arising from issues raised in submissions, Council staff recommend the inclusion of an objective and consideration in relation to isolated sites. This is relevant to the Pacific Highway block only and seeks to avoid the creation of isolated commercial sites.

 

Summary

 

The DCP for the Marshall Precinct being put before Council for finalization, includes amendments as outlined in the discussion of issues above.

 

Conclusion

 

At its meeting of 17 June 2013 Council supported the exhibition of the Draft Development Control Plan for the Marshall Precinct. The Draft DCP was exhibited and nine (9) submissions were received and five (5) on-line surveys were completed.

 

Issues raised in submissions/surveys include potential open space within the precinct, complexities relating to the uncertainty of the railway plaza, impact on views from the north resulting from the Draft DCP, traffic and parking, adjustment of numeric setbacks and removal of the maximum tower floor-plate.

 

As a result of issues raised in submissions/surveys, and Council officer discussion, consideration and evaluation, amendments have been made to the Draft DCP.

 

These changes include minor amendments to objectives, deletion of heights covered by the LEP, adjustment to building separation to align with SEPP 65, inclusion of an isolated sites objective and provision and minor edits.

 

Council is requested to consider and review the draft DCP as exhibited, proposed amendments and adopt the Draft DCP.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council adopt the amended Development Control Plan for the Marshall Precinct, as shown attached as AT-3, appropriately edited following the Council meeting;

 

2.   The Development Control Plan come into force by newspaper advertisement as soon as practical after the Planning Proposal for the Marshall Avenue Block is notified (gazetted) by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure; and

 

3.   The people who made submission on the draft DCP be thanked for their input and advised of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Exhibited draft amendments to Marshall Precinct Draft DCP

6 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Current DCP Block Plan Marshall Ave Excerpt

1 Page

 

AT‑3 View

Amendments after exhibition to Marshall Precinct Draft Development Control Plan

8 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 September 2013

Review of Lane Cove Bicycle Plan

 

 

Subject:          Review of Lane Cove Bicycle Plan    

Record No:    SU1330 - 44782/13

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Tim Sullivan 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Bicycle Plan is now 5 years old and due for update and review. Council’s Bicycle Advisory Committee has developed 15 new bicycle routes to be included in the updated Bicycle Plan. It is recommended that Council consider which of the proposed new routes should be included in the Draft Bicycle Plan 2013. It is also recommended that Council conduct community consultation on the Draft Bicycle Plan 2013 to determine the level of community support for the proposed new routes.

 

Background

 

GTA consultants and Jamieson Foley produced the first Lane Cove Bicycle Plan in 2008. This document contains a map showing proposed new routes, including both on and off street bicycle paths. The Bicycle Plan also contains a costed programme of works and various other technical and theoretical information and guidance on the implementation of bicycle infrastructure.

 

Since 2008, Council officers have been implementing sections of the Bicycle Plan routes using internal and external funding sources. Although many routes have been partly or fully completed, including on-street bicycle paths on Longueville Road and Burns Bay Road, many routes from the 2008 Plan are not installed due to funding.

 

In mid 2013 the community members of the Lane Cove Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC), chaired by Don Murchison, investigated opportunities to add to the existing Bicycle Plan. They proposed 15 routes, which focused on off road routes (shown attached as AT-1 and AT-2). An assessment of these proposed new routes, using criteria such as feasibility, cost and strategic importance, was carried out by GTA Consultants and is shown attached as AT-3. A further assessment of the proposed new routes was subsequently undertaken by Council staff, with particular attention paid to the environmental impact on bushland reserves shown attached as
AT-4.

 

The internal report prepared by Council officers recommended that the following routes should not be included in the new Bicycle Plan, primarily due to environmental impacts:-

 

Route 1: Kingslangley Road;

Route 2: Lane Cove town centre to Greenwich Peninsular;

Route 3: River Road to Longueville Road Bowling Club;

Route 4: Longueville Road to St Ignatius College; and

Route 8: Longueville Road (off road path).

 

The Bicycle Advisory Committee have requested that the community have the opportunity to comment on all their proposed new routes.

 

Discussion

 

In addition to the proposed new routes put forward by the BAC, there are a number of other elements of the 2008 Bicycle Plan which will be updated and added to in the review process. The Bicycle Plan 2013 will include more detailed maps, a 5 year programme of works with route priorities and a programme of new bicycle parking infrastructure for the whole LGA. GTA Consultants have been engaged to undertake this work and the draft version of the Bicycle Plan 2013 should be ready by September 27. The Brief for the Review of the Bicycle Plan is shown attached as AT-5.

