m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

22 April 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 Tuesday 22 April 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 22 April 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 MARCH 2014

 

 

Petitions

 

2.       Rothwell Crescent - Petition For New Footpath

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

3.       Dog Walking Policy Amendment

 

4.       Change of Ownership Shell Gore Bay Facility

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

5.       Tender Lane Cove Plaza Works - Stage 2

 

6.       Allocation of Lease Spaces in the Plaza

 

7.       Capital Projects Funding

 

8.       Results of Community Consultation on the Proposed Voluntary Planning Agreement for 150 Epping Road Lane Cove

 

9.       NSROC Regional Waste Disposal Tender

 

10.     Strategic Review of Lane Cove ALIVE Leadership Group

 

11.     Sustainability Small Grants Round 8 - Recommended Recipients

 

12.     NSW Public Library Funding

 

13.     Tender for the Supply and Installation of replacement Heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) equipment at the Lane Cove Council Civic Centre

 

14.     Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 18 March 2014

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

15.     Voluntary Planning Agreements

 

16.     Residential Development Activity

 

17.     Council Snapshot  

 

 

 

 

         


Ordinary Council Meeting 22 April 2014

Rothwell Crescent - Petition For New Footpath

 

 

Subject:          Rothwell Crescent - Petition For New Footpath    

Record No:    SU1431 - 19132/14

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Martin Terescenko 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A petition has been received by Council containing 35 signatures from residents and non residents of Lane Cove requesting the construction of a new footpath in Rothwell Crescent.

 

Construction of a new footpath in Rothwell Crescent can be considered as part of the new footpath program in 2014/15, subject to a more detailed investigation of the site.

 

Discussion

 

The current new footpath capital works program for 2013/14 does not include sufficient funds for this request. Indicative costs are around $35,000 inclusive of GST for the supply and installation of the new footpath.

 

Conclusion

The additional footpath requested by the petitioners could be considered for construction in 2014/15, subject to a more detailed investigation of the site.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Head Petitioner be informed of Council will considered the construction of a new footpath  in Rothwell Crescent in 2014/15, subject to a more detailed investigation of the site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

        


Ordinary Council Meeting 22 April 2014

Dog Walking Policy Amendment

 

 

Subject:          Dog Walking Policy Amendment    

Record No:    SU4924 - 20484/14

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Deborah Hutchens 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At the Council Meeting of 15 July 2013, Council endorsed the Draft Policy on the Use of Public Open Space by Commercial Dog Walking Businesses which prohibits these businesses from using Kingsford Smith Oval, Longueville.

 

Proposed Amendments

 

This proposal will cover:-

a)   Commercial dog walkers that are not based in the Lane Cove LGA; and

b)   Public Open Space within the Lane Cove Local Government Area under the care, control and management of Council.

 

Exclusions From This Policy

 

Commercial dog walking businesses are prohibited from using Kingsford Smith Oval, Longueville.

 

The policy does NOT apply to the following:- .

a)   Any person exercising their own dog/s.

b)   Any commercial dog walkers that are based in the Lane Cove LGA; and

c)   Neighbours/friends exercising dogs on behalf of their owner.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the above amendments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Deborah Hutchens

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 22 April 2014

Change of Ownership Shell Gore Bay Facility

 

 

Subject:          Change of Ownership Shell Gore Bay Facility    

Record No:    SU2155 - 20496/14

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor David Karpin; Councillor David Brooks-Horn 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Shell has reached agreement to sell for A$2.9 billion its Australia downstream businesses (excluding Aviation) to Vitol, a company whose turnover is in excess of $300 billion per year.

 

The Gore Bay Terminal in Greenwich will be one of the assets that will be controlled by Vitol and it is important Council liaise with the new owner to understand their future plans for the site and ensure that existing management practices and procedures at the site continue to ensure the health and safety of the community and the environment.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council arrange a meeting with the new operators of the Shell terminal, Vitol, to discuss their future plans for the Gore Bay site and existing commitments made by Shell to ensure the health and safety of the community and the environment; and

 

2.   Council arrange a community meeting and invite Vitol representatives to state publically their position in relation to these issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor David Karpin

Councillor

 

 

 

Councillor David Brooks-Horn

Mayor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


Ordinary Council Meeting 22 April 2014

Tender Lane Cove Plaza Works - Stage 2

 

 

Subject:          Tender Lane Cove Plaza Works - Stage 2    

Record No:    SU4860 - 20466/14

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Geoff Douglas 

 

 

Executive Summary

Council called for tenders in accordance with Council’s Tender and Quotation Procedure for the provision of Design and Construction works for Lane Cove Plaza Upgrade - Stage 2.

