m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

21 October 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 21 October 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 David Brooks-Horn. 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 21 October 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.       Purchase of 69 Longueville Road from the Roads and Maritime Services

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (c) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; 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 because the report includes price and valuation information. 

public forum

 

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

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

2.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 16 SEPTEMBER 2013

 

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

3.       Bushfire Risk

 

4.       Review of Major Projects Strategic Plan

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

5.       Boundary Policy of Department of Education Buildings

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

6.       Presentation of Annual Financial Statements - Year Ended 30 June 2013

 

7.       Review of Tree Preservation Controls

 

8.       Dog Walking Businesses

 

9.       Draft DCP - 266 Longuevile Rd

 

10.     Playground Equipment Petition

 

11.     Temporary Car Park Options - Lane Cove Village

 

12.     Proposed Voluntary Planning Agreement for 7-15 Centennial Avenue and 92-96 Gordon Crescent

 

13.     Lane Cove River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan

 

14.     Visit by Delegates from Huzhou City, China

 

15.     Review of Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel

 

16.     Funding under Round 7 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program

 

17.     Recyclesmart - Incentive Scheme - Pilot Project

 

18.     Updated Probity Plan for Little Lane Carpark Redevelopment

 

19.     Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 17 September 2013

 

20.     Pecuniary Interest Returns 2013

 

21.     Additional Ordinary Council Meeting in December

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

22.     Council Snapshot  

 

 

 

 

         


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 October 2013

Bushfire Risk

 

 

Subject:          Bushfire Risk    

Record No:    SU3476 - 51361/13

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor David Brooks-Horn 

 

 

Each summer we are constantly reminded of the risk bushfires pose and we must be ever vigilant and prepared for bushfires. With the expected drier than average conditions ahead, it is important that we review our state of preparedness.

 

In November 2012, Council considered a report in relation to the bushfire risk in Lane Cove and the District Bushfire Management Plan which was a five year plan commencing in 2008/9, which is included as AT 1 and AT 2.

 

I believe it is appropriate that Council receive a report on the level of back burning activity proposed by the report, comparing it with the actual levels of activity undertaken. Our NSW Fire and Rescue Service coordinate all back burning and I believe that they need to be supported to ensure the safety of our community.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the General Manager prepare a report on the implementation of the 2008/9 District Bushfire Risk Management Plan and the updated risk management plan for the November Council meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor David Brooks-Horn

Mayor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Council Report on Bushfire Risk - November 2012

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Bushfire Risk Management Plan

42 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 October 2013

Review of Major Projects Strategic Plan

 

 

Subject:          Review of Major Projects Strategic Plan    

Record No:    SU3476 - 51362/13

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor David Brooks-Horn 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Councillors, in 2007 Council adopted the Major Projects Strategic Plan to allow the development of a number of parcels of Council land in order to achieve the goals of various Council plans including the Cultural Plan, Recreation Plan and Social Plan.

 

Since that time, the Plan has been very successful, with completion of the Lane Cove Library and Market Square Carpark, more recently the Meeting House Childcare Centre and Community Centre and soon to be Little Lane Carpark and Community Space. A number of the other projects included in the project are well advanced with planning and consultation in relation to the Rosenthal Avenue Carpark site, the 266 Longueville Road site and 314 Burns Bay Road site.

 

Whilst the plan was a ten year plan, some six years into the plan I believe it is worthwhile for Council to conduct to review the plan as it has become clear that a number of additional sites are also suitable for consideration to provide enhanced community facilities much needed by our community. Such sites include:-

·    the current Centrehouse site who are proposing to relocate once the Little Lane development is complete;

·    the Greenwich Community buildings, which are currently not accessible and would benefit from an update to current standards.

·    Options for a restaurant at a waterfront location in the area, which could be part of the upgrade of an existing facility.

 

In addition, I believe it appropriate that Councillors and staff consider other sites that may have come to their attention for consideration as part of the review.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council conduct a review of the Major Projects Strategic Plan over the coming 12 months.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor David Brooks-Horn

Mayor                         

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

         


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 October 2013

Boundary Policy of Department of Education Buildings

 

 

Subject:          Boundary Policy of Department of Education Buildings    

Record No:    SU4954 - 51869/13

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Daniel Strassberg 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Department of Education Assets Branch has a blanket rule of utilising the State Infrastructure SEPP for new classrooms which provides that school buildings must be kept 5 metres from boundary lines.  The boundary may include bushland, roads and industrial sites as well as residential areas. The decision by Assets Branch to do this, is to avoid the Department of Education having to submit DA's to Council. A 5 metre setback is far greater than what is required and is greater than what is between 2 residential properties. (When you consider a school operates 5 days a week and 40 weeks a year and only 32 - 40 hours a week, considerably less than any other type of neighbour.)

 

This unnecessary setback and tactic to avoid submitting DA's to councils is causing considerable wastage of valuable play space as well as causing serious issues when schools grow and space runs out. In an instance locally at Lane Cove West Public School, the difference of submitting a DA properly to Council and working directly with Council officers prevented 2 classrooms being placed on the school oval and also enabled plans for future expansion to be looked into. Lane Cove Council worked with the school, Department of Education and the DA process was completed ahead of time and without any delays, issues or neighbours concerns.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council write to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and the Minister for Education, expressing our concerns that:-

 

1.   These short cuts are being taken and artificial setbacks are being utilised to avoid DA's being submitted.

 

2.   The process that is occurring in the Department of Education Assets Branch is counterproductive when providing new buildings and infrastructure and is only reducing the open and play space the opposite of what was attended by these new buildings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Daniel Strassberg

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 October 2013

Presentation of Annual Financial Statements - Year Ended 30 June 2013

 

 

Subject:          Presentation of Annual Financial Statements - Year Ended 30 June 2013    

Record No:    SU772 - 49862/13

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

Following completion of the audit, Council’s Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013 and the Auditors Report, are presented to Council.  It will be recommended that the reports be received.

Discussion

Section 418 of the Local Government Act 1993, requires that as soon as practicable after a council receives a copy of the auditor's reports:-

a)   it must fix a date for the meeting at which it proposes to present its audited financial reports, together with the auditor's reports, to the public; and

b)   it must give public notice of the date so fixed. 

The audit of the Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013 has been completed by Council's Auditors – PricewaterhouseCoopers, and a copy of their Audit Report is included with the Financial Statements. 

Council’s Internal Audit Committee have reviewed the statements and resolved:-

 “That the external audit of the 2012/13 Annual Financial Statements be endorsed and the audit opinion as presented by the external auditors be recommended to Council”.

Notice was given in the North Shore Times on 9 October 2013 of the intention to present the Annual Financial Statements at this meeting.  The Statements have been available for inspection at the Administration Centre since 9 October 2013.  Written submissions were invited and at the time of writing this report, no submissions had been received.  The audited financial statements, together with the auditor's reports, are now formally presented to Council. 

Council's Auditor will be in attendance at the meeting to present the Auditor's Report and to answer any questions. A copy of the Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013 are attached as AT-1.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive the Annual Financial Reports together with the Auditors Report for the Year Ended 30 June 2013.

 

 

 

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

AT‑2 View

External  Auditor's Report on Financial Statements

3 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 October 2013

Review of Tree Preservation Controls

 

 

Subject:          Review of Tree Preservation Controls    

Record No:    SU729 - 48913/13

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Susan Butler 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A review has recently been undertaken of Council’s current Tree Preservation Controls and a number of recommended changes were placed on public exhibition for a period of 6 weeks. A number of submissions have been made and the Tree Preservation Controls are now ready to be adopted by Council. These controls will be implemented over a 12 month trial period through the use of practice guidelines, rather than amending the Lane Cove Development Control Plan and LEP. These practice guidelines will come into effect from mid January 2014 to allow time for Council staff to set up the appropriate systems.

 

It is proposed to amend Councils 2013-2014 Fees and Charges to include fees to cover 50% of the costs of the Independent Tree Review Expert Arbiter (ITREA) who has been appointed to assist in assessing disputed tree matters between Council and the aggrieved residents, following public exhibition of the proposed fee.

 

Background

 

A recent review of Council’s current Tree Preservation Controls has been undertaken and a number of recommended changes were proposed to achieve greater consistency with neighbouring and nearby Councils and to align with the current NSW Government approach in the NSW Housing Code. The draft amended tree preservation controls were discussed at the Council meeting on 15 July 2013, and Council resolved:-

“1.  Council endorse the proposed amended Tree Preservation Controls dated June 2013, shown attached as AT-1 for the purposes of public exhibition, subject to the following change;

i.          An additional provision for the removal of a tree in the following special circumstances:-

a.         Where a Medical Doctor who specialises in allergies provides Council with a letter stating that the tree that the application relates to, significantly impacts on the residents health, and provided the applicant agrees to replace the tree with an appropriate indigenous tree or the like (to Council’s satisfaction) on the applicant’s premises.

2.   Staff report back to Council in 12 months regarding the impact of the special circumstance on the Tree Policy;

3.   Council place the Proposed Amended Tree Preservation Controls on public exhibition for 6 weeks and community consultation take place in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in this report;

4.   Council receive a further report following the exhibition period to consider the results of the community consultation;”

 

Discussion

 

The Draft Tree Preservation Controls, as amended, were placed on public exhibition as outlined in the Report. An advertisement was placed in the North Shore Times, e-newsletters were sent out and posters displayed in the Libraries and Civic Centre. An online survey was available on Council’s website and hard copies of the survey were also made available.

 

There were 49 survey responses, with 32 of these including further comments, and 17 written submissions, giving a total of 66 responses received. Below is a summary of the responses and the issued raised and/or comments made.

 

Issues raised

Response

Increase height limit from 4 m to 6 m

34 survey responses in favour, 15 against;

17 written submissions against increasing height limit, 1 in support.

