m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

17 March 2014

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, 48 Longueville Road Lane Cove on Monday 17 March 2014 commencing at 7:00pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

 

Council Meeting Procedures

 

The Council meeting is chaired by the Mayor, Councillor 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 17 March 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

public forum

 

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

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 17 FEBRUARY 2014

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

2.       NSROC SHROC Merger

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

3.       Lane Cove Developments Numbers & Impact Analysis

 

4.       Voluntary Planning Agreement Calculations

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

5.       LEP and DCP Amendment finalisation: 266 Longueville Road Planning Proposal

 

6.       St Leonards South Strategy - Stage 1 Precinct Report

 

7.       Review of Rating Structure

 

8.       St Leonards Bus Rail Interchange & Plaza

 

9.       Draft DCP Part R: Traffic, Transport and Parking

 

10.     Battle-Axe Blocks Draft DCP - Finalisation

 

11.     Lane Cove West Industrial Area LEP - FSR

 

12.     Bushland Protection

 

13.     Further Report on Little Lane Carpark Redevelopment Tender

 

14.     Longueville Road Intersection Improvement Scheme - Construction of Traffic Signals and Additional Civil Works

 

15.     Tender for Renovations to the Kindy Cove Child Care Centre

 

16.     Negotiations for Acquisition of Part of 300 A,B,C Burns Bay Road to Enable Road Widening Works

 

17.     Sustainability Advisory Committee - Nominations for Vacant Positions

 

18.     Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 18 February 2014

 

19.     Local Government Acts Review - Taskforce Report

 

20.     2014-2017 Draft Budget and 2014-2017 Delivery Program and Operational Plan

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

21.     Council Snapshot  

 

 

 

 

        


Ordinary Council Meeting 17 March 2014

NSROC SHROC Merger

 

 

Subject:          NSROC SHROC Merger    

Record No:    SU3476 - 13073/14

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor David Brooks-Horn 

 

 

Issue

 

Agreement to the formation and participation in the Northern Metropolitan Council of Mayors (working title). 

 

Background

 

The NSW Government is considering major reforms of local government and changes to the planning system premised on new forms of engagement between local government and State Government, through groupings of councils.

 

On 10 October 2013 the Mayors and General Managers (or their delegates) from the 11 councils of the SHOROC and NSROC regions met and agreed to explore options for establishing a single regional organisation of councils for northern Sydney. A working party was formed to progress the matter, made up of Mayors and General Managers from more than half of the councils.

 

The Mayors and General Managers (or their delegates) from all 11 councils met again on 29 November 2013 and supported a model developed by the working party, based on two organisations:-

·    A Council of Mayors focussed on regional advocacy, intergovernmental relations and strategic planning; and

·    A Regional Services Group to provide joint services for participating councils.

 

This meeting agreed to move forward with the new regional model and asked the working party to develop more detailed terms of reference and a draft implementation plan for establishing the proposed model in the first half of 2014.

 

The working party met again on 30 January 2014 and considered the implications of the Independent Local Government Review Panel’s ‘Revitalising Local Government’ report on the terms of reference for the regional model.

 

Working papers devised for and discussed at these meetings are attached.

 

Current Position

 

Council delegates who have been involved in discussions over several months about forming a larger regional organisation, as set out above and in the attached papers, have consistently supported the concept of establishing a larger regional grouping of 11 councils that would eventually subsume the functions performed by the two Regional Organisations of Councils (NSROC and SHOROC).

 

The underlying drivers of this view are the shared policy challenges faced by all Councils and the expected impact that a larger regional organisation will have in advocating for the region. Establishing a larger regional organisation will bring the northern Sydney region into closer alignment with the number of LGAs in the regional organisations of councils for western Sydney (WSROC) and southern Sydney (SSROC).

 

The advantages of this model for Council are that the larger regional organisation can provide:-

 

·      Greater scale and more effective advocacy on key issues affecting the region;

·      The opportunity to provide a more substantial interface between councils and the NSW Government on major policies, issues and proposed reforms;

·      Increased opportunities for regional planning in relation to:-

o   Transport

o   Infrastructure

o   Strategic planning

o   Housing and employment

·      Increased opportunities to share resources and knowledge.

The potential downsides of the move to a larger regional structure were noted in discussions as:-

·      The challenges of creating common positions and shared goals across a larger group;

·      The potential for local policy issues to be lost because they do not resonate across larger region; and

·      The potential for cost shifting by the NSW Government to a more substantial regional organisation.

Council representatives worked through these issues and concluded that the advantages were likely to outweigh the risks, which could be managed.  In summary, the advantages are that:-

 

·    by establishing a larger scale in the regional organisation, councils will have a more effective interface partner advocate for the region in sub-regional strategic and planning engagement with the NSW Government; and

·    by forming the new regional group through a process of self-determination, rather than having its design imposed externally, councils will demonstrate a positive approach to local government reform that supports existing regional affiliations.

 

Council representatives also considered that the larger regional grouping would allow those councils seeking efficiencies through shared services to develop a program of regional service delivery, shared contracting and shared resources. However, the working party agreed it would be prudent to put on hold the establishment of the proposed Regional Services Group until after the Council of Mayors is operational. This aspect of the model will be revisited when further information is available on the NSW Government’s policy regarding Joint Organisations, and any legislative changes are made. In all discussions, the Regional Services Group has been discussed as an organisation that councils would deal with on an opt in/opt out basis.

 

Recommended Position

 

It is proposed to implement the new regional model in stages, commencing with the establishment of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between all 11 Northern Sydney Councils to form the Northern Metropolitan Council of Mayors (working name only).

 

 The objectives of the proposed Northern Metropolitan Council of Mayors (NMCM) are to:-

·    Provide a collective voice for the councils and communities of Northern Sydney on whole-of-region issues including infrastructure, land-use planning, economic, social and environmental issues, and regulation and reform of the local government sector;

·    Facilitate effective and efficient intergovernmental relations and partnerships between all levels of government on regional strategic planning, projects and programs for the benefit of Northern Sydney; and

·    Support enhanced financial sustainability and capacity of councils and assist councils to adapt or respond to NSW Government policy and legislative change.

 

Its major roles will be:-

 

·    Leadership, advocacy and intergovernmental relations on whole-of-region issues.

·    Coordinating strategic regional planning in partnership with the NSW and Commonwealth governments; and

·    Leading and coordinating regional and subregional strategies and programs.

 

Operating Rules including Board representation, decision-making roles, administrative arrangements, and powers of the organisation have been drafted under a Terms of Reference set out in Attachment B.

 

Secretariat support for the Northern Metropolitan Council of Mayors will be provided by SHOROC and NSROC.  The ROCs already collaborate in many areas and ongoing close collaboration will be a central element under the MOU, to avoid duplication and maximise effectiveness.

 

The NMCM would transition at a later date from operating under an MOU to a more robust governance model, expected to becoming available from reforms to the Local Government Act 1993 that will arise from the Government’s response to the ILGRP process. Establishing the NSCM now, rather than waiting for legislative amendments, will allow time to sharpen the priorities and working methods of the Council of Mayors and avoid the composition of the organisation being determined outside the region. 

 

For the time being, NSROC and SHOROC will both continue to operate. Each Board will consider a transition timetable for a full merger of the organisations into a new entity or entities, once options are clearer. The advantages of this approach are that there will be no additional costs to Councils over and above current membership fees for the existing ROCs and that the valued services of the ROCs will be maintained. Once the priorities of the larger regional organisation or organisations are clarified and the structures under local government legislation are devised, it is expected that the MOU group would migrate to form a properly constituted organisation.

 

Submissions on ‘Revitalising Local Government’ Report

 

Submissions to the NSW Government regarding the Independent Local Government Review Panel’s ‘Revitalising Local Government’ report are due on 4 April 2014.

 

The formation of the Northern Metropolitan Council of Mayors and its alignment with the Panel’s emphasis on regional cooperation in strategic planning and intergovernmental relations warrants inclusion of this development in individual councils’ submissions to the Panel’s report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.   Supports the formation and participation in a Northern Metropolitan Council of Mayors (working title).

2.   Authorises the Mayor and General Manager to sign a Memorandum of Understanding for Council to become a member of the Northern Metropolitan Council of Mayors (working title) under the terms outlined in the draft Terms of Reference.

3.   Outlines to the NSW Government in its submission regarding the Independent Local Government Review Panel’s ‘Revitalising Local Government’ report the intention to form the Northern Metropolitan Council of Mayors noting its alignment with the Panel’s proposed Joint Organisation model.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor David Brooks-Horn

Mayor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Overview of proposed Northern Sydney councils collaboration model

3 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Northern Metropolitan Council of Mayors - Draft terms of reference

8 Pages

 

 

         


Ordinary Council Meeting 17 March 2014

Lane Cove Developments Numbers & Impact Analysis

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove Developments Numbers & Impact Analysis    

Record No:    SU4951 - 13077/14

Division:         Lane Cove Council

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

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Lane Cove has seen an unprecedented number of developments occurring and proposed for the Local Government Area. Currently, there are over 2,620 units in various phases of completion, including those under construction and in DA approval or DA pending process. Approximately, a further 2,000 units are being considered by developers in consultation with Council. This combined number is over 4,620, which already exceeds the State Government's development plan of 3,900 new dwellings for Lane Cove for the next 20 years.

 

In order to assess, quantify and plan for the impact of this rapid growth on both the infrastructure and the community of Lane Cove, Council should receive a report with all relevant information to date.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That a detailed report comes back to Council showing:-

 

1.   The number of completed developments detailing:-

·    Number of units built;

·    Location / address of the site;

·    Ward;

·    Car spaces built; and

·    Completion or estimated completion date.

2.   Complete the above for all approved DA and pending DA;

3.   Complete the above for all development that council is in discussions with (with the understanding that these are in the earliest phase of planning);

4.   Compare the above information to the State Government's Sydney Metro Destination 2036 plan; and

5.   List any work Council has done or is planning to do involving any of the Departments or other government agencies to integrate this incoming population (i.e. basic infrastructure, roads, public transport, open/recreational space, schools and preschools, sewer system, etc.)

 

 

 

 

Councillor Karola Brent

Councillor

 

 

Councillor Daniel Strassberg

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 17 March 2014

Voluntary Planning Agreement Calculations

 

 

Subject:          Voluntary Planning Agreement Calculations    

Record No:    SU4951 - 13080/14

Division:         Lane Cove Council

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

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Lane Cove has seen an unprecedented number of developments occurring and proposed for the Local Government Area. Many developments are seeing Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPA) being entered into.

 

As a VPA has no legal standing and can be altered whenever a development site is bought and sold prior to DA approval, it would be appropriate for Council to establish a standardised formula for all VPA calculations so that any developers are aware of Council’s minimum standards in its attempt of trying to meet the rapidly growing demand on its infrastructure and assets. 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   The General Manager report back to Council with a recommendation on a minimum standard VPA for Lane Cove.

2.   Clear guidelines be developed so that any developers entering Lane Cove are aware of Council’s standards and requirements. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Karola Brent

Councillor

 

 

 

Councillor Daniel Strassberg

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


Ordinary Council Meeting 17 March 2014

LEP and DCP Amendment finalisation: 266 Longueville Road Planning Proposal

 

 

Subject:          LEP and DCP Amendment finalisation: 266 Longueville Road Planning Proposal    

Record No:    SU4645 - 62095/13

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Christopher Pelcz; Michael Mason 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council is requested to determine Planning Proposal 17 – 266 Longueville Road under the Local Environmental Plan (LEP 2009) and the subsequent Development Control Plan amendment following there recent exhibition. The Planning Proposal seeks to:- 

 

·  rezone the land from RE1 Public Recreation to R4 High Density Residential;

·  permit an FSR of 1.1:1;

·  permit a maximum height of RL 65.5 metres (around 3-7 storeys); and

·  reclassify the land from 'community to 'operational' land.

 

While the Development Control Plan is a site-specific DCP Amendment accompanying the draft LEP which will be integrated into Part C Residential Localities section. It supports the LEP with controls for setbacks, landscaping and other design details.

 

Council approved the proposal for exhibition on 15 April 2013, and following the Department of Planning & Infrastructure’s LEP Gateway approval on 26 June 2013, the exhibition was undertaken from 23 October to 26 November. The Development Control Plan was also approved by Council for exhibition on 21 October 2013; it was exhibited in conjunction with the LEP amendment from 23 October to 26 November 2013.

 

The key issues discussed in the majority of public submissions during the exhibition related to:-

 

 

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

 

·  There is some community objection to the planning proposal mainly from the nearby Currambena Public School and adjoining residential properties;

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

·  There was considerable confusion in relation to the proposed use of a Reduced Level (RL) as a height control instead of using the height in metres expressed in Councils existing LEP (this is highlighted in the Community Consultation section of this report);

·  While the Traffic Study stated that the projected increase in traffic activity as a consequence of the development proposal will not have unacceptable traffic implications the RMS has raised concerns in relation to the proposed location of the driveway which have been addressed through Councils Traffic consultants.

·  The subject site is identified as bush fire prone lands and require an imposition of an Asset Protection Zone which has been incorporated into the Proposal and Development Control Plan amendment;

·  Sydney Water and NSW Rural Fire Service did not raise any objection to the proposal, nor did the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage provided that the recommendations of the Flora, Fauna and Funghi Surveys and Ecological Assessment Report by Applied Ecology (dated 2012) were implemented;

·  Notwithstanding the issues and concerns above, the planning proposal and development control plan before Council (FSR 1:1.1; with a maximum RL of 65.5m across the site; and to reclassify the land from “community” to “operational”) meets or can meet the threshold concerns and requirements of the various State authorities, Road and Maritime Services (RMS), Rural Fire Service, Sydney Water and others.

 

A public hearing was also held in relation to the proposed reclassification of this site in the Lane Cove Council building on Tuesday 3 December 2013 from 5 – 8pm.

 

The Commissioner’s report has recommended deferral of the proposal until further assessment is undertaken.  Council staff believe that recommendations made by the Commissioner in his report have been fully addressed in this report to the point that Council can and should determine the matter.  A number of the Commissioner’s recommendations are supported and are discussed in the Community Consultation section of this report.

 

It is recommended that Council consider this report, the issues raised and options available and determine this planning proposal.

 

Background

 

The Site

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Caveats and trusts are present on each of the three lots proposed for rezoning, relating to the land’s public reserve status. It is proposed not to extinguish these through the reclassification of public land process in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. Extinguishment of the interests/trusts relating to these land parcels is not required in this instance as none of the interests or trust preclude residential development and would automatically change once the land is rezoned for residential use. It is therefore not necessary to extinguish the interests or trusts that apply to these parcels of land. This is addressed in the Director General’s requirements for the reclassification of public land at AT-1.

 

Location

Figure 1: Aerial Photograph

 

 

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

 

Figure 2: Current Zoning

 

 

 

 

 

 

Previous Council Reports

 

Part of the previous Council report and resolution relating to the proposed LEP amendment, dated 15 April 2013, stated that an independent Traffic Study be undertaken and to take into account the traffic impacts of the site and proposals and developments in the precinct generally. This was completed by Varga Traffic Planning (AT-3) and was placed on exhibition with the Planning Proposal exhibition material. The results of this traffic report are detailed below.

 

Following Gateway approval to publicly exhibit the proposal a draft Development Control Plan was created and was presented to Council at its Ordinary meeting on 21 October 2013. It was approved for public exhibition by Council and became supporting documentation for the Draft LEP amendment.

 

Traffic Assessment Results

 

While the assessment took into account developments in the precincts generally it also took into account traffic, parking and vehicular access on the site. For the purposes of the Traffic Assessment it envisaged a seniors residential apartment development on the site comprising a maximum of 100 x 3-bedroom residential apartments.

 

Based on RMS guidelines, the report concluded that the traffic generation potential development is in the order of 40 vehicles per hour during commuter peak periods. Therefore, projected increase in traffic activity as a consequence of the development proposal was considered to be minimal and would not have unacceptable traffic implications in terms of road network capacity, as it would maintain the current level of service that the nearby intersection has.

 

In terms of parking, the development would be required to provide a total of 150 off-street car parking spaces to satisfy the requirements of the NSW State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

 

Vehicular access to the carparking areas was to be provided via two separate driveways which are located adjacent to the southern boundary of the site (shared driveway with Timbertops), and mid-way along the site frontage, further to the north in Longueville Road. This arrangement satisfied the relevant safety standards for driver sight distance/visibility.

 

Process

 

Reclassification of Council-owned land from “community” to “operational” requires a public hearing after a public exhibition period, as explained the NSW Department of Planning LEP Practice Note PN 09–003. The public hearing is chaired by a Commissioner appointed by Council in accordance with Section 47G of the NSW Local Government Act 1993.

 

Following the public hearing, the Commissioner must write a report about the details of the public hearing along with any recommendations. The report is then made publicly available and is presented to Council for examination and consideration.

 

The Commissioner’s final report is attached electronically to this report as AT-4.

 

Community Consultation

 

Methods

 

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

 

·     Advertisements in the North Shore Times;

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

·     A notice of the proposal was distributed to property owners in the nearby suburbs by letter;

·     Website and hard copy documents for viewing at Council; and

·     A public hearing was held in the Council building on the 3rd December 2013.

 

The consultation exceeded the requirements of the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure's Guide to Preparing Local Environmental Plans and the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 and fully complied with Council’s community consultation policy and practices.

 

Public Exhibition

 

The LEP & DCP amendment for 266 Longueville Road (Planning Proposal 17) was publicly exhibited from 23 October to 26 November 2013 with a total of 42 submissions received. This total included:-

 

·       82 proforma submissions from children attending Currambena Public School; and

·       1 petition with 45 signatures.

 

Council consulted with a number of public authorities as part of the Gateway determination:-

 

·    Sydney Water;

·    Fire and Rescue NSW;

·    Office of Environment and Heritage;

·    Commonwealth Department for Health and Ageing;

·    Transport for NSW – Roads and Maritime Services;

·    Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Authority;

·    NSW Rural Fire Service; and

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

 

Four of the eleven public authorities provided input to the proposal. Copies of these responses are attached electronically in AT-4. The NSW Office of Environment & Heritage response supported the conclusion that development will not impact on any threatened species, populations or ecological communities or habitats subject to implementation of recommended measures to offset any impacts proposed in the Flora, Fauna and Funghi Surveys and Ecological Assessment Report by Applied Ecology dated 2012. Sydney Water’s response provided comments which related to the Development Application stage. The NSW Rural Fire Service raised no objection to the proposal to permit seniors living on the disused bowling club site and advised that further consultation with the NSW Rural Fire Service would be needed at the Development Application stage.

 

NSW Roads & Maritime Services raised concern in their submission, dated 4 November, relating to the proposed driveway being located at the same access point as the existing driveway to "Timber Tops" which will cause conflicts. It is located 35m from the signalised intersection of Longueville Rd, River Rd West and Northwood Rd and recommends that any future driveway to the site be provided at the northern end of the property.

 

Council’s Traffic Consultant reaffirmed to the RMS that the access proposed is via an existing driveway which is already used by ‘Timbertops’ under a right-of-way arrangement. The driveway is proposed to be widened to 6m to allow for two way traffic and will not be two separate driveways. The driveway’s location also complied with the relevant standard for distance from signalised intersections. The other driveway further north on the site is to be closed. The RMS raised no objection to these comments.

Public Hearing

 

The public hearing for the reclassification of 266 Longueville Road was conducted by Commissioner Eric Armstrong in the Lane Cove Council building on Tuesday 3 December 2013 from 5 – 8pm. There were a total of 31 people in attendance, 15 people registered to speak and the public hearing lasted approximately 2 hours in length.

 

At the public hearing, questions were raised as to Councils rationale of using a reduced level (RL) as a height control as opposed to using the current LEP standard of height shown in metres.

 

To clarify, building height (in the LEP) means the vertical distance between ground level (existing) and the highest point of the building. A reduced level (RL) means the vertical distance between a survey point and the adopted level datum. In this case the adopted level datum is the Australian Height Datum (AHD) with sea level having a height of 0.00m AHD.

 

Council’s rationale for this decision is explained in the Discussion section commencing on page 12.

 

Details of the Commissioner’s report are discussed below. Under the Act Council must have regard to the outcome of the hearing, however, it is not bound by its recommendations.

 

Commissioner’s Report

 

The Commissioner’s report provided 12 recommendations for the proposed site is included below. The Comments have been provided by the relevant Divisional staff.

 

Recommendation 1)   the proposal to reclassify from "Community" to "Operational", and to rezone from Public Recreation RE1 to High Density Residential R4 the land at No 266 Longueville Rd as set out in the documents publically exhibited from 23 October till 26 November 2013 be DEFFERED, until

 

Major Projects Comment

 

While the Commissioner has recommended deferral it is noted that a number of times throughout the report that “Council's justifications for reclassifying the site are by and large accepted……Nevertheless and although the information provided relating to the need for the site to be retained for recreation use is incomplete I am prepared to agree that on balance, part of the 9,200m2 site can be reclassified Operational.”

 

In the conclusion section it is stated that “it appears to me that Council has followed all the essential requirements to proceed with the reclassification of the land” (2014: page 53) yet does not recommend that it proceed until the recommendations are met.

 

The recommendation to defer is not considered necessary as the information requested already exists, all be it outside of the information provided or requested by the Commissioner. Council has developed long term plans such as the Major Projects Plan and Open Space Plan which set the direction for this particular site. Council as a public authority and custodian of public land is governed by legislation and its Charter to manage such land for the benefit of the whole community. The future of this site has already legitimately been determined through consultation with the broad community which accepted its intended use as. At the time the Major Project Plan was adopted, IRIS research, a unit of Wollongong University commented, that this was the most extensive consultation process that they had been involved in. 