 

This report provides details on the tender process conducted and recommends that the tender from Community Assets & Infrastructure Pty Ltd be accepted.

 

Discussion

At its meeting of 16 August 2013 Council resolved:-

1. Council adopt the conceptual plans and perspectives for the Lane Cove Plaza – Stage 2 Upgrade, and place on public exhibition in accordance with the community consultation strategy outlined in the report, for a period of 6 weeks subject to an additional perspective of the:-

a) eastern end from the opposite side of Longueville Rd; and

b) western end from outside the post office.

2. Following community consultation, a further report come back to Council on the community’s preferred option for the Lane Cove Plaza - Stage 2 Upgrade.

3. In conjunction with the opening of the Plaza Stage 2 that Council conduct a barista festival.

4. A report come back to Council on the allocation of outdoor seating.

 

The subsequent community consultation process was extensive.  Several methods of communication were used including large perspective images displayed at each end of the Plaza; e-newsletters; North Shore Times advertisement; on line surveys; a public forum; letters hand delivered to retailers; letters posted to property owners; and face to face random surveys.  Over 500 responses were received.

 

Key public consultation outcomes included; maintain the existing diversity of uses; maintain a balance of public / private seating; improve pedestrian access & movement through the Plaza; incorporate a range of amenity improvements; and enliven the Plaza in the evenings.

 

Council at its meeting on 18 November 2013 considered a report on the Stage 2 Plaza Upgrade

which took account the community consultation feedback.  After considering both the report Council resolved that:-

“1. Council adopt in principle the proposal Lane Cove Plaza – Stage 2 Upgrade, as detailed in Plan 713, dated 13 September 2013.

2.   At the design development stage the architect to work in conjunction with the Council Plaza Working Group to improve the design. Including but not limited to the removal / pruning of trees and materials for the structure prior to detailed documentation being prepared for tender purposes.

3.   The Council Plaza Working Group consist of Councillors Brooks-Horn, Cheong, Hutchens, Brent and Bennison.

4.   Following the detailed design phase, documentation be prepared to proceed to tender for the Lane Cove Plaza – Stage 2 Upgrade.

5.   Council receive a report back at the tender assessment stage to select a suitably qualified contractor to undertake the works.

 

 

Plaza Design Development

 

A consultant team was engaged to undertake the design development phase:-:

·    Architect                     BN Group  (Woolworths, Library Walk)

·    Lighting / Electrical      Steensen Varming

·    Drainage                     Aluvium (Equatica)

·    Cost Consultant          Altus Cost Group

·    Access Consultant      AE&D Access

·    Heritage Report          Dawbin Heritage Architects

 

Staff then proceeded to develop the design with the assistance of the consultants and the Council Plaza Working Group.  The Working Group met on four occasions from Dec 2013 until February 2014.  At those meeting the developing sketch plans were considered.  Several meetings were held in Lane Cove Plaza and mock ups of components including balustrades and height bars of the glazed canopy structures were also considered.

 

As a result of those meetings the following key considerations were taken up in the final developed design:-

·    Retention of two additional London Plane Trees (one adjacent to the TAB & one in the current deck adjacent to the former Micheles) in response to the community’s concerns about their removal. Ten of the thirteen existing trees will now be retained. With the addition of the two new trees at the western end, there will be a net loss of one tree;

·    Adjustment of the position of the two new trees closer to the Burns Bay Rd kerb line;

·    Deletion of the balustrades between commercial areas to reduce visual impact;

·    Drop down curtains to run full length to the ground, necessary due to the deletion of the balustrades;

·    Removal of the  section of glazed roof at Eastern end to emphasise pedestrian thoroughfare;

·    Removal of the balustrade to the raised deck areas at the eastern end to reduce visual impact; and

·    Reclading of the existing red / grey brick walls to integrate with finishes of the new works.