 

Comments in support of increased height limit

·    More efficient for property owners to undertake normal maintenance

·    4 m height discouraged people from planting many species that grow around 4 m so increasing height should encourage more canopy cover over roof height and more diversity in planting

 

Comments against raising height limit

·    Trees between 4 and 6 m make positive contribution to established landscape character of streetscapes and to the privacy of neighbouring properties

·    Lower height trees often the ones that provide food and nesting sites and hiding habitat for wildlife

·    Difficult for unqualified person to estimate height of tree, 6 m trees are substantial trees and people untrained at assessing height of trees could underestimate the height

·    Self assessment is more subjective, prone to misinterpretation, mistakes are made, can lead to abuse, substantial risk people will underestimate

·    Once a canopy is removed it can take a long time to re-establish

 

Mixed response, with the majority of the survey respondents in support of increasing the height limit, but the majority of those who made a written submission were in favour of keeping the height limit at 4 m.

 

Most commonly expressed concern was the difficulty that an unqualified person could have in assessing the height of a tree. This could be addressed to an extent in the practice guidelines that will be on Council’s website, giving some relativity of these tree heights in relation to typical one and two storey dwelling houses.

 

During the trial period a free application will be required for trees between 4–6 m, and staff will undertake random checks to assess whether people can accurately estimate tree height.

Increase number of exempt species

35 survey responses in favour, 14 against;

8 written submissions against, 2 in favour, 1 in favour of more exotic tree species as exemptions.

 

Comments in support of increased number of exemptions

·    More efficient for property owners to undertake normal maintenance

·    Broaden list to include greater range of exotic tree species

·    All camphor laurels and Liquidambars should be exempt at any height as they are nuisance trees

·    Consider exempting Canary Island date palms, Bangalow palms, Pittosporums

·    Fig trees should be added to exempt list

 

Comments against increased number of exempt species

·    Many people not good at telling the difference between tree species

·    Restrict exempt trees to noxious weeds only

·    Jacarandas under 10 m are important in the streetscape, visual quality and for privacy reasons, Jacarandas and Liquidambars should be subject to 6 m height limit

·    Crepe myrtles make a positive contribution and should not be exempt

Clear support for the increase in exempt species.

 

Review of list of exempt species following 12 month trial.

 

Trees greater than 10 m make a major contribution to the streetscapes and can be landmark trees.

 

Jacarandas, Liquidambars, Camphor laurels and Silky Oaks over 10 m will be assessed on their merits rather than introducing a blanket exemption at this stage.

 

Crepe Myrtles are small trees, often less than 6 m tall, and so likely to be automatically exempt under the new controls.

Exemption for pruning overhanging branches, except for local species

40 survey responses in favour, 8 against;

2 written submissions in favour, 2 against, 3 in favour with exemptions

 

Comments in favour of exemptions for pruning except for local species

·    More efficient for property owners to undertake normal maintenance

·    Sympathetic prune of branches overhanging houses could prevent water damage caused by blocked gutters and drains

·    Always approved anyway

 

Comments in favour of exemptions for all species

·    Should be able to prune trees to their own requirements when guided by a qualified arborist

·    All tree branches overhanging houses should be able to be removed at owner’s discretion

·    Add trees overhanging a driveway at less than 4 m in height

·    Weight needs to be given to householders concerns, tree inspectors not been sympathetic to requests,

·    Doesn’t go far enough, a blanket exemption would be helpful, clause is unclear

·    Concerns about bush fire risk

 

Comments not in favour of introducing exemptions for pruning

·    Who will determine the actual species before pruning occurs

·    Many people not good at telling the difference between tree species

·    Clause needs rewording to clarify, make it less ambiguous

·    Should cheese trees and figs be added to exemption list as they require expert knowledge

·    Concerns about poor pruning techniques

Clear support in favour of this clause.

 

Diagrams included in the practice guidelines will help reduce any ambiguity.

 

Council staff make objective assessment of each tree and make a decision based on the merits of the specific case.

Retain requirement that dead trees require a permit to remove

25 survey responses in favour, 23 against;

1 written submission against, 4 in favour.

 

Comments supporting retaining requirement for permit

·    Don’t leave this to self assessment as owner may have no knowledge of the tree

 

Comments supporting not requiring permits to remove dead trees

·    Only issue these permits in summer when deciduous trees are in leaf

·    Allow removal of deciduous trees as they don’t contribute to green canopy for the full year

Not clear support.

 

Could consider an exemption to paying inspection fees to Council to confirm that a tree is dead as part of 12 month review.

 

Review of exemptions for pruning of deciduous trees in summer could be considered as part of 12 month review.

Do not have a blanket exemption permitting the removal of any tree within 3 m of a dwelling

22 survey responses in favour, 25 against;

2 written submissions in favour,

 

·    Danger posed by trees adjacent to properties

·    Any tree growing within 3 m must be able to be removed at the owner’s discretion – fire hazards and proven killers

·    Make it illegal to plant a tree within 3 m of a dwelling or 2 m of a property boundary

 

·    Many homes were deliberately built close to trees as they gave character to the home

Not clear support.

 

Council staff make objective assessment of each tree and make a decision based on the merits of the specific case.

Extend permit from 6 to 12 months

39 survey responses in favour, 9 against;

1 written submission in favour, 3 against.

 

Not in favour of extending permit to 12 months

·    Most owners want the tree dealt with immediately and so the permit should have a very limited time

·    Permits should be for a restricted time, not ongoing

 

Suggest extend permit for even longer

·    Extend permit to 3 years

·    Extend permit for 2 to 5 years

Clear support to extend permit for 12 months.

General comments

·    Policies of the 60s and 70s created the leafy suburb, much favoured locality, lucky to live in a leafy suburb

·    Abandoning Lane Cove’s long standing TPO to copy other councils; Lane Cove LGA a little different to everyone else; Councils should have the ability to have more stringent controls in their own area

·    Should not be Council’s role to rubber stamp unpopular State Government changes to planning laws; green light to developers; make life easier for developers

·    Support the trial, anything that will protect trees including exotic trees

·    Don’t have rules that make it too easy for people to do the wrong thing; enforcement of TPO is not waterproof

·    Council should designate whole streets where landowners must get a permit

·    Requirement for permits to be displayed outside property prior to tree being pruned or removed; neighbours should be notified when trees are being removed

·    AQF8 arborist determinations should be published

·    Amount for AQF8 arborist seems excessive particularly for those on lower incomes, should have a panel to allow some competition

·    More guidance from Council about finding qualified arborists and safety issues

·    Suggest on line/email applications with photos to speed up process

The Conditions of Consent issued under the Tree Preservation Controls can include a requirement that the permit needs to be displayed in a plastic sleeve and placed in a prominent position on the street frontage to inform neighbours and others.

 

Determinations made by the ITREA will be available on Council’s website.

 

As part of the update of Council’s website and development of practice guidelines, links will be included to tree contractor and arborist associations, NSW Work Cover and other relevant sites.

 

There are no changes proposed to the Draft Tree Preservation Controls following community consultation. A number of issues raised will be monitored over the 12 month trial period to allow further consideration at the review.

 

The next stage will be to set up the new system to implement these new controls. Information on Council’s website needs to be upgraded to develop practice guidelines including supporting brochures with diagrams and information on how to submit suitable application forms with photographs. Internal processes will need to be set up to be able to assess the impact of these special circumstances in 12 months time. This information will need to be developed before the system can go live.

 

Once the practice guidelines are established and the system goes live, applicants will still need to lodge an application with Council including suitable photograph(s) of the tree on site, but no fee would be required. Where the application meets any of the new criteria the permit will be issued without a site inspection. The timeframe for the turn-around of applications will be 3 working days following receipt of adequate information submitted with the application form.

 

Applications will be able to be made on line, with photos of the tree attached. The permit once processed will be sent electronically for the applicant to print it off and display it in a prominent location at the front of property.

 

Proposed Amendments to 2013-2014 Fees and Charges

 

Council resolved at its meeting of 15 July 2013 to engage an independent arboriculturist to be an expert arbiter to assist in assessing disputed tree matters between Council and aggrieved residents. The costs would be up to $1,000 per matter, with the costs initially shared on a 50/50 basis between Council and the applicant. The losing party would pick up any additional costs for extra site visits, research, etc.

 

Consequently, the 2013-2014 Fees and Charges will need to be amended to include this fee as well as including a note that the tree applications that meet the requirements of the new tree preservation controls will be free of charge. The existing application fee in the Fees and Charges to request a review of assessment decisions is a fee for a review by another Council Tree Officer, not the Independent Tree Review Expert Arbiter (ITREA).

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to inform the community of the proposed amendments to the 2013-2014 Fees and Charges.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Form of Participation

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Proposed Medium

Public / website exhibition, advertisement and eNewsletter.

Indicative Timing

November 2013

 

Conclusion

 

The Draft Tree Preservation Controls have been on public exhibition for a period of 6 weeks and 66 responses were received. Based on the submissions received, no changes are proposed to the Draft Controls that were exhibited and are shown attached as AT-1 and dated October 2013. These controls will now be implemented over a 12 month trial period through the use of practice guidelines, rather than amending the Lane Cove Development Control Plan and LEP. These practice guidelines will come into effect from mid January 2014 to allow time for Council staff to set up the appropriate systems.

 

It is also proposed to amend Councils 2013-2014 Fees and Charges; 1) to include a fee for $500 to cover 50% of the costs of the Independent Tree Review Expert Arbiter (ITREA) who has been appointed to assist in assessing disputed tree matters between Council and the aggrieved residents; and 2) to add a note that any Tree Application that meets the criteria of the new Tree Preservation Controls is free of charge.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.         Adopt the Tree Preservation Controls dated October 2013 and shown attached as AT-1 and             that they be implemented on a 12 month trial period through the use of practice guidelines.

 

2.         Endorse for the purposes of public exhibition, for a period of 28 days in accordance with the             consultation strategy outlined in the report, the following amendments to the 2013-2014             Fees and Charges:-

 

(a)        Review of Council’s decision by Independent Tree Review Expert Arbiter, $500 excluding any additional costs, and

 

(b)        A note that any Tree Application that meets the criteria of the new Tree Preservation Controls is free of charge.