 

Recommendation 2)   an assessment is made as to whether the whole of the site is needed for future recreation use, and

 

Open Space and Urban Services Comment

 

The Major Projects Plan 2007-2016 has a number of ground rules that set the context for how some of Council’s underutilised open space could be utilised to fund community projects in the wider public interest. One of these ground rules, relevant to this situation, states that “The amount of open space used for active recreation will not reduce unless: (1) An equivalent level of recreation is provided for, or (2) The previous active recreational use has ceased to exist or is no longer viable”. As stated previously in this report, the Old Ladies Bowling Club ceased to exist in 1995. Since that time, this site has remained dormant, other than the reuse of the club house as a temporary Music & Cultural Centre. The Major Projects Plan discussed the possibility of retaining the Music & Cultural Centre on part of the site as part of any redevelopment. However, the Music & Cultural Centre has already agreed on a move to the new community space within the Little Street redevelopment that will likely commence construction within 2014, well prior to any need to move off 266 Longueville Road.

 

In addition to this, Council has determined that a wider public benefit can be achieved by proceeding with the redevelopment of this site for a predominantly seniors living project (in line with the Major Projects Plan) to assist with funding a multi-purpose indoor sports facility within the golf course surrounds, and provision of a public park, adjacent to Longueville Road and on the north-western corner. It is considered that the active recreation muted as a possibility for this site in Council’s Recreation Plan 2008, can be accommodated within the nearby golf course precinct, as part of a larger package of sports activity at the proposed multi-purpose indoor sports facility. 

 

The Recreation Action Plan Dec 2008 stated the following in relation to this site:-

 

Clause 3.2

·         Former bowling greens at 304-314 Burns Bay Road and 266 Longueville Road are subject to proposals for re-use for other recreational uses in Council’s Major Projects Strategic Management Plan 2007-2016. 

 

Section 5.4 Recommended Recreation Strategy and Actions

 

ACTION 

PRIORITY

WHO

LINK

Consider a playground at 266 Longueville Road in any future development. 

Beneficial

OSUS

MPP

Investigate the feasibility of a junior sports field on a former bowling green at 266 Longueville Road.

Beneficial

GMU/ OSUS

MPP

Investigate a possible location in the vicinity of Greenwich for a four-court (for netball) sealed and lit complex with parking for training. Possibilities include redundant bowling greens at 266 Longueville Rd.

Beneficial

GMU/ OSUS

MPP

Investigate alternate uses of redundant bowling greens and clubs. 

Beneficial

CS/ HS/ OSUS

MPP

 

The proposed usage of this site for recreation was by the inclusion of a playground component in the short to medium term. This component has formed part of Council’s planning for this site with the current Planning Proposal. The Planning Proposal includes a playground of 500m2 in addition to a minimum 12 metre buffer zone running the length of the site (this increases to 25 metres at the strand of trees to the rear of Richardson Street West). There has been no other up zoning in the locality requiring additional neighbourhood recreation space.

 

Council did not progress the other interim uses as there is limited demand for the type of active open space that can be accommodated on the existing site. Similar recreation opportunities exist at the Longueville Sports Club site (former Mens Bowling Club site), some 100 metres from the development. The proposed Recreation Centre will also offer small courts that could be utilised for netball training. Subsequent discussions with netball officials suggest they prefer larger complexes of 10+ courts for competition netball.

 

Council as per the Recreation Plan has recently commenced construction of two synthetic fields at Blackman Park to cater for larger scale sporting activities, which allow in excess of 200% utilisation compared to a turf field. The topography of 266 Longueville Road does not make it suitable for larger scale sporting activities.

 

Overall, the Open Space provision in this area is considered to meet or exceed the requirements of the precinct and the land is not required for the broader recreation needs.  

 

Recommendation 3)   The Major Projects Strategic Plan is reviewed and updated to include the status of current major projects including details of the proposed Recreation Facility planned for the Lane Cove golf course

 

Major Projects Comment

 

Council resolved at its meeting of 21 October 2013 to Council conduct a review of the Major Projects Strategic Plan over the coming 12 months. To facilitate this Council has temporarily increased the size of its’ Major Projects team to undertake the review. That being said, the Major Projects Strategic Plan 2007-2016, within “Attachment 2 - A Plan for Facilities into the Future”, details the need for a multi-purpose indoor sports centre. The Recreation Facility proposal is centred around the idea of a multi-purpose indoor sports centre, with inclusion of a sports club, golf and tennis facilities (to replace existing facilities on the proposed site).

 

In particular, with a shortfall in funding of projects already included in Major Projects Plan the multi purpose indoor sports centre (Basket Ball, Cricket, soccer etc) was one project which could not be funded in the 10 year timeframe of the plan.

 

The Plan, however, provided a clear mechanism for changing projects listed in the plan.  Council having resolved a different more low key approach to meeting the cultural needs of the community rather than constructing a major cultural facility has facilitated other projects to be considered. 

 

The mechanism for changing projects is set out in the plan published on Council’s website:

 

a)         Page 6

 

“If different options, scenarios or projects are ultimately decided on by Council, the Plan will need to be modified to identify the alternate source of revenue or identify what reduction in community facilities is necessary if a shortfall in funds results. This is an important aspect in understanding the Plan.

 

New projects added to the Plan would need to be tested against principles espoused in the Plan to achieve the same holistic approach and community engagement.

 

b)         Page 8

 

“While the delivery of services from Council’s income represents good value, there is insufficient spare capacity to complete all these facilities / projects in a timely manner.

 

The Plan outlines a new holistic approach to secure the necessary additional revenue to deliver new facilities and programs aimed at improving our community. Some projects may approach being revenue neutral, some will generate net revenue to be used to provide the additional funding toward other projects such as a Cultural Centre. In taking a holistic approach, each project is an essential component in completing the identified community projects over the life of the plan. “

 

Council in 2008 decided not to proceed with a development of a standalone cultural centre, that part of the $18m set aside for cultural activities was made available for other unfunded projects identified in the various plans listed in Attachment 2, which includes the Recreation facility.

 

Ultimately, the status of each project within the plan is not directly relevant to this project proceeding. It was always envisaged that detailed assessment of each project, requirements, feasibility etc would be undertaken closer to project commitment. Establishing the land use controls applicable to any projects is fundamental prior to doing feasibility and design studies.

 

Council has commenced the feasibility and design study for the Recreation Facility which will be reported to Council shortly. Council has also established an Advisory Committee with community and user representatives to develop the proposal in more detail.

 

The feasibility study for an indoor sports complex within the golf course precinct provides a demographic review, catchment analysis and potential market size, facility demand projections, and a site and existing infrastructure review. The study identifies that the demand for indoor sports courts exceed the two identified in the Recreation Plan, and that more likely 3-4 courts would be a minimum requirement. It also identified the need to incorporate exhibition/function support facilities, spectator seating, improved tennis & golf facilities/products, updated multi-purpose sports club facilities, and adequate car parking. An indicative estimate of $35M-$40M to construct a facility of this nature (on the existing Country Club clubhouse/tennis courts/golf shop/golf course maintenance shed area) has been provided by the consultant. Work on this proposal will be ongoing, subject to Council being able to fund it through current revenue and that anticipated from the proposed seniors living project on 266 Longueville Road.

 

Recommendation 4)   A revised Planning Proposal is prepared for the site in accordance with the following parameters

 

(i) The site area to be reclassified and rezoned R4 be that shown on the Plan at Attachment N

(ii) the height control be RL 62.8m

(iii) the FSR be 1:1

 

Strategic Planning Comment

 

Site Area

 

It is proposed to reclassify the land and rezone it to R4, as stated in (i) above. However, Attachment N shows the land to be zoned R4 reduced by the triangular park in the site’s north western corner and by the change to the eastern boundary. 

 

The total land area is estimated at in excess of 13,000 square metres, however only part of the site is proposed to be developed due to natural vegetation and the slope of the land. The developable portion of the site is approximately 9,200 square metres. Within the developable portion of the site there are a number of restrictions that limit the type of development:-

 

1) Approximately 1,850 sqm cannot be built on due to bush fire regulations.

2) A further 2,000 sqm cannot accommodate Seniors housing due to bushfire regulations.

3) The remaining 5,350 can accommodate the development of housing for Seniors.

 

As described in the Major Projects Plan the “The proposal involves up to 7,700 m2 of the site between Longueville Road and the eastern bank of the lower bowling green. The proposal would not extend onto the bushland through to the golf course.”

 

As part of the detailed design of the public components of the site would be developed, with the proposed controls being the minimum. These would be subject to further consultation with the community and its ongoing management would be determined. It is not necessary that the land be zoned RE1 to perform a public role.   The change to the western boundary as shown in Attachment N is not supported. The proposed western boundary between the zones illustrated in the planning proposal is designed to follow the contours and the tree canopy. There is no basis to amend this boundary as it would reduce the proposed buffer zones.

 

The Commissioner has suggested that there is confusion about how much of the site is suitable for Seniors Living which causes uncertainty. Council has consistently stated its preference to do Seniors Living, therefore this can be construed as it will as much as is possible be used for Seniors Living. Should Council attempt to utilise the 0.5 bonus available for Senior Living under the SEPP, as per normal practice that such bonus would only apply to the area of the site used for that purpose.

 

Height

 

The Commissioner recommends a slight reduction in the planning proposal height to RL62.8 which is the exact RL of the adjoining Timbertops building. The RL proposed in the planning proposal had regard to the inclusion of lift overruns, to be calculated within the height limit. However, recent court rulings have suggested that lift overruns can exceed the height limit provided the substantive part of the building does not protrude into the height limit. The recommendation to reduce the height is supported.

 

FSR

 

The Commissioner recommends a reduction to the proposed FSR from 1.1:1 to 1:1. This is not supported as this would provide the site with an FSR far below comparable sites in the LGA.

 

Under the Lane Cove LEP 2009, areas that have been up zoned to R4 have FSR’s of:

 

 

The existing surrounding multi dwelling sites, particularly the residential flat buildings, also have an FSR in excess of 1.1:1.


 

Address

No. of storeys at

Longueville Rd

Appearance at

Longueville Rd

No. of Storeys at the rear of property

Calculated or documented FSR

268-270 Longueville Rd

(Timber Tops)

3

2

5 (4 + garage)

on fill

1.56:1

250-252 Longueville Rd (cnr. Richardson Road West) – Town Houses

2

2

2

0.83:1

242-246 Longueville Rd

3

3

3

1.19:1

238-240 Longueville Rd

2

N/A

N/A

N/A

232-236 Longueville Rd

3

2.5

3 (2 + garage)

0.91:1

228-230 Longueville Rd

3

2

4 (3 + garage)

1.28:1

 

It is considered that the FSR of 1.1:1 is modest in relative terms. Given the Commissioners view, Council could refer the final decision on the FSR to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for consideration and determination as part of the finalisation of the planning proposal.

 

Should the site be developed containing mixture of residential flat buildings and Seniors Living, any FSR bonus would only be calculated on the proportion of actual Seniors Living on the site.

 

Recommendation 5)   In preparing the revised Planning Proposal consideration be given to relocating the areas for residential and for a community park/playing field to the areas shown on the drawing at Attachment P and to relocating the point of access to the proposed golf course walking track to the eastern end of Richardson St West

 

Open Space and Urban Services Comment

 

Although it is acknowledged that the community could access the proposed golf course bush walking track from the eastern end of Richardson Street West, there is a greater likelihood that an accessible path could be provided along the northern side of the site within the 12 metre setback.

 

Staff do not see any value in trying to construct a community park/playing field to the area shown on the drawing at Attachment P. This park would be in a low visibility area, particularly compared with the proposed area adjacent to Longueville Road. It is considered that the park would hane a poor public entry and almost become a ‘private’ park for the use of the residents of 266 Longueville Road and possibly Timbertops. It would also be difficult to maintain any equipment installed due to the distance to any vehicle connection point. Finally, as the area appears to encroach within the bushland, the provision of some type of active recreation playing field could see the need for removal of existing vegetation. This is not supported.

 

The proposal for a small sports field appears to respond to the request from Currambena School. As discussed in the background section of this report, from 1958 to 1995 it was available as a bowling green, effectively private open space. After 1995 it became disused which is why it became the subject of the Major Projects Plan. After 1995, 266 Longueville Road was never officially made available for the purposes of a park or evacuation site. It is acknowledge that the school has made use of the space whilst being underutilised but ultimately the school is responsible for providing for its students.

 

Recommendation 6)   An architect be engaged to prepare building designs/sketches for a development which includes seniors housing to the extent it can be provided within the site constraints and residential flats as part of the revised Planning Proposal.

 

Strategic Planning Comment

 

Sketches were provided as part of the public exhibition material outlining and an indicative building envelope to assist the public in understanding the scale of possible development options. This is consistent with other Planning Proposals. The control provisions within the DCP are the same or exceed those required in R4 zones. As per normal practice further detail would not be known or considered until the Development Application stage. 

 

Recommendation 7)   That a suitably qualified urban economist or valuer be engaged to prepare a feasibility report which will advise as to the likely return to Council of the revised Planning Proposal.

 

Major Projects Comment

 

Initial work for Strategic Planning purposes has already been assessed in the Jumar Economic Feasibility Study. In terms of the overall projects feasibility the value of the land alone will contribute significantly to the viability of developing the site, as parcels of this size in Lane Cove are rare. Council would develop a business case for the project prior to commitment which would be publicly available.

 

Recommendation 8)   That the revised Planning Proposal and supporting reports, the updated Major Projects Strategic Plan, the assessment of whether the site is needed for future recreation use be placed on public exhibition for comment.

 

Strategic Planning Comment

 

Depending on whether or not Council defers the matter, re-exhibition of the changes to the Height and FSR is not required.

 

Recommendation 9)   Following the exhibition proposed in (8) Council decide whether it is appropriate to resume this hearing or to hold a new public hearing to report on the submissions made to the above exhibition.

 

Recommendation 10) The actions to be taken following any public hearing be determined by Council.

 

Recommendation 11) a copy of this report and the submissions be made available for public inspection as required by Section 47G of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Strategic Planning Comment

 

These recommendations are administrative in nature and Council would comply with all relevant legislative requirements as well as Council’s practice of community consultation.

 

Overall the recommendation of deferral from the Commissioner is not supported. The Commissioner’s points have been considered and addressed in the Discussion section of this report as well as being discussed above.

 

It is recommended that Council determine the matter having regard to the Commissioner’s reclassification report and the information and comments outlined.

 

Responses to community submissions on the planning proposal and Development Control Plan amendment have been provided below.

 

Discussion

 

A summary of the main issues raised in submissions is included below with staff comment.

 

Issue 1

 

Height, Bulk and Scale – Having 7 stories at the rear of the site is excessive, why can’t the development cascade down the hill to respond to the topography? The proposed FSR is not acceptable.

 

Comment

 

The building fronting Longueville Rd would present as a 3 storey building to the streetscape (including lift overruns) while allowing for 7 stories at the rear. The DLEP and DDCP specifically propose 2-3 stories along Longueville Rd to be consistent with the current streetscape/flats, and the roof level at the rear matches the adjacent flats as shown in the DCP cross-sections (AT-5).

 

As shown in AT-E, the proposed reduced level (RL) of 266 Longueville Road is one storey above the adjoining Timbertop residences. If Council’s current LEP height controls for the surrounding R4 High Density Residential were applied to this site it could allow for 4-5 storeys fronting Longueville Road cascading down the hill, creating a ‘block effect’ affecting views, solar access and privacy. The frontage would not be in keeping with the streetscape and not be a good urban design outcome.

 

Therefore the use of the RL allows the bulk of the development to be massed at the rear of the site, while still cascading down the hill and being sympathetic to the height of the adjoining Timbertops building. Residents on Richardson St West will also be covered by a visual barrier of existing trees (AT-6).

 

The development includes considerable terracing over two thirds of the developable area from Longueville Rd downhill. The 7 storey component does take advantage of the sloping site without terracing the rear section but that is furtherest from view from Longueville Rd.

 

The proposed FSR is appropriate for the purposes of Seniors Living as the legislation states that "a consent authority (Council) must not refuse a Development Application for seniors living if the FSR is 1:1 or less". Given the larger scale, any development applications may be refused if the development does not comply with the FSR provisions. Also the tree canopy will act as an acceptable visual barrier between the adjoining residential sites and the proposed 7 storey tower, given that residential developments frequently are permitted without reference to a tree canopy.

 

Medium or low density housing is not viable in this instance as stated in the Economic feasibility study, in order to achieve net revenue of between $8 - $10 million the minimum number of apartments needed is over 60. The site is approx. 9,200m2, ie close to 1 hectare. Medium density as defined in the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy is between 25 to 60 net dwellings per hectare, with high density being 60+ net dwellings per hectare. Given the minimum number to achieve the proposed revenue are over 60 net dwellings higher density is the most viable option. 

 

Issue 2

 

Character for this area – Only one area in Richardson St West is zoned high density residential. The rest of the area is predominantly low to medium density housing. Any new development should be sympathetic to the adjoining properties.

Comment

 

Land on the corner of Richardson St West is zoned as R4 High Density Residential. Land on the other side of the RE1 Public Recreation zone at 268-270, 272, 274 & 274A is also zoned as R4 High Density Residential. It is therefore appropriate, subject to interface development controls close to the area of the houses, to apply an R4 High Density Residential zone in this location. Land is also adjacent to a continuum of High Density Residential R4 zoning. It would also be an under-use of a potential seniors living development of community benefit, and the associated recreational benefits to apply such low density zonings.

 

The DLEP and DDCP specifically propose 2-3 stories along Longueville Rd to be consistent with the current streetscape/flats, and the roof level at the rear matches the adjacent flats. A buffer zone of a minimum of 12 metres has been provided to the Richardson Street West properties, which is double the normal setback for R4. In addition where the higher building form is located there is a 25 metre buffer zone. Any design would be finalised at the Development Application stage.

 

Issue 3

 

Loss of open space – There is a need for more open space in Lane Cove. Council could provide open space land near schools so they can expand and have play areas nearby. The local school use the area as park and an evacuation site and should be retained for that purpose.

 

Comment

 

Lane Cove is an infill area where open space is limited; the Major Projects Plan recognised this and stated that in relation to 266 Longueville Road, funds from the unit sales revenue would be used to fund open space enhancements in the vicinity. As such this development would still remain for the benefit the community. This is a long term plan designed to benefit the needs of the local community.

 

Providing increased open space land near schools would involve significant rezoning and acquiring large portions of private properties. This is not a direct responsibility of Council, however, future Section 94 contributions plan could be used for these purposes if considered necessary and approved by the State Government.

 

During the public exhibition period, Currambena Public School submitted that they have used 266 Longueville Road as a park and an evacuation site. This was considered at the time of the Major Projects Plan. As discussed in the background section of this report, from 1958 to 1995 it was available as a bowling green. After 1995 it became disused which is why it became the subject of the Major Projects Plan. After 1995, 266 Longueville Road was never officially made available for the purposes of a park or evacuation site. It was never supplied with play equipment by Council or was it ever established as a playing field. It is the school’s responsibility for providing adequate space for their students.

 


Issue 4

 

Proposed use of the site – Even though the site is still going to be used predominantly for residential development the term ‘seniors living’ still remains. Over 55’s housing is not fulfilling a special community need; it is just an exclusive development style for people who don't want kids running around.

 

Comment

 

The Major Projects Plan states "The upper part of this site is relatively level with Longueville Road and could be suitable for residential units including the provision of aged care as identified in the Social Plan, adaptable housing or designed to include over 55 living. With a steep access down to the lower level, development is more likely to be limited to over 55 living and residential units". All residential flats are intended to be designed to standards suitable to seniors living anyway.

Over 55’s accommodation is type of housing has been identified as a genuine community need in Council's Social Plan goal S8 6(b). It is also a State priority as identified the NSW 2021 plan as Goal 25. In terms of legislation, there is also a NSW State Environmental Planning Policy known as SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004. This policy states that local Council's must provide housing for seniors and people with a disability, with seniors being classified as "people aged 55 or more years". In short this type of development is a priority for an ageing population that would fulfil a specific need within the local community.

 

Issue 5

 

Traffic, Parking and Access – There will be an increase in traffic flow/congestion and parking. Access would also be difficult on site. Traffic report does not take accident history into account.

 

Comment

 

As mentioned earlier in the report, the Traffic Study stated that the projected increase in traffic activity as a consequence of the development proposal would not have unacceptable traffic implications in terms of road network capacity, nor will any road infrastructure upgrades be required.

 

In relation to the proposed driveway, capacity analysis indicates that the proposed vehicular access driveway would operate satisfactorily, and with minimal delays at all times. Furthermore, the nearby intersection was assessed as part of the study, given the minimal of movements being generated the traffic from the 266 Longueville Road development is not expected to change the current level of service for the Longueville/Northwood/River Rd interchange.

 

Parking was also assessed as part of the Traffic Assessment. Under the SEPP (Housing for Seniors and People with a Disability) 2004, different parking rates are applied to different types of seniors housing. The legislation states that a development application for any of these types (residential care facility, hostel, or self contained dwellings) may not be used as grounds for refusal if the proposed provides the minimum parking rates as specified in the SEPP. As the site will be designed to the standards as specified in the SEPP (Housing for Seniors and People with a Disability) 2004 this will change the parking rates.  Application of the SEPP provisions will require the 266 Longueville Road development to provide 150 car parking spaces. However, this calculation is based on the assumption that there will be 100 x 3 bedroom apartments. This number is indicative only and will be finalised at the Development Application stage.