 

The proposed timeline for completion of the Bicycle Plan Review is shown below:-

 

September 5 – Inception meeting with GTA;

September 16 – Council to consider and resolve on BAC proposed new routes;

September 27 – First draft of Bicycle Plan 2013 complete;

October 2-November 13 – Community consultation on Draft Bicycle Plan02013;

December 2 – Council meeting to formally adopt Draft Lane Cove Bicycle Plan 2013.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to receive feedback on the Draft Lane Cove Bicycle Plan 2013. Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with the proposed bicycle routes and other amendments to the Draft Lane Cove Bicycle Plan.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Key Message givers:-

Bicycle Advisory Committee;

Bushland Management Advisory Committee;  and

Access Advisory Committee

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and

eNewsletter

 

Notification Letters

Public and 

Website Exhibition

 

Indicative Timing

October – November 2013

October – November 2013

October – November 2013

 

Conclusion

 

The Bicycle Advisory Committee has proposed a number of new routes for inclusion in the Bicycle Plan 2013. They should be commended for their hard work in developing these routes. However, Council staff have highlighted that some of these routes may have an unacceptable environmental impact, particularly in relation to bushland reserves. Council should determine which of the routes should be placed on exhibition as part of the consultation on the Draft Bicycle Plan 2013.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Determine which of the proposed bicycle routes should be included in the Draft Bicycle Plan 2013 to go on public exhibition;

2.   Place the Draft Lane Cove Bicycle Plan 2013 on public exhibition for 6 weeks in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in this 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

Bicycle Advisory Committee

34 Pages

AT‑2 View

BAC Route 15 August 2013

1 Page

 

AT‑3 View

GTA Review of BAC Submission

25 Pages

AT‑4 View

LCC Evaluation of BAC Proposed Routes

22 Pages

AT‑5 View

Brief for Review of Lane Cove Bike Plan 2013

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 September 2013

Section 94 Contributions Plan Finalisation

 

 

Subject:          Section 94 Contributions Plan Finalisation    

Record No:    SU3482 - 44179/13

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A public exhibition has been undertaken of a revised Works Schedule for Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan. The update of the Works Schedule is required to reflect works already completed and changes in priorities arising from LEP 2009.

 

One submission was received during exhibition. The Open Space Manager and Traffic Manager have advised that the matters raised do not require changes to the proposed Works Schedule, as they are covered already by grants and other funding and programs.

 

Council is requested to adopt the amended Section 94 Contributions Plan Works Schedule,  shown attached as AT 1, for finalisation.

 

Background

 

A review of the Plan was undertaken by Council in 2006, but deferred pending Planning Reforms commenced by the NSW Government in 2007, the most recent component being the recent exhibition of the NSW White Paper. A cap of $20,000 per dwelling was imposed on most councils, including Lane Cove Council, in 2010. The contribution rates in Lane Cove have typically fitted within this cap, however the need has remained to review the works schedule itself for which contributions are used, as it has not been reviewed post adoption of the current LEP.

 

Discussion

 

On 15 July 2013, Council adopted the draft Works Schedule for the purposes of the public exhibition. The public exhibition was held from 26 July to 5 September 2013 in accordance with Council’s Consultation Policy. One submission was received relating to the exhibition.

 

The submission raised matters in relation to open space, skateboard facilities and cycleways:-

 

No.

Submission

Staff comment

1

Gore Creek/River Road – The rock wall should be cut above the footpath for more space and safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

The identified project is to improve the pedestrian link between Lane Cove Bushland Park and Gore Creek Reserve. Currently, bush walkers use the stormwater drain under the road. The comment is noted for the next plan review.

 

2

Bush regeneration: This was in the previous Schedule, but is no longer an item. More work is needed in Gore Creek, especially where the seeds and weeds flow down from River Road and where the bushland suffered during old road construction cutting work.

Bush regeneration was included as general item in the previous S.94 Plan. It has not been included as a general item in this plan as the bush regeneration works are now funded through Council’s annual maintenance budget, with additional funds from a range of grants and the Sustainability Levy. Specific projects eg Batten Reserve bush track are included. Gore Creek work would include consideration of these items.

 

3

Gore Creek Oval – Installation of a sprinkler watering system and subsoil drainage was in the previous Schedule, but is no longer an item.

New irrigation and subsoil drainage were installed last year using funds from a variety of sources, including Sydney Water, Greenwich Sports Club and the Greenwich Village Games.

 

4

Walking tracks – The stone stairs from the west end of Ford St Greenwich, leading to the track along Gore Creek waterfront, need restoration.

 

The Gore Creek Reserve track from Ford St upgrade currently has funding through a grant.

5

Holloway Park at Gore Cove Reserve – Perhaps this explains the poor state its bushland is in. The bush, accessed via stairs at the south end of Vista St, is in a poor state.

 

Bush regeneration work was done in the park but there is significant disturbance at Vista St as a result of dumping many decades ago. The lookout area was landscaped in 1990s and the walking track link to Gore Cove made but the very steep and unstable terrain below the landscaped area makes the site very difficult to manage. Works can be funded through Council’s annual bushland budget and grant funds.

 

6

Fleming St Reserve/playground, Northwood – (end of Wyndarra Place) – More and varied playground equipment is suggested.

 

A local playground with new slide was installed in 2002. No requests have been received from other residents to provide any further equipment.

 

7

End of Fleming Street -  access to Bushland Park – Improved signage at Northwood

Rd and access to the small reserve off the stone stairs, requested.

 

A new entry sign is to be installed at the bush track entrance from Fleming St this financial year.