 

3.         Receive a further report following the exhibition period to consider any submissions on the             amendments to the Fees and Charges.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Tree Preservation Controls October 2013

2 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 October 2013

Dog Walking Businesses

 

 

Subject:          Dog Walking Businesses    

Record No:    SU1277 - 49038/13

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Susan Butler 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A Draft Policy on the Use of Public Open Space by Commercial Dog Walking Businesses has been on public exhibition for a period of 6 weeks. A number of submissions have been received, with 63% disagreeing with the Draft Policy. Comments received raised a number of issues regarding dogs, dog walkers and owners using public parks and sports fields.

 

A number of minor changes have been made to the Draft Policy. If the Policy is to be adopted, then there will need to be an amendment made to the 2013-2014 Fees and Charges, to include a fee similar to that set for Personal Trainers and Commercial Fitness Businesses in Public Open Space. Fees would be exempt for local residents walking their dog or their neighbour’s dog and children under 18 years.

 

Background

At its meeting of 15 April 2013 Council resolved that it receive a report on how Council's Open Space is used by dog walking businesses which addresses the following issues:-

 

‘’1.  The number of animals allowed per walker;

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

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

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

 

A report was then prepared for the Council meeting of 20 May 2013, which recommended that Council could consider developing a policy and registration system whereby commercial dog walkers must register with Council and then be required to comply with certain conditions in order to operate their business in Council’s parks and reserves. It was resolved that Council prepare a Draft Commercial Dog Walking Policy for the next Council meeting and make a recommendation for an appropriate annual fee to be charged.

 

A Draft Policy on the Use of Public Open Space by Commercial Dog Walking Businesses was then prepared for the Council meeting on 15 July 2013. Council resolved to:-

 

“1.  Endorse the Draft Policy on the Use of Public Open Space by Commercial Dog Walking Businesses dated 8 July 2013 for the purpose of public exhibition subject to Commercial Dog Walking Businesses being prohibited on Kingsford Smith Oval;

2.   Place the Draft Policy on the Use of Public Open Space by Commercial Dog Walking Businesses on public exhibition for 6 weeks and community consultation take place 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; and

4.   Develop a plan to create a separate leash free dog exercise area for commercial dog walking / training businesses at a suitable location.”

 

Discussion

 

The Draft Policy on the Use of Public Open Space by Commercial Dog Walking Businesses, as amended, was then placed on public exhibition as outlined in the Report. An advertisement was placed in the North Shore times, e-newsletters were sent out and posters placed on display in the Libraries and Civic Centre. Council’s Rangers gave letters to a number of dog waking businesses that were observed using Council’s Open Space. An online survey was available on Council’s website and hard copies of the survey were also made available.

 

There were 53 survey responses and a further 8 written submissions to this draft policy.

 

The majority of the respondents (69%) have a dog, but only 17% currently use a dog walking service. About two thirds of the respondents (63%) disagreed with the draft policy, mostly those people who have a dog.

 

Just over half (54%) support a separate leash free dog exercise area for commercial dog walking businesses / training purposes at a separate location. Those respondents with dogs were evenly split between supporting and not supporting a separate dog exercise area, while those without dogs were more in favour of a separate area.

 

Below is a summary of the comments made in the survey and in the written submissions.

 

Comment

Response

In favour of having a policy

Good idea, essential, excellent, satisfactory, looks fair; Dog walkers should be registered and identifiable; these services seems to take it all for granted; policy too permissive of these businesses

 

Comments noted

Against having a policy

Nanny state; heavy handed Council grab for revenue; ridiculous, oppressive, discriminatory overkill; bureaucratic red tape; already over regulated; waste of time; unreasonable

 

Comments noted

Against insurance requirements

Insurance requirement too onerous; oppose insurance requirement; underpaid sole traders should not be expected to have or need to have public liability insurance; if dog walking businesses need insurance, why not individual dog owners; would this really be the responsibility of the dog owners; seems a very expensive way to handle insurance for a small business

 

Council requires proof of public liability insurance for all businesses, clubs, associations and others using Public Open Space for commercial purposes. Dog walking businesses should not be exempt.

In favour of insurance requirements

Dog walkers should have public liability insurance; make it clear who is responsible for vet bills if a dog injures another while under the control of the dog walker

 

Insurance details between other parties is beyond the scope of this policy.

Fee should be minimal with some exemptions

Fee should be minimal, modest; kids earning pocket money should not be treated as a commercial venture; exempt any person under 18 years old or dog walking to raise funds for a school trip or service organisation

 

Recommended fees to be the same as for personal trainers. Exemptions can be considered for children and fund raising.

Include restrictions on times and number of dogs

Limit dog walking businesses to school hours, early afternoon on weekdays, more restrictions after school hours; maximum number of dogs per walker; limit number of dogs in area at any one time for reasons for control and congestion; limit to 2 dogs per walker; lot of dogs come together and form a pack

 

Limits on hours could be included in policy. Maximum number of dogs per walker is set in the legislation. Too difficult to set maximum number of dogs per area at any one time.

Dog walkers do the right thing, not the right target

Targeting the wrong people; professional dog walkers do the right thing, usually have skills in canine management; it is some other dog owners who don’t supervise their dogs properly and ruin it for everyone else or allow bad dog behaviour

 

Roll out of new park signs which include specific information on dogs in the parks.

 

Rangers need to ensure that dog walkers and owners have the dogs under effective control at all times.

Inconsiderate attitude of dog walkers and owners

Inconsiderate attitude of dog walkers and owners at parks designated off leash dog exercise areas, allowing poor behaviour because it is a “dog friendly park” putting an end to other park users’ enjoyment. People have the right to complain if their enjoyment of a park is compromised because dog walkers are using the park;

 

Roll out of new park signs which include specific information on dogs in the parks.

 

A dog friendly park does not mean that dogs have the run of the park. Rangers need to ensure that dog walkers and owners have the dogs under effective control at all times.

Health hazard on sports fields

Continual fouling of sports field by dogs is a serious health hazard; enforcement of rules when sport is on and fines for people who don’t pick up after their dog; Kingsford Smith Oval is a sports venue; heard that dog owners have been lobbying to eject junior cricket training from Kingsford Smith Oval

 

The primary purpose of the sports fields is for the playing of sport. Sporting clubs and associations who have an authorised booking have exclusive use of the fields at that time.

Separate dog exercise area

Need a separate area for dog walkers away from children’s playgrounds

 

Under the Companion Animals Act dogs are not permitted within 10 m of children’s playgrounds, but this requirement is often ignored by dog owners. Mixed support for a separate dog exercise area.

Equity of access to Public Open Space

Equity of access to Public Open Space should not mean that everyone can have access to all places simultaneously; Activities such as walking, sport and play in general should not have to contend for space with dogs and their walkers; draft Policy should include rules pertaining to dog-walking behaviour or use of public open space.

 

Rules pertaining to dog-walking behaviour are included on the new park signs being rolled out.

Resourcing

how would we police this system; what resources would be allocated to manage the policy

 

Ranger patrols of the parks will be undertaken on a needs basis.

Clearer definition of Public Open Space

A clear definition of “Public Open Space” is needed as the Local Government Act does not have one – preferably “the land zoned RE1 Public Recreation”. It is not desirable that commercial dog-walking be encouraged in the E2 Environmental Conservation zone.

 

Commercial dog walking off leash is only permitted in those areas designated for that activity. Dog walking on leash can be done in other areas. Draft Policy has been amended to include exclusion zones consist with Council’s Keeping of Animals Policy and Lane Cove LEP 2010.

Specific comments regarding Kingsford Smith Oval

Excessive to ban these businesses from Kingsford Smith Oval; don’t have blanket exclusion; what is the rationale for only Kingsford Smith Oval being excluded; what special considerations are necessary for that area, which do not apply to Gore Creek Oval?

 

Oppose the proposal to ban only professional dog walkers from Kingsford Smith Oval, Longueville; lucky to be 1 or 2 other dogs there during the day; in the late afternoon/early evenings there are large numbers of dogs at the parks and no professional walkers.

 

Even if a commercial dog walker had the maximum of four dogs would they still not be allowed to use Kingsford Smith Oval? If that is the case, is that because there is already an existing by-law stating that commercial dog walkers are not to use Kingsford Smith or has council made this ruling without giving residents the opportunity to have their say on the matter?

 

a dog owner is permitted to use an off leash area but a commercial dog walker cannot use Kingsford Smith Oval

 

Kingsford Smith Oval is the only sports field in Lane Cove that is completely fenced and so it is used more often by commercial dog walking businesses than other off-leash dog exercise areas.

 

The sports field is very well used by local sporting clubs, particularly in the summer, for organised training and games. There is increasing demand for access to sports fields by local sporting clubs and associations for organised training and games. 

 

Primary purpose of Kingsford Smith Oval is for the playing of sport. Its use as an off leash exercise area is only when the field is not being used for organised training and games.

 

 

The Draft Policy has now been amended to include a section on Exclusion Zones to ensure consistency with Council’s Keeping of Animals Policy and to protect land zoned for Environmental Protection. The Policy is included as AT-1.

 

Council Rangers have been talking to dog walkers using Public Open Space about the Draft Policy and the requirements under the Companion Animals Act. They have reported an improved compliance with the number of dogs being exercised by the commercial dog walkers in recent months since this draft policy has been in the public arena.

 

The Rangers have an important education role regarding dogs in parks. A dog friendly park does not mean that dogs have the run of the park. The new park signs include the following messages about dogs in the parks – “Dogs must be controlled at all times”; “Please clean up after your dog”; “Please share this park and respect other users.”

 

The primary purpose of the sports fields is the playing of sport. The use of these sports fields as off leash dog exercise areas is only when the fields are not being used for organized training / games. New signs with the following message “No access onto the playing field while organised training / games in progress” are ready to be installed at Kingsford Smith and Tantallon Ovals.