 

Accident history research can be undertaken at the DA stage. It is not required at the Strategic Planning stage.

 

Issue 6

 

Bushfire hazards on site – There is conflicting and confusing information regarding bushfire risks. There is also risk putting a seniors living development near a bushfire risk.

 

Comment

 

Part of the site has been identified as being bushfire prone land which is why a Bushfire Constraints Analysis was undertaken as part of the planning proposal. The Planning for Bushfire Protection guidelines allow for an Asset Protection Zone to be applied over such sites. Asset Protection Zones are indicative buffers between a bushfire hazard and buildings. However, different classes of vegetation and slope require different levels of protection.

 

At the Development Application stage the APZ’s location would be assessed by technical experts. It is noted that the NSW Rural Fire Service has not objected to the approach proposed in the Newcastle Bushfire Consulting Constraints Analysis. A possible 20 metre APZ has also been incorporated into the draft DCP.

 

Issue 7

 

Council as a developer – There is a conflict of interest here. Council is acting against its own precedents by not terracing the development down the slope of land. This proposal clearly goes against the principles of the Major Projects Plan.

 

Comment

 

Council's are legally allowed to develop their own sites for the purposes of achieving a public benefit. The legislation provides for this form of development, including the undertaking of a public hearing by an independent Commissioner. Council also has a probity process to address this issue. Additionally involvement of the NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure has retained authority to determine this matter as council is involved, which is appropriate. At DA stage Council's plans would be independently assessed.

 

The development includes considerable terracing over two thirds of the developable area from Longueville Rd downhill. The 7 storey component would seek to take advantage of the sloping site without terracing the rear section but that is furtherest from view from Longueville.

 

The guiding principles of the Major Projects Plan have been incorporated into this DLEP and DDCP amendment. Development in this instance cannot occur within current planning controls because they prohibit this type of development. Seniors Living development is not permissible in RE1 zones even if it benefits the local community. In order for this disused site to make a financial contribution, the proposed rezoning must provide for an economically viable aged housing development. This will provide part of the funds needed to enhance the local open space and provide funds for an indoor sporting facility.  The site is 1.5ha, the previous use of the site was a bowling green which has since ceased and is no longer viable.

 

The development will be sympathetic to the heights along Longueville Rd (3 storeys). A proportion of the funds will be used to enhance open space and add recreation facilities, the site would add value to the community by fulfilling a social need for Seniors Housing.

 


Issue 8

 

Questions regarding Councils proposed DDCP – Basement car parking arrangements cascading down the hill will preclude the provisions of deep soil zones between buildings. There is also no mention of seniors facilities in the whole draft DCP.

 

Comment

 

The provisions in the draft DCP relate only to that site, other relevant sections of Council's DCP would also apply to the site including deep soil controls. The DCP includes references to Seniors Housing, refer to Objective 2 and Design Considerations H & M.

 

Other Issues raised during the Public Exhibition period

 

Consultation

 

A small number of submissions have expressed concerns regarding the lack of community consultation associated with this proposal, some of which consider it deliberate. As stated in the Community Consultation section of this report, extensive consultation was undertaken at the time of the Major Projects Plan and the current proposal. The current proposal, following informal public discussions then has been advertised on Council's website with an accompanying survey, through the North Shore Time newspaper, letters to affected residents were distributed and as part of the reclassification process a public hearing is to be held. As part of the exhibition material, close to 30 supporting documents were produced for the public to examine. Further information was provided upon request if necessary.

 

Previous LEP amendments

 

The Planning Proposal and its supporting documentation made mention of the proposed Northwood Centre LEP amendment that was exhibited earlier in 2013 by Council. This proposal, following community consultation, was refused by Council on the grounds that the proposed development was too excessive.

 

The 266 Longueville Road Planning Proposal and its supporting documents were prepared prior to the Northwood LEP proposal going on public exhibition. Given that 266 Longueville Road and the Northwood Centre were proposed for redevelopment the original Council report and resolution on 15 April 2013 stated that an independent traffic study be done to assess the cumulative impacts of developments in the precinct generally. The Planning Proposal was then amended to mention the proposed Northwood Centre LEP amendment. Now that the proposed Northwood centre was refused by Council these references are no longer applicable.

 

Keep current LEP provisions

 

This site was identified by Council's Major Projects Plan for the purposes of residential development. Current LEP provisions are not consistent with an approved Council plan that was the subject of extensive community consultation.

 

Contamination

 

Questions were raised in relation to whether or not 266 Longueville Road was contaminated as well as whether this will impact on the profitability and viability of the development overall. In response, contamination of a site cannot generally be determined until construction begins on site. In this instance there is evidence that in the past the site may have had a land use which could have contaminated parts of the site as stated in the Contamination assessment reports. The report has indicated that the site can be remediated for residential use. A remediation action plan as well as conditions of consent would be in accordance with State legislation for such sites.

 

Economic Concerns

 

There were suggestions that it would be much cheaper to construct an indoor sports centre in Lane Cove West Industrial Area and that Council does not appreciate the development risk involved in this project.

 

This was considered during the public exhibition period of the Major Projects Plan. Constructing an indoor sports centre elsewhere also involves significant expenditure with no indication of funding, that financial model was not as viable as Council owning its own infrastructure. The 266 Longueville Rd redevelopment was selected on the basis that the net revenue from unit sales would be used to fund other open space projects in the vicinity. Therefore the development risk has been considered. It also improves the amenity for the community to have recreational facilities near their homes eg for childrens safety.

 

Width of proposed pathway

 

To achieve gradients for wheelchairs the proposed path through the site should be amended so that it is narrower and has widened nodes at intervals, for passing of wider users. This would be subject to separate consultation as per any open space.

 

View Loss

 

A submission has stated that the land has a view corridor and should be retained for the entire community. Another submission is opposed to use of RL as this will have consequential deep morning shadows across the foreground to the north-facing units of "Timbertops" on the immediate south, there could also be privacy and view loss.

 

In response to the first point, retention of the entire view from public domain from Longueville Rd would unduly constrain the public benefit potential of this site. The DCP provides for some view corridors where practicable. As per the use of an RL, deep morning shadows, view and privacy loss may also be the case if height in metres were applied. The DCP provides for stepping down over most of the site rather than maximising height within the RL.

 

Other questions and comments

 

1.         The N-S section diagram seems to indicate a 25m setback to the northern boundary but the plan and table show only a 12m setback.

 

The diagram and table are correct. The N-S section shows a cross section from the house at No. 48 Richardson St West to the 'Timbertops' residences. The setback is 12m from the northern boundary (adjoining R2 zone) in accordance with SEPP 65. The 25m setback from No 48 Richardson St West is to preserve the existing trees.

 

2.         Why has the site increased (from the Major Projects Plan) from 7,700m2 to 9,200m2 with a corresponding decrease of 1,500m2 in the E2 Bushland area?

 

The 9,200m2 represents the portion of RE1 land proposed for rezoning to R4. The figure mentioned in the Major Projects Plan (7,700m2) did not take into account setbacks, Asset Protection zone requirements and the proposed park. When the APZ and proposed setbacks are included the total developable area is likely to be less than the figure stated in the Major Projects Plan. No E2 zoned land is being rezoned as part of this proposal.

 

3.         Council should nominate a proportion of aged care units in the controls.

 

This is not a requirement of State legislation and any proportion nominated in a DCP would not have legal or enforceable weight. As such any nomination of the proportion of aged care units would be unreasonable and unnecessary. However, Council is intending all dwellings on site are to be suitable to Seniors Living subject to any bushfire controls at the rear as expressed in the Major Projects Plan.

 

4.         Does the 0.5:1 FSR bonus apply to the whole site or just the part occupied by the aged care units? If so would this change the car parking rates for the site?

 

The bonus will only apply to that part of the site used for Seniors Living. The minimum parking requirements would be lower.

 

5.         The push for high density over medium density is detrimental to Lane Cove and its community and must be managed accordingly.

 

As part of Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, seniors’ living is to be encouraged for an ageing population. Given that Lane Cove is an infill Council, most of the new dwellings will be in the form of apartments. This site would allow for local elderly residents to 'age in place' as part of Council's Social Plan.

 

6.         Residents can provide anecdotal evidence that the Powerful Owl has been reported as nesting in nearby bushland.

 

This was assessed in the Flora, Fauna and Funghi Surveys and Ecological Assessment Report by Applied Ecology dated 2012. A recommendation was made to provide supplementary nesting sites (eg nest boxes) for possums to ensure ongoing food supplies for Powerful Owls. This was supported by NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. No further assessment is required at the Strategic Planning stage.

 

Apart from the comments and questions raised above, no other comments were received for the proposed Development Control Plan for the site.

 

Conclusion

 

Consideration of all the relevant issues has been dealt with through both the post consultation and Commissioner’s report.

 

In response to comments relating to the proposed height of the building Council recommends that it be lowered to RL 62.8.

 

This would reduce the maximum building height by about one storey (along Longueville Road) and one to two storeys (at the rear). It would also be the same height as the adjoining Timbertops building and would more suitable to the existing character of the surrounding area.

 

Other issues have been discussed above relating to the loss of open space, traffic, bushfire hazards, Council’s role as a developer and proposed amendments to the Development Control Plan.

 

Seniors housing would be provided within the proposed development. Under the legislation, the proposed units can include the design specifications identified in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

 

In terms of consultation, Council has provided extensive consultation recommended by the gateway. The Commissioner’s report acknowledges that Council has followed all the essential requirements to proceed with the reclassification of the land.

 

Other concerns have also been dealt with in the discussion section of the report.

 

Upon considering the submissions made during the public hearing and each of the 12 recommendations of the Commissioners Report, Council staff reviewed the planning proposal and made a number of amendments to address either specific or general concerns. Staff also addressed each issue of concern by explaining and justifying planning, traffic and community service positions where appropriate.

 

The planning proposal is fundamentally about changing an unused derelict site that is currently classified as Community Land to Operational Land. The Council has been up front by flagging in numerous documents its vision to provide aged housing on this site. The proposed R4 zone would allow an economically viable aged housing development to be considered and yet to be endorsed development application.

 

The Commissioner has made a number of observations and recommendations that Council should consider if it resolves to support this planning proposal.

 

The Commissioner’s recommendation that the proposal to reclassify this site to Operational and to rezone from Public Recreation REI to High Density Residential R4 be deferred pending various actions is not supported and Council is requested to determine the matter given the information provided in the Commissioner’s report and this report.

 

The planning proposal and draft Development Control Plan is recommended for adoption by Council with a reduction in height from RL 65.5 to RL 62.8 to be comparable to the adjoining developments.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

  1. Note the Public Hearing report by E B Armstrong P/L;
  2. Based on the evidence provided in this report, adopt the Planning Proposal with the following change:-

a.         Amend the Maximum Building Height from RL 65.5 to RL 62.8 to better comply with the surrounding developments.

  1. Forward the amended planning proposal to NSW Planning & Infrastructure requesting that they:-

a.         Determine whether the FSR should be 1.1:1 as sought by Council or 1:1 as recommended by the Commisioner;

b.         reclassify part of 266 Longueville Road (Part Lot 1 DP 91655) identified in the planning proposal from community to operational land – no interests changed; and

c.         reclassify part of 266 Longueville Road (Part Lot 322 DP 1102537 & Lot 1 DP 321353) identified in the planning proposal from community to operational land – interests changed  and remove public reserve status, as described in the planning proposal including obtaining any appropriate approval of the Governor under section 30(2) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

  1. Adopt the Development Control Plan for 266 Longueville Road into Part C Residential Localities as Locality 7 266 Longueville Road of Council’s Development Control Plan and the Development Control Plan come into force after Gazettal of the LEP by newspaper advertisement providing 28 days notice; and
  2. Write to all those who made submissions to the public exhibition and public hearing, advising them of the Council’s resolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Director General's requirements for the reclassification of public land

4 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Draft Site Specific Development Control Plan

5 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Independent Traffic Assessment

30 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

Public Hearing Report and Attachments

91 Pages

 

AT‑11 View

Indicative Concept Section

1 Page

 

AT‑12 View

Cross-Section of Richardson Street West

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 17 March 2014

St Leonards South Strategy - Stage 1 Precinct Report

 

 

Subject:          St Leonards South Strategy - Stage 1 Precinct Report    

Record No:    SU4943 - 62085/13

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Vivienne Albin 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council resolved to undertake a master planning process for a precinct in St Leonards bounded by the Pacific Highway to the north, the railway line to the east, River Road to the south and Greenwich Road to the west.

 

Council officers developed a Brief for the St Leonards Strategy, to be undertaken in two parts:-

·   Stage 1 - Precinct Report; and

·    Stage 2 Growth Scenarios Report.

 

Consultants David Lock and Associates (DLA) were engaged to complete Stage 1 of the St Leonards Strategy. The Stage 1 Precinct Report is included at AT-1 for download. The Precinct Report includes:-

·   consideration of the current State, metropolitan and local strategic planning context;

·   a summary of existing conditions such as land use, demographic profile, urban structure and built form, public domain and natural features, vehicular and pedestrian access and movement, and physical infrastructure;

·   a summary of the community consultation undertaken as part Stage 1; and

·   an analysis of issues and opportunities for the precinct.

 

The Stage 1 Precinct Report comprises a research document of the existing situation. If or when Council resolves to proceed with Stage 2 of the St Leonards Strategy, the Stage 1 report would form an ‘evidence base’ from which various growth scenarios can be tested.

 

Council is achieving the current Metropolitan residential growth target, however the revised metropolitan targets have not yet been released by the Stage Government and are due to be reviewed in the coming year.  Stage 2 of the St Leonards Strategy would allow Council to develop a long term strategic approach for future residential multi-unit development close to the major transport hub of St Leonards.

 

The Stage 1 Precinct Report is presented to Council and Council is asked to accept the Stage 1 report and resolve whether to proceed with Stage 2 of the St Leonards Strategy.

 

Background

 

In July 2012, Council resolved to:-

 

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

 

Subsequently, a Brief was developed for a Stage 1 Precinct Report (which includes details of community consultation) and for a Stage 2 Growth Scenarios Report.

 

Council also set up the St Leonards Community Liaison Committee (SLCLC) comprising three (3)  resident groups, commercial property owners, Councillors and Council officers to gain community input to the process. The Committee has met six (6) times over the last 18 months in November 2012, December 2012, February 2013, May 2013, July 2013 and December 2013. The SLCLC was involved in the formulation of the Brief for the Strategy.

 

In April 2013, Council engaged David Lock and Associates (DLA), along with sub-consultants Straight Talk and Brown Consulting, to undertake Stage 1 of the project.  DLA furnished Council with the final Report in December 2013.

 

Community Consultation

 

The community engagement for the Strategy was undertaken by Straight Talk. Straight Talk participated in the St Leonards Community Liaison Committee and also initiated the following:-

·    one-on-one meetings with community groups;

·    drop-in Community Information Session; and

·    a dedicated website.

 

The Community Information Session held on July 25 2013 was attended by over 60 residents and business owners. A presentation was given by Council officers and the consultant team and display boards were positioned around the room. Feedback forms were supplied with a total of 18 completed forms being returned to Straight Talk.

 

The dedicated website included background information about the Strategy and its purpose. The website allowed feedback via six (6) key questions. According to Straight Talk, the site received 95 visits from 53 different people and six (6) people left 25 comments.

 

Straight Talk have completed a Community Consultation Report, included as Appendix 1 to the Stage 1 Precinct Report, which details issues from the one-on-one meetings, Community Information Session and feedback from the website as shown attached as AT-2.

 

Discussion

 

The Stage 1 Precinct Report includes discussion of the planning context, existing physical context, community consultation and issues and opportunities.  A summary of the issues and opportunities from the report are outlined as follows:-

 

Issues and Opportunities

 

1.   Land Use

 

·      The proximity of the Study Area to commercial, community and educational services and facilities, as well as open space and transport infrastructure makes it well located for urban consolidation;

·      Commercial uses along the Pacific Highway serve an important economic function within the broader St Leonards Centre and support the Royal North Shore Hospital;

·      A mix of housing types (e.g. units, townhouses and detached houses) should be provided to meet the needs of different sectors of the housing market; and

·      A broad range of land uses should be provided to meet the changing demands of what may become a diverse population within the Study Area, including improving access to employment, community facilities such as schools or public parks, as well as increasing the diversity of other retail and entertainment land uses.

 

2.   Urban Structure and Built Form

 

·      The precinct character should be maintained and strengthened by preserving the street network, however, any redevelopment would provide opportunities to improve east-west connectivity;

·      The scale and siting of new development should seek to reinforce defined existing view corridors, panoramas and skylines;

·      Any development should seek to reinforce the existing road hierarchy and highlight the difference between main roads and local streets; and

·      Any increase in built form and density should transition from north to south and east to west while responding to the existing character of the area in terms of front & rear setbacks and any heritage character.

 

3.   Public Domain and Natural Features

 

·      Buildings should follow the natural slope to capture views towards the City;

·      The fall of the Study Area from north to south provides an opportunity for future development to accentuate existing topography e.g. taller buildings on higher ground to capture views and signify the importance of the arterial road and commercial centre;

·      The fall of the land should influence future development and consider impacts on amenity e.g. overshadowing;

·      More and diverse public spaces will be needed. If densities increase, new subdivision patterns may create an opportunity for a new park, e.g. at the western end of the Study Area;

·      There are opportunities for additional street tree planting to improve amenity and retain the ‘leafy’ feel of the Study Area; and

·      DCP provisions requiring the retention of deep soil areas on private sites are important to facilitate the retention and improvement of the ‘leafy’ character.

 

4.   Access and Movement

 

·      A large portion of the study area is within walking catchments for the St Leonards train and bus services. This is a prerequisite for higher density housing but care should be taken to ensure adequate transport services are coordinated, such as capacity of train station and bus shelters etc;

·      There would be a need to improve pedestrian and cycle connectivity throughout the study area and promote alternate transport options that do not place undue or excessive demand on internal and on-road parking; and

·      Consideration/review may need to be given to DCP parking requirements for all new developments.

 

Consideration of Undertaking the Stage 2 Growth Scenarios Report

 

Now that the Stage 1 Precinct Report has been completed, it is timely to consider whether to proceed to a Stage 2 Growth Scenarios Report.

 

The aim of the Stage 1 Precinct report was to prepare Council for the change in population targets which are expected from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. The subject precinct is only one area in the LGA for possible future growth. However, due to its proximity to the railway station, it is appropriate to investigate development strategies, opportunities and constraints so that this precinct could transition to higher density in a measured and known manner.

 

The pending revised version of the Sub-regional Strategy is likely to contain new density targets. Furthermore, the Council grouping that Lane Cove LGA will be part of is not yet clear. The current Planning Reform indicates that sub-regional boards (not yet established) will be important in setting zones and growth targets.

 

Lane Cove LGA is currently achieving residential density targets for the LGA with approximately 1700 dwellings gaining approval since the LEP was gazetted in 2010 and with approximately 1200 dwellings under construction.

 

A long term strategic approach for lands close to a major transport hub is preferred by residents,  promoted by the proposed planning reforms and is in preference to the current reactionary model.

 

Informal requests for changes in densities have been made to Council from some residents on the southern side of Marshall Avenue and adjoining sites. Considerations of these requests would raise issues for any Stage 2 of the St Leonards Strategy, if or when this stage is undertaken, particularly since existing zoned areas have yet to be developed, for example 1-25 Marshall Avenue. It is also noteworthy that during the consultation process of Stage 1 it became clear that ad hoc rezoning and piecemeal development are not supported by the community and any changes to land use zones should be addressed comprehensively as part of any Stage 2.

 

The Department of Planning and Infrastructure when promoting the new Planning White Paper emphasised the importance of upfront strategic planning and community consultation. The development of a Masterplan in this precinct is an excellent opportunity to embrace the approach and trial new techniques to enhance community engagement. It is therefore appropriate to seek funding under the Department’s Planning Assistance Fund for the Stage 2 work.

 

Conclusion

 

Council resolved to undertake a master planning process for the subject precinct in St Leonards. Council officers developed a Brief for the St Leonards Strategy, to be undertaken in two (2) parts:-

·    Stage 1 - Precinct Report; and

·    Stage 2 - Growth Scenarios Report.

 

Consultants were engaged to complete Stage 1 of the St Leonards Strategy. The Stage 1 Precinct Report is included at Attachment 1. The Precinct Report includes:-

·    consideration of the current State, metropolitan and local strategic planning context;

·    a summary of existing conditions such as land use, demographic profile, urban structure and built form, public domain and natural features, vehicular and pedestrian access and movement, and physical infrastructure;

·    a summary of the community consultation undertaken as part Stage 1; and

·    an analysis of issues and opportunities for the precinct.

 

The Stage 1 Precinct Report comprises a research document of the existing situation. If Council resolves to proceed with Stage 2 of the St Leonards Strategy, the Stage 1 report would form an ‘evidence base’ from which various growth scenarios can be tested.

 

Council have shown leadership in calling for this Stage 1 report and should now consider the opportunity to initiate Stage 2 of the St Leonards South Strategy that develops a long term strategic approach in the model promoted by the Minister for Planning & Infrastructure for the future land use planning of the St Leonards South Precinct.