 

8

Skate boards – The money allocated does not seem enough to do very much, for a rather voiceless group of the community.

 

The allocation of $125,000 is considered adequate based on previous facilities.

9

Bicycle paths - Need more money and clearer markings. Cyclists’ numbers are rapidly increasing and the allocation should anticipate a continued rise.

 

The general allocation for Cycle Paths is $260,000. However, other specialized amounts include $750,000 for a PAMP/ cycling and lighting in the Mowbray precinct and $135,000 for Industrial Area bike facilities. Other works benefitting cycling are embedded in such items as Lighting. In particular, Roundabouts/ Intersection works ($1.420M) and Signals ($!.35M) cover a significant cost component for cycleway inclusions.

 

Council’s Bicycle Plan demonstrates detailed paths between trip generators and key destinations.

 

 

The Section 94 Plan has a works schedule totaling $25,593,258 in construction value. This equates to $38,524,184 in 2013 terms (based on CPI increases, as permitted in the Plan). A number of the works in the existing schedule have been undertaken, for example the library. As a result, there is a need to revise the works schedule to take into account the works completed and it is proposed to provide for future works on a “rolling schedule” basis.

 

Amending the Works Schedule will not change the Contributions as adopted in Council’s Fees and Charges, as the value of the works is not changing only the individual projects.

 

The NSW White Paper and future legislation may require review of the Plan. In recent forums on the planning reforms, Departmental staff have recommended that councils update their plans’ schedules now as a platform for subsequent revisions to the structure once this is known. This may take some time given that it involves the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART), the establishment of a Contributions Taskforce and other governance changes.

 

The detailed restructuring of infrastructure contributions expected to be required under those planning reforms by the State Government will provide an opportunity to review the Works Schedule more fully to relate it to the Local Plan once the new format is clarified.

Conclusion

 

The Lane Cove Section 94 Contributions Plan provides the basis for the collection of monies to assist in meeting the needs of a growing residential and employment workforce.

 

The update of the Works Schedule is required to reflect works already undertaken and changes in priorities arising from LEP 2009.

 

The submission received during exhibition has been considered by staff, who advise that the comments do not require changes to the proposed Works Schedule, as they are already covered generally by grants and other funding.

 

A further review of developer contributions is expected to be required following foreshadowed legislation relating to the NSW Planning Reforms.

 

Council is requested to finalise the Works Schedule for the Section 94 Contributions Plan as shown attached as AT 1.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council finalise the Works Schedule for the Section 94 Contributions Plan shown attached as AT 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Section 94 Plan Work Schedule for 16 September 2013

2 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 September 2013

Draft DCP Amendment - Car Parking for Restaurants Finalisation

 

 

Subject:          Draft DCP Amendment - Car Parking for Restaurants Finalisation    

Record No:    SU5167 - 44724/13

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Vivienne Albin 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At its meeting of 15 July 2013, Council resolved to exhibit amendments to the Development Control Plan (DCP) to reduce the amount of car parking required for restaurants. Subsequently, DCP Draft Amendment – Car Parking for Restaurants was exhibited from 26 July 2013 to 5 September 2013 and six (6) submissions were received.

 

This amendment proposes to align car parking requirements for cafes/restaurants with parking rates for retail/commercial uses, from 1 space per 4 seats to 1 space per 40m2 gross floor area. 

 

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the issues raised in submissions and recommend DCP Draft Amendment – Car Parking for Restaurants for adoption. 

 

Background

 

At the Council meeting of 15 July, 2013, it was resolved to consult on a proposal to align parking rates for general retail/commercial uses and restaurants cafes. The reasons for this proposed amendment included:

 

-     Council’s current policy is impacting on the competitiveness of the village to attract tenants compared with neighbouring Councils;

-     Upfront payment of Section 94 when changing a use to restaurant/café compared to retail (with no change in floor space) is often a deterrent to potential tenants; and

-     North Sydney Council requires less parking for cafes/restaurants than for general commercial/retail while Willoughby Council has the same rates for the uses (although they do require additional space for restaurant staff).

 

The Draft DCP Amendment was exhibited from 26 July 2013 to 5 September 2013 and six (6) submissions were received, including four (4) in support of the amendment. A copy of the submissions have been circulated separately to Councillors.

 

A broad principle of the proposal is that the parking spaces would be used by residents who are visiting the numerous shops in the Village, not only the restaurants.

 

Discussion

 

Four submissions whole-heartedly supported the proposed amendment to the DCP including one submission which considered the amendment to the café/restaurant parking rate would constitute the removal of an impediment to attracting good quality café/restaurants to Lane Cove. One of these submissions (from a commercial property owner) in support of the change commended Council for the proposed amendment and requested that Council further review its other policies that put a disproportionate financial load on businesses in Lane Cove.

 

There was a suggestion to reword the proposed amendment to require one parking space per 40 square metres of gross floor area “or part thereof”.

 

Two submissions were received objecting to the proposed amendment. One submission from a community association did not support the proposed amendment as it considered that the two different uses result in very different parking demands, with restaurants requiring more parking then commercial spaces. Consequently, any such change would cause greater congestion in the Village.