 

 

 

Proposed Amendments to 2013-2014 Fees and Charges

 

A number of minor changes have been made to the Draft Policy. If the Policy is to be adopted, then there will need for an amendment to the 2013-2014 Fees and Charges, to include a fee similar to that set for Personal Trainers and Commercial Fitness Businesses in Public Open Space. Fees would be exempt for local residents walking their own dogs or their neighbour’s dog and children under 18 years. The proposed fee is as follows:-

 

Activity / Function

Title of Fee/Charge

Fee or Charge 2013/2014

GST applies

Other Park Users

Dog Walking Businesses

 

 

 

Initial Registration Application Fee

$50

Y

 

Annual Fee

$200

Y

 

Note 1: Children under 18 and local residents walking their own dog(s) or neighbour’s dog(s)exempt

 

 

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to inform the community of the proposed amendment to the 2013-2014 Fees and Charges.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Form of Participation

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Proposed Medium

Public website / exhibition, advertisement, eNewsletter, press release

Indicative Timing

November 2013

 

Conclusion

 

The Draft Policy on the Use of Public Open Space by Commercial Dog Walking Businesses has been on public exhibition for a period of 6 weeks and 61 responses have been received. Around 2/3 of the responses disagreed with the Draft Policy.

 

A number of minor changes have been made to the Draft Policy. If the Policy is to be adopted, then there will need to be an amendment made to the 2013-2014 Fees and Charges, to include a fee similar to that set for Personal Trainers and Commercial Fitness Businesses in Public Open Space. Fees would be exempt for local residents walking their dog or their neighbour’s dog and children under 18 years.

 

The new park signs currently being rolled out include information about the specific regulations regarding dogs for each park.

 

Council staff will continue to develop a plan for a separate leash free dog exercise areas at a suitable location.


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Consider the adoption of the Policy on the Use of Public Open Space by Commercial Dog Walking Businesses dated October 2013 and shown attached as AT-1;

 

2.   Endorse for the purposes of public exhibition for a period of 28 days in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the report the following fees for inclusion in Council’s Fees and Charges:-

 

a)   $50 Initial Registration Application; and

 

b)   $200 Annual Fee.

 

3.   Receive a further report following the exhibition period to consider any submissions on the proposed fee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Policy on the Use of Public Open Space by Commercial Dog Walking Businesses

2 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 October 2013

Draft DCP - 266 Longuevile Rd

 

 

Subject:          Draft DCP - 266 Longuevile Rd    

Record No:    SU5233 - 50779/13

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council is requested to adopt for public exhibition a draft amendment to the Development Control Plan 2010 relating to 266 Longueville Rd.

 

This site has been identified in Council’s Major Projects Plan 2007-2016 for a seniors living/ residential flats development, as part of a community infrastructure program to maximize the potential of underused Council sites for public benefit, including funding of the nearby Recreation Centre.

 

Council and the NSW LEP Gateway earlier this year approved a planning proposal to rezone and reclassify the western part of the site to permit the redevelopment. It is intended that the draft LEP and draft DCP would be exhibited together in October-November, with a subsequent public hearing to be held probaby in early December.

 

The draft DCP amendment is attached at AT 1.

 

Background

 

The Site

 

The site has an area of approximately 9.200m2 (in a total property of 15,000m2). It is the High Density Residential R4 area shown in red below to the west of the irregular line:-

 

 

 

The subject area comprises the western two-thirds portion of the site, which was occupied until the late 1990s by the Lane Cove Ladies Bowling Club and since then by the Music and Cultural Centre. The eastern E2 Environmental Conservation and RE1 Public Recreation lands are not proposed to be changed.

 

The site’s northern boundary is 220 metres and the southern boundary is 160 metres approximately. This site length enables a higher building at the eastern end to be set well away when viewed from Longueville Rd. The western (Longueville Rd) frontage is approximately 100 metres and the eastern boundary is around 80 metres across the contour line.

 

The redevelopment section of the site has a fall of about 14 metres from the road to the eastern boundary.

 

Local Environmental Plan

 

The draft DCP is proposed to support the draft LEP planning proposal to rezone part of the property at 266 Longueville Road from the current open space zoning to permit residential development, predominantly seniors’ living, and to reclassify the land from community to operational land.

 

On 15 April 2013, Council approved the LEP planning proposal for submission to the Department of Planning & Infrastructure. A full description of the LEP and its purpose is provided in the Council Report to that meeting, and is attached as background at AT 2.

 

On 26 June, the NSW Gateway approved the draft LEP amendment for exhibition, subject to:-

Council undertaking a traffic study prior to exhibition and other conditions. The traffic study has now been completed and all LEP material is ready for exhibition.

 

The key planning controls are as follows:-

 

·    FSR - a floor space ratio of FSR 1.1:1, to which a Seniors Living SEPP bonus of 0.5:1 could be applied - i.e. permitting a total FSR of 1.6:1. This scale is comparable with the development controls for other seniors living sites in Lane Cove e.g. the Waterbrook and Caroline Chisholm retirement centres.

 

·    Height

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

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

 

·    Reclassification: The site is to be reclassified from community to operational and the reserve status and caveats removed (not from the eastern part of the site) to allow sale or lease of the units.

 

Major Projects Plan

 

The redevelopment of 266 Longueville Road is identified within Council’s Major Projects Plan 2007/2016, which was endorsed by Council in November 2007 and involved in-depth community consultation. The Major Projects Plan provides a comprehensive, orderly program for the redevelopment of a series of Council properties. The purpose of this redevelopment program is to provide up-to-date community facilities, including public car parking, child care, recreational and cultural facilities, in many cases with residential development to provide funding. The redevelopment of 266 Longueville Road is intended to contribute towards the provision of a new multi-purpose Recreation Facility at the golf course, including youth activities identified in the Social Plan as a need for the locality. 

 

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

 

The NSW Gateway determination “agreed to the reduction of land for public purposes on the basis of public open space requirements and the presence of existing public open space in the area. No further approval is required in relation to this Direction.”

 

Discussion

 

DCP overview

 

The planning proposal has been submitted by Don Fox Planning on behalf of Council’s Open Space & Urban Services Division, and reviewed by Council’s Strategic Planning Section.

 

Key features of the draft DCP include:-

 

(i)   Objectives

 

The DCP provides broad objectives to promote design quality and interrelationship with its development’s context, including neighbouring properties and the adjacent bushland and public links through the site.

 

(ii)  Topography

 

The aerial photograph below shows the 2 metre contours sloping downhill eastwards to the golf course.

 

 

The DCP takes this topography into account in allowing for stepped buildings down the site. Elevation diagrams indicating this will be tabled at the meeting for incorporation into the DCP during exhibition.

 

Fronting Longueville Rd, the three-storey section would be partially set half a storey lower than the road level, minimizing its visual effect.

 

It should be noted that any diagrams in the DCP are to be indicative only of the objectives rather than a fixed design. The final design would be defined at the development application stage and available then for public comment.

 

(iii) Relationship with neighbouring properties

 

Viewed from the opposite side of Longueville Rd, the development’s scale would be consistent with existing residential flats extending along the road to north and south, including the frontage of “Timbertops”, the flats adjacent to the south at 268-270 Longueville Rd.

 

In terms of the relationship with neighbouring properties to the north and south, the DCP allows potentially for two buildings to be situated at either end of the site so as to be viewed from the side by the neighbours i.e. the narrowest façade which is to be a maximum of 18 metres wide.

 

The buildings in between those two eastern and western ends would appear lower, being three storeys set down the slope. This aims to minimize the bulk viewed in particular from Timbertops, and to allow for some longer distance open outlooks over the site.

 

This middle section would also allow for a covered link for residents to move from one end of the complex to the other.

 

The distance between the two end buildings would vary as the site is narrower on the southern side.

 

The DCP proposes a landscaping component to extend adjacent to the driveway between this site and Timbertops to filter the appearance of the new development.

 

The broader section of the eastern building would face the golf course, from which views back to the site would be filtered by the bushland in between.

 

The DCP also provides that this eastern façade is to have architectural “articulation”, varied materials and other features to reduce the impression of bulk.

 

Building setbacks of 6 metres for the lower levels and a further 3 metres for the upper levels are required on the southern and eastern elevations of the development. This aims to provide visual modulation and a reasonable building separation to the south of the site, where Timbertops has a variable setback of 3 to 8 metres from the boundary.

 

The car parking is to be underground, stepped downhill and with landscaping above, to minimize its visibility.

 

(iv) Landscaping/ vegetation

 

The DCP provides a 12 to 25 metre vegetated setback along the northern boundary (shown in the aerial photograph above), both to protect the amenity of the adjacent low density housing zone and as an attractive location for the public pedestrian path from Longueville Rd through to the open space and golf course.

           

(v) Public park:

 

A park is to be provided at the north-western corner of the site. This would also be the point at which the public path to the open space would commence. The park may contain some moderate-scale fitness equipment suitable for adults. It is not intended, however, to locate children’s play equipment here, on the advice of the Open Space Section that this would be better located in the nearby Central Park close to other recreational activities, and in order to avoid noise impacts for the seniors residents and the neighbouring homes.

 

(vi)   Amenity

 

Specific best practice design elements for seniors’ living developments, such as the covered access throughout the complex as mentioned above and many other features, would be incorporated in the future design and would be expected to enhance and extend beyond the generic residential flats controls.

 

Common open space would be expected to be provided within close distance and accessible to the seniors’ apartments.

 

The DCP also indicates the importance that sunlight be maximized to the units as well as to the common open space.

 

(vii)               Seniors Living SEPP

 

The State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004 provides broad objectives for the range of issues to be considered in a development application. These include: site analysis, neighbourhood amenity and streetscape, visual and acoustic privacy, solar access and accessibility. For the R4 zone there are very few specific numeric controls e.g. a minimum site area of 1,000m2 and frontage of 20 metres apply.

 

The SEPP provides (clause 45) that a floor space bonus of 0.5:1 may be allowed, subject to conditions relating to the provision of on-site support services for the residents and affordable places.

 

(viii)     Roof garden

 

The DCP indicates the potential to be considered for a roof garden across the central portion of the site. This would provide opportunities for residents to share the gardening and a social activity. This may be investigated as a Council project within the Sustainability program. (Note: Council has completed a study on roof gardens and a report on the subject has been submitted to this meeting.)