 


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.   Receive and note the St Leonards Strategy – Stage 1 Precinct Report;

2.   Make it publicly available via Council’s website; and

3.   Initiate Stage 2 by:-

a)    Engaging with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure on the study;

b)    Allocating appropriate funds in the 2014/15 budget; and

c)    Seeking funding from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for the Project.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

St Leonards South Strategy Stage 1 - Precinct Report, December 2013, David Lock Associates

71 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑2 View

Appendix 1 to Precinct Report - Community Consultation Report, prepared by Straight Talk

20 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 17 March 2014

Review of Rating Structure

 

 

Subject:          Review of Rating Structure    

Record No:    SU772 - 12022/14

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council at its meeting on 18 November 2013, considered a report outlining a proposal to review the Minimum Rate and resolved to undertake community consultation in respect of increasing the Minimum Rate by 7% per annum above the rate pegging cap, for the next five (5) years.

 

This report will outline the results of the community consultation which was significantly in support of the proposal and recommend that application be made to IPART seeking approval for an increase in the Minimum Rate as proposed.

 

Background

 

The Lane Cove LGA is currently experiencing significant growth with a requirement to provide 3,900 new dwellings by 2031, equating to a population increase of approximately 30%. With the growth it is expected that there will be increased demand for the provision by Council of a wide range of services and facilities.

 

The majority of new dwellings will be home units in areas up zoned with the adoption of Lane Cove LEP 2009. Therefore, under the current rating structure the number of ratepayers on the minimum Rate will increase disproportionately to the number of residential ratepayers generally in houses. In terms of equity, a smaller proportion of residential ratepayers i.e. residents living in houses will effectively carry a greater percentage of the rating burden despite all ratepayers having the same access to services and facilities provided by Council.

 

Therefore, the purpose of the proposal is to ensure equity in sharing the rating burden, as at present 46% of residential rate payers predominately home unit properties, are on the Minimum Rate of $538 contributing 21% of rate income. The proposal does not provide additional income to Council as ratepayers not on the Minimum Rate will receive a reduction in their Rates.

 

The Independent Local Government Review Panel in its recently released report on reforming Local Government in New South Wales also identified the inequity in the payment of rates between owners of apartments and owners of houses. In particular they acknowledged that in many cases owners of high value apartments are paying less in rates than owners of nearby houses worth much less.

 

In consideration of a report outlining the above information, Council at its meeting on 18 November 2013, resolved:-

 

“That Council:-

1.   Receive and note the report; and

2.   Proceed with the community consultation as outlined in the report, in relation to making a Special Variation application to IPART for increases in the minimum Residential Rate based on Option 2 - increases of 7% per annum over the rate pegging limit for the next five years.”

     


Community Consultation Outcomes

 

Extensive community consultation was undertaken for a period of six (6) weeks commencing on 22 January 2014 with public notification of the proposal in the North Shore Times and on Council’s website. An email was also sent to approximately 8,181 members of the public registered to receive community consultation notifications. Additionally, the following consultation methods were undertaken:-

 

·    Development of a four page information pack;

·    Deliberative Polling involving 501 Residents randomly selected;

·    Community Leaders Information Session – The Cove Room on Wednesday 5 February; and

·    Public Exhibition in the Plaza involving staff on Thursday 13 February and again on Saturday 22 February.

 

Results of the Deliberative Polling undertaken independent of Council by IRIS consulting, are as follows:-

 

 

Raw Results

Weighted Results

In Support

70.9%

64.8%

Opposed

29.1%

35.2%

 

 

It is noted the weighted results were requested to ensure there was a balance between the number of ratepayers living in units (and currently paying the Minimum Rate) and other ratepayers currently subject to Ad Valorem Rates.

 

In addition to the Deliberative Polling, 83 formal written responses were received from the community, with the results being as follows:-

 

In Support

60

Opposed

23

 

Therefore, as a result of the community consultation, there is significant support for the proposal from the respondents including more than two thirds of residents (64.8%) involved in the Deliberative Poll and 72.2% of written responses also being in support.

 

The Outcome

 

Based on increases in the Minimum Rate of 7% per annum over the next five (5) years i.e. from 2014/15 plus an estimated 3% per annum rate cap, the rating structure including minimum rates will be as follows:-

 

Year

Estimated Number of Ratepayers

Total Res

Rate in $

Min Rate

Average
Ad valorem Rates

% Min

Rates income break up

Min Rate

Ad Valorem

% Min

% Ad Val

2013/14

5,966

6,884

12,850

0.184056

$538.00

$1,735.56

21%

79%

2014/15

6,266

6,859

13,125

0.184013

$592.00

$1,734.94

24%

76%

2015/16

6,766

6,840

13,606

0.181458

$651.00

$1,706.58

27%

73%

2016/17

7,266

6,820

14,086

0.177492

$716.00

$1,665.33

31%

69%

2017/18

7,766

6,800

14,566

0.171836

$788.00

$1,608.41

36%

64%

2018/19

8,266

6,780

15,046

0.164304

$867.00

$1,534.20

41%

59%

 

 


Conclusion

 

As noted, the review of minimum rates was proposed to ensure that there is a more equitable allocation of responsibility for the payment of Rates, given all ratepayers and residents have access to the same range of facilities and services provided by Council. It is not about increasing the residential rating income. It is recommended that in view of the significant support for the proposal, Council make application to IPART for an increase in the Minimum Rate of 7% above the Rate Cap for the next five (5) years.

 

IPART advise that a determination will be made in June 2014.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Receive and note the report; and

2.   Proceed with making Special Variation applications to IPART for increases in the minimum Residential Rate of 7% per annum over the rate pegging limit for the next five years.

                       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 There are no supporting documents for this report

T


Ordinary Council Meeting 17 March 2014

St Leonards Bus Rail Interchange & Plaza

 

 

Subject:          St Leonards Bus Rail Interchange & Plaza    

Record No:    SU4559 - 11521/14

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The St Leonards Strategy, adopted by Council in December 2006, established a public domain vision for the precinct that would create an identifiable ‘sense of place’. Council furthered this vision in the Comprehensive DCP 2009, where a set of objectives were established relating to the redevelopment of St Leonards. Staff presented a concept for a new Bus Rail Interchange and Plaza to Councillors in February 2011. As a result of the positive feedback from Councillors regarding this concept, an urban design expert was employed in June 2011, to develop the vision for a reinvigorated St Leonards. The Bus Rail Interchange and Plaza was developed into a buildable idea, and Council commenced along a pathway of consultation and negotiation with numerous State Government parliamentarians and departments to gain support and approval for the idea.

 

Council has also sought and gained the support of Department of Planning & Infrastructure (DoPI) senior management, North Sydney & Willoughby City Councils, top-tier property developers Winten Pty Ltd, Loftex Pty Ltd, Leightons Property Group, and Charter Hall (all whom have approved DA’s or Planning Proposals lodged with DoPI for significant projects in St Leonards) to progress the vision for a St Leonards Bus Rail Interchange and Plaza.

 

Council is now in high level ‘final’ discussions and negotiations with senior officers from Transport for NSW (TfNSW), seeking approval to undertake the necessary investigations and prepare detailed designs that could lead to this project becoming reality. It has reached the stage where Council should obtain formal State Government support for the project through the Minister for Transport, the Honorable Gladys Berejiklian.

 

Discussion

 

In April 2006, the tripartite of Lane Cove, North Sydney and Willoughby Councils, along with the Department of Planning, released the draft Strategy for the future of St Leonards for public exhibition. Following the public exhibition, the strategy was updated and considered at the Ordinary Council meeting of 18 December 2006. At that meeting, Council adopted the St Leonards Strategy, dated November 2006

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting of 19 October 2009, a new Comprehensive Development Control Plan (DCP) 2009 was adopted by Council, replacing all previous Development Control Plans that were in operation until that date.

 

Section D.4 of the new DCP refers to the St Leonards Commercial Core Zone, that also includes the residential precinct bounded by the rail corridor, Pacific Highway, Greenwich Road and River Road. The part of the DCP provides a vision for the precinct with objectives that detail a desired future character for St Leonards. This vision was established by espousing ‘A Vision for the Future’ from the St Leonards Strategy. The need to provide public domain improvements that would create an identifiable ‘sense of place’ led Council to develop the idea of a new public plaza across the road from the St Leonards Station that would help to reinvigorate the whole precinct. The objectives from the DCP relating to the vision for St Leonards are provided as ATT 1.

 

As a result of the vision created by these objectives, Council employed an Urban Design team in June 2011 to develop up the idea of a St Leonards Bus Rail Interchange & Plaza.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Since developing this vision, Councillors and senior staff, have been lobbying and liaising with various State Government parliamentarians and departments for the past three (3) years to bring the St Leonards Bus Rail Interchange & Plaza to reality. Council has also discussed and sought support for the proposal from numerous other organisations including North Sydney & Willoughby City Councils, property developers with projects within St Leonards; Winten Pty Ltd, Loftex Pty Ltd, Leightons Property Group, and Charter Hall; and has also presented a paper on the proposal to the State Government’s Inquiry into the Utilisation of Rail Corridors. Inquiry Chair, the Honorable Charles Casuscelli, was glowing in his endorsement of Council’s proposal, believing it would set a benchmark for public domain projects that could be built within rail corridors.

 

Council anticipates receiving funds for the project from Section 94 Developer Contributions and in part from Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPA’s) that would adequately cover the estimated cost of approximately $40 million.

 

Conclusion

 

Although discussions with Transport for NSW staff are ongoing, Council is now in a position where it wants to proceed with undertaking detailed analysis and design of the proposed St Leonards Bus Rail Interchange and Plaza. Completion of this stage would then allow tender documentation to be prepared, allowing Council to go to the market. By going to the market and receiving lump sum tenders, Council will be able to determine whether the project is financially feasible. It will then be able to make a determination as to whether to proceed with the project, dependent on a real cost.

 

However, this process can only take place if Council can receive State Government support to proceed with the project.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council receive and note the report.

 

2.   Council arrange a meeting with the Honorable Gladys Berejiklian, Minister for Transport, to seek the NSW Government’s support for Council to progress the proposed St Leonards Bus Rail Interchange & Plaza to a detailed investigation and design phase, such that a tender process for the works can be undertaken.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

St Leonards - Desired Future Character & Objectives

5 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 17 March 2014

Draft DCP Part R: Traffic, Transport and Parking

 

 

Subject:          Draft DCP Part R: Traffic, Transport and Parking    

Record No:    SU5113 - 5267/14

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Tim Sullivan 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council’s current Development Control Plan (DCP) provisions relating to traffic, transport and parking are inadequate for what is a rapidly developing Local Government Area (LGA). Traffic, transport and parking provisions are currently scattered throughout the DCP and can be difficult for developers and the general public to find and follow.

 

The proposed DCP Part R: Traffic, Transport and Parking seeks to strengthen and consolidate existing provisions, as well as introducing new controls and guidance, with the aim of improving transport outcomes for new development in Lane Cove. It is proposed that Council adopt the DCP Part R: Traffic, Transport and Parking for the purpose of public exhibition.

 

Background

 

The Sydney Metropolitan Strategy has set a target of 3,900 new dwellings in Lane Cove by 2031. This will be achieved by in-fill development, increasing the density of local areas, which is already occurring.

 

Problems associated with the growth in population, such as congestion, pollution and road safety, mean Council must ensure that new development is aligned with current thinking on sustainable transport and land use planning. The DCP Part R: Traffic, Transport and Parking, provided as AT-1, considers the need to manage traffic growth in order to limit the environmental and economic impact of new development on the transport network.

 

Discussion

 

The existing traffic, transport and parking provisions detailed in Council’s current DCP do not reflect the rapidly increasing population and density of the LGA. Existing provisions do not give strong guidance on how to design developments to provide good traffic, transport and parking outcomes for future users and the local community. It is therefore proposed that the following changes are made to Lane Cove Council’s DCP:

 

1.  Provide a Separate DCP Chapter for Traffic, Transport and Parking Provisions

 

The traffic, transport and parking provisions are currently scattered throughout the various Parts of the DCP, making it time-consuming and, at times, confusing for applicants and assessors to find the relevant guidance. Neighbouring councils including Willoughby, North Sydney and City of Sydney, all dedicate a chapter of their respective DCPs to traffic, transport and parking provisions.

 

It is proposed that all traffic, transport and parking provisions are relocated to a new dedicated DCP chapter.

 

2.  Require that the Applicant Provides an Independent and Robust Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA)

 

The current DCP does not provide guidance on what analyses are required as part of a robust Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) for large developments. As a result, some applicants are presenting Council with pro-development assessments of traffic impacts with little or no suggestions on how any of the impacts can be mitigated.

 

It is considered that the DCP should provide guidance on the structure of a TIA and on preparing robust assessments of traffic impacts, which are to include potential mitigation measures. This will improve the quality of TIAs submitted by applicants for large developments and therefore increase the likelihood of achieving good traffic outcomes of the proposed developments.

 

3.  Construction Traffic Management Plans

 

The current DCP does not provide any guidance on preparing Construction Traffic Management Plans (CTMP) to mitigate the traffic impacts of the construction phase of a development. This has led to issues such as poor coordination of truck movements around areas with multiple developments under construction, inappropriate construction vehicle parking behaviour and unsafe pedestrian management practices. It is considered that the DCP should provide guidance on preparing and implementing an effective CTMP.

 

4.    Flexible Parking Rates

 

The DCP currently recommends minimum parking rates for developments.

 

It is considered that the new DCP parking rates should be neither maximum nor minimum. This approach is currently used by Willoughby Council. Where applicants propose a deviation from the DCP car parking rates, they must provide a robust argument to justify the variation supported by relevant data.

 

Lower parking rates will only be considered in the following circumstances:-

·    There are realistic transport alternatives to the private car in the locality;

·    The applicant can demonstrate a low demand for parking e.g. car ownership survey data in the vicinity or relevant examples of similar developments where reduced parking rates have been successfully implemented;

·    In locations where there is no risk of overspill parking from the development impacting on local streets;

·    There are exceptional site constraints which limit available on-site parking and appropriate mitigation measures and/or financial contributions are suggested in lieu; and

·    There is an overriding community benefit arising from the development.

 

Higher parking rates will be considered in the following circumstances:-

·    The higher parking rate is essential to ensure a high level of transport amenity for the user; and

·    The applicant can demonstrate a high demand for parking eg. car ownership survey data in the vicinity or relevant examples of similar developments where higher parking rates have been successfully implemented.

 

This method will allow flexibility on parking rates for specialist land uses that provide an overriding community benefit eg. child care centres.

 

5.  Amend Parking Rates for St Leonards

 

Many of the parking rates required by the existing DCP do not consider the good public transport amenity in the St Leonards area. A parking study prepared for the Australasian Transport Research Forum, ‘Adequacy of car parking policies for flats, units and apartments in the Sydney region’ (Brodie & Longworth, 2010), provides evidence that the current parking rates require an excess of parking provision compared to the existing demand.

 

The study examines parking demand characteristics of occupants of Flats, Units and Apartments (FUA) and compares these with the notional supply dictated by parking regulations in Sydney LGAs. The Census dataset used for the study shows that car ownership per dwelling for FUAs in Lane Cove (across the whole LGA) is 1.03. In comparison, FUAs in Willoughby and North Sydney have car ownership/dwelling ratios of 0.94 and 0.99 respectively.

 

The key finding of the study is that policy levels of parking provision generally result in an over-supply of parking spaces for units. It is therefore suggested that future developments within a 400m radius of St Leonards Railway Station provide a level of parking more consistent with the demand identified in the Brodie & Longworth Study. Developers in the St Leonards Railway Station 400m catchment area will be able to apply lower parking rates but their development must be accompanied by a robust Sustainable Transport and Access Plan (STrAP). Key proposed parking rates include:-

 

Land Use

Proposed St Leonards Parking Rate

Existing DCP Parking Rate

North Sydney Council DCP Parking Rate

Residential flat building

Resident parking must be provided at the following rates:

0.5 spaces per studio

1 space per unit, regardless of no. of bedrooms*.

Allocation of parking spaces at developer’s discretion.

1 disabled space for each adaptable housing unit

Visitor spaces – 0.25 per unit

Studio – 0.5 per unit

1 bedroom – 1 per unit

2 bedroom – 1.5 per unit

3+ bedroom – 2 per unit

Visitor spaces – 0.25 per unit

 

Studio – 1 per unit

1 bedroom – 1 per unit

2 bedroom – 1 per unit

3+ bedroom – 1.5 per unit

Visitor spaces – 0.25 per unit

Hotel/Motel

2 spaces  (staff)

+ 1 per 20 rooms (staff)

+ 1 per 3 rooms

+ 1 per 20m2 of convention/conference facility

+ 1 space per 10 seats in restaurant

 

2 spaces (staff)

+ 1 per 20 rooms (staff)

+ 1 per room

+ 1 per 10m2 of convention/conference facility

+ 1 space per 6 seats in restaurant

1 per 5 rooms

Commercial premises

1 per 200m2 GFA (staff)

1 per 110m2 GFA

1 per 400m2  GFA

Shop

1 per 110m2 GFA

1 per 110m2 GFA

Not specified

Child care centre

1 per 3 full-time employees

Set down area:

2 spaces if <24 children

3 spaces if >24 children

1 per 4 children (staff + guests)

1 per 2 staff (Max 3 spaces)

Set down area:

2 spaces if <24 children

3 spaces if >24 children

Restaurant

1 per 110m2 GFA

1 per 110m2 GFA

Not specified

Medical centre

1 per 1.5 healthcare professional (staff)

+ 1 per 3 employees (staff)

+ 1 per 3 rooms

1 per 30m2 GFA

1 per 400m2  GFA

(Requires additional analysis by applicant)

 

* Based on research carried Dean Brodie and Tom Longworth (Adequacy of car parking policies for flats, units and apartments in the Sydney region, Australasian Transport Research Forum 2010), which provides evidence that the car ownership rate in North Sydney is 0.99 per dwelling – refer to AT-3.

 

6.  Provision of Car Share Spaces Within Development Sites

 

Car share vehicles provide a good alternative to owning a second or third car, particularly in areas where most travel needs can be satisfied by public transport and therefore only occasional access to a car is required.

 

It is therefore considered that where a residential development meets the criteria for lower parking rates to be considered (see Item 4), public car share spaces shall be provided in lieu of on-site parking at a rate of 1 car share space per 3 private resident spaces. Residential developments must still provide a minimum of one car space for every unit comprising one or more bedrooms. The developer must also provide evidence at DA stage that commercial car share operator/s have been engaged and are committed to supplying car share vehicles in all of the designated on-site spaces.

 

The number of car share spaces to be provided will be at the discretion of the developer, following consultation with a commercial car share operator. Alternatively, developers must make a financial contribution towards transport and parking infrastructure in Lane Cove in lieu of the calculated rate of car share spaces. It is considered that the financial contribution is based on the rate of commercial/retail parking in Lane Cove Town Centre as listed in Council’s adopted Fees and Charges. Developers may also choose a combination of on-site car share provision and financial contribution to infrastructure works.

 

A worked example of the required parking provision with and without on-site public car share spaces is shown below.

 

REQUIRED PARKING PROVISION

WITHOUT CAR SHARE SPACES

Dwelling Type

Qty

Parking rate

(see Table 1)

Parking spaces

1-bedroom

2-bedroom

3-bedroom

53

56

14

1

1.5

2

53

84

28

Car share offset

0

-3

0

Residents spaces

 

165

Car share spaces

 

0

Visitors spaces

0.25 per dwelling

31

TOTAL spaces

 

196

REQUIRED PARKING PROVISION

WITH CAR SHARE SPACES

Dwelling Type

Qty

Parking rate

(see Table 1)

Parking spaces

1-bedroom

2-bedroom

3-bedroom

53

56

14

1

1.5

2

53

84

28

Car share offset

4

-3

-12

Residents spaces

 

153

Car share spaces

 

4

Visitors spaces

0.25 per dwelling

31

TOTAL spaces

 

188

 

7.  Remove Ambiguity Surrounding the Dimensions of Disabled Car Spaces.

 

The provision of disabled parking spaces is largely covered in Part F (Access and Mobility) of the DCP. Part F makes reference to the use of disabled spaces as detailed in Australian Standard 2890.6, which are 2.4m wide by 5.4m long with an adjacent shared zone of the same size. However, applicants have often argued that ambiguity in the wording of the provision means that they can provide the smaller ‘accessible’ parking spaces (compliant with AS4299), which provide poorer amenity to car users with a disability.

 

It is suggested that Council’s DCP only endorses the use of disabled spaces compliant with AS2890.6.

 

 

8.  Prohibit the Provision of Small Car, Tandem and Mechanical Stacked Parking Spaces.

 

Small car, tandem and mechanical stacked parking spaces are considered to provide poor amenity and may result in users preferring to park on local roads instead of on-site.

 

It is proposed that these types of parking spaces are limited on developments as follows:-

·    No small car spaces in private car parks;

·    Small car spaces must not make up more than 10% of total parking stock;

·    No tandem spaces in public/visitor car parks;

·    Tandem spaces must not make up more than 10% of total parking stock;

·    No mechanical stacked spaces in public/visitor car parks; and

·    Mechanical stacked spaces must not make up more than 10% of total parking stock.

 

9.  Require that the Applicant Contributes to Pedestrian, Cycling and Public Transport Facilities in the Local Area Surrounding the Proposed Development

 

At present, the DCP places no formal requirement on applicants to develop solutions to mitigate the impacts on pedestrian, cycling and public transport facilities resulting from the increase in population brought about by their development. Instead, Council is expected to spend time and money developing these solutions.

 

It is considered that applicants should take greater responsibility in devising improvement schemes to mitigate the impacts of their development. This may also involve funding, or part funding, the construction of the solution. Improvement schemes could range from the installation of new footpaths, crossings, cycle parking or bus route diversions.