 

The second objection believes that: the current parking rates are reasonable, it is unfair to change the rates as some businesses have already paid the higher rate, there are a lot of cafes/restaurants in Lane Cove already and different types of shops are needed, both North Sydney and Willoughby Councils are poor comparisons as these areas have high density housing/offices near restaurants/cafes, reducing parking rates to attract more tenants may not work. The submission also inquired whether footpath/plaza seating is charged the same car parking ratio and rates levy.

 

Comment

 

Support for the amendment is acknowledged.

 

It is not considered necessary to change the wording of the provision to “or part there of”. The relevant section (1.4) of Part D of the DCP already contains a provision requiring that, “Any number of 0.5 spaces or above to be rounded to be nearest whole number”, which has the same effect.

 

In response to the first objection raised, the rates are being brought into line with retail and commercial uses, not just commercial (eg, office space). The submission includes calculations; however, it is unclear where the ratios are derived from. Council generally uses the Roads and Maritime Services parking rates. Furthermore, as indicated earlier in this report it needs to be taken into consideration that residents using the parking spaces for cafes/restaurants may also be visiting shops in the Village.

 

In response to the second objection, it is common for Council to review policies after the long-term outcomes of the policies are considered. The proposed change does not specifically encourage restaurants/cafes but seeks to impose an equal parking ratio for this type of development as for commercial/retail. While it is agreed that the neighbouring Councils do not offer a direct comparison to Lane Cove, it is useful to have regard to their parking ratios and whether they impose the same ratios for restaurants/cafes and retail/commercial. It is agreed that the amendment may not assist in attracting tenants to Lane Cove, however, it is considered that it will remove a barrier for the establishment of restaurants/cafes in Lane Cove which may assist in attracting tenants.

 

In response to the query raised in the second objection, if a development application is required then Council does calculate the same parking ratio and rates levy for that application even if the seating is for the footpath/plaza. Existing seating would be covered by existing use rights.

 

Council’s Traffic and Transport section was consulted and supports the DCP amendment in light of research undertaken for parking rates in the LGA generally.

 

Conclusion

 

This report outlines the submissions received during the public exhibition of DCP Draft Amendment – Car Parking for Restaurants. This amendment proposes to align car parking requirements for cafes/restaurants with parking rates for retail/commercial uses, from 1 space per 4 seats to 1 space per 40m2 gross floor area. This recognises that restaurant customers would also likely provide custom at local shops generally.

 

Six (6) submissions were received; four (4) in support of the amendment and two (2) objections. No issues were raised in submissions necessitating changes to the exhibited provisions.  It is recommended that DCP Draft Amendment – Car Parking for Restaurants, as exhibited, be adopted.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Adopt Development Control Plan Draft Amendment – Car Parking for Restaurants, as exhibited, attached as AT-1, to align car parking requirements for cafes/restaurants with parking rates for retail/commercial uses, being 1 space per 40m2 floor area gross floor area.

 

2.   Advertise the adoption of DCP Amendment – Car Parking for Restaurants be advertised in a local newspaper.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Development Control Plan Amendment - Car Parking for Restaurants

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 September 2013

Review of Community Representatives on Council's Advisory Committees

 

 

Subject:          Review of Community Representatives on Council's Advisory Committees    

Record No:    SU827 - 37370/13

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to fulfill Council’s resolution of 19 November 2012 to annually review the community representation on Council’s Advisory Committees. This report recommends that Council review the current representation, adopt guidelines for attendance of meetings, determine whether to advertise the current vacancies on the committees and if any other changes are required.

 

Discussion

 

During the current Council term, Council has made several resolutions to accept nominations received from members of the community to be community representatives on Council’s Advisory Committees. Council also resolved on 19 November 2012 to review these appointments annually. The current community representation on Council’s Advisory Committees and any vacancies on these committees are detailed below:-

 

Lane Cove Bicycle Advisory Committee

 

Council resolved on 19 November 2012 to increase the number of community representatives from five to six. The community representatives on the committee are:-

 

Susan Loane, Russell Webber, Don Murchinson, Maggie Burke, Gavin Imhof and Rod Taylor.

 

Bushland Management Advisory Committee

 

Council resolved on 19 November 2012 to increase the number of community representatives from three to four. One of the appointed representatives has since resigned from the committee. The community representatives on the committee are:-

 

Ruth Neuman, Lynne McLoughlin and Frances Vissel.

 

Cameraygal Festival Committee

 

The community representatives on the committee are:-

 

Rod Tudge, Pat Madson, Lyndall McNally, Sarah Balzer, Anthony Nolan, Marie James, Joy Archer, Shirin Kanji, Paul McGregor, Shideh Modabber, Susan Morrison and James Shevlin.

 

Lane Cove Cultural Advisory Committee

 

This committee’s charter allows for twelve community representatives and the committee currently has ten. The community representatives on the committee are:-

 

Chrissie Lloyd, Graham Ball, Bill McLaughlin, Kathy Elton, Anthony Nolan, Emily Patterson, Dr Anne Power, Kay Freedman, Margo Easton and Jonghee (Jo) Kim.