 

A copy of the revised design is included as AT- 1.

 

Project Construction Methodology

 

In undertaking works like this it is recognised that there will be some inevitable and unavoidable disruption.  Consideration was given to the most appropriate construction methodology that will minimise disruption for the benefit of the greatest number of people. 

 

The Plaza is extremely popular and heavily used by the Lane Cove Community, during the day.  Additionally a large number of the community frequents the restaurants in the Plaza in the evenings, especially on the weekends. The safety of the community has also been a key consideration in determining the most suitable construction methodology.

 

A balance has had to be found between the somewhat competing needs to build the project and minimise disruption.  A construction methodology focused on managing community safety risk and minimising community disruption has been contemplated.

 

Key aspects of the construction methodology include undertaking excessively noisy and disruptive works between 7pm and midnight, with less disruptive works through the evening until 7am.  Less disruptive works will also be undertaken during day shifts.  The night works are to be limited to Sunday to Thursday inclusive, leaving Friday and Saturday as non working nights for the benefit of the community who use the Plaza on those nights.

 

The works will include three distinct works areas each enclosed by an ‘A Class’ hoarding.  These three works areas will be located at the eastern end of the plaza, the central area (not including the shade cloth/bandstand area which shall be a public access zone) and the western end of the plaza.  The public will be excluded from these three works areas while the works are being undertaken.  All other areas will be shared public / construction zones.  This includes the footpaths along the north and south retail shop front alignments, and any other construction area not enclosed within the three works areas.

 

A key criterion in selecting a suitable tenderer has been to establish the demonstrable experience of the tenderer in constructing projects where the works were undertaken in a shared public / construction zone.

 

Traffic and Parking

 

This plan will be prepared by the successful tender in consultation with Council staff.  It is anticipated that six parking spaces in Rosenthal Carpark will be allocated as a temporary Construction Zone.  These spaces will form the contractor’s construction compound and are required as a staging area for materials handling, provision of shedding and storage.

 

Pre Tender Estimate

 

Following preparation of the revised design a cost consultant was engaged to prepare a pre tender estimate, who estimated the works at $5.3 million.  The estimate took account of the particular aspects of project in particular:-

·    The works to be undertaken on a double shift (day shift / night shift) basis;

·    The works to be undertaken in a staged manner; and

·    The works being undertaken in works zones shared with the public.

 

Proposes Construction Program

 

The works are proposed to commence after Mother’s Day 2013.  This gives a project commencement date of Monday 12 May 2014.  It is anticipated that the works shall be finished by 3 October, in time for the Lane Cove Fair which is scheduled for 12 October 2014. The construction has two time critical factors, the manufacture of the canopies which are subject to final design by the contractors and the excavations necessary for the provision of services and drainage. The excavation will be into the original concrete road located under the existing paving, which take considerably longer than normal earth.

 

Tender Process

 

The tenders were called in accordance with Council’s Tenders and Quotations procedures. The Tender was advertised in the Sydney Morning Herald, the North Shore Times and via Tenderlink. A briefing session and site visit was held on-site 25 February, 2014. Ten companies attended.

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

 

Four tenders were received in the tender box which was opened at 2pm on 27 March. 

 

The four tenderers were:-

1.   CA&I Pty Ltd;

2.   Hargraves Landscapes Pty Ltd;

3.   Rotric Constructions Pty Ltd; and

4.   JML Engineered Facades Pty Ltd.

 

During the assessment JML Engineered Facades were determined to be non conforming due to their tender being qualified as “  a budget costing only…”.  They were not considered further.

 

The remaining tenderers underwent an assessment by the Tender Review Panel.

 

Tender Assessment

 

The Request for Tender outlined that the tender submissions would be assessed based on the following weighted criteria:-

(a)     Pricing (35%):

·    Best value to Council.

(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.

·    Proposed methods of service delivery.

(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.

·    Structure of the Organisation.

·    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.

·    Experience of Sub-Contractors.

·    Referees responses.

(d)     Work, Health & Safety (10%):

·    Work, Health and Safety policies and procedures.

·    Quality Assurance Programs.

·    Insurances.

·    Work Method Statements.

(e)     Environment and Sustainability(5%):

·    Response to Council’s Environmental Questionnaire.

·    Environmental policies and procedures.