 

10. Transport Access Guides and Travel Plans

 

It is considered that applicants should take more responsibility in encouraging the use of non-car travel to and from development sites. Applicants can do this by preparing Transport Access Guides (TAGs) and Travel Plans.

 

It is proposed that the DCP sets out guidelines on how to prepare effective TAGs and Travel Plans.

 

11.  Reference to State Environmental Planning Policy Documents

 

The current DCP does not make reference to State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) documents that set out controls which override Council’s parking rates. It is proposed that the following SEPP documents are referred to in the DCP:

·    SEPP (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008;

·    SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009;

·    SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004;

·    SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007; and

·    SEPP (Temporary Structures) 2007.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to inform the community of the Draft DCP Part R: Traffic, Transport and Parking and determine whether there is community support for incorporating the chapter into Council’s DCP. Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with DCP Part R.


Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and Community groups

Key message givers eg. Lane Cove Resident Association Groups, relevant Advisory Committees

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and

eNewsletter

Notification Letters

Public Exhibition, Website Exhibition and Online Survey

Indicative Timing

April to May 2014

April to May 2014

April to May 2014

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed DCP Part R: Traffic, Transport and Parking has been developed to address recurring issues with development applications in the LGA. The revised DCP provisions will address a multitude of issues, ensuring:-

·    Consistent and robust Traffic Impact Assessments;

·    Shifting of responsibility for identifying and implementing local transport infrastructure from Council to the Developer;

·    Good parking and transport amenity for new and existing Lane Cove residents;

·    Sustainable and integrated transport outcomes in new development sites;

·    Safe and efficient management of construction traffic; and

·    A flexible, evidence-based approach to car parking rates.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.   Endorse the proposed Draft DCP Part R: Traffic, Transport and Parking, dated February 2014 (shown attached as AT-1) for the purpose of public exhibition.

2.   Place the Draft DCP Part R on exhibition for 6 weeks in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in this report.

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

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

DRAFT Part R - Traffic, Transport and Parking

43 Pages

AT‑2 View

Comparison of Parking Rates in Neighbouring Council DCPs

2 Pages

AT‑3 View

Adequacy of Car Parking Policies for Flats, Units and Apartments in the Sydney Region

17 Pages

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 17 March 2014

Battle-Axe Blocks Draft DCP - Finalisation

 

 

Subject:          Battle-Axe Blocks Draft DCP - Finalisation    

Record No:    SU4889 - 10719/14

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Christopher Pelcz 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At its meeting of 18 November 2013 Council adopted for exhibition a Draft Development Control Plan for battle-axe allotments that seeks to provide greater certainty to stakeholders in relation to battle-axe allotments. The Draft DCP was exhibited with six (6) submissions received.

 

Issues raised in submissions include legal rights, streetscape, access, environmental impacts and introduction of mandatory provisions into the Draft DCP.

 

As a result of issues raised in submissions, and Council officer discussions, some amendments are proposed to the Draft DCP, which includes a minor change to the Part C of the DCP Section 1.12.3 Access provisions.

 

Council is requested to review the amendments proposed and adopt the Draft DCP.

 

Background

 

The proposed Development Control Plan amendment was the result of concerns raised by the local community regarding battle-axe allotments.

 

Some battle-axe allotments were the subject of lengthy court cases and community comment which was reiterated in the report to Council at its 18 November 2013 meeting. A review of these recent applications found that while each of the properties were allowed to subdivide into the proposed lot configuration it caused a degree of anxiety and uncertainty amongst local residents.

 

Further review of other Council’s Development Control Plan provisions found that appropriate controls for battle-axe block development are very difficult to apply for each individual area. Differing localities result in different streetscapes, design and layout, making a general set of controls in this instance difficult. Setbacks for battle-axe blocks including those in the foreshore area of Lane Cove in particular will provide additional challenges.

 

At the State Government level, the NSW State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 also makes broad provisions which sets out a minimum standard for the various codes, mainly relating to setbacks and car parking. While some councils in NSW have more detailed controls for battleaxe development in their development control plans than others, for the most part they appear to be assessed against criteria similar to a normal dwelling house.

 

Despite these concerns, Lane Cove’s subdivision pattern is a part of its identity and heritage. So much so, that it is even recognised in the Draft Inner North Subregional Strategy:

 

“The subdivision pattern of the Lane Cove local government area reflects the topography of the area and its development history as being largely the break up of early waterfront estates. The area now has a range of irregular shaped blocks around the suburbs of Northwood, Greenwich and Longueville” (2005, page 89).

 

Council exhibited draft amendments to the DCP for battle-axe allotments shown attached as AT-1 from Wednesday 15 January 2014 to Tuesday 25 February 2014.

 

Most of the comments received were positive towards the proposed DCP amendment. Six (6) submissions were received in total; two (2) from residents, three (3) from community associations, and one (1) from the NSW Roads and Maritime Services. Copies of the submissions have been circulated separately to Councillors.

 

Discussion

 

Issues raised in submissions are summarised as follows:-

 

1.   Legal rights – DCP amendments do not cover dealing with a difficult neighbour

 

Comment

 

This cannot be covered by a Development Control Plan. Subdivision, when it complies with State and Local planning provisions, is a legal right.

 

2.   Streetscape – Shared rights of way can often be an ugly part of the streetscape. Some notional kerbing/fence/vegetation treatment and minimum separation should be mandatory between the right of way driveway and building wall and opposite fence.

 

Comment

 

This may affect safety of proposed shared right of way. Landscaping is generally not required on a legally created access handle (right-of-way) as there are usually easements for drainage, electricity, sewer running through the access handle. Furthermore, introducing minimum separation distances between the driveway, building wall and opposite fence may affect the ability of a proposed battle-axe property to comply with the setbacks and may unnecessarily impose restrictions on the legally created right of way.   

 

3.   Access - Street access via shared driveways can have a significant impact on neighbouring properties.  It has a major impact on driver and pedestrian safety, while entry and exit onto roads already have poor visibility for cars and pedestrians.

 

Comment

 

Battle-axe allotments will need to comply with the relevant requirements listed in Part C as well as other parts of the DCP. Part C specifies minimum width of driveways and compliance with the relevant Australian design standards. The existing provisions of the DCP are considered sufficient to address this concern.

 

Furthermore, the NSW Roads and Maritime Services did not raise this as an issue as part of their submission (see below).

 

4.   Environmental - properties with potential for battle-axe development would be bush blocks sloping down to creeks and reserves. This has been underplayed in the draft DCP.

 

Comment

 

As stated above most of the existing battle-axe blocks are located around the waterfront area. The controls in the existing Lane Cove DCP cover Bushland Protection, Landscaping, Stormwater Management in relation to lots adjoining bushland reserves. Any application for battle-axe allotment would be subject to these controls in addition to the proposed amendments. See also comments below relating to foreshore properities.

 

5.   Introduction of mandatory provisions into draft DCP

 

Comment

 

Some submissions request that mandatory provisions be introduced into the draft Development Control Plan to address certain issues. This is not the purpose of a Development Control Plan as defined under the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Section 74BA (1) states that the purpose of a DCP is to provide guidance only, furthermore, the provisions of a development control plan made for that purpose are not statutory requirements.

 

One comment requested that the notion of design consultation between owners prior to lodging a pre-Development Application should be a mandatory provision of the Development Control Plan. In the 18 November 2013 Council report, meetings with neighbours would be encouraged before a Development Application is lodged with Council thereby reducing potential for further conflicts between neighbours. However, given that a Development Control Plan cannot introduce mandatory provisions of this nature they can only provide guidance and as such, this would be difficult to enforce.

 

Another comment also requested that if a mandatory site analysis is required for a subdivision of a battle-axe allotments then there should be similar requirements to those for an application to build on the site. In response, the need for mandatory site analysis for battle-axe allotments is triggered when the irregular site boundaries of a battle axe allotments affect the property's ability to comply with the DCP setbacks. In this instance site specific determinations on setbacks (based on site averages) can be made by Council.

 

In the case of waterfront battle-axe allotments it was requested that Section C.4 sub-clause g), iv) of the provisions should include the Sydney Harbour Regional Environmental Plan requirements in addition to the LEP and DCP requirement – this is not the intention of the clause. The clause states:

 

“In the case of blocks on the foreshores of Sydney Harbour, evidence that a dwelling house can be constructed without infringing the LEP Foreshore Building Line or the DCP Foreshore Setback”.

 

The clause is meant to identify and be specific to the proposed battle-axe allotments that are located near the water. Requirements of the Sydney Harbour REP are only relevant when land that is the subject of a Development Application is located along the waterfront. The Sydney Harbour REP as well as other relevant planning instruments is all considered during the Development Application process by the Council’s planning staff.

 

RMS Submission

 

NSW Roads and Maritime Services have requested (AT-2) that Council includes a clause in its proposed amendment to maintain road safety and traffic efficiency along classified roads to the effect of:

 

Creation of battle-axe allotments does not result in additional vehicular crossings on classified roads”.

 

Council’s Traffic Manager raised no objection to the inclusion of this provision in Part C Residential Development Section 1.12.3 Access provision (d).

 

It is recommended that this be included in Part C Residential Development Section 1.12.3 Access provision:

 

(d) To ensure that the creation of battle-axe allotments does not result in additional vehicular crossings on classified roads.

 

Summary

 

The DCP for battle-axe allotments are being put before Council for finalisation, including amendments as outlined in the discussion of issues above.

 

Conclusion

 

At its meeting of 18 November 2013 Council supported the exhibition of the Draft Development Control Plan for battle-axe allotments. The Draft DCP was exhibited with six (6) submissions received.

 

Issues raised in submissions include legal rights, streetscape, access, environmental impacts and introduction of mandatory provisions into the Draft DCP.

 

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

 

These changes include minor amendments which includes a minor change to the Part C of the DCP Section 1.12.3 Access provisions and in Section C.4 in relation to the creation of battle axe lots.

 

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council adopt the amended Development Control Plan for Battle Axe Blocks, as shown attached as AT-3;

 

2.   The Development Control Plan come into force by newspaper advertisement within 28 days; and

 

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

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Exhibited Part C - Residential Development

42 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

RMS submission to draft DCP

1 Page

 

AT‑3 View

Proposed DCP with changes

42 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 17 March 2014

Lane Cove West Industrial Area LEP - FSR

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove West Industrial Area LEP - FSR    

Record No:    SU4476 - 12193/14

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report relates to an exhibited draft LEP amendment which proposed to increase the floor space ratio in the Lane Cove West Business Park from FSR 1:1 to 1.5:1.

 

It is recommended that Council not proceed with the LEP, having regard to the floor space constraints identified in a recent traffic study prepared for Council’s OSUS Division in conjunction with the LEP review.

 

It is proposed that a further report be prepared for Council consideration to address emerging issues, constraints and opportunities, including economic and infrastructure factors, and incorporating the findings of the traffic study, for consultation at a Councillor workshop and subsequently with the community.

 

Background

 

The planning proposal to increase the floor space ratio (FSR) from 1:1 to 1.5:1 across the Lane Cove West Business Park was prepared by Council as part of the LEP Review. This responded to submissions received from a number of property owners during the preparation of the Comprehensive LEP in 2008 that the new FSR would promote the Light Industrial IN2 Zone’s redevelopment, high-tech modernization and competitiveness within the subregion.

 

The Department of Planning & Infrastructure did not support the proposed FSR1.5:1 for either of the two exhibitions of the Comprehensive LEP (DLEP 2007 and DLEP 2008), on the grounds that the area should remain focused on traditional industrial purposes including vehicle servicing. Council submitted that those purposes were better suited to areas near rail transport (such as the Artarmon Industrial Area), the Lane Cove area was already in transition towards high-tech uses and that this trend was appropriate to its role within the Metropolitan Strategy’s global corridor in proximity to North Ryde.

 

However the Department agreed to Council submitting a planning proposal following the LEP Review (2011 onwards) and the planning proposal was exhibited from 9 November to 20 December 2011.

 

Delegation for the planning proposal was issued to Council on 6 March 2013 following legislative changes introduced in late-2012.

 

During 2012-13 the Department’s Metropolitan Strategy review was undertaken, with finalization expected by December 2013. The review of the Draft Inner North Subregional Strategy, including its employment targets for each council, was to be completed shortly after. Lane Cove’s current 25-year target of 6,500 new jobs is principally to be met in the Lane Cove West industrial area and the St Leonards commercial centre.

 

As a result of the State Government’s priority of the NSW Planning Reforms, however, those two Strategies have been delayed. At the same time, for this planning proposal relating to employment floor space, the Department advised in a letter of 30 August 2013 that the Gateway approval’s finalization date was to be extended from 11 October 2013 to 11 April 2014 shown attached as
AT-1.

 

Discussion

 

Submissions

 

Twelve submissions were received in response to the exhibition. The submissions in full have been circulated to Councillors electronically.  Issues raised include:-

 

·    The Lane Cove West Business Group’s submission expressed concerns relating to:-        

Road access and parking: The increased FSR could be supported only if it included parking and the opening up of alternative roads rather than relying on the present single, narrow access road; traffic is already congested with a large number of unleased or unused premises existing: Staff comment: This request for infrastructure is reflected in Council’s traffic study - see comments below.

Bushfire: Mars Road should be assured of being opened for evacuation purposes:  Staff comment: This is understood to be Council policy already.

Neighbourhood shops: This land use was opposed. Staff comment: This is a mandatory use in the IN2 zone under the NSW Standard LEP, and is intended to improve the amenity of the industrial workforce.

Subsidized bus services: The levy, formerly proposed by Council to fund a local bus service was opposed. Staff comment: The levy has not proceeded.

 

·    Industrial owners’ submissions:

Support FSR 1.5:1

Consistency with Metropolitan Strategy’s employment growth

A workable increase to provide for technology-based uses, while ensuring that the area remains affordable for traditional light industrial users.

De facto commercial development would be prevented by other planning controls

Greater potential for the market to provide work space in a variety of configurations including small units.

Staff comment: These objectives are in principle supportable but are dependent on appropriate infrastructure, in particular traffic, transport and parking – see comments below.

 

·    Residents’ submissions (9):

Transitional scale: A number of residents requested that FSR 1:1 be retained in a “transition zone” at the interface between the industrial and residential areas. Staff comment: This is a valid request for consideration in further study.


Issues

 

Issues have emerged since the exhibition which indicate that the planning proposal should not proceed, as discussed below.

 

In 2012 a Traffic and Transport Study Report – Lane Cove West Business Park was prepared by Traffix, traffic and transport planners in 2012-13 for the Open Space & Urban Services Division of Council, to consider the capacity of infrastructure both current and proposed under the Section 94 Plan which was being updated as shown attached as AT-2.

 

The study concluded that FSR of 1.5:1 would exceed the vehicle capacity for the area, and recommended a maximum FSR of 1.36:1.

 

The study’s Conclusions are provided on pages 35-36 of the document. The key findings are that:-

(i)   In its current layout, the Epping Road/ Sam Johnson Way intersection could accommodate the forecast traffic levels associated with the current permissible FSR of 1:1.

 

(ii)  With a 60-metre extension to the existing dedicated left-turn lane on Sam Johnson Way (already proposed in the current Section 94 Plan), the road network would accommodate the forecast traffic levels associated with an uplift in the permissible FSR to 1.36:1.

 

(iii) To achieve Council’s original objective of achieving an FSR of 1.5:1, the study additionally assessed the effectiveness of providing a relief road through the SC Johnson site at 160 Epping Road. The analysis indicated that, “should the relief road intercept about 80% of the traffic to/from the west”, the Epping/ Sam Johnson intersection’s capacity would be significantly improved.

 

This concept refers to the private access road used by SC Johnson vehicles to exit the site westwards. It is located on the western side of 150 Epping Rd (the Meriton development). Staff comment, however, that the concept of “access to/from the west” has not been endorsed by the RMS, there is no proposal to alter that portion of road to allow access to the site and SC Johnson’s views are as yet unknown about the possible future public use of the road to exit the area.

 

On the basis of the study’s findings, it is not indicated that FSR 1.5:1 can be viably anticipated at this stage.

 

Staff have undertaken preliminary assessment of the planning implications of the traffic study’s findings in terms of options for the allocation of that additional floor space to 1.36:1. Considerations regarding employment numbers and car generation include:-

 

·    A generic FSR of 1.36:1 could be applied: This would not be taken up consistently across the industrial area because of the wide range of FSRs already existing on individual properties under the current LEP:-

Several sites in this long-standing industrial area are already developed to over 1:1 and even 1.36:1, for historical reasons.

Other sites are developed below, but to close to, those FSRs and may not consider it financially viable to redevelop.

Sites with the most capacity may not intend to develop further, e.g. 160 Epping Rd (SC Johnson) is developed at only around FSR of 0.3:1, but has reduced its industrial activity in recent years.

 

Details of these factors are provided in the staff comments on available data, at AT-3.

 

·    Site-specific increases to FSR 1.36: Options which may determine appropriate alternatives to a generic FSR increase across the zone include:-

site size, topography and configuration

sites with locational and access advantages

industrial land uses likely to stimulate high tech redevelopment clustering

the relationship with adjacent residential areas, as raised in residents’ submissions;

and other factors.

 

LEP Process

 

An amendment to reduce the exhibited FSR from 1.5:1 to 1.36:1 would be of significant enough scale to require a revised planning proposal. It is possible also that further study would find that the additional FSR controls should be targeted to specified sites rather than the LEP applying across the whole of the industrial zone, further requiring a new LEP format. An additional consideration may then include the public benefit which could reasonably be expected (through Section 94 contributions, voluntary planning agreements or works-in-kind) in return for the uplift for those properties.

Having regard to the range of emerging issues, it is considered that, prior to any increase being permitted above the current FSR 1:1, further study is required. This should consider the range of site-specific and policy factors in more detail than was able to occur during the preparation of the LGA-wide LEP, and include updated information on potential infrastructure, the Department’s policies and economic factors in the subregion.

 

Conclusion

 

A planning proposal to increase the floor space ratio (FSR) from 1:1 to 1.5:1 across the Lane Cove West Business Park was prepared by Council as part of the LEP review. This responded to submissions during the preparation of the Comprehensive LEP in 2008 on the grounds that the new FSR would promote redevelopment and modernization within the light industrial zone.

 

A traffic and transport study prepared by consultants for Council’s OSUS Division subsequently indicated that the FSR of 1.5:1 across the whole zone would be excessive in terms of currently projected road capacity. The FSR level could increase to 1.5:1 only if infrastructure were undertaken involving private property, whose owners’ views are currently unknown, and a shift occurred from cars to alternative transport.

 

The study concluded that, under currently foreseeable conditions, an increase only to FSR 1.36:1 was feasible due to traffic infrastructure constraints.

 

It is therefore considered that the current planning proposal for FSR 1.5:1 across the Light Industrial IN2 Zone should not proceed.

 

In consideration of issues which have arisen following exhibition of the planning proposal,

it is recommended that a further report be prepared for Council, with a view to consultation with the community, to discuss:-

 

(i)   the options for allocating the additional floor space to FSR 1.36:1, taking into account such factors as existing development levels, site area and other site-specific constraints and opportunities, and

(ii)  the potential for traffic infrastructure and other measures to increase floor space capacity to an appropriate level above 1.36:1 to promote the area’s future viability having regard to the latest economic and other advice including NSW Planning & Infrastructure’s employment land policies.

 

It is also recommended that a new planning proposal then be prepared providing more site-specific LEP controls in accordance with the report’s findings.


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council resolve not to proceed with the current planning proposal to increase FSR to 1.5:1 across the Light Industrial IN2 Zone, and NSW Planning & Infrastructure be advised accordingly.

2.   A report be prepared for Council investigating opportunities and constraints to the long term economic development of the Lane Cove West Business Park having regard to the issues identified.

3.   A draft planning proposal subsequently be prepared for Council consideration in accordance with that report’s findings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Department's letter re Gateway timeframe - 30 August 2013

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Traffix Lane Cove West Business Park Study, March 2013

39 Pages

AT‑3 View

Industrial Floor Area - Council data, December 2012

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 17 March 2014

Bushland Protection

 

 

Subject:          Bushland Protection    

Record No:    SU4978 - 13078/14

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At the Ordinary meeting of 2 December 2013, Council resolved that:

 

Council examine the process by which its bushland can be permanently protected from development and a further report be submitted to Council by April 2014.

 

Council sought legal advice on this matter. The legal advice provided to Council is in two parts, relating to public and private land.

 

On public land, Council can determine what level of environmental protection can be offered, having regard to the Local Government Act 1993 (LGA), particularly Chapter 6.

 

On private land, Council’s primary means of protecting the environment is through the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPAA), and the adoption of appropriate zoning.

 

Background

 

At the Council meeting of 2 December 2013, Council raised a concern regarding the possibility of certain forms of development occurring in Council’s bushland. This included construction of infrastructure such as shared pathways, as recently suggested as part of the draft Bicycle Plan 2013.

 

Discussion

 

To assist in finalizing this issue, Council sought advice from its Solicitor, Schmidt-Liermann Pty Ltd. Schmidt-Liermann’s review of this matter is provided as AT- 1.

 

Conclusion

 

In the main, Council has a robust means to protect bushland that is on public land, in care and control of Council by classifying that land as community land. This classification was implemented on all Council bushland when the LGA came into force in 1993. Under this classification, Council can protect the land from development through the application of Division 2 of Chapter 6 of the LGA through the adoption of appropriate Plans of Management. This is detailed in point 22 of Schmidt-Liermann’s legal advice. Council has adopted a Plan of Management for Council’s Bushland with suitable protection measure.