 


Sustainability Advisory Committee

 

This committee’s charter allows for six community representatives and a youth representative. The committee currently has no youth representative. The community representatives on the committee are:-

 

Jane Blackmore, Sjirk Bangma, Paul McGregor, Christina Kim, Erin Cini and Anthony Melinz.

 

Lane Cove Access Committee

 

This committee’s charter allows for five community representatives and the committee currently has four. The community representatives on the committee are:-

 

Anthony Melinz, Kay Freedman, John Baxter and Mark Edward Twynam Horn.

 

Lane Cove Public Art Advisory Committee

 

This committee’s charter allows for seven community representatives and the committee currently has four. The community representatives on the committee are:-

 

Bridget Kennedy, Avron Greenberg, Melissa McElhone and Jayne Whitford.

 

Mowbray Precinct Working Party

 

Council resolved on 18 March 2013 to increase the number of community representatives from five to eight for a period of 12 months. The community representatives on the committee are:-

 

Guy Hallowes, Deborah Hill, Ann Proudfoot, Mark Joyner, Kylie Bryden-Smith,  Frances Vissel, Brian McDonald and Elizabeth McDougal.

 

Lane Cove Recreation Precinct Liaison Advisory Committee

 

This committee’s charter allows for four community representatives with 2 having an interest in sports to be accommodated at the facility and 2 having an interest in town planning, urban design and/or architecture. The committee currently has two representatives with an interest in sport to be accommodated at the facility. The community representatives on the committee are:-

 

Ted Merewether and Andrew Zbik.

 

Aboriginal Advisory Committee

 

This committee’s charter allows for eight community representatives and the committee currently has seven. The community representatives on the committee are:-

 

Gavin Brown, Dale McLeod, Ricky Lyons, Peter Michael Shine, Natalie Ahmat, Michelle Dickson, Leslie Shaynee McLeod, Shane Phillips, Max Harrison and Margret Campbell.

 


Attendance at Committee Meetings

 

The review of community representation on Council’s Advisory Committees revealed that some community representatives have missed several meetings since November 2012 and Council may wish to consider adopting guidelines for attendance of committee meetings by community representatives. Council’s Code of Meeting Practice states that members of a committee cease to become a member where they miss three consecutive meetings without giving acceptable reasons. It is recommended that Council review the membership of a community representative of an Advisory Committee where they have missed three consecutive meetings without giving acceptable reasons to Council or miss 50% of the total number of meetings during a calendar year.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Review the current community representation on Council’s Advisory Committees;

 

2.   Determine whether to advertise the current vacancies on the Advisory Committees; and

 

3.   Review the membership of community representatives of an Advisory Committee where they have missed three consecutive meetings without giving acceptable reasons or miss 50% of the total number of meetings during a calendar year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 September 2013

Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 20 August 2013

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 20 August 2013    

Record No:    SU1326 - 44954/13

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Tim Sullivan 

 

 

 Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday, 20 August 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, 20 August 2013.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Agenda - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 20 August 2013

15 Pages

AT‑2 View

Minutes - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 20 August 2013

5 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 September 2013

Amendment of Alcohol Free Zones for Special Events

 

 

Subject:          Amendment of Alcohol Free Zones for Special Events    

Record No:    SU3530 - 44760/13

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      David Wilson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council is in receipt of a request (shown attached as AT-1) for Lane Cove Council and adjacent Council’s to activate their New Year’s Eve Alcohol Free Zones (AFZ) for the Royal Australian Navy’s International Fleet Review.

 

In 2011, the Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Ray Griggs, extended an invitation to over 50 nations to send a warship and/or tall ship to participate in an International Fleet Review (IFR) to be held in Sydney from 3 - 11 October 2013. The Review is being held to commemorate the centenary of the first entry of the Royal Australian Navy's Fleet into Sydney.

 

The IFR is a high profile international event and Navy's signature commemorative event for 2013. Planned in partnership with the NSW State Government and the City of Sydney, it is anticipated that approximately 40 warships and 17 tall ships will participate in this historic event. The RAN Sea Power Conference 2013 and Pacific 2013 International Maritime Congress and Exposition, are also scheduled to take place at Darling Harbour from 7 October 2013 to coincide with the IFR. Detailed information about the series of events during the IFR can be obtained from http://navy.gov.au/ifr/.

 

With the event scheduled for 1 to 11 October 2013 on Sydney Harbour, the Local Area Command (LAC) expects large crowds to gather at vantage points around the Harbour including locations on the foreshore of the Lane Cove LGA and as such are seeking Council’s assistance to have these areas designated as AFZ’s for this period.

 

Arrangements have been made with Council for the closure of Greenwich Road at the intersection of Jago Road, Greenwich between 5pm -11pm on Saturday 5 October 2013, as the main fleet sail past and fireworks will be held on this date.  Given the anticipated public interest and likely festive atmosphere, it is recommended that the current AFZ’s be activated from 9.00 am on Friday 4 October 2013 to 9.00am on Sunday 6 October 2013 to address the request from the LAC for this Special Event and delegation also be provided to the General Manager for activating the AFZ’s for future Special Events.