The Tender Review Panel conducted interviews were with each tenderer on the 8th and 9th of April 2014.  The results of Panel’s deliberations are set out in the table below.

 

 

Company

Price (35%)

Capability & Capacity (25%)

Experience (incl References) (25%)

Environmental & OH&S Programs (15%)

Overall

 

 

 

 

 

 

CAI

 

 

Preferred

Preferred

Preferred

Preferred

Hargraves

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rotric

 

Preferred

 

 

 

 

 

On 10 April 2014, after the Tender Review Panel’s final meeting, Rotric advised that they were withdrawing their tender.

 

The recommended tenderer CA&I Pty Ltd and/or its key staff have undertaken the following relevant projects:-

·    Wynyard Walk $2m  (Transport NSW);

·    Sutherland Tspt Interchange $4.6m (Tspt NSW);

·    George St Cycleway  $4.1m (City of Sydney);

·    Regatta Foreshore Work  $1.3m (Lake Macquarie);

·    Cliff Road St 1 & 2 (Wollongong City Council);

·    Glebe Point Road Streetscape; and

·    Victoria Avenue Chatswood Streetscape.

 

Reference checks were conducted and the results were positive. The panel were impressed with the CA&I’s focus on communication with stakeholders during the construction process, which will be necessary given the likely impacts.

 

Councillor Workshop

The tender panel’s recommendation was presented to Councillors at a meeting of the Council Selection Committee on Monday 14 April 2014.This allowed Councillors to more closely examine the process and the proposed recommendation of the Tender Panel.

 

Return on Investment

 

Council at its meeting on 18 November 2013 in considering a report on the Stage 2 Plaza Upgrade also resolved that “ The General Manager prepare a report on the return on investment for the construction and maintenance costs of the Plaza Upgrade.”

 

Whilst a return on investment to Council on the project can be calculated on a pure financial basis, it is considered that the core objective of the project is to deliver long term social capital and economic benefits to the Lane Cove community.  The intangible community benefits can be measured over time with community acceptance, usage and feedback on the facility whilst the economic benefits the upgrade brings to The Village economy can be measured by factors including enhancing the viability of existing business and encouraging new businesses to invest in the Village and a corresponding decrease in shop vacancies. An increase in night time economy is a core economic target particularly with the investment in shaded structures.

 

On a pure financial basis, the initial rate of return can be calculated by the capital cost of the works and any increases in maintenance expenses and outgoings costs for services such as electricity, offset by the increase in income from the licensing of the structures and other outdoor dining areas. It is also noted that the project will be depreciated on the basis of the initial capital cost over a 30 year period and cleaning and maintenance costs for the Plaza will be maintained at around $144,000 per annum as reflected in the draft 2014-2017 Budget. Therefore, the financial rate of return for the whole project for year 1 is 3% based on the following information:-

 

Increase in Rentals for Dining Areas

$130,823

Tender Price  [Preferred Tender]

$3,895,731

Anticipated additional Costs  e.g. annual

maintenance agreements and outgoings in Yr 1

$15,000

 

However, the rate of return on the investment for the sheltered and other new dining areas is in the order of 8% based on the cost of the shelters from the preferred tender being $1,379,240 plus the provision of $15,000 for maintenance expenses, offset against the increased rental of $130,823. This is reflective of the target range suggested in commercial valuations for the provision and leasing of undercover dining areas of 7-8%.

 

Budget

Council has made provision for the works in the 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 budget of $5.45M. The price provided by the recommended tenderer of $3.9M is within the current budget figure. A contingency of 20% is to be provided to cover the probable additional costs associated with the risk items of latent conditions of the site and uncosted items.

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 construction of Lane Cove Plaza Stage 2 be awarded to CA&I Pty Ltd for an amount of $3,895.731; and

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   The tender for the construction of Lane Cove Plaza Stage 2 be awarded to CA&I Pty Ltd for an amount of $3,895.731; and

 

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

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Lane Cove Plaza Stage 2 Final Design

17 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 22 April 2014

Allocation of Lease Spaces in the Plaza

 

 

Subject:          Allocation of Lease Spaces in the Plaza    

Record No:    SU1429 - 6692/14

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

As part of the Stage 2 Upgrade of the Plaza, Council is constructing a number of sheltered structures for outdoor eating. The purpose of this report is to consider and recommend the allocation of the space under these structures and other uncovered areas in the Plaza and to address implementation issues.