 

For bushland that is within private land, Council’s best method of protection is by imposing appropriate planning controls over that land in accordance with the EPAA. The best example of this is an E2 environmental conservation zone identified in Council’s LEP. Councillors may recall this zoning was applied to part of the Mowbray Precinct, closest to the Batten Reserve and affected by the RFS Asset Protection Zones.


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Protection of Native Bushland - Legal Advice

5 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 17 March 2014

Further Report on Little Lane Carpark Redevelopment Tender

 

 

Subject:          Further Report on Little Lane Carpark Redevelopment Tender    

Record No:    SU5218 - 13081/14

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      John  Lee 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Consent DA 90/12 was issued in November 2012 for the redevelopment of the Little Lane Car Park to increase the availability of public car parking from the current stock of 86 spaces to 200 spaces and provide new community and retail spaces to be retained in Council ownership. 

 

At its Ordinary Meeting on 18 November 2013, Council previously considered this project in respect of tenders received.

 

This report outlines the further process undertaken culminating in the recommendation to Council to appoint WN Developments P/L (EDG) as the Developer for the construction and marketing of the Little Lane Carpark Redevelopment project.  WN Developments P/L is a company controlled by EDG Capital Limited.

 

The project can be delivered cash positive to Council by the sale of residential apartments in a mixed-use development.

 

Background

 

The Little Lane Car Park Redevelopment Project was included in the Major Projects Strategic Management Plan 2007-2016 (“the Major Project Plan”) to deliver 150 public parking spaces, 600 m2 of community space including corridors and retail (“Council’s Retained Assets”) and return approximately $3m for other community projects from the sale of the residential component.

 

A number of key development principles were established in the Major Projects Plan, three of which are highlighted as being fundamental to the delivery of the project.   These are summarised as:-

a)   The site will not be sold without a DA;

b)   Council retains ownership and hence control for as long as possible; and

c)   Funds from the project are to be used to provide community facilities

 

It is important to note that where Council retains ownership, its property assets cannot be used as mortgaged collateral.  

 

In progressing this project through the detailed design phase, the car parking to be provided on the site has increased to 200 spaces and the community space has increased to 1,045 m2 (excluding foyer and corridors).  The consent dated 21 November 2012 includes 50 residential units.

 

Since that time, through the detailed design phase and to accommodate prospective user groups, the community space has further increased to 1,250 m2.

 

The Tender Process

 

In accordance with Section 55 of the Local Government Act and Part 7 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005, a selective tendering process was followed with an EOI followed by a Request for Tender.

 

Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 18 November 2013 considered a detailed report in respect of the tenders received and resolved that:-

 

1.   Council not accept any of the Tenders due to the lack of certainty in regard to the realisation of the inherent benefits on the Project Delivery Agreement, tender exclusions, and the potential to improve the net return from the project based on factors identified in the tender submissions;

2.   Council not call fresh tenders as Council, through the Tender Process, has identified a suitable pool of organisations who can undertake the project;

3.   Council undertake Post tender negotiations will all four tenderers to maintain a competitive environment in which Council can achieve value for money through the selection of a preferred Developer;

4.   The General Manager be authorised to enter into negotiations with each of the Tenderers in relation to the following two scenarios:-

i.        The existing PDA structure with a view to realising all the financial benefits of the structure with appropriate security measures; or

ii.       An alternate PDA Structure which includes Council providing additional equity for the project to maximize the net financial return to Council whilst maintaining appropriate risk levels; and

5.   A further report be provided to Council on the outcome of negotiations.

As that report is public, the salient point to be repeated for clarity in this report is that tenders were received from:

·    WN Developments P/L c/- EDG Capital Limited (EDG);

·    Taylor Construction Group P/L (Taylor);

·    Hindmarsh Development Australia P/L (Hindmarsh); and

·    Symonds Street Properties P/L (Ecove)– A Subsidiary of Ecove Group P/L

 

Post Tender Negotiations

 

Each of the four (4) Tenderers were requested to consider and respond in relation to the scenarios set out in Part 4 of the resolution.

 

Council was assisted in the post tender negotiations by Mr Wayne Redman of CBRE.

Because of the commercial nature of subsequent submissions by each of the tenderers, Councillors have been provided with a confidential assessment of each submission and CBRE’s report.

 

The post tender response from EDG not only reduced the amount required by Council to complete its retained assets, it increased the potential return to Council through a more attractive profit share proposal.

 

Ecove, Hindmarsh and Taylor advised that they were unable to significantly improve their offer, either by a reduction in cost or increased guaranteed return via sales.

 

As per 4(ii) of Council's resolution, Hindmarsh and Taylor were further considered in respect of their in house construction capabilities to explore an alternate PDA structure using a Guaranteed Maximum Price component with 100% Council equity. While an increased net return to Council was achievable, escalation, the transfer of marketing and other inherent costs to Council in financing and development management did not justify the increased risk profile involved.

 

After carefully considering each of the post tender submissions and potential alternate structuring of the PDA it has been the conclusion of the Tender Assessment Panel and the Tender Review Panel that the tender submitted by EDG (using a Special Purpose Vehicle) represents the best value for money within an acceptable risk profile for Council. 

In summary, the EDG offer is based on the following:-

 

i.    The completion of Council’s retained assets for $12,500,000, payable by Council in progress payments; The project being completed within 26 months with work up to ground floor and car park commissioned within 14 months;

 

ii.    A return to Council based on a profit share arrangement with a minimum return of $13,850,000 (irrespective of gross sales) plus a profit share to Council, ratcheting up from 30% up to 50% dependent on actual revenues achieved;

 

iii.   Securitisation by:-

 

a.   the land staying in Council’s ownership until final sales of the units.

b.   provision of a 10% retention during the construction of Council’s retained assets, to be held in a solicitors trust fund. The Retention monies held to reduce to 5% on issue of the interim occupation certificate for the community space and public carpark whichever occurs last.

c.   Submission of a further $2.5m unconditional bank guarantee to Council prior to the commencement of any residential works above the first floor level.

 

EDG have indicated that they are proposing an initial redesign of the internal layouts to achieve 55 luxury apartments without impacting on the external appearance of the building. Any such modifications will require the submission of a S96 application to modify the current development consent. EDG will require Council’s approval for the lodgement of such an application and there are no contractual obligations which fetter Council’s discretion in undertaking its regulatory assessment role.

 

Due Diligence

Under the PDA, the Developer accepts all development risk including construction and market / sales risks.

 

As part of the due diligence in respect of EDG, staff visited projects being undertaken by the nominated builder and were satisfied that they had the experience and expertise necessary to undertake the project.  In particular, their Trieste development in Bulwara Road Ultimo is listed as a $110m project, having 127 apartments.

 

EDG have provided a letter of support from ING Bank.  This was followed up with a meeting with the Bank to ascertain that they had also undertaken a similar review of both EDG Capital and their nominated builder, currently undertaking the Trieste development. ING Bank have indicated that they will support EDG in the project.

 

As outlined above, EDG have offered an additional security by way of an unconditional bank guarantee of $2.5m to ensure that the project is completed in a timely manner. This bond is to offset the lack of assets in the holding company undertaking the development.

 

As Council retains ownership of the land as well as all completed construction on its land until the sale residential apartments are settled, the risk to Council decreases with each month of construction.

Project Delivery Agreement

 

ING Bank have requested that the PDA be modified so that the Council and the Bank have equal call on the net proceeds from each sale completed until the Council’s return has been reached, which is considered reasonable.

 

The EDG Submission includes a number of minor changes to the PDA which have been considered by Council's Solicitors King and Wood Mallesons for the project that can be dealt with administratively during preparation of the contract documents.

 

Little Street Footbridge

 

EDG included a price of $468,000 for the construction of the pedestrian footbridge over Little Street linking the Podium on the western side with the relocated main entrance to the Aquatic Centre and east side of Little Street.   This price was competitive with other tenderers who submitted either a tendered amount or an indicative amount for the bridge.

 

Long term, the footbridge provides efficient, disabled compliant access to patrons of the Aquatic Centre as well as short term alternate access from the carpark lifts during construction.

It is a requirement of the PDA that if the bridge is included as a variation to the contract, it is to be operational prior to the issue of the occupation certificate for the public carpark. 

A Part 5 approval has been issued for the bridge under the EPA Act, noting that the bridge is complying development under State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007.

 

GST

 

The revenue analysis has been undertaken on the basis that the margin scheme under the Goods and Services Act would apply, based on an estimated land valuation of $2,100,000 as at 30/6/2000.

 

There appears strong grounds to seek a private ruling from the Commissioner on the application of the word “improvements” as applying to Section 75-10 (3) of the GST Act and whether the state of the land as at 30/6/2000 had actually enhanced the value of the land and if not, the GST liability on the sales price could be considerably reduced.

 

Value for Money

 

The Major Projects Plan estimated a cash return to Council of $3m toward other community facilities.  As the current proposal includes an additional 50 car parking spaces ($2.5m) involving a deeper excavation and an additional 500 m2 ($1m) of community space, the cash positive proposal by EDG is consistent with the projected outcome in the Major Projects Plan.

 

Risk Review

 

The Division of Local Government, in approving Council’s Capital Expenditure Review, recommended a review of the risks involved at this stage.  Councils risk management strategy has been updated to reflect the project proceeding as recommended.

 

Construction Discussion

 

Early works include the relocation of the water and sewer mains around the site in Little Lane and Little Street.  The excavation works associated with the sewer will require the removal of a number of trees along Little Street.  As required by the consent, landscaping of the Little Street frontage will be part of the Project.

 

To minimise delays in commencement, Council has engaged a water coordinator to complete the design of the sewer and obtain the necessary approvals from Sydney Water.  Their approval is expected this month.

It is expected that perimeter piling will commence during the relocation works phase.  Once the relocation works in Little Lane are completed, it is expected that the full possession of the site will be handed over to the Developer.

At that time the loss of car parking will have an appreciable impact on parking in the village over the 14 month construction period before the public car park is operational.  It is proposed that the impact be monitored and if necessary, a further report be prepared for Council’s consideration reviewing options previously canvassed.

 

Little Lane Steering Committee

 

The Tender Assessment Panel met with the Little Lane Steering Committee and EDG representatives including their architect on Tuesday 11 March 2014.  The Steering Committee have endorsed the recommendation to Council.

 

Little Lane Community Tenancies

 

Council has engaged Architects to develop a suitable fit out for the Community space which will be undertaken independently of this tender and will require funding from the proceeds of the project.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1    Subject to the satisfactory agreement on the Contract documentation terms, authorise the General Manager to enter into a contract with WN Developments P/L (EDG) to construct the Little Lane Car Park redevelopment, in accordance with the Request for Tender, their Tender as amended by the letters dated 13 December 2013, 24 December 2013 and 24 January 2014, the Principals Project Requirements and the Project Delivery Agreement as modified;

 

2    Advise WN Developments P/L (EDG) that no contract exists between the parties until the contract documents have been duly executed by both parties;

 

3    Authorise the General Manager to include the construction of the Little Street footbridge as a variation to the contract in the sum of $468,000;

 

4    Note that Council’s equity injection for the retained infrastructure is limited to $12,500,000 subject to any Council initiated variations;

 

5    Advise WN Developments P/L (EDG) that Council cannot fetter its Statutory Planning Responsibilities in relation to any changes which may be included in a subsequent application made by WN Developments P/L under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning Assessment Act to modify the internal layouts of apartments or to increase the yield beyond that already consented to in DA 90/12;

 

6    Advise WN Developments P/L (EDG)  that Council, as land owner, will not support any application made under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning Assessment Act that includes unacceptable changes to the exterior of the building;

 

7    Request the General Manager to obtain a private tax ruling from the Commissioner of Taxation on the application of the word “improvements” as applying to Section 75-10 (3) of the GST Act;

 

8    Request the General Manager to include progress reports of the development in the monthly snapshot report to Council;

 

9    Advise the Department of Premier and Cabinet, Division of Local Government of this decision enclosing a copy of this report for their information;

 

10  Advise the unsuccessful tenderers of this decision;

 

11  The General Manager and Mayor be authorised to affix the seal of Council to all related contract documents including contracts for sale of each residential strata unit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 17 March 2014

Longueville Road Intersection Improvement Scheme - Construction of Traffic Signals and Additional Civil Works

 

 

Subject:          Longueville Road Intersection Improvement Scheme - Construction of Traffic Signals and Additional Civil Works    

Record No:    SU5338 - 5199/14

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Tim Sullivan 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council called for tenders from three traffic signal contractors for the construction of the Longueville Road Intersection Improvement Scheme. This report provides details on the procurement process and recommends that the submission from Corrigan Electrics be accepted.

 

Background

 

The Longueville Road intersections with Birdwood Avenue and Little Street represent a long standing concern for the Lane Cove Community. The intersections are subject to unreliable traffic operations and present an unacceptable level of road safety risk.

 

Following the results of a 6-week community exhibition, Council resolved in November 2013 (Minute 294) to proceed with the detailed design of the scheme comprising:-

 

·    Traffic lights at the Birdwood Avenue intersection (allowing all movements); and

·    Left-in, left-out arrangement at the Little Street intersection.

 

The detailed design of the scheme was accepted by Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) on 12 February 2014.

 

Discussion

 

Assessment Criteria

 

A tender specification was prepared detailing the schedule of work, specification of equipment to be supplied, safety requirements and reporting requirements. The specification outlined that the tender submissions would be assessed based on the following weighted criteria:-

 

Price 50%: Based on the Tender Price, schedule of rates and unit rates for costing of variations provided in the mandatory schedules. The bids were scored based on a pro rata difference in prices submitted, with the lowest price receiving 50 points. 

 

Capability and Capacity 40%: Refers to the experience and trustworthiness of the tenderer and its personnel, including management and supervision, the experience of any sub-contractors to be used, the capability of the tenderer to work within relevant policy frameworks and applicable legislation, and any initiatives for change and improvement.

 

To achieve the maximum score the tenderer is to have relevant experience, capability to perform the services required, positive reference checks, provide full details of personnel and equipment to carry out the work, management structure of the company and contingency plans to cover downtime and other unforeseen circumstances. 

 

Response to the Environmental Questionnaire 10%: This refers to the manner in which the questions contained in the Environmental Questionnaire were responded. It also took into account how environmental issues are to be appropriately addressed, including commitment to due diligence and the principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD) in regard to environmental legislation and documentation outlining past performance in regard to environment protection and enhancement initiatives. To achieve the maximum score the tenderer is to provide details of an environmental policy and answer yes to all applicable questions in the Environmental Survey included in the tender specification.

 

Tender Submissions

 

The project brief was sent to 3 (three) contractors that are on the RMS list of pre-qualified contractors for the supply and installation of traffic signals. The closing date for submissions was 28 February 2014, Council received two submissions from Corrigan Electrics and CNJ Electrical.

 

Tender Evaluation

 

The submissions were then assessed by Council’s Manager – Traffic & Transport and Council’s Transport Planner. Although the tender submitted from CNJ Electrical was slightly lower, the overall submission from Corrigan Electrics was more detailed. It is also relevant that Corrigan Electrics have previously completed a similar project for Council to a high standard.

 

The Tender Evaluation Table ranks each tenderer against the assessment criteria shown below:-

 

Company

Price (50%)

Capability & Capacity (40%)

Response to Environmental Questionnaire (10%)

 

Total

Corrigan Electrics

 

Preferred

Preferred

Preferred

CNJ Electrical

Preferred

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

A confidential memorandum has been circulated separately to Councillors detailing the submission assessment process and the prices submitted by the prospective contractors.

 

It is recommended that the submission from Corrigan Electrics be accepted.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.   The contract for the construction of the Longueville Road Intersection Improvement Scheme be awarded to Corrigan Electrics for an amount of $372,900 (including GST); and

 

2.   The General Manager be authorised to enter into contract with Corrigan Electrics. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 17 March 2014

Tender for Renovations to the Kindy Cove Child Care Centre

 

 

Subject:          Tender for Renovations to the Kindy Cove Child Care Centre    

Record No:    SU5347 - 12466/14

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Jane Gornall 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council called for tenders in accordance with Council’s Tender and Quotation Procedure for the provision of Building Services to carry out renovations to Kindy Cove Child Care Centre.

 

This report provides details on the tender process conducted and recommends that the tender from Momentum Built Pty Ltd be accepted.

 

Discussion

 

Kindy Cove Child Care Centre opened in 1976. It is a Long Day Care Centre, licenced for 58 children. The Centre operates for 51 weeks of the year.

 

Due to the fact that the Centre operates throughout the year, upgrading works are hard to program without closing the Centre down completely.

 

The tendered works have been scheduled to take advantage of the child care centre at 47 Burns Bay Road being vacant. The use of this building will allow Kindy Cove to relocate 16 children, aged 0-2 into this space for the duration of the renovation works.  This age group has been chosen as they are the group that will be most disturbed by the noise and the disruption caused by the building works. Their playground requirements are also the least exacting.

 

Tenders for the renovation works closed on Friday 21st February, 2014.  The tenders were advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald, the North Shore Times and via Tenderlink. A mandatory site visit was held on-site at Kindy Cove on Monday 3rd February, 2014. Sixteen builders attended the site visit. The visit allowed the builders to examine the site in detail and also for Council to reinforce the fact that there would be children; staff and parents on site during the construction. An additional site visit was held on Wednesday 12th February, which allowed potential builders to bring sub-contractors on-site.

 

The work will be let using “AS 4000:1997, General conditions of contract”, as amended by Schmidt-Liermann Lawyers to meet Council’s preferences.

 

Tender specifications were prepared detailing the schedule of work, hours of work, safety requirements and reporting requirements.  The specification outlined that the tender submissions would be assessed based on the following weighted criteria:-

 

(a)       Pricing:    35%

·          Best value to Council.

 

The bids were scored based on a pro rata difference in prices submitted, with the lowest price receiving 35 points. 

 

(b)  Capacity & Capability:     25%

·           Past record and/or demonstrated ability to provide good/services;

·           The Tenderer's technical expertise; resource and financial management skills including; and

·           Proposed methods of service delivery.

 

To achieve the maximum score the tenderer is to have the capability to provide the goods and perform the services required, provide full details of personnel and equipment to carry out the work, management structure of the company and contingency plans to cover downtime and other unforeseen circumstances. 

 

(c)     Experience:     25%

·          The relevant experience of the Tenderer and key personnel and the extent of skills/qualifications of the people who will be engaged to carry out the contractor's obligations under the Contract;

·          Contracts of similar nature with other NSW Councils;

·          Demonstrated financial capability to provide the Work/Services at both a financial and operational level with a clearly identifiable management structure; and

·          Referees responses.

 

To achieve the maximum score the tenderer is to have the relevant experience, preferably within Child Care Centres but also in circumstances where work is undertaken in buildings where continued public access was maintained throughout the works. Reference checks were also counted into this element of the assessment.

 

(d)     Work, Health & Safety:     10%

·           Work, Health and Safety policies and procedures;

·           Quality Assurance Programs;

·           Insurances; and

·           Work Method Statements.

 

Sustainability and Environment Assessment refers to the manner in which environmental issues are to be appropriately addressed, including commitment to due diligence and the principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD) in regard to environmental legislation and documentation outlining past performance in regard to environment protection and enhancement initiatives. Occupational Health and Safety refers to the tenderer’s commitment to and compliance with current Work, Health and Safety legislation.

 

To achieve the maximum score the tenderer is to have fully documented and certified Quality Assurance procedures to ISO 9001 along with OH&S certification to AS 4801.

 

(e)     Environment and Sustainability:     5%

·           Response to Council’s Environmental Questionnaire; and

·           Environmental policies and procedures.

 

To achieve the maximum score the tenderer is to provide details of an environmental policy and answer yes to all applicable questions in the Environmental Survey included in the tender specification and to provide details in their submission that they have an OHS Management Plan and work method statements.  Additional points are awarded for accreditation to AS 14001:2004.

Council advertised the tender in the Sydney Morning Herald on 28, 29th January, 2014 and 1 February, 2014, the North Shore Times on 29th January and on the Tenderlink website. Tenders closed at 2:00 p.m. on Friday 21st February, 2014  and Council received 5 submissions. 

 

The tender evaluation panel consisted of Council’s Executive Manager – Human Services, Manager – Special Projects and the Infrastructure Planner – Human Services.

 

Each tender was assessed based on the above weighted criteria and ranked accordingly:-

 

Company

Price (35%)

Capability & Capacity (25%)

Experience (incl References) (25%)

Environmental & OH&S Programs (15%)

 

Overall

Avant

 

 

 

 

 

Castlereagh Group

 

 

 

 

 

J & CG Constructions

 

 

 

= Preferred

 

Laser Building Services

 

 

 

 

 

Momentum Built

Preferred

Preferred

Preferred

= Preferred

Preferred

Reference and Financial checks were conducted on the recommended tenderer and were positive.

Council Workshop

The tender panel’s recommendation was presented to Councillors at a meeting of the Council Selection Committee on Monday 10th March. This allowed Councillors to more closely examine the process and the proposed recommendation of the Tender Panel.

Budget

The works will be carried out using the remaining 2013/4 Infrastructure Funds, 2014/5 Infrastructure funds and funds from the Kindy Cove Reserves.

Conclusion

A confidential memorandum has been circulated separately to Councillors detailing the prices submitted by each tenderer, how each of the weighted criteria was assessed and details of the reference checks undertaken of the recommended tenderer.