 

Background

 

In 2011 a number of Councils in the vicinity of Sydney Harbour implemented APA (Alcohol Prohibited Area) and AFZ’s (Alcohol Free Zone) to assist in managing the increasing number of people that were gathering in public areas to participate in the New Year’s Eve (NYE) celebrations.

 

It was found that after the 2011 NYE celebrations, Manns Point, Greenwich was in newspapers and in social media, as a location where alcohol could be consumed. Foreshore areas in the Lane Cove LGA had not been declared as APA / AFZ’s prior to this time, as these areas generally had attracted families and those looking for a quieter location to view the NYE celebrations, and therefore didn’t warrant them being regulated in this manner.

 

Due to the adoption of APA and AFZs in adjacent council areas, Manns Point became a focal point location for those looking to consume alcohol. As a result approximately 2000+ people were in attendance with reports that a large number of heavily intoxicated persons were present. The following morning (1 January 2012) Council was in receipt of a number of complaints regarding the amount of waste that was covering the Manns Point Reserve. The waste comprised significant amounts of alcohol bottles, general paper litter and camping furniture.

 

Following the establishment of the AFZ/APA’s, police resourcing was provided by the LAC for the 2012 NYE celebrations in Lane Cove, which resulted in a more enjoyable event with no arrests or unruly behaviour being reported.

 

Discussion

 

It is proposed to endorse the request from the LAC for Council to activate the AFZ/AFP’s for the Royal Australian Navy’s International Fleet Review, scheduled for 1 to 11 October 2013 on Sydney Harbour).

 

Arrangements would be made with Council’s Traffic & Transport Section, for the closure of Greenwich Road at the intersection of Jago Road, Greenwich between 5pm -11pm on Saturday 5 October 2013, as the main fleet sail past and fireworks to be held on day, when the largest crowds are expected and when the LAC will provide resources to patrol these areas.

 

In consultation with the LAC, they have recommended that the APA/AFZ’s be activated  from 9.00 am on Friday 4 October 2013 to 9.00am on Sunday 6 October 2013 in all parks and reserves and in the streets surrounding these reserves that are in proximity of Sydney Harbour as shown attached on the map attached as AT-2.

 

Without the declaration of these areas as AFZ/APA’s, local Police are limited in their ability to control the transportation and consumption of alcohol in these public areas.

 

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

This consultation is designed to inform local residents of Council’s intention to establish Alcohol Free Zones in the Lane Cove Local Government Area for the period from 9.00 am on 4 October 2013 to 9.00 am on 6 October 2013 and future declared Special Events.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Key message givers eg. Residents of affected areas. Owners of licensed premises, local Police.

Proposed Medium

Advertisements,

E-newsletter, posters on public notice boards in Library and Plaza, public and website exhibition.

Notification letters

 

Indicative Timing

September – October 2013

September – October 2013

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal to extend the APA’s and AFZ’s in the current approved areas for the Royal Australian Navy’s IFR scheduled for Friday 4 October 2013 to 9.00am on Sunday 6 October 2013 is recommended so as to provide a safe environment that families and the general public can view the sail past and fireworks associated with this special event without the impact of potentially unruly behaviour associated with alcohol consumption at large public events.

 

In addition, it is proposed that the General Manager be delegated authority to activate the existing AFZ and APA’s where a request is submitted by the Local Area Command for future Special Events until 1 January 2016.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.               Pursuant to Section 632A and Section 644 of the Local Government Act, 1993 endorse and advertise the proposal to declare the areas shown on the map attached as AT-2 and Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas for the 4, 5 and 6 October 2013.

 

2.               Pursuant to Section 632A and Section 644 of the Local Government Act, 1993 endorse and advertise the proposal to declare the areas shown on the map attached as AT-2 Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas for future Special Events.

 

3.               Delegate to the General Manager the power to activate existing Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas for future Special Events where requested by the Local Area Command.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Request from North Shore Local Area Command - Alcohol Free Zones

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Map of Designated Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas for New Years Eve

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 September 2013

Annual Financial Statements for 2012/2013  - Referral for Audit

 

 

Subject:          Annual Financial Statements for 2012/2013  - Referral for Audit    

Record No:    SU772 - 43630/13

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

Council's Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013 are presented for referral to External Audit.  A statement is required in respect of the accounts from Council and Management in relation to the accuracy of the accounts.  It is recommended that Council sign the statement and refer the accounts for audit.


Discussion

Council's Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013 have been prepared and are ready to proceed for External Audit. The general purpose financial statements, special purpose financial statements and special schedules are required to be completed and ready for audit by 31 October following the financial year end.  In accordance with Section 413(2)(c) of the Local Government Act, Council is required to include with the Annual Financial Statements a "Statement by Councillors and Management" signed under resolution of Council, by the Mayor, one other Councillor, the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer, which will allow Council's external Auditor to complete the audit.  A similar "Statement by Councillors and Management" is also required for the Special Purpose Financial Statements.