 

Background

 

Council resolved at its Meeting of 18 November 2013 to proceed with a design for Stage 2 of the upgrade to the Lane Cove Plaza. Council had previously resolved on 19 August 2013 that a report come back to Council on the allocation of the spaces under the structures.

 

Currently, the allocation of outdoor seating in the Plaza is assessed by carrying over existing allocations and assessing any new applications on a case by case basis. Proprietors are granted a License to occupy the space for up to 12 months. The License contains a number of provisions such as the use of space, maintaining tables and chairs in a clean and tidy manner, removing all tables and chairs at the end of each day and providing public liability insurance to Council.

 

Discussion

 

The design for Stage 2 of the upgrade to the Lane Cove Plaza includes 5 zones for outdoor eating under the sheltered structures as shown in AT-1 attached. Unsheltered areas are also shown on the Plan. The plaza has an area of 2,500sqm and the Commercial Seating comprises 324sqm or 13%. The design provides 460sqm or 18% of public seating also. Whilst there is an increase in the amount of commercial space over the existing space, over the years varying areas have been utilised in the plaza, dependent on the requirements of shop keepers.

 

The License Fee for outdoor seating in the Plaza following the upgrade is proposed to increase by 50% to reflect the cost of the improved facilities which will include drop down screens, lighting and gas heating. Therefore, a fee of $750sqm is currently being advertised in conjunction with the draft 2014/2015 Fees and Charges for covered areas and $504.30 for uncovered areas in the Plaza area. The Fees to be adjusted annually to the CPI for Sydney in conjunction with the annual review of Council’s Fees and Charges.

 

Following discussions with retailers and building owners in the Plaza adjoining the structures, the recommended allocations for the sheltered areas are as follows:-


 

Zone

Proposed

Proposed Area

Existing Area

Annual Rental per annum (from completion of stage 2)

A

Epitome

43 sqm

90 sqm

$32,250

B

The Lodge

43 sqm

Nil

$32,250

D

Vacant (former Michel’s site to be redeveloped)

50 sqm

Nil

$37,500

 

E

La Piazza

70.5 sqm

57 sqm

$52,875

F

Aristocrat

42.5 sqm – sheltered

10 sqm - unsheltered

48 sqm

$31,875

F

Vacant ( former Gloria Jeans)

20 sqm

Nil

$15,000

 

TOTAL

279 sqm

195 sqm

$201,750

 

It is noted that the areas are subject to variation with the final design and construction of the shelters.

 

Additionally, the allocation of uncovered areas in the Plaza following the upgrade works is proposed as follows:

 

Proprietor

Proposed Area

Existing Areas

Proposed Annual Rental (from completion of Stage 2)

Chargrill Charlies

10 sqm

8 sqm

$5,043

Pablo and Rusty’s

16 sqm

10 sqm

 

$8,069

Lettuce Tempt You

19 sqm

0 sqm

$9,582

Total

45 sqm

18 sqm

$22,694

 

 

Implementation Issues

 

Following the Stage 2 upgrade of the Plaza, it is proposed to enter into agreements for up to 5 years with proprietors occupying space under the shaded structures, as this is similar to other leasing arrangements Council enters into and will allow Council to amortize the cost of the structures over this time. The extended terms will also acknowledge the investment licensees will be required to make in terms of furniture upgrades and provides opportunities for some to align agreements with their leases over adjoining retail premises. It being noted that the Roads Act 1993, provides that a Term of Approval cannot be for a period exceeding 7 years.

 

Additionally, the following issues have been raised and discussed in the past and will be addressed in License Agreements:-

 

·    All proprietors are to provide table service to ensure waste is removed from the tables and all tables are kept in a clean and satisfactory condition;

·    All tables and chairs are to be removed from the licensed area at the end of each day and no equipment is to be stored in the licensed area or external to the café/restaurant;

·    Council from time to time to approve fixtures and furnishings e.g. tables and chairs to be used by proprietors to ensure a consistent style and design in the Plaza. A style guide for fixtures and furnishings is to be developed, with the cost of the equipment to be borne by the licensee;

·    Arrangements can be made for sharing of space when not required by licensee e.g. spaces not required at night for Council to have access to unoccupied shelters for events;

·    To ensure activation of sheltered areas, Council to reserve the right to re-allocate the use of areas not being actively used and/or use the unoccupied areas for Council events; and

·    Greater enforcement of no items to be placed in the main thoroughfares of the Plaza.