Having recorded the highest score across all the weighted criteria and positive reference checks were received about the quality and reliability of their work, the Tender Panel recommends:-

1.   The tender for the provision of  Building Services to carry out renovations works at Kindy Cove Child Care Centre be awarded to Momentum Built Pty  Ltd for an amount of $1,027.056.80; and

2.   The General Manager be authorised to enter into contract with them

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council accept the Tender from Momentum Built Pty Ltd for the provision of building services to carry out renovation works at Kindy Cove Child Care Centre for an amount of $1,027,056.80; and

2.   The General Manager be authorised to enter into contract with Momentum Built Pty Ltd.

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 17 March 2014

Negotiations for Acquisition of Part of 300 A,B,C Burns Bay Road to Enable Road Widening Works

 

 

Subject:          Negotiations for Acquisition of Part of 300 A,B,C Burns Bay Road to Enable Road Widening Works    

Record No:    SU2589 - 12772/14

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      John  Lee 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The report notes the status of negotiations in respect of properties involved in acquisition processes associated with road improvements necessary to cater for increased traffic generation in the precinct accessing Burns Bay Road via the signalised intersection adjacent to 296 Burns Bay Road.

 

In particular, the report sets out a recommended solution considered a win- win proposition for both Council and the Owners of SP 6522, 300 A, B and C Burns Bay Road (300ABC) in regard to the acquisition by Council of part of SP6522 for road widening.

 

Background

 

Council reports to the Ordinary Meeting on 15 October 2012 and 18 February 2013 refer in relation to resolutions to commence compulsory acquisition processes to acquire part of SP 6522 (300 A, B and C) part of Lot 300 in DP 785178, 300 Burns Bay Road (SAS Institute Australia) (SAS) and the whole of lot 31 DP 540796, 296 Burns Bay Road (Linley Point Estates P/L).

 

The Division of Local Government expressed a preference for details of direct negotiations being provided before considering approving any compulsory acquisition.

 

300 ABC Burns Bay Road

 

Following a more detailed design of the road improvements to avoid existing infrastructure serving SAS, an area of 320 m2 is required to be acquired from SP6522.  Although most of the area is used as a private road, it also affects 4 private visitor parking spaces.

 

Concurrent with negotiations with the owners of SP6522 (assisted by Ms Donna Galvin Body Corporate Secretary of SP6522, Mr Brett Daintry consultant and Mr Andrew Mason, solicitor) Council consulted with the public in regard to proposed improvements to the section of park including a community facility below the access road across 304 Burns Bay Road currently under construction.

 

The submission received from 300 ABC had merit and through negotiation the proposal set out in AT-1 and the response made on behalf of the Owners of SP6522 shown attached as AT-2 is recommended for approval.  The salient points of the agreement are:-

 

a)         Transfer to Council at no cost from lot SP6522 an area of 320m2 required for a public road purpose as road widening “A” AT-3;

b)         A right of way 6m wide in favour of the public over the private road on SP 6522 from Burns Bay Road to an access point onto the park on 304 Burns Bay Road (“B” AT-4 and AT-5).  The right of way affects a further one (1) private paring space on SP6522;

c)         Construction of 12 private visitor parking spaces within SP6522 and an existing easement for support benefitting SP6522 (“C” AT-5);

d)         An appropriate right of carriageway documented over the driveway adjacent to the 12 private spaces (“D” AT-5);

e)         Transfer to Council at no cost an area of 233m2 from lot SP6522 being a strip of land along the south western boundary of 304 Burns Bay Road (“E” AT-6);

This area would be amalgamated with Lot 102 DP 1013285 (304 Burns Bay Road) and classified under the Local Government Act as Community Land.  This area is also approximately equivalent to the area of driveway adjacent to the 12 private parking spaces, noting that much of the driveway is required in any event to access the community facility and associated parking spaces;

f)          Construction of 12 public car parking spaces serving the park and community facility generally located along the eastern boundary of the park and associated driveway.  The driveway also provides servicing and maintenance access to the community facility and to the park; (“F” AT-7);

g)         A deed of agreement by the owners of SP6522 under Section 650 (6) of the Local Government Act for Council to manage a free parking area to include the newly constructed parking spaces as well as existing visitor parking areas of SP 6522; and

h)         Council being responsible for legal costs.

 

Council’s valuation by Challenor Valuers indicates that the land required for public road has a notional land value of $201,000.  This is offset by:-

 

a)         construction of 12 spaces at  $15,000 per space ($180,000);

b)         ongoing costs in managing a free parking area;

c)         the addition of community land; and

d)   any difference in cost associated with the service  road and associated fill and steep batters relative to the at grade parking as now proposed.

 

This proposal provides an alternate and more suitable disabled access route to the community facility than the proposed ramp from the newly constructed road as originally proposed.  The Access ramp area will now be terraced and landscaped extending the usable area of park.

 

An amended concept plan is provided in AT-5 which provides 12 public spaces as well as 12 spaces for SP6522.  It is intended to undertake the necessary works as part of the civil works package for the access road.

 

Council’s preliminary legal advice supports the measures outlined above.

 

SAS

 

Preliminary discussions with SAS have indicated that agreement will be reached on price.  The area now required from the SAS property is nominal at 36m2 to avoid modification to existing infrastructure services to this property.

 

296 Burns Bay Road

 

At the date of this report Council had not received a valuation from the owner justifying a higher acquisition price than submitted by Council’s Valuer based on the highest and best use of the existing building (as distinct from a Residential R4 development site).

 

In line with Council’s previous resolutions, the approval of the Minister to proceed to compulsory acquisition will be made, giving the Owners a further 60 days in which to negotiate agreement on price.

 


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Advise the Owners of SP6522 that the heads of agreement set out in the letter from Mr Andrew Mason dated 27 February 2014 is acceptable, subject to review by Council’s solicitor of the Deed under Section 650 (6) of the Local Government Act.

2.   Authorise the Mayor and General Manager to affix the seal of Council to all related transaction and conveyance documents.

3.   Classify as Community Land the section of land to be dedicated by the owners of SP6522 to be amalgamated with lot 102 DP 1013285

4.   Note the report in respect of acquisition of part of the SAS site and all of 296 Burns Bay Road;

5.   Thank Ms Donna Galvin as Secretary of the Body Corporate of SP6522 for her valuable involvement in reaching a resolution agreeable to both parties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Letter to owners corporation outlining proposed solution

11 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Draft car parking agreement from Andrew Mason solicitor

9 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Area from SP6522 to be acquired for road widening

1 Page

 

AT‑4 View

Public right of carriageway over SP6522

1 Page

 

AT‑5 View

Concept Plan showing public parking spaces and parking spaces for SP6522

1 Page

 

AT‑6 View

Land Transfer from SP6522

1 Page

 

AT‑7 View

Concept Plan showing parking space allocation and driveway access to new community facility

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 17 March 2014

Sustainability Advisory Committee - Nominations for Vacant Positions

 

 

Subject:          Sustainability Advisory Committee - Nominations for Vacant Positions     

Record No:    SU5229 - 11240/14

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      David Wilson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Following the recent resignations of two (2) members of the Sustainability Advisory Committee (SAC), Council advertised for nominations from community members interested in filling the now vacant Community Representative positions on the Committee. 

 

Seven (7) nominations were received, with one (1) being ineligible as the person resided outside of the Lane Cove Local Government Area.  It is recommended that Council consider the remaining six (6) nominations and endorse two (2) nominees for appointment as Community Representatives to the Committee. 

 

Background

 

Council is committed to ensuring the community is informed and encourages community participation in decision making by operating a variety of Advisory Committees to engage the community. 

 

Sustainability is high on the agenda for Council which has a vision of a community committed to sustainability as detailed in the Lane Cove Sustainability Action Plan: Think Global, Act Local.  The Sustainability Advisory Committee assists Council in the formulation, prioritisation and implementation of strategies and initiatives to achieve sustainability as primarily set out in Sustainability Action Plan.

 

In October 2012 Council called for nominations to a range of advisory committees including the Sustainability Advisory Committee.  In January 2014, Council received two (2) resignations from members of the Committee, Mr.Sirik Bangma and Mrs. Christina Kim. 

 

In January an advertisement was placed in the North Shore Times seeking nominations from members of the community to become community representatives on the Committee.  In addition, information was placed on Council’s website and through local Sustainability Networks. In total Council received seven (7) nominations. One (1) nominee was ineligible for membership as the person resides outside the Lane Cove Local Government Area.  

 

Discussion

 

The nominations received for the vacant positions on the SAC were considered to be of the highest quality with the following six (6) eligible candidates considered suitable for the committee:-

 

Bronwyn Winley

Greenwich resident for 7 years and comes from a communications background and works promoting sustainability campaigns for Telstra, bringing a corporate perspective. 

 

Emma James

Consultant in Water Sensitive Urban Design and is active in the community through cycling. She has participated in Bushcare activates and is actively involved with a local school.

 

Belinda Bean

Sustainability Officer with Macquarie University, and is engaged in Lane Cove sustainability through PermaPatch and also won a Green Lifestyles Local Green Hero award in 2012.

 

Shannon Blackmore

Consultant working in environmental impact assessment, planning approvals, and a member of Permapatch.

 

Wendy Stamp

30 years experience in policy development and implementation, communications and stakeholder engagement with extensive experience in dealing with local issues.

 

Pierre Masse

Member of the Lane Cove Sustainability Action Group and has participated in a number of council sustainability programs.

 

A complete list of nominations received by Council as well as a summary of the nominee’s skills and expertise has been circulated separately to Councillors. 

 

The following selection criteria were used to assess the suitability of nominees:-

 

1.   Relevant experience in sustainability;

2.   Expertise that applicants can bring to the committee;

3.   Skill sets which are varied to that of existing committee member to ensure diversity within the group; and

4.   Engagement in Lane Cove community sustainability.

 

Conclusion

 

On 10 March 2014, Council’s Selection Committee met to discuss the nominations for the vacant positions on the SAC. Having regard to the current membership of the committee and to balance the skills, background and experience that Council is able to draw upon in seeking advice on sustainability issues, the Committee endorsed the nominations of Bronwyn Winley and Emma James for appointment as Committee Representatives to the Sustainability Advisory Committee.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.   Bronwyn Winley and Emma James be appointed as Community Representatives of the Sustainability Advisory Committee;

2.   The nominees be advised of Councils’ decision;

3.   Council write to Mr Sjirk Bangma and Mrs Christina Kim to thank them for their participation and valued contribution over the past year(s) as community representatives on Council’s Sustainability Advisory Committee; and

4.   Council thank all unsuccessful nominees for their interest in the Sustainability Advisory Committee vacancies.

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Sustainability Advisory Committee Charter - September 2012

4 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 17 March 2014

Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 18 February 2014

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 18 February 2014    

Record No:    SU1326 - 12455/14

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Tim Sullivan 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday, 18 February 2014. The Agenda is included as AT-1 containing one item.  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, 18 February 2014.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Agenda - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 18 February 2014

47 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Minutes - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 18 February 2014

8 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 17 March 2014

Local Government Acts Review - Taskforce Report

 

 

Subject:          Local Government Acts Review - Taskforce Report    

Record No:    SU218 - 7124/14

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Minister for Local Government released on 8 January 2014 the Report of the Local Government Acts Taskforce on a new Local Government Act for NSW and a review of the City of Sydney Act. The report follows extensive consultation with key stakeholders including a previous discussion paper which Council responded to.

 

Whilst noting reforms proposed in the Independent Review of Local Government, IPART red tape review and planning systems reforms may facilitate changes to legislation proposed by the Taskforce, this report outlines proposed changes to the Local Government Act and relevant comments in response. The report will recommend that Council make a submission in terms of the comments outlined in this Report.

 

Background

 

The Local Government Acts Taskforce Report was released on 8 January 2014 and comments are due by 4 April 2014, which is the same date as the Independent Local Government Review Panel (ILGRP) Report response is due to the NSW Government. The Taskforce Chair notes in his Foreword to the Report, which was submitted in October 2013, that:-

A number of other important reviews relevant to local government are being conducted concurrently, including the work of the Independent Local Government Review Panel and a review of the planning system in NSW. At the time of making this report none of these reviews have been finalised. This has impacted the work of the Taskforce as there are a number of sections of the Act the Taskforce has been unable to consider pending the outcome of the other reviews.’

Therefore, the consequence of the ILGRP recommendations not having been responded to by the NSW Government or the Acts Taskforce make it difficult to assess the Report, as there may be significant changes arising for the Act following acceptance of some of the ILGRP’s recommendations and other reviews taking place.

Taskforce Recommendations

 

The Terms of Reference for the Taskforce are as follows:-

 

Terms of Reference for the Local Government Act 1993 and the City of Sydney Act 1988 Taskforce

The Local Government Acts Taskforce will consider the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and the City of Sydney Act 1988, and their practical operation so as to:-

·      Ensure that the legislation and statutory framework meet the current and future needs of the community, local government, and the local government sector.

·      Strengthen and streamline the legislation to enable local government to deliver services and infrastructure efficiently, effectively and in a timely manner.

·      Ensure that the legislation is progressive, easily understood and provides a comprehensive framework, while avoiding unnecessary red tape.

·      Recognise the diversity of local government in NSW.

·      Provide greater clarity on the role and responsibility of local government.

·      Adopt the decisions of the Government in relation to the recommendations of the Independent Local Government Review Panel.

·      Make recommendations to the Minister for Local Government for legislative changes considered necessary and appropriate for a new Local Government Act.

·      Identify and recommend to the Minister for Local Government, at any time during the review process, any legislative changes that need to be implemented prior to the completion of the review.


Other Considerations


In carrying out its work the Taskforce will:-

·      Engage and consult with the wider NSW community and with local government stakeholders (including the Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW, Local Government Managers Australia (NSW), local councils, village committees, county councils, regional organisations of councils, business, community, industrial and employee associations, relevant professional bodies, and government agencies) about the operation of the legislation.

·      Identify key principles to underpin local government legislation in NSW. In developing these principles the Taskforce will consider legislation and its application in other jurisdictions both in Australia and overseas.

·      Take account of the work, findings and government decisions, in relation to the NSW Planning System Review, the Destination 2036 Action Plan and the NSW State Plan “NSW 2021 – A Plan to make NSW number one”.

·      Conduct its work in a manner that recognises the terms of reference and approach being taken by the Independent Local Government Review Panel.

 

AT-1 outlines in detail where wording has changed from the Taskforce Discussion paper of April 2013 to the final report dated October 2013, plus how the issues Council included in its submission have/have not been taken up in the report and relevant comments. New wording and/or provisions are highlighted.

 

Compared to the April 2013 report by the Taskforce, new content includes significant additions and changes in these areas:-

 

Provision

Comments

3.1.2 Role and Guiding Principles of Local Government

Supported. Addition of participatory local democracy, social justice, future generations considerations, the responsibilities of other levels of government,

3.3.1 Elections

 

Requirement for postal voting for vacancies in 1st year or within 18 month of term end supported. However, Council-elected Mayoral term to be two years should be at the discretion of individual councils. Previous recommendation to abolish wards removed from final report.

3.3.3 Appointment and Management of Staff

Council, on advice of the GM, determine the organisation structure for the level reporting to the GM and continuation of requirement to consult council on appointment and dismissal of senior staff. Temporary staff appointments of two years allowable. Both proposals supported.

3.3.4 ROCs and formation of entities

Supported. Hunter councils model referred to, suggests transition from ROCs to Councils of Mayors. Maintains s.358 controls on entity formation.

3.3.8 Delegations

Exceptions to the capacity to delegate be retained but not necessarily carry forward those relating to, for example, acceptance of tenders, delegation of regulatory functions to a shared services group. Supported on the basis of improving timeliness in tendering and the provision of facilities and services.

3.3.9 Financial Governance

Supported. Adds financial governance principles to the Act to align with the principles of IPR; subject to further review after NSW Government responds to ILGRP report.

3.3.10 Procurement

Risk assessment/principles basis for threshold for tendering rather than a monetary limit. Earned autonomy approach where Councils may be exempted from regulatory requirements through an accreditation process. Supported as it will improve timeliness of tendering processes.

3.3.15 Approvals, Orders and Enforcement

Risk based approvals; councils to adopt an enforcement policy setting out factors taken into account in taking an action, common to all councils; improve councils’ ability to recover costs; increasing time limit for commencing proceedings from 6 to 12 months; same powers of entry for councils as ‘contemporary legislative standards’. Proposals supported to protect councils.

 

Areas where the positions put in the previous Council submission have not been adopted include:-

 

Taskforce October 2013 Final Report

Council June 2013 Submission

3.3.3 Appointment and management of staff

(4) The current prescription in the Act relating to the advertising of staff positions and staff appointments be transferred to regulation or to the relevant industrial award.

Supported transfer to regulation but not to industrial award

3.3.14 Public land

Retain classification regime of public land and require a council resolution at the time of acquiring the land to specify classification, category and proposed use.

Supported ending classification regime and no requirement for classification resolution at the time of aquisition, instead include in IPR processes.

(April 2013 – ending the classification regime was proposed by the Taskforce.)

 

Conclusion

 

Some of the important areas for reform of the Act relate to the three unresolved reviews (planning system, ILGRP and IPART red tape review) and others are referred to in general terms rather than being ready to become drafting instructions for new legislation. It is considered further consultation will be required on specific reforms once the position becomes clearer. Whilst most of the issues identified in Council’s previous submission have been addressed in the final report, it is proposed that Council make a submission to the NSW Government in terms of the content of this report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Receive and note the report; and

 

2.   Make a submission to the NSW Government in response to the Local Government Acts Taskforce Report, in terms of the comments outlined in this report and attachment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Comparison of Local Government Acts Taskforce Discussion Paper with the Final Report

24 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 17 March 2014

2014-2017 Draft Budget and 2014-2017 Delivery Program and Operational Plan

 

 

Subject:          2014-2017 Draft Budget and 2014-2017 Delivery Program and Operational Plan    

Record No:    SU5131 - 11326/14

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Introduction

 

The 2014 - 2017 Budget has been formulated in the context of delivering an unprecedented range of facilities providing long term benefits for existing and new residents, within an ongoing tight economic environment.  This combined with ongoing major cost increases in utilities, the pressure local government generally is under from a variety of sources, has once again made the development of this budget difficult. Major pressures include:-

·    Continued rate pegging from the State Government has seen revenue lag behind actual costs, with only a 2.3% increase in Rates approved for 2014/15;

·    Council’s Capital Works program will total some $26M, the projects funded include Stage 2 of the Plaza upgrade, Little Lane Redevelopment, Aquatic Centre gym expansion, provision of recreation and community facilities at 314 Burns Bay Road, and Kindy Cove refurbishment. Utilisation of Council’s Reserves as part of the funding for these works  impacts on the return on investments as Reserves are accessed;

·    Lower interest rates resulting in lower returns on income from investments;

·    Employee costs generally are anticipated to increase by approximately 3% for 2014/15. In addition the Superannuation Guarantee Levy will increase from 9.25% to 9.50% from 1 July 2014. Continuation of additional superannuation costs due to past decline in financial returns requires an additional $204,000 per annum over the next 6 years for staff who are in the Defined Benefits super fund.

 

Draft Budget for 2014 – 2017

 

Budget Summary

 

The 2014 - 2017 Budget as shown attached as (AT-1) was prepared using Council's normal format and arranged in program areas that reflect Council’s activities. The document contains explanatory notes that describe the activities covered by each of the programs.

 

The 2014 - 2017 Budget has been formulated on the basis of applying the principle of seeking a balanced budget in cash terms without reliance on debt. Therefore, despite the significant program of works and services, on an Accrual Accounting basis, Council’s budget is balanced and after Grants and Capital contributions a surplus of $5,156,809 is anticipated. In terms of Cash Flow, the budget has a net impact on unrestricted cash of negative $3,724,641 and a net decrease in Council Reserves of $9,584,114.

 

To achieve this, the 2014 - 2017 Draft Budget was formulated based on materials and contracts being pegged at previous years levels. Any changes beyond this were made in an environment of contestability which required individual Divisional Managers to critically evaluate and justify program expenditures, matching each against their respective funding source thus leading to the containment of costs.   I believe, the draft budget as presented will continue to facilitate the achievement of Council’s objectives in the coming 12 months.

 

 

 

Budget Highlights

 

As noted in the Introduction and Budget Summary, Council is entering a period of significant investment in infrastructure, providing long term cultural, social and economic benefits to the Lane Cove Community and visitors to the area. Projects include:-

 

Little Lane Car Park Redevelopment – $12,500,000 has been provided for this project.  It is anticipated that works will commence on the car park, community and retail facilities components of the project in mid 2014.

 

Lane Cove Village Centre Projects - $5,100,000 has been provided for Stage 2 upgrade works for the Plaza.

 

304-314 Burns Bay Road Redevelopment - $2,300,000 has been provided to undertake the development of open space, recreational facilities and the community facility under the road structure.

 

Aquatic Centre Upgrade – With works to commence in April on the Aquatic Centre upgrade, a further $3,200,000 of an overall project cost of $5,250,000 has been provided for in 2014/15.

 

Rosenthal Car Park Redevelopment - $1,000,000 has been provided for the feasibility study and design development process including a design competition.

 

Mowbray Precinct – Open Space - $650,000 has been provided to undertake investigation and possible design work for active recreation space in the Mowbray Precinct to cater for the additional population growth that will occur in this area.

 

Blackman Park - $600,000 has been provided for the amenities component of the new Scout and communities facilities.

 

Traffic Studies - $50,000 has been provided for traffic studies to improve the traffic flow and parking arrangements around the Village and Greenwich areas.

 

St Leonards South Strategy - $100,000 has been provided for progressing studies associated with the St Leonard South Strategy.