Following the Audit, the Annual Financial Reports will then be presented to Council in November, with the Auditors Report.  The Reports to be signed plus a copy of the Annual Financial Reports for the Year ended 30 June 2013, are attached.  In order for Council's Annual Financial Statements for 2012/2013 to go forward for Audit the following resolution of Council is now required.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.    In respect to Council's General Purpose Financial Reports the following statement be provided for signature by the Mayor, one other Councillor, the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer:-

GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2013

Statement by Councillors and Management made pursuant to section 413 (2)(C) of the Local Government Act 1993 (as amended).

The attached General Purpose Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013, have been drawn up in accordance with:-

·     the Local Government Act 1993 (as amended) and the Regulations made thereunder;

·     the Australian Accounting Standards and professional pronouncements;

·     the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting;       

 

To the best of our knowledge and belief, this Report:-

·     presents fairly the Council's operating result and financial position for the year; and

·     accords with Council’s accounting and other records.

We are not aware of matter that would render this Report false or misleading in any way.

2.    In respect to Council's Special Purpose Financial Reports, the following statement be provided for signature by the Mayor, one other Councillor, the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer:-

SPECIAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS  FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2013

Statement by Councillors and Management made pursuant to the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting.

The attached Special Purpose Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013, have been drawn up in accordance with:-

·      NSW Government Policy Statement "Application of National Competition Policy to      Local Government";

·      Division of Local Government guidelines "Pricing & Costing for Council Businesses: Guide to Competitive Neutrality"; and

·      The Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting.

To the best of our knowledge and belief, these Reports:-

·     present fairly the Council's operating result and financial position for each of Council’s declared Business Activities for the year; and

·     accord with Council’s Accounting and other records.

We are not aware of any matter that is false or misleading in any way.

3.    Council's Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013 be referred for audit by Council’s external Auditors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

General Purpose Financial Statement for the Year Ended 30 June 2013

68 Pages

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 September 2013

Sister City Visit from Huzhou City, China

 

 

Subject:          Sister City Visit from Huzhou City, China    

Record No:    SU4964 - 45255/13

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli; Jane Gornall 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council will recall that a number of Reports have come to Council regarding assessing the possibility of establishing a Sister City Relationship with Huzhou City in China. The Council meeting of the 19th August 2013 resolved:

 

1.   Council write to the Mayor of Huzhou City and formally invite them to Lane Cove;

2.   The General Manager and the Lane Cove Chamber of Commerce invite interested business to a welcome dinner; and

3.   In light of this request, the General Manager request a meeting with the Principal of Lane Cove West Public School to determine if there is an opportunity for funding to rebuild our local schools.

This Report updates Council on progress on the above resolution, and recommends the report be received and noted.

 

Discussion.

 

Council has written to the Mayor of Huzhou City inviting him to bring a delegation to Lane Cove.  As part of this correspondence, Lane Cove sent a copy of the recently produced promotional DVD – ‘Lane Cove – where Sydneysiders live.’   The DVD was sent with both the English version and also a version in Mandarin.

 

A reply has been received by Council advising that a delegation would like to visit this year. An official invitation has been sent, confirming Council’s readiness to host such a visit and explaining that it is expected that the delegation will be responsible for all of their own expenses including airfares, travel, accommodation and insurance.

 

Listed below are the names and titles of the delegation. These officials are currently obtaining the required visas for the visit. Until the visas are obtained all dates and arrangements are provisional.

 

Title

Mr.Li Jianping

Vice Mayor of Huzhou Municipal People’s Government

Mr.Shao Jian

Director of Huzhou Industrial & Commercial Administration

Mr.Fu Ziqiang

Vice Director of Huzhou Land & Resources Administration

Mr. Chen Xintang

Vice Director of Huzhou Supply & Marketing Cooperative

Ms.Hong Yihui

Chief of the Investment Promotion Bureau of the Administrative Committee of Huzhou Tai- Lake Tourism & Vacation Resort

Mr.Li Wenhua

Vice section-chief of Huzhou Human Resource & Social Security Bureau

 

 

It is anticipated that the visit will take place during the first week of November 2013.

 

While an actual itinerary is still being developed, the following provides an insight into some proposed activities:

 

Day 1: Monday 4th November –Arrive in Sydney. 

Water taxi from City to Lane Cove.

BBQ lunch at one of Lane Cove’s water side parks

Either river cruise of Lane Cove or bus trip around Lane Cove looking at key attractions including Gallery Lane Cove and Lane Cove Library

 

Day 2: Tuesday 5th November – Melbourne Cup

Tour of a Lane Cove School

Chance to watch the Melbourne Cup

 

Day 3: Wednesday 6th November

Tour and then lunch at Parliament House

Dinner – meeting with local businesses

 

Day 4: Thursday 6th November

Trip to Gunnedah in conjunction with Lane Cove’s sister city.

Fly to Tamworth and then bus to Gunnedah with tour of a mine and agricultural country

 

Day 5: At leisure. Leave Sydney

 

Council staff are waiting for the dates to be confirmed.