 

(ix)         Land constraints:

 

Although the proposal is for seniors living predominantly, it is possible also that a residential flats component would be required at the eastern end closest to the bushland on the grounds of bushfire restrictions.

 

The DCP indicates a 20 metre Asset Protection Zone parallel with the boundary of the E2 Environmental Conservation Zone. This matter would be clarified subject to discussions with the NSW Rural Fire Service at the time of preparing the development application, as the RFS has indicated in the past that this is the stage at which it provides detailed comments on sites generally.

 

(x)        General controls

 

The Lane Cove LEP, DCP and State policies would apply for other general issues for residential development such as accessibility, stormwater, waste management etc.

 

A report has been prepared to the satisfaction of the NSW Gateway and Council’s Environmental Health Manager on land contamination/ remediation and this will be exhibited with the other documentation.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to permit public submissions on the draft DCP for a seniors’ living/ residential development at 266 Longueville Rd.  Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated as part of any determination as to whether or not to proceed with the draft DCP.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Properties in the vicinity.

Community associations.

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and

eNewsletter.

 

 

Notification Letters

Public Exhibition,

Website Exhibition and Online Survey

Public hearing.

 

Indicative Timing

5 weeks plus LEP public hearing

To commence within the week after Council’s resolution

To commence within the week after Council’s resolution

 

 

Conclusion

 

The draft DCP amendment for 266 Longueville Rd supports the LEP planning proposal for this site which has been adopted by Council and approved by the NSW Gateway for exhibition. The DCP would provide objectives and design controls to guide development of a seniors’ living/ residential redevelopment of the former bowling club site.

 

The proposed redevelopment has been identified in Council’s Major Projects Plan 2007-2016 as part of a community infrastructure program to maximize the potential of underused Council sites for public benefit.

 

The planning proposal has been submitted by consultants on behalf of Council’s Open Space & Urban Services Division, and reviewed by Council’s Strategic Planning Section.

 

Council is requested to adopt for public exhibition the draft amendment to the Development Control Plan 2010 relating to 266 Longueville Rd, as attached at AT 1 to this Report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

  1. Council adopt for public exhibition, in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, the draft DCP amendment for 266 Longueville Rd attached at AT 1 to this report.

 

  1. The draft DCP be exhibited for a period of five weeks, and submissions made to the LEP public hearing should be taken into account in so far as they relate also to the DCP.

 

3.   A report on the draft DCP be provided to Council after the completion of the LEP and DCP consultation processes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft DCP - 266 Longueville Rd

5 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Gateway Determination

4 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 October 2013

Playground Equipment Petition

 

 

Subject:          Playground Equipment Petition    

Record No:    SU1764 - 48899/13

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Barbara Stack 

 

 

Executive Summary

Two petitions have been received by Council requesting additional playground equipment at Marjorie York Playground and Nichols Reserve. These petitions have been circulated separately to Council. Additional equipment at these playgrounds can be considered as part of the playground upgrade and replacement works to be done in 2014/15.

 

Background

Council’s Playground Strategy adopted in May 2008 set out a 5 year program of works to replace or upgrade various playgrounds. Most of the play equipment at Marjorie York Playground was replaced in 2009/10. No works were proposed for Nichols Reserve. 

 

Discussion

Two petitions have been received by Council requesting additional playground equipment at specific parks. One petition with 284 signatures is for extra swings and a bubbler to be installed at Marjorie York Playground. The second petition with 198 signatures is for a double swings set to be installed at Nichols Reserve next to the existing climbing frame. These petitions have been circulated separately to Council.

 

There is sufficient space at both playgrounds to accommodate the requested equipment, subject to consultation with the immediate neighbours.

 

The current playground capital works program for 2013/14 does not include sufficient funds for this equipment. Indicative costs are around $7,500 inclusive of GST for the supply and installation of a double swing set with rubberized softfall and $6,000 inclusive of GST for the supply and installation of a drinking fountain with bottle tap.

 

Conclusion

The additional equipment requested by the petitioners could be considered for inclusion in these playgrounds in 2014/15, subject to consultation with the immediate neighbours.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.   Council consider installing additional swings and a bubbler at Marjorie York Playground and a double swing set at Nichols Playground as part of the playground equipment upgrades for 2014/15 financial year.

 

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

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 October 2013

Temporary Car Park Options - Lane Cove Village

 

 

Subject:          Temporary Car Park Options - Lane Cove Village    

Record No:    SU5218 - 48514/13

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report outlines options for temporary car parks in Lane Cove Village whilst the Little Lane Car Park site is being redeveloped.  Considering the merits of each option, the report recommends that Pottery Green be used as a temporary car park for a period of approximately (twelve) 12 months whilst the redevelopment of the Little Lane site takes place.

 

Background

 

As part of the construction management plan for the redevelopment of the Little Lane Car Park site, Council officers have been investigating options for temporary car park(s) whilst the site is under construction. Also, Council at its meeting on 19 August 2013, requested that the General Manager investigate and report on alternate car parking arrangements whilst the Little Lane Car Park is unavailable for use.

 

It is noted that select tenders have been invited for the redevelopment of the Little Lane Car Park site and subject to agreement by the recommended tenderer (to be considered at a future meeting), works on site are anticipated to commence in February 2014, with the new car park expected to be operational by early December 2014. The remaining community facilities should be available early 2015 and the units are expected to be completed by the end of 2015.

 

At present the Little Lane Car Park provides 86 car spaces with various time limit and category parking arrangements in place. It is noted that the new car park on completion, will provide 200 public car spaces.

 

It should be noted that concurrent with the development works for the car park on Little Lane Car Park, the refurbishment of the Aquatic Centre will be undertaken from March through to November.

 

Options

 

The following five (5) options have been investigated and cost estimates prepared:-

 

i. Leasing spaces within the Oriel Building at 71 Longueville Road;

ii. Construction of car spaces in Cox’s Lane;

iii.Pottery Green – Temporary hard stand options;

iv.Pottery Green – Temporary flooring hire options; and

v.            Temporary modular car park installed on Council Chambers site.

 

The five (5) options are outlined in more detail as follows:-

 

i.          Leasing Spaces in the Oriel Building at 71 Longueville Road

 

Discussions were held with the building managers for the Oriel Building in relation to the potential for Council leasing car spaces within the basement of that building for use by Council staff. The proposal is on the basis that Council staff would not be able to park in the Council Chambers car park freeing up approximately 50 spaces for the public during working hours. The building managers have indicated that approximately 47 car spaces would be available for lease for a period of twelve (12) months for a cost of $94,000. The leasing arrangements would be on the basis of Council staff or Councillors occupying the spaces and those spaces within the Council Chambers car park being made available for the general public at any time. The public would not be permitted to park in the Oriel Building at anytime due to security reasons. The disadvantage of this option is that it does not provide additional parking during Saturday peak periods, as the existing staff spaces are already available to the public.

 

ii.          Provision of Car Spaces in Cox’s Lane

 

This proposal would involve the construction of approximately 30 car spaces in Cox’s Lane on the grass verge between Sutherland Street and Finlayson Street. The cost is approximately $60,000 with the car spaces capable of being converted in the future for the proposed road widening. As this site is some distance from the Aquatic Centre, it would provide minimal benefit to regular uses of the Little Lane Car Park.

 

iii.         Pottery Green – Provision of a Temporary Hard Base (Road Base) Car Park

 

This proposal involves the provision of a temporary gravel base 164 spaces car park on approximately 50% or 4540m2 of the existing playing field within Pottery Green. A plan of the proposal is shown attached as AT-1. Access would be made via an enhanced entry at Phoenix Street. The cost of this option including materials, fencing, improved access and line marking as well as restoration at the end of the period, is in the order of $85,000.

 

Whilst this option would impact on sporting club usage of Pottery Green for a period of around twelve (12) months, the remaining 50% of the oval will remain available for passive recreational pursuits. It is anticipated that the synthetic fields of Blackman Park will be available for use from April 2014, minimising the impact of the temporary loss of a sporting field. Initial notifications have been provided to sporting clubs.

 

This proposal not only provides temporary replacement of more than the 86 car spaces in Little Lane, with its greater capacity an area could be set aside for Council staff (freeing up the existing car park) and construction workers on the Little Lane site as well as for the refurbishment  of the Aquatic Centre.

 

iv.      Pottery Green – Provision of Temporary Flooring Options

 

This solution would involve the placement of temporary flooring over approximately 2,400m2 of Pottery Green for use as a temporary car park of around 90 car spaces. The flooring proposed is similar to that use to protect sporting fields and lawn areas such as at ANZ Stadium, Etihad Stadium, MCG and the like during major concert events. Access would also be via an enhanced entrance in Phoenix Street. The hire cost for this option ranges from $205,000 to $400,000 depending on the type of flooring used. This cost does not include improvements to the entry, line marking, signage, fencing or reinstatement and any maintenance costs for the flooring.

 

v.       Temporary Modular Car park– Council Chamber Car Park

 

This option would involve the construction of a temporary modular steel bond frame and concrete floor car park on the existing Council Chambers site to increase the existing capacity. Currently the car park provides 91 car spaces including 56 specifically allocated to Council staff during business hours.

 

Quotes have been provided for a single level option i.e. $1,088,461 or double level option costing $1,826,449. Whilst these options would increase the capacity of the existing car park by approximately an additional 85 spaces for the single level option or 170 spaces for the double level option, the number of existing car spaces would however be reduced from 91 to approximately 65 spaces to allow for ramps, stairs/lifts and other structures associated with a multi-level car park.

 

Also, the proposal would be subject to development approval, a tender process and a construction period of up to 90 working days. It is therefore highly unlikely it would be completed in time for Little Lane Car Park coming offline. It is considered that the modular design would also impact on the amenity and look of the adjoining Council Officers and Aquatic Centre.