 

Conclusion

 

It is considered that the construction of sheltered areas for outdoor dining will deliver long term social and economic benefits for the Lane Cove community and visitors to the area as well as local businesses. One of the core objectives of the project is to create a more comfortable all weather environment which may facilitate enhancement of the night time economy in Lane Cove Plaza and further expand the already strong daytime patronage of this valued community space.

 

It is intended that following endorsement of the allocation of spaces, the proposed licensees will be required to enter into an Agreement committing them to License Agreements commencing from when the Plaza upgrade it completed.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Receive and note the Report.

 

2.   Endorse the allocation of outdoor seating following the Stage 2 upgrade to Lane Cove Plaza as outlined in the report; and

 

3.   Enter into Agreements with the respective proprietors committing them to enter into License Agreements with Council for terms of up to five (5) years commencing from completion of the shelters component of the Plaza Upgrade works.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Plan - Allocation of Lease Spaces in the Plaza

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 22 April 2014

Capital Projects Funding

 

 

Subject:          Capital Projects Funding    

Record No:    SU5340 - 19176/14

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council at its meeting on 17 March 2014 in considering the Draft Budget 2014 – 2017 resolved that a report be prepared for the next meeting showing the impact that our budgeted projects will have on the balance held in each of Council’s capital reserve accounts. Therefore, this report will provide for information details of the impact on Council’s Reserves balances for the financial year 2014/2015.

 

Background

 

As noted in the Report on the 2014-2017 Draft Budget and 2014-2017 Delivery Program and Operational Plan considered by Council at its meeting on 17 March 2014, the 2014-2017 Budget has been formulated on the basis of delivering an unprecedented range of capital projects and facilities providing long term benefits and social infrastructure for existing and new residents of Lane Cove.

Council’s Capital Expenditure program will total some $34.8M, with projects funded including:-

·    Stage 2 of the Plaza upgrade;

·    Little Lane Redevelopment, with additional community space and 200 car spaces;

·    Aquatic Centre upgrade and expansion;

·    Provision of recreation and community facilities at 314 Burns Bay Road;

·    Kindy Cove refurbishment;

·    Blackman Park Scout Hall, amenities building and storage; and

·    Traffic signals for Mowbray Road.

 

It is noted that some of these projects will be over more than one financial year and final costings may vary on estimated costs following tendering of the individual projects.

 

As a result of the extensive Capital Works undertaking, the impact on each of Council’s restricted Capital Reserve Accounts, in terms of the anticipated balances as at 1 July 2014 and at 30 June 2015 is illustrated in the following table showing the amount of funds transferred to and from individual reserves during the period.

 

 

Anticipated

Closing Balance 30.6.2014

Transferred to

000’s

Transferred from

000’s

Anticipated

Closing Balance 30.6.2015

External Restricted Funds

 

 

 

 

 

 

Developer Contributions

20,286

5,000

19,950

5,336

Specific Purpose Unexpended Grants

273

0

0

273

Roads Act 1993 restriction

0

0

0

0

Domestic Waste Management

798

0

55

743

Special rates parking

147

152

150

149

TOTAL

21,504

5,152

20,155

6,501

 

 

 

 

Internal  Restricted Funds

 

 

 

 

Lane Cove Market Square building

1,000

250

0

1,250

Lane Cove Aquatic Centre

0

250

228

22

Employee Leave Entitlements

4,924

1,610

1,564

4,970

Replacement - plant and vehicles

637

250

466

421

Office Equipment

75

75

75

75

Building Maintenance

82

15

0

97

Public Liability Insurance (excess)

348

35

0

383

Sustainability Levy

0

1,055

1,055

0

Capital Works

2,416

250

2,500

166

Lane Cove Plaza

141

20

0

161

Property acquisition

50

100

0

150

Library Shorelink

259

20

0

279

Small Watercraft Facility

150

0

150

0

Child Care

216

0

0

0

Other – Elections Reserves

103

40

0

143

TOTAL

10,401

3,970

6,038

8,333

TOTAL RESTRICTED FUNDS

31,905

9,122

26,193

14,834

 

 

It should be noted that Developer Contributions represent approximately $20 million of the funds to be utilised during the period. Upon completion of the Little Lane development, proceeds of minimum $14 million will return Council’s Reserves to 30 June 2014 levels in 2015/16.