 

Cultural Services – A total of $45,000 has been provided for cultural services including Sunset in the Village, Plaza decorations and the Art Exhibition.

 

Corporate Services

 

Administration 1.1

 

Overall the budget has been struck on the basis of a zero increase where possible.

 

Council will need to continue to contribute an additional $204,000 per annum over the next 6 years for staff who are in the Defined Benefits super fund. Superannuation estimates in individual accounts will vary throughout the budget depending on the number of staff in the scheme. Also, the increase in the Superannuation Guarantee from 9.25% to 9.50% on 1 July 2014 has been factored in.

 

A total of $1,000,000 has been allocated to the feasibility and design development including a design competition for the public domain component of Rosenthal Avenue Car Park redevelopment project. The projects from the Major Projects Plan that are currently underway are funded in the respective programs throughout the budget. They include: 304-314 Burns Bay Road redevelopment (5.3 and 5.72) and Little Street Car Park (8.5).

 

$53,000 is provided for Council’s Internal Audit program, which is a shared resource with other NSROC Councils, the program is now at full capacity with 2.5 auditors. External audit services provided under the current agreement with PricewaterhouseCoopers cost a further $36,000. The NSROC contribution has increased by an incremental amount to $38,500. NSROC continues to play a vital regional advocacy role and current projects include the regional waste strategy; regional ageing strategy; economic strategy development; and ongoing investigation of resource sharing opportunities and implementation of the NSROC sportsground strategy.

 

Organisation Development - Administration (Program 3.1)

 

Council has for the past 5-6 years experienced exceptionally low loss ratios for Workers Compensation, resulting in low premiums, which are essentially claims cost driven.

 

Metropool, Council’s Public Liability Insurer, has expanded the range of insurance products it provides; Councillors and Officers, Fidelity Guarantee, Personal Accident and Casual Hirers insurance are all now included in addition to the Public Liability Premium.  Council in recent years has enjoyed low premiums due to its good claims history. As a guide by size, Council represents 8.0% of the pool yet will pay 5.0% of the contributions in 2014/15.

 

Environmental Services

 

Overall the Environmental Services Division is seeking to consolidate existing programme initiatives for the 2014/15 budget year.

 

Strategic Planning (Programme 2.1)

 

An ongoing series of LEP and DCP amendments will continue to be undertaken, and a number of ad hoc special projects arise each year, including in liaison with the Development Assessment Section. Additional funds have been provided for progressing with studies including $100,000 for St Leonards South.

 

Development Control (Programme 6.2)

 

During 2013, Council approved major Development Applications totalling 873 units, with current Development Applications for approximately 1,100 units, which includes 400 units at 150 Epping Road resulting in increased revenue in the form of application fees and additional temporary staff.

 

The legal budget is expected to reduce over time as the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) determines applications for major Council and contentious development applications.

 

Environmental Health (Programme 6.3.1)

 

Council continues to undertake inspections for food shops, cooling towers, skin penetration and beautician services to ensure public health standards are maintained in the locality. Additionally, since October 2013, Council has been responsible for maintaining the swimming pool register and associated inspection regime, which will increase income from fees.

 

Regulatory Services (Programme 6.4)

 

Council will focus on the efficient and safe movement of vehicles in the Lane Cove CBD and maintain its focus on minimising graffiti, waste dumping and vandalism. Additionally, surveillance of major construction sites will be undertaken to ensure adherence to conditions of consent. This will form a significant portion of the Rangers role.

 

The Sustainability Advisory Committee reviewed projects to be funded under the Sustainability Levy.  Management of Sustainability Levy projects will continue to be a key focus.

 

Household Garbage Collection (Programme 9.2)

 

Tipping charges reflect increases to the NSW Government s.88 Levy imposed on waste placed in landfill and the charges associated with the Carbon Tax.  Council will continue to implement its waste strategy and educational programs, which seeks to increase diversion rates above 50%. Council is working in partnership with NSROC to develop a Regional Waste Disposal Strategy with the objective of a more efficient and cost effective solution to the disposal and recycling of waste in the region. As a result of this NSROC partnership, Council’s Waste Collection and Disposal Contract’s have been extended to 2015 to allow this review to be completed.

 

Human Services

 

Major projects that will undertaken in the next twelve months include the delivery of community facilities at 314 Burns Bay Road, and working with community and cultural groups for the fitout of the community space in the Little Lane Development. Work will also be completed on upgrading a retaining wall at Birrahlee Community Kindergarten.

 

The refurbishment of the Kindy Cove Child Care Centre in Phoenix Street will be completed in 2014, with work expected to commence in April 2014, that will provide major improvements to amenity, accessibility and fire upgrades.

 

Funds have been made available to continue to implement the Social, Cultural and Disability Discrimination Action Plans. Funding for the ongoing operation of Gallery Lane Cove has been separated from the Cultural Plan implementation funds again this year. These funds will assist in the running of the Gallery. 

 

Programs across the Division have been assessed against the Plans listed above and the Sustainability Plan.

 

Kindy Cove Child Care Centre   (Program 4.3.2)

 

Kindy Cove Child Care Centre is run as a business unit of Council.  The budget is developed in close cooperation with the Management Advisory Committee. 

The Management Advisory Committee discussed and agreed to the 2014/2015 fees at its February meeting.

 

Community Services   (Programs 4.3.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.4, 4.3.5, and 5.5)

 

These programs include provision for services to youth, the aged and people with a disability, and community groups generally.

 

The Youth Services Program continues to provide high quality services to our residents including initiatives such as the new school holiday program, continuing the Primary School Open days and the Youth Centre operating as a five day a week drop in service from Tuesday to Saturday. Shorefest will continue in 2014/15 and funds have been included in the budget to cover this event.


Funds have been included in the budget to continue a growing range of seniors programs such as Seniors Week; Seniors Concerts, regular seminars, Write to Wellness program, Community choir, HEART programme (Healthy Eating and Recreation Time for Seniors); the BOOMers program; cooking for men and falls prevention programs.

 

Council continues to receive funding from the NSW Dept. Human Services – Ageing, Disability and Home Care for a part-time Community Development Officer – Aged and Disability and funds for the implementation of new programs. (Program 4.3.5)  Council continues to support the Different Degrees Theatre Ensemble.

 

Funds have also been included for the implementation of recommendations resulting from the  Lane Cove Active Ageing Strategy which will align with the Regional Action Plan and the World Health Organisation’s - Active Aging Program.  Council’s Community Services Branch will also organise workshops for community groups to strengthen and sustain them.

 

Communications and Cultural Events

 

Small increases have been allocated to a range of cultural activities outlined in the Cultural Plan.  For the 2014/2015 budget, additional funds have been allocated to the two smaller festivals – Screen on the Green and Sunset in the Village to increase the profile, participation and quality of these smaller festivals.   Funds have been allocated for signature events that appeal to the broadest cross section of our community.

 

In the next twelve months additional emphasis will be placed on interactions with rate payers and residents via more engaging communication as the Love Where You Live Program is rolled out. As part of the Stage 2 Plaza upgrade, additional funds have been provided for a Barista Competition and augmented Plaza decorations.

 

Library and Information Services (Program 5.1)

 

The Library expenditure on materials has predominantly been maintained at existing levels.

 

The main increases have been in the cleaning budget and the electricity budget. These increases reflect Library usage. The cleaning vote increase is partly to offset the cost of the public toilets within the building.

 

The Library continues to add a number of new programmes, including Movies@Lane Cove; and the author talk program. The use of the Meeting and Training rooms  by Council and community groups continues to be heavy.

 

Facilities (Programs 4, 5 & 9)

 

Activities of the Facilities Branch are shown in programs where Council facilities appear.

The Facilities Branch works closely with the Environmental Services Division in implementing actions arising out of the Sustainability Levy.

 

Funds have been provided in the budget for the completion of the Aquatic Centre works.  The Facilities Branch will also oversee the refurbishment of Kindy Cove Child Care Centre. It is anticipated that some upgrade work will be undertaken at Greenwich Baths.

 

Additionally, funding has been provided from the Sustainability Levy and WASIP for the upgrading of Air Conditioning within the Civic Centre.

 

Further, in regard to the public amenities facility located within Rosenthal carpark, Council at its meeting of 17th February, 2014 resolved that:-

1. The General Manager provide a cost estimate for the capital improvement of the public amenities at Rosenthal Avenue to Council at the March 2014 Council Meeting, having regard to the proposed new public amenities being considered in the Rosenthal Avenue redevelopment; and

2. Such capital improvements be considered for inclusion into the 2014/2015 Capital Works.

 

Quotations have been obtained for upgrade works including: installing tile panelling; installing new handbasins; painting of the building interior and external and tiling of the area outside the toilets. The cost for this work would be approximately $30,000. This Capital project can be included in the 2014/15 without affecting Council’s balanced budget.

 

Open Space and Urban Services

 

Open Space   (Programs 5.7.1 – 5.7.6)

 

During 2014 - 2015 a number of capital improvements are planned for Council’s Open Space areas including parks, sporting grounds and water recreation.

 

Funding has been included to continue implementation of Council’s Signage Strategy.

 

Funds have been provided to install a floating pontoon adjacent to the new Burns Bay Boat Ramp, to make for easier access for all boat enthusiasts, including kayakers and rowers.

 

Significant funds have been carried over to plan for, and construct a new active recreation area in the Mowbray Precinct, likely to involve properties in Pinaroo Place. Funds have also been provided to further upgrade the landscaping and walking tracks at Manns Point.

 

With the completion of the new synthetic field complex, additional funding of $600,000 has been allocated to Blackman Park as Council’s contribution towards a new Scout Hall and amenities facility, to be jointly funded with Lane Cove Scouts, Soccer, AFL, Rugby Union, and Cricket.

 

Further funding has been included to continue with the planning of a new recreation precinct at the Lane Cove Golf Course.

 

Within the Bushland budget, funds have been allocated for the Volunteer Bushcare program as well as for the regular Bushland Management Program.  The Bushland Program also has a number of continuing works that are funded by Grant allocations.

 

Engineering and Support Services (Program 8.1)

 

Further work will be undertaken on the strategic traffic and transport studies for the Lane Cove Town Centre and Mowbray Road Residential Precinct.

Roads (Program 8.2)

 

The Roads program includes a slight increase in capital works.

 

The Federal Roads to Recovery Program has been extended by the Federal Government and will also be utilised for improvements to the condition of substandard roads identified in Council’s Asset Management System.

 

Council has not received any RMS funding for the Regional Roads Rehabilitation Program for the second year running, but has still included $200,000 of Council funds and $22,000 for the 3x3 Program to be spent on Regional Roads. An amount of $65,000 has also been provided for regular maintenance on Regional Roads.

Ancillary Works (Program 8.3)

 

Income from reinstatements/restorations has been maintained to reflect an expected continuance of a similar amount of work by the Council works staff. 

 

Funding for street lighting expenditure has been based on the latest AER indication that Energy Australia are seeking a new fee structure. Energy costs will remain at current street lighting levels under Council’s agreement with AGL.

 

Additional traffic facilities funds have been provided to allow for an increase in pavement marking, particularly in the Town Centre.

 

Funds have been allocated to construct traffic signals at Mowbray Road West and Hatfield Street.

 

Council’s bicycle funding has been maintained to allow increased implementation of Council’s Bicycle Plan.

 

Allowance is made for the reconstruction of a number of dilapidated retaining walls.

 

Traffic and parking studies will be commenced at Lane Cove North and Osborne Park and strategic modelling work will be undertaken at St Leonards.

 

Income from construction work associated with the new development occurring throughout the Local Government Area is expected to significantly increase with better enforcement and continued work.

 

Planning and design work for Council’s St Leonards Bus Rail Interchange and Plaza will be ramped up, subject to support from Transport for NSW. Further work will be undertaken on the Seniors Living proposal at 266 Longueville Road.

 

Footpaths (Program 8.4)

 

Funding has been maintained in an endeavour to maintain the general footpath condition.  Provision has been made for continuing upgrade works including the provision of pram ramps at numerous key locations. Asset renewal in the footpaths program also matches Council’s commitment to increase asset renewal rates to the equivalent of depreciation.

 

Parking Areas (Program 8.5)

 

The transfer of responsibility for enforcement of parking to local government is assisting more effective management of the available parking stock and providing additional revenues. The installation of parking meters in St Leonards has resulted in improved management of the parking supply and has also provided additional revenues. The Market Square Car Park also provides additional revenue which assists in offsetting its operational costs to Council.

 

Funding has been provided to build on the public domain analysis that has been undertaken on the Rosenthal Car Park site.

 

Bus Shelters (Program 8.6)

 

This program is funded under a contractual arrangement with Adshel.

 

Water Transport (Program 8.7)

 

Cleaning maintenance will be carried out as part of an ongoing agreement with Maritime NSW, who have taken over responsibility for general maintenance and upgrades/major repairs to the ferry wharves within the Lane Cove LGA (and other Council areas adjoining the harbour).

 

Street Sweeping (Program 9.3)

 

The expenditure for mechanical sweeping remains unaltered in line with the tender accepted in late 2010.

 

Funding has been maintained for hand sweeping to maintain Council’s current level of service

 

Other Garbage Expenses (Program 9.4)

 

The contract for servicing of litter bins has been included with the contract for domestic waste collection.  The allocation makes allowance for increased tipping fees.

 

Urban Stormwater (Program 9.5)

 

Funding for maintenance of stormwater has been increased in line with the rates increase to allow additional work to be undertaken and maintain Council’s system at an acceptable level of service.  A program of pit upgrading is expected to reduce the frequency of blockages and this program will continue into the future as required.

 

The continuation of the Stormwater Levy will allow Council to fund further capital works to replace and upgrade the system as required.

 

Other Community Facilities (Program 9.7)

 

Provision has been maintained for two staff in the Plaza in the 2014 – 2015 Budget.

 

Sustainability Levy

 

This year Council continues to fastrack Sustainability initiatives utilising the 6% Sustainability Levy. Projects for 2014/15 include:-

 

·    Walking Track Upgrades

·    Bush Regeneration

·    Backyard Wildlife Habitat Program

·    Civic Centre Sustainable Lighting and Air Conditioning Upgrade

·    Better Business Partnership

·    Love Where You Live Lane Cove

·    Village Renewal Program

·    Village Graffiti Reduction

·    Community Wellbeing Index

·    Public Art Initiatives

·    Water monitoring

·    Solar Hot Water Systems in Community Facilities

·    Environmental Education and Communications

·    Pedestrian Access Mobility Improvements

 


Budget Revenues

 

Rates Levy

 

The Minister for Local Government has announced the general rate peg increase as 2.3 % for 2014-15.

 

General Purpose (Ordinary) Rates

 

It is proposed to levy two (2) Ordinary Rates in 2014-2015 in accordance with S.492 and S.497(a) of the Local Government Act.

 

i.  An Ordinary Residential Rate of $0.186059 cents in the dollar, on the Land Value of all Rateable Land categorised as Residential in accordance with S.516 of the Local Government Act, (with the exception of heritage properties which are rated on their heritage value), with a Minimum Rate of $550, to yield $15,612,956. Subject to Council seeking approval to review the Minimum Rate and IPART approving the application, the Minimum Rate for 2014/15 would be $588 and the Ad Valorem Residential rate will be $0.182464 cents in the dollar.

 

ii. An Ordinary Business Rate of $0.735290 cents in the dollar, on the Land Value of all Rateable Land categorised as Business in accordance with S.516 of the Local Government Act, with a Minimum Rate of $818 to yield $5,364,748.

 

Car Parking Special Rate

 

It is proposed to levy a Car Parking Special Rate on Business premises in Lane Cove of $0.195128 cents in dollar with a minimum rate of $2 per assessment, to raise $152,208.

 

Domestic Waste Management (DWM) Charges

 

Domestic Waste Management Services are rendered by Council to all residential properties (including flats and strata’s) in the Lane Cove Municipality. DWM does not include waste services rendered to business rated properties. As provided for in the Local Government Act the “reasonable” cost of DWM is fully recoverable and is reflected in the recommended charge for Domestic Waste Management in the Management Plan.

 

The Draft Budget provides for the levying of a Domestic Waste Management Charge (under S.496 of the Act) of $399.00 for each 80 litre MGB and recycling service on all rateable and non-rateable residential properties. Additional DWM services to Owner Occupied Single Residential Dwellings are available at $5.85 per week. Charges for DWM services rendered to residential units above business premises, or extra DWM services rendered to other premises, are set out in the Schedule of Fees and Charges for 2014/2015.

 

Interest Charges

 

Interest is to be charged on overdue Rates and DWM Charges in accordance with S.566(3) of the Act. The maximum rate of interest payable has not yet been announced by the Minister for 2014/2015.

 

Valuation Base

 

Rates for 2014/2015 will be levied on the 1 July 2013 Base Date Valuations as issued by the Valuer General.

 

Fees & Charges

 

The Reserve Bank of Australia inflation forecast for the ensuing year is 2.50% whilst wages and salaries are anticipated to grow by 3% over the coming year. These have been used as a reference for any recommended increases in the Schedule of Fees and Charges for 2014/2015 (AT 2) for those charges which are set by Council.

 

S.611 Charges – Infrastructure Charges

 

Council is proposing to levy under S611 of the Local Government Act, on persons for the time being in possession, occupation or enjoyment of a rail, pipe, wire, pole, cable, tunnel or structure laid, erected, suspended, constructed or placed on, under or over a public place. The charges are based on the nature and extent of the benefit enjoyed by the person concerned. Council will levy a charge on AGL in respect of gas pipes occupying Council land.

 

Loan Borrowing


It is not proposed to raise any new loans. There are no renewal loans requiring refinancing during this period.

 

Salaries and Wages

 

Salaries and Wages include provision for staff progression through Council's revised Salary System and an anticipated 3% award increase from 1 July 2014. All other provisions are as per the Local Government (State) Award. Sick leave has been based on 50% of leave entitlement and on sick leave history.

 

Depreciation Charges

 

In accordance with the requirements of Australian Accounting Standard AAS27, the Draft Budget incorporates depreciation of fixed assets. Depreciation theoretically is the consumption of these   assets over their useful life. Amounts are provided each year to reflect this consumption and do not involve the movement of cash.

 

Community Strategic Plan, Lane Cove 2025 and Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2014-2017

 

All NSW councils are required to have in place the following planning processes:-

•          a Community Strategic Plan;

•          a community engagement strategy that sets out how each council will engage its community when developing its Community Strategic Plan;

•          a Resourcing Strategy that includes a long term financial plan, a workforce management strategy and an asset management policy, strategy and plans;

•          a Delivery Program; and

•          an Operational Plan, including a statement of revenue policy, and a detailed annual budget.


In accordance with legislative framework, Council reviewed its Community Strategic Plan and adopted a 4 Year Delivery Program and Operational Plan by 30 June 2013. The Delivery Program and Operational Plan contains actions to be undertaken during the current term of Council. These actions are linked to the strategies from the Community Strategic Plan.

 

Community Strategic Plan, Lane Cove 2025

The Community Strategic Plan, Lane Cove 2025 was adopted in 2011 and outlines the vision for the local community and Council. Lane Cove 2025 was produced after an extensive two year community consultation process. As per Section 402 of the Local Government 1993, Council also reviewed its Community Strategic Plan by 30 June 2013 i.e. within 12 months of the Council Election.

 

The 2014-17 Draft Delivery Program and Operation Plan as shown attached as (AT 3) outlines the actions to be implemented over the coming 3 years in order to achieve the goals, objectives and strategies of the Community Strategic Plan. New actions suggested by Councillors at the 2014 Corporate Planning Weekend for inclusion in the Delivery Program and Operation Plan are highlighted in Red in (AT 3)

 

Community Consultation

 

It is a statutory requirement that the Draft Budget 2014-2017, Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Program (Incorporating Operational Plan) 2014-2017 and Fees and Charges 2014-2015, following Council’s initial consideration, be placed on public exhibition for a period of not less than twenty eight (28) days. Following this, Council must consider any public comments submitted before the Plan can be adopted.

 

It is proposed to exhibit these documents for six weeks during April and May. A report will be prepared for Council on 19 May 2014 advising of the results of the community consultation and recommending final adoption. Until the Delivery Program is adopted, Council is unable to levy rates and charges for the fiscal year for which the plan is prepared.


Consultation Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to provide the community with the opportunity to comment on the proposed initiatives and actions over the next 3 years.

The methods of consultation proposed are outlined below. The proposed exhibition will be at both the Civic Centre and the Library to final confirmation. 

 

Methods

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Open

Target Audience

Whole Community

Whole Community

Proposed Medium

Exhibition/ Press release/ Advertising/ enewsletter

Survey

Indicative Timing

April – May 2014

April – May 2014

           

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council determine whether to include $30,000 in the Capital  Budget for the renovation of the Toilets in Rosenthal Avenue car park;

2.   Council adopt for the purpose of public exhibition, the 2014-2017 Draft Budget, 2014-15 Draft Fees and Charges and 2014-2017 Draft Delivery Program (Incorporating Operational Plan) subject to 1 above;

3.   Council proceed to public exhibition as per the consultation strategy outlined in the report; and

4.   Following public exhibition, the Draft Budget, Draft Fees and Charges and Draft Delivery Program (Incorporating Operational Plan) together with any submissions received, be considered at the Council meeting to be held 19 May 2014.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

2014-2017 Draft Budget

179 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑2 View

Draft Fees and Charges - 2014 - 2015

36 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑3 View

Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2014 - 2017

91 Pages

Circulated Separately

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 17 March 2014

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot    

Record No:    SU220 - 11886/14

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

51 Pages