 

Conclusion

 

Extensive investigations have been undertaken into options for a temporary car park whilst both Little Lane Car Park and the Aquatic Centre are being redeveloped. A number of factors have been taken into consideration including convenience, access, traffic impact, amenity, impact on Pottery Green uses and cost. On balance, it is considered that option (iii) i.e. provision of a road base car park on Pottery Green is the preferred option, as it is convenient to the Village and Aquatic Centre, has capacity to provide additional car spaces plus an off street location for construction workers and at least 50% of Pottery Green can still be used for recreational purposes. It also is the most cost effective option which can be provided in a timely manner and on a temporary basis. It is acknowledged that this option will need to be clearly communicated to local businesses, Aquatic Centre users and existing users of Pottery Green and surrounding residents.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council receive and note the report;

 

2.   Option (iii) provision of a road base car park, on part of Pottery Green, as attached as AT-1, be implemented for the provision of a temporary car park prior to the closure of the Little Lane Car Park to the public whilst the site is being redeveloped;

 

3.   Pottery Green be reinstated as soon as practical after the Little Lane Car Park is available for public use; and

 

4.   Key stakeholders as noted in the report and the community be advised of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Pottery Green – Temporary Hard Base (Road Base) Car Park Plan

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 October 2013

Proposed Voluntary Planning Agreement for 7-15 Centennial Avenue and 92-96 Gordon Crescent

 

 

Subject:          Proposed Voluntary Planning Agreement for 7-15 Centennial Avenue and 92-96 Gordon Crescent    

Record No:    DA11/233-01 - 49853/13

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli; Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report outlines a proposed Voluntary planning Agreement (VPA) relating to the subject development site and a proposed value to Council should it decide to enter into a VPA with the developer HYECORP Property Group in respect of the property 7-15 Centennial Avenue and 92-96 Gordon Crescent for the transfer of the land at 15 Centennial Avenue to Council to form part of the Stringybark Creek Reserve in return for transferring the floor space to the adjacent development at 7-13 Centennial Avenue.

 

The report will recommend that the proposed VPA be endorsed and placed on public exhibition for 28 days when the Development Application is advertised.

 

Background

 

The objective of the Voluntary Planning Agreement system is to extend the means by which planning authorities such as Council may obtain development contributions to provide public amenities, services and other public purposes.

 

HYCORP Property Group (the landowner and proponent) seeks to transfer the permitted floorspace ratio (FSR) applicable to 15 Centennial Avenue to land and buildings at 7-13 Centennial Avenue and 92-96 Gordon Crescent to provide 31 additional residential dwellings. In return Council would received the land free of costs and a cash contribution of $175,000 which will be utilised to remove the existing dwelling and regenerate the area providing a continuation of Stringy Bark Reserve. The contribution made via the VPA would be in addition to Council’s existing s.94 Contribution for the development site.

 

To assist Council in determining an appropriate value for the proposed VPA, HillPDA consultants were engaged to undertake an assessment as to the appropriate dollar value of the proposed VPA.

 

The key findings of the above referenced approach are provided in the subsequent sections of this report.

 

Voluntary Planning Agreements and Public Purpose

 

Subdivision 2, Division 6 of Part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 sets out the system of planning agreements in NSW. Section 93F(1) provides that “a planning agreement is a voluntary agreement or other arrangement between one or more planning authorities and a developer under which the developer agrees to make development contributions towards a public purpose”.

 

A public purpose is defined by Section 93F(2) of the EP&A Act 1979 to include: the provision of, or the recoupment of the cost of providing public amenities and public services (as defined in s93c), affordable housing, transport or other infrastructure. It also includes the funding of recurrent expenditure relating to such things as the monitoring of the planning impacts of development and the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment.

In keeping with the definition of public purpose, various VPA’s have secured the embellishment and transfer of land to councils as a public benefit. Examples of some such VPA’s include agreements at Rhodes Peninsula (between the City of Canada Bay and Mirvac Projects Pty Ltd) and West Ryde Precinct (between Ryde City Council and Remo West Ryde Pty Limited.

 

The Proposed Voluntary Planning Agreement

 

HYECORP Property Group received planning approval in October 2012 from the NSW Land and Environment Court for the development of land at 7-13 Centennial Avenue and 92 - 96 Gordon Crescent for three residential buildings and a neighbourhood shop. The development parameters of the approved scheme are shown attached as AT-1 of this report.

 

Further to this approval, HYECORP Property Group purchased 15 Centennial Avenue and proposes to include this additional land into the one ‘development site’, owing to some of the complexities associated with developing 15 Centennial Avenue (i.e. its steep gradient and the extent of natural vegetation). HYECORP Property Group’s preferred approach would be to transfer the FSR permitted on land at 15 Centennial Avenue to the land at 7-13 Centennial Avenue to achieve the estimated 31 dwellings. The area of 15 Centennial Avenue is 1530sqm, and with its existing FSR control of 1.6, it has a floor space entitlement of 2448sqm. The proposed 31 units will have a floor area of approximately 2300sqm. Therefore, the transfer of the FSR from 15 Centennial Avenue would not result in any bonus floor space across the development site than otherwise permitted by Lane Cove LEP 2009. Subject to the design, the transfer of the may not necessarily exceed the existing building height control of 14.5 metres, which has increased from 12 metres since the original development approval. However, it will breach the number of building storeys (four) specified by Lane Cove DCP 2010.

 

In addition to various design improvements, the HYECORP Property Group identified that this approach would have the benefit of retaining mature vegetation on the site and protecting the existing ecological community.

 

Methods for Calculating the Value of Voluntary Planning Agreement

 

There are a number of methods that may be used to calculate the appropriate value of a VPA to the community. These methods vary dependant on the nature of the matter proposed and the characteristics of the site. One such matter and method relates to the sharing of the value uplift created through the award of bonus floorspace. As there is no floor space bonus applicable in this situation, an alternate methodology has been considered.

 

Benefit to the Developer

 

The Developer in exchanging the location of the FSR gains in terms of the amenity of the units, with all 31 of the proposed units now being located at the upper 5th floor. Developers traditionally charge more for units at higher levels within a development, with a figure of between $10,000-$15,000 per unit considered a reasonable estimate. Based on this the value to the developer lies between $310,000 (31 units x $10,000) and $465,000 (31 units x $15,000) from increased sales revenue.

 

Benefit to the Community

 

To calculate the benefit of the proposed VPA to Council and the Community, reference is made to the precedent established by the City of Sydney (and the former South Sydney Council) in relation to the value of land transferred to Council having relinquished its FSR for development. In these cases, the City of Sydney calculates the market value of the land in question and discounts this by 75% as the permissible FSR has been used and the site has lost its intrinsic development potential.

 

 

More specifically, the City of Sydney DCP 2006 states that:-

 

“The average value of land anticipated to be dedicated without retaining its development potential is 25% of market value.

 

It is emphasised that these are averages for the estimation of a reasonable average contribution rate. The reasonable value of each dedication will be assessed as part of a Voluntary Planning Agreement for any site providing land dedication with or without embellishment works. The reason for this is that each site is unique in its characteristics and it is recognised that it may not always be possible to utilise 100% of the latent floor space within the development site.”

 

The Value of the Land as a Contribution

 

In light of the considerations above, it is understood that 15 Centennial Avenue was purchased for $1.45m on 3 May 2012. Assuming the FSR was transferred to the portion of the development site currently known as 7-13 Centennial Avenue, HillPDA therefore recommend the value of the land as provided to Council would be 25% x $1.45m which equates to $362,500. When combined with the proposed cash contribution of $175,000, the total value to the community is $537,500.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to permit public submissions on the proposed VPA for development of 7-13 Centennial Avenue and 92 - 96 Gordon Crescent.  Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated as part of any determination as to whether or not to proceed with the VPA.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Properties in the vicinity.

Mowbray Precinct Working Party and local community associations.

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and

eNewsletter.

 

Notification Letters

Public Exhibition,

Website Exhibition and Online Survey

Indicative Timing

In conjunction with the Development Application Notification

In conjunction with the Development Application Notification

In conjunction with the Development Application Notification

 


Conclusion

 

Whilst the proponent would not benefit from any ‘bonus’ floorspace on the development site as a result of the agreement, it is noted that a VPA would provide greater development certainty as 15 Centennial Avenue which is considered a more complex development site.

 

The advantage to the community is that it will acquire 1530 sqm of land to allow the extension of Stringy Bark Reserve and preserve the established vegetation and ecological value to the community.

 

It is recommended that Council exhibit the proposed VPA for public comment in conjunction with the notification of the Development Application for a period of 28 days as required by the legislation. The Development application will be of a scale that the JRPP will be the consent authority for the Development Application. However, prior to the JRPP’s consideration of the matter, Council will need to determine whether or not to accept the VPA following the consultation.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Receive and note the report;

 

2.   Council give notice of its intention to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement  as outlined in the report with the developer of the subject site in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the report; and

 

3.   Following the community consultation, a further report be submitted to Council for determination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Site and Development Details

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Site Plan

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 October 2013

Lane Cove River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan    

Record No:    SU3598 - 48902/13

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Susan Butler 

 

 

Executive Summary

The public exhibition of the Draft Lane Cove River Coastal Zone Management Plan has concluded. A workshop with the Councillors was held and a number of points clarified. The Draft Plan is now ready for adoption.

 

Background

The Draft Lane Cove River Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP) is a joint plan prepared for Lane Cove, Hunters Hill, City of Ryde and Willoughby Councils, with technical and financial support from the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. The Draft Plan was presented to Council at its meeting of 19 August 2013. Council resolved that the amended Lane Cove River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan be deferred to a workshop.

 

Discussion

A workshop with Councillors was held on 9 September 2013, with a presentation outlining the CZMP structure and specific actions identified, as shown attached as AT-1. One of the stated aims of the Plan is to investigate the impact of any sea level rise on the estuary’s ecological and built assets. The Plan includes maps showing what areas would be affected if there is a sea level rise of 0.4 m and 0.9 m. Due to the size of the Plan it has been attached electronically at AT-2 and AT-3 and can be viewed on-line.

 

Conclusion

Following the public exhibition of the Draft Lane Cove River Coastal Zone Management Plan, a workshop with the Councillors was run on 9 September 2013 and a number of points clarified. The Draft Plan is now ready for adoption.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Lane Cove River Coastal Zone Management Plan dated July 2013 be adopted.