 

Initial discussions have been held with the Chamber of Commerce about the delegation visiting Lane Cove and the response has been positive, with potential involvement in the dinner and other meetings with business are proposed.

 

Conclusion

 

It is envisaged that this visit will provide an opportunity for the delegation to meet with Council and the local businesses.

 

A further Report will be presented to the October Council meeting outlining the itinerary for the visit and associated costs.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the report.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 September 2013

Meeting House Development - Final Report

 

 

Subject:          Meeting House Development - Final Report     

Record No:    SU348 - 45089/13

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Tony Fazio 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Meeting House Development was officially opened on Saturday 17 August 2013. The development provides excellent community and child care facilities in a much needed area, substantially funded by six adjacent residential units.

 

This report provides an overview on the various elements and funding of the project and recommends that the report be received and noted.

 

Background

 

The Meeting House Development was one of the projects highlighted in Council’s Major Projects Strategic Plan 2007-2016. The new development replaces the “old neighbourhood centre” which reached its useful life and could no longer provide expansion of services to meet the changing needs of the community. The Council’s Social Plan 2005-2009 identified the continued need for Meeting House to provide improved neighbourhood services and listed as critical the need for further long day care places for 0-2 year olds.

 

In September 2010 development consent was obtained following the gazettal of Council’s Local Environmental Plan 2009, and construction commenced in August 2011 following the appointment of the builder, Platinum Projects through a tender process.

 

The development comprises a new Community Centre, a new Child Care facility and six (6) residential apartments with a mix of 2 and 3 bedrooms. Off street parking is provided on site for general public, residents and centre based staff.

 

The Community Centre allows simultaneous access to multiple groups in the two meeting rooms and offers a bigger space and better access for the aged and people with disabilities.

 

The new Child Care facility triples the centre’s previous capacity of 14 places by offering 40 places across three developmental groups of 0-2 (8 children), 2-3 (14 children) and 3-6 (18 children) year olds. For the first time the centre will offer 0-2 year olds placements meeting the needs identified in the Social Plan.  There is no doubt that the new purpose built centre will enhance and enrich the community within which it operates.

 

Discussion

 

Completion of Construction

 

Construction commenced in August 2011 with practical completion achieved on Monday 12 August 2013. The project experienced some 100 days, 20 weeks in rain delays, which greatly affected the construction program. An Interim Occupation Certificate was issued on 31 July 2013 allowing occupation of the new childcare operator and the Final Occupation Certificate (FOC) was issued on 6 September 2013. The Child Care Centre operator has advised Council the Centre’s licence is imminent, “on Wednesday 4 September DECS carried out the Regional onsite inspection and I am pleased to announce that the centre passed with flying colours. On behalf of Montessori Academy we would like to thank you for the outstanding effort in the construction and fitout of the centre”.

A photographic record of the completed development but for minor enhancing works is included in Attachment 1.

 

Marketing and Sale of the Residential Units

 

Ray White Lane Cove was engaged for the marketing and sale of the six residential units.

The extensive marketing campaign commenced mid July and concluded with the on-site auction on the 24 August 2013.  Three, 3 bedroom units were sold prior to auction. The remaining three, 2 bedroom units were sold at Auction on Saturday 24 August 2013.

 

The sale yield reflected the buoyant property market fuelled by the recent interest rate cuts, the location and the valiant effort of Ray White Lane Cove Staff.

 

The Stratum Subdivision plan was registered on 29 August 2013 and the Strata Subdivision plan is expected to be registered by end of September 2013. Settlement will take place soon after the registration of the Strata Subdivision plan.

 

Financial Results

 

This project was designed to minimise the cost to Council of the community facilities. This goal has been achieved with the net cost being $554,000, after allowing for final construction costs (which were on target), selling costs, equipment purchase and consultant’s costs. When the performance is compared against the original budget, Council is in a better financial position by $1.76 million. 

 

The summary break up is briefly provided below:-

 

1

Final Project Summary

Excl GST

a

Final Construction, marketing and selling, equipment

 

purchase and consultants costs

5,196,212

b

Revenue from Sale of Units, net of GST

4,642,513

 Net Loss

-553,699

2

Original Budget Summary 

 

Total Budgeted and Unbudgeted Expenditure

5,914,914

d

Projected Income (net of selling costs)

3,600,000

 Net Loss

-2,314,914

 

3

Performance against original budget

1,761,215

 

 

Conclusion

 

The newly purpose built mixed use development is a success story in terms of functional design, delivery of child care services, community services for the aged, people with disabilities and the general public. The development has responded to the needs identified in the Social Plan as the centre for the first time will offer 0-2 year olds placements, whilst increasing the child care places from 14 to 40 places.

 

There is no doubt that the new purpose built centre will enhance and enrich the community within which it operates.

 

Financially, when the final project costs are compared to the original budget costs, Council is better off by $1,761,215. In addition an annual income is derived through the leasing of the child care centre.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Meeting House Development Photographic Record for Final Report

13 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 September 2013

Council Snapshot Report

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot Report     

Record No:    SU220 - 44943/13

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 Report - September 2013

67 Pages