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

CZMP Councilors workshop presentation

6 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Lane Cove River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan

160 Pages

AT‑3 View

Lane Cove River Estuary Coastal Zone Management Plan maps July 2013

22 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 October 2013

Visit by Delegates from Huzhou City, China

 

 

Subject:          Visit by Delegates from Huzhou City, China    

Record No:    SU4964 - 51198/13

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Jane Gornall 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council at its meeting of 16th September received an update report on the possibility of a visit from Huzhou City in China.  The Report also had a draft general program for their visit attached.  Initially it had been discussed that the visit would last five days, confirmation has now been received  that the visit will be of only two days duration and will cover the dates Wednesday 30 and Thursday 31st October, 2013.

 

An updated schedule and a listing of the envisaged costs are included in this report. At the time of writing this report the dates had only just been confirmed and details (including costings) for the event are still being confirmed.

 

Discussion.

 

The delegation from Huzhou is listed below:-

 

Delegate

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

 

One of the delegation will also act as an interpreter.

 

Councillor Bennison has agreed to meet the delegation at the Airport and assist with their transfer to their hotel.

 

Time

Activity

Estimated cost

Day 1 – 30th October, 2013

Delegation arrives in Sydney.  Maxi taxi to collect delegation from airport and deliver to their hotel. Rest of day at their leisure.

 

$ 100

Day 2 – 31st October, 2013

9.30 am

Delegation meets in the Hotel foyer

 

 

10.05 am

Water taxi from City to Longueville Wharf

 

$ 155

10.25 am

Arrive at Longueville Wharf

 

 

10.35 am

Arrival at Aquatic Park – light refreshments served

$100 – light refreshments

10.45 am

Introduction and speech from the Mayor

 

 

10.50 am

Aboriginal Smoking Ceremony

 

 

11.00 am

Bus tour of Lane Cove and tour of a Lane Cove School

$ 990 *

1.00 pm

BBQ lunch at Aquatic Park

 

$680 – includes set up, food and serving

2.15 pm

Transfer to Lane Cove Village. Presentation on Lane Cove provided by Councillors and Council staff at Lane Cove Library

 

$80  – light refreshments

4.00 pm

Transfer back to Hotel before returning to Lane Cove for dinner

*

6.00 pm

Dinner with Councillors, Council staff and businesses at Gallery Lane Cove

$1350 for 30 Council invited attendees and the delegates.

Other guests will attend at $45 per head, which recovers costs.

9.30 pm

Transfer back to hotel

 

*

 

* Price based on the use of a 21 seater bus between 10.00am and 10.00 pm

 

A copy of the itinerary has been sent to the delegation to see if there are any other areas of particular interest that have not yet been covered.

 

In addition to the above there is normally a gift exchanged between the delegation. In this case it has been suggested that a didgeridoo might be an appropriate gift. A didgeridoo would cost in the vicinity of $200.

 

The total budget for the visit is $3455, say $3700 inclusive of a gift. As the Local Government NSW Conference was held in Sydney this year, as opposed to its normal regional location, savings are available in the Councillors Continuing Education budget to cover this amount.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   The Report be received and noted;

 

2.   Council determine if it wishes to purchase a gift for the delegation; and

 

3.   Councillors indicate if they will be available to attend the events on the day

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 October 2013

Review of Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel

 

 

Subject:          Review of Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel    

Record No:    SU4720 - 51300/13

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Michael Mason 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council at its meeting of 5 March 2012 resolved, (Resolution No. 50), interalia, to establish the Lane Cove Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (LCIHAP) to:-

 

a)         Consider and determine development applications, Sec 96 modification applications and S82A review of applications referred to it by the General Manager, and

 

b)         Consider and determine S82A reviews of determinations made by the Lane Cove IHAP.

 

The Council also resolved that the General Manager review the Lane Cove IHAP after 12 months and prepare a report for Council’s consideration.

 

This report provides a review of the Lane Cove IHAP as request above.

 

Introduction

 

The Lane Cove IHAP commenced operating in October 2012.  Between 2 October 2012 and 3 September 2013 the Panel considered 14 applications, comprising development applications, amended development applications and S82A reviews.  A list of the applications considered and determined is shown attached as (AT1).  In addition, the Chairman attended at 29 Chisholm Street, Greenwich with the General Manager on a minor application which was resolved on site.

 

The Charter of the Lane Cove IHAP is shown attached as (AT2) and serves as an administrative context for its operation.  The Lane Cove IHAP structure, role and powers are modelled on that of similar Panels and the State Government Joint Regional Planning Panels co-ordinated by the Department of Planning.

 

The Lane Cove IHAP Charter details the structure and functions of the Panel together with setting a constitution, obligations for members and matters that are to be referred to the Panel.  While the Charter and Code of Conduct provide relevant details as to Lane Cove IHAP procedures, the following elements highlight the Panel’s functions.

 

Process Overview

 

Referral

 

The Panel operates when the General Manager refers an item for consideration and determination.

 

The General Manager is guided by the advice of planning staff as to the complexity/polarization of issues among a range of unresolved concerns.

 

Meeting

 

Preceding each IHAP meeting the Panel receives a report assessing the proposal along with a staff recommendation to either approve (with conditions) or refuse an application.

 

The Panel conducts a site inspection accompanied by the Executive Manager and relevant staff. The site inspection may also be attended by either the applicant and objectors if any.

 

Once back at the Chambers a public meeting is held where people may register to address the Panel.  Council staff give an overview of each development action and/or concerns up to the day of the meeting.

 

The meeting is streamed via an internet link to ensure all stakeholders have an opportunity to view the proceedings and hear the determination of the Panel.

 

Decision Application

 

The decision of the Panel along with relevant comments are announced at the meeting on the day with formal minutes being posted on Council’s web as soon as practicable after the meeting.  Generally by the end of the week.

 

Review

 

A detailed table shown attached as (AT1) highlights characteristics of each application considered and determined by the Panel during the period October 2012 to October 2013. During that period the Panel considered 14 applications.

 

Five (5) applications were for review of a decision (S82A) determined under delegation.  Of these five (5) applications, two (2) were refused and three (3) were approved.  One of the approved applications was a review of an application refused by the Panel but subsequently amended to address the reasons for refusal by the original Panel refusal.

 

Three (3) of the applications were amendments to an existing development approval (S96 application) all of which were approved by the Panel.

 

Of the total of six (6) development applications, five (5) were for alterations and additions, four (4) of which were approved and one (1) was refused but subsequently approved upon amendment and review.

 

Only 1 application was for a new dwelling, which was approved subject to conditions

 

On one occasion the Panel determined against the staff recommendation.  This occurred when the Panel determined that further amendment should be made to the development application to expand the Child Care Centre of Gay Street.

 

The applicant subsequently made further amendment to the proposal which addressed amenity and traffic management concerns of adjoining and nearby residents.

 

Comments by the Chairman of the Lane Cove IHAP, the Hon David Lloyd

 

As part of this review the Chair of the Lane Cove IHAP was given the opportunity to make any observations to the structure and/or the working of the Panel.

 

The observations of the Hon David Lloyd are as follows:-

 

The decisions of the Panel appear to be generally well received.  This appears to be so for three reasons:

 

1.         The membership of the Panel comprises persons who have relevant experience and qualifications and who are truly independent and are thus not unduly influenced by any sectional interest.  The public can thus have confidence that the Panel’s decisions are made objectively and dispassionately.

 

2.         Interested persons who have registered to do so are given the opportunity to address the Panel before it makes it’s determination.

 

3.         In announcing its decision, the Chairperson gives short reasons designed to show that the views and comments of all interested persons have been considered and explains why (if it be the case) that those views may not have prevailed.

 

A further demonstration of the general acceptance of the Panel’s determination is that only one appeal or judicial review application has been brought – unsuccessfully – to the Land and Environment Court from any Panel determination.

 

The Panel members feel privileged to undertake the task and wish to acknowledge the considerable assistance and support of the Executive Manager and support staff.”

 

Comment

 

The comments and observations of Justice Lloyd are welcome and reflect his commitment to ensuring the Lane Cove IHAP process is principled, transparent and inclusive.

 

The trigger for an application to be referred to the Lane Cove IHAP for determination is purposely flexible and is not solely dictated by a minimum cost or the number of objections.  The major determinant for referral to the Lane Cove IHAP is non-compliance with stated standards and potential polarization within the community.  This flexibility is enhanced with the General Manager being able to direct any report to be referred to the Panel for determination.

 

Conclusion

 

Having regard to the information provided in AT-1 and AT-2, the observations of the Chairperson of the Lane Cove IHAP, in built flexibilities and procedures, it is considered that the Lane Cove IHAP has met the expectations of the Charter and Council and it is appropriate that it now be made a permanent component of Lane Cove Council’s development assessment system.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council acknowledge the information provided and direct the General Manager to formally adopt the Lane Cove IHAP and Charter as a permanent component of Council’s development assessment system.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

List of applications considered and determined by IHAP

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Charter - Lane Cove Independent Hearing & Assessment Panel

9 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 October 2013

Funding under Round 7 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program

 

 

Subject:          Funding under Round 7 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program    

Record No:    SU5183 - 51263/13

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      David Wilson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report advises of organisations seeking funds under Round 7 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program. Council received six (6) applications seeking a total of $11,000 in funding. The report recommends funding for 5 of the 6 applications to the total of $9,000.

 

Background

 

Council, under Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993, may grant financial assistance to organisations. This report discusses the application process for Round 7 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program and recommends Council provide the grants nominated. 

 

Under the program Council invited applications for financial assistance from organisations either based in Lane Cove Local Government Area (LGA), or if not based in the LGA, whose assistance addresses identified needs of people within the LGA. 

 

Community Organisations on Council’s Community Directory were notified of the Sustainability Small Grants Program, the program was also promoted on Council’s website, through the Sustainability E-Newsletter and advertised in The Village Observer.  Applications closed on Friday 20 September 2013.

 

Discussion

 

All applications were assessed against the criteria provided in AT-1 by a panel comprising the Chair of the Sustainability Advisory Committee, Manager Environmental Health and Sustainability Coordinator.  Applicants were asked to show how their application could meet the needs of Lane Cove. Included in AT-2 is a summary of all the applications, panel consideration and recommended funding.

 

The budget for the Sustainability Small Grants Program includes a provision of $15,000 in funding for this financial year (Round 7 and Round 8).

 

Conclusion

 

Council’s Sustainability Small Grants Program assists the development of a range of initiatives that assist organisations and raise awareness of sustainability in the Lane Cove community. Furthermore Council’s Sustainability Action Plan provides guidance to assist in identifying priority projects for funding.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

1.    Endorse funds under Round 7 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program for the following projects:-

 

·    $2000 – Chatswood South Perma Patch Inc

·    $2000 – Meeting House Inc

·    $2000 – St Andrews Uniting Church Longueville

·    $2000 – St Michael’s Primary School

·    $1000 – Lane Cove West Public School

2.    Give Public Notice of the proposed funding under Round 7 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program, and subject to no objections being received, grant the funds as outlined above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Selection criteria for Round 7 Sustainability Small Grants program

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Summary of Grant Applications received under Round 7 and Panel recommendations

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 October 2013

Recyclesmart - Incentive Scheme - Pilot Project

 

 

Subject:          Recyclesmart - Incentive Scheme - Pilot Project     

Record No:    SU5094 - 48153/13

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      David Wilson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting of the 19 August 2013, Council resolved to defer a Report on RecycleSmart Recycling Research Program to allow the General Manager to further investigate the commercial arrangements and report back to Council.

 

Following the Council meeting, Council Officers met with RecycleSmart Chief Executive Giorgio Baracchi and Company Director Alex Lopez to discuss their concerns. At the conclusion of this meeting RecycleSmart gave an undertaking to provide an Addendum to their original report.

 

The Addendum provides additional information that highlight the social media technology used to promote the program and monitor the level of engagement of the participants. In addition this supplementary information provides a brief overview of how a program could be expanded and used in multi unit residential premises.

 

The aims and objectives of the trial program were to evaluate if residents when provided with an incentive system, would recycle at an increased level. 500 households were invited to participate, of these 122 signed up to the program. Woolworth’s gift vouchers were used as the main incentive to encourage increased separation of paper and mixed containers into their recycling bins.

 

Council’s Waste Collection and Waste Disposal Contracts expire in 2015, and as such it is considered prudent to address all appropriate waste collection, recycling and disposal issues in the context of these contracts. These options will be researched over the next 12 months as to the most effective and cost efficient method for the collection and processing of household waste.

 

The information obtained during the research program and skills of RecycleSmart will be considered, and given the opportunity to participate in future waste education strategies.

 

Background

 

Study Overview (AT-1)

 

RecycleSmart invited 500 households in Riverview to participate in the program. Of these households, 122 signed up to the program and agreed to participate for the 3 month trial.

 

Waste collection data was collected from Council’s waste contractor (URM) and showed that on average each participating household produced 144 kg of general waste over the study period. It was estimated that there was a 10% increase in recycling of paper and mixed containers. This equates to diversion from landfill of approximately 1.76 tonnes or 1.2 kg/week per household.

 

Study Addendum (AT-2)

 

The Addendum to the Report provides additional information that highlight the social media technology used to promote the program and monitor the level of engagement of the participants. In addition this supplementary information provides a brief overview of how the program can be expanded and used in multi unit residential premises.

 

The key topics highlighted were the use of social media, automatic feedback emails, use of Smartphone’s App’s and potential use of the program in multi unit developments.

 

Discussion

 

Financial Analysis

 

RecycleSmart has indicated that the gift card incentives were subsidized and purchased from the program sponsor at an undisclosed price. At this time, RecycleSmart was only able to provide Council with an indicative cost of $2 - $5 per household/month to conduct the program on a commercial basis.

 

 Under this cost structure, the total cost of the pilot program would be:-

 

122 (households) x $5 (incentive cost) x 3 (months) = $1830.

122 (households) x $2 (incentive cost) x 3 (months) = $732.

 

The cost to divert waste from landfill during the study:-

 

$1830 (total cost) for 1.76 tonnes (diverted waste)      = $1040 / tonne ($5 incentive).

$732   (total cost) for 1.76 tonnes (diverted waste)      = $416 / tonne   ($2 incentive).

 

The current cost for waste to go to landfill is $300/tonne and this analysis shows that the program would not be financially viable for Council, based under a cost-saving scheme, as the costs for the $2 incentive option, are 28% higher than the current landfill rate, and for the $5 incentive option, are 346% higher than the current landfill rate.

 

If Council was to consider this type of program, the costs of the incentives would need to be added to the waste charges of each household or business that uses Council’s waste services. Accordingly, a cost of up to $53/household in addition to the current annual charge of

$390/ household would need to be charged for waste services.

 

Based on 13,000 + waste services in the Lane Cove LGA, a cost of $692,640/year to cover the incentive program costs would need to be budgeted for.

 

Conclusion

 

The trial study undertaken by RecycleSmart provides an insight into waste management and recycling behaviours of 122 households.  Based on the findings of the study and the cost implications, it is considered that the community would not benefit from the program unless significant cost-savings were evident and a greater diversion rate was achievable, and as such continuation of the pilot program is not supported at this time.

 

However the findings and methods used as part of the study are innovative and will be considered as part of future waste consultation strategies.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council;

 

1.   Note the RecycleSmart Report shown as attached as AT-1.

 

2.   Send a letter of thanks to RecycleSmart for undertaking the Pilot Recycling Study.

 

3.   Not extend the Pilot RecycleSmart Recycling Study.

 

4.   RecycleSmart be included in the advertisement of future waste projects and be invited to submit proposals that are commensurate with their services and expertise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Recyclesmart Report

21 Pages

AT‑2 View

Addendum to Recyclesmart Report

4 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 October 2013

Updated Probity Plan for Little Lane Carpark Redevelopment

 

 

Subject:          Updated Probity Plan for Little Lane Carpark Redevelopment    

Record No:    SU5218 - 51703/13

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      John  Lee 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report provides an Updated Probity Plan for the next phase of the Little Lane Car Park Redevelopment.  The updated Probity Plan reflects the development proceeding under a Project Delivery Agreement and is recommended for adoption by Council.

 

Discussion

 

The initial Probity Plan adopted by Council in December 2007 was intended to cover all dealings from concept to completion.  At that stage it was envisaged that the project delivery may involve a Public Private Partnership (PPP) arrangement.

 

Council has now received advice from the Division of Local Government that the proposed contractual arrangements of a Project Delivery Agreement (PDA) being tendered at this time does not constitute a PPP and may proceed under Section 55 of the Local Government Act as a selective Tender.  The Division has also suggested that the Probity Plan be updated to reflect the project proceeding under a PDA. The Updated Probity Plan dated October 2013 is shown attached as AT-1.

 

Probity Auditor Appointment

 

Council is advised that the General Manager has negotiated with the NSW Government’s Independent Auditors Bureau, for the appointment of Mr Bill Rock as Council’s external Probity Auditor.  The roles and responsibilities of the probity Auditor are set out in the Probity Plan.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Adopt the updated Probity Plan for the Little Lane Carpark Redevelopment, dated October 2013 and shown attached as AT-1; and

 

2.   Note the appointment of Mr Bill Rock as the external Probity Auditor for the next phase

of the Little Lane Carpark Redevelopment.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Updated Probity Plan for Little Lane Carpark Redevelopment

12 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 October 2013

Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 17 September 2013

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 17 September 2013    

Record No:    SU1326 - 50459/13

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Tim Sullivan 

 

 

 Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, 17 September 2013 was conducted via Correspondence due to low number of items for the Agenda.  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, 17 September 2013.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Agenda - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 17 September 2013

12 Pages

AT‑2 View

Minutes - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 17 September 2013

5 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 October 2013

Pecuniary Interest Returns 2013

 

 

Subject:          Pecuniary Interest Returns 2013    

Record No:    SU2095 - 50446/13

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to table the Pecuniary Interest Returns of Designated Staff and Councillors as required by the Local Government Act 1993.  This report recommends that Council notes the tabling of these returns.

 

Discussion.

 

Section 449(3) of the Local Government Act 1993 (“LG Act”) requires Designated Staff and Councillors holding these positions as of 30 June 2013 to lodge a “Disclosures by Councillors and Designated Persons Return” to the General Manager by 30 September 2013.

 

Conclusion

 

All returns for Designated Staff and Councillors in office as at 30 June 2013 have been submitted.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council note the tabling of Pecuniary Interest Returns of Designated Staff and Councillors for the return period 1 July 2012 till 30 June 2013.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 October 2013

Additional Ordinary Council Meeting in December

 

 

Subject:          Additional Ordinary Council Meeting in December    

Record No:    SU1915 - 50465/13

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Ian Naylor 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the need for an additional Ordinary Council Meeting in December. It is recommended that Council give public notice in a local newspaper of its intention to hold a second Ordinary Council Meeting on 16 December 2013.

 

Discussion

 

Council’s adopted meeting schedule includes an Ordinary Council Meeting on 2 December 2013, however Council staff have indicated that a second Ordinary Council Meeting in December is required so that approvals can be granted and work can continue on a number of major projects so that these projects are not delayed over the Christmas recess.

 

The following projects may require a formal Council decision at a second Ordinary Council Meeting in December; Tender for Little Lane Development, Tenders for provision of artificial sportsfields and associated infrastructure at Blackman Park and Draft Development Control Plan (DCP) and Planning Proposal for Local Environment Plan (LEP) at 266 Longueville Road.

 

If Council is to hold an additional Ordinary Council Meeting in December, then in accordance with Clause 232 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, public notice of this meeting is required to be given in a local newspaper.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council give public notice in a local newspaper of its intention to hold a second Ordinary Council Meeting on 16 December 2013.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 October 2013

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot    

Record No:    SU220 - 51153/13

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

53 Pages