Utilisation of Council’s Reserves as part of the funding for these works, will also impact on the return on investments as Reserves are accessed.


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 22 April 2014

Results of Community Consultation on the Proposed Voluntary Planning Agreement for 150 Epping Road Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          Results of Community Consultation on the Proposed Voluntary Planning Agreement for 150 Epping Road Lane Cove    

Record No:    SU5388 - 19514/14

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Kirsty Fleming 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Community consultation on the Proposed Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) for 150 Epping Road, Lane Cove concluded on Monday 14 April 2014.  The purpose of this report is to outline the results of the community consultation and recommend that Council determine how to proceed with the proposal.  

 

Background

Meriton Property Services Pty Ltd has a Concept Approval (MP10_0148) for a mixed uses development for 150 Epping Road, Lane Cove (former Shell Service Centre site), which includes approximately 400 residential apartments and community and retail floor space, a child care centre and approximately 596 parking spaces.  The Concept Approval requires that the developer enter into a VPA with Council in relation to the Development Application. 

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

Meriton (the landowner and proponent) is required to dedicate land and to pay a monetary contribution to Council to cover the cost of a number of public works and facilities outside of any Development Application, which is consistent with the Concept Approval for the site.

To assist Council in determining an appropriate value for the proposed VPA, Council staff obtained quotations to undertake an assessment as to the appropriate dollar value of the proposed works and facilities.

 

The proposed contributions for public works and facilities include:-

·    Dedication of 1.35 hectares of bushland reserve (as per the Concept Approval);

·    A cash contribution of $122,280 for the provision of a high quality walking trail through bushland linking other walking trails provided by Council;

·    A $2 million cash contribution to Council towards the improvement of public infrastructure facilities in Lane Cove (as per the Concept Approval);

·    A $100,000 cash contribution that will facilitate investment in a 20 seater coaster type vehicle to be used as a community bus; and

·    A $53,600 cash contribution for the conversion of the current bus stop just to the east of the development to an ‘all-weather facility’. 

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 17 February 2014, Council resolved to place the proposed Voluntary Planning Agreement on public exhibition for 28 days in conjunction with the proposed Development Application for this site. Council undertook community consultation on the proposed Agreement and communicated this to the public by an advertisement in the North Shore Times,

e-newsletter to over 8,200 subscribers, public exhibitions at Council’s Civic Centre and Libraries and providing information on the Agreement on Council’s website. Surveys were also online via Council’s website.
Discussion

 

The proposed Voluntary Planning Agreement for 150 Epping Road was placed on public exhibition from 14 March to 14 April 2014.  Council received 60 responses to the online survey and eight (8) written submissions. 

 

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

·    Allocation of infrastructure contributions;

·    Amount of contribution;

·    Community bus utilisation; and

·    Public bushland reserve and walking trails utilisation.

 

Allocation of Infrastructure Contributions

Under the Concept Approval, in lieu of a pedestrian bridge, Meriton is required to pay a contribution of $2 million to Council prior to the issue of the first construction Certificate, for improvement of public infrastructure facilities in Lane Cove.  When asked where they would like to see the money allocated, Council receive a variety of responses with the primary responses including traffic, parking and roads as well as recreational facilities and open space.

Amount of Contribution

Whilst it is noted that the Concept Approval stipulates that the proponent will contribute $2 million to Council, when asked if they consider the amount of the contribution to be appropriate for this development, 72% (44) of respondents indicated they did not feel that the contribution was adequate.  There may have been a misunderstanding however, in that s94 contributions in excess of $6 million would be in addition to this contribution.

 

The question of the value of an appropriate financial contribution also yielded a variety of results from $3 million (8) to ‘Priceless’ (3).  The largest proportion of respondents suggest $5 million as a more appropriate contribution based on:-

·    the size of the development;

·    the ongoing impact a population increase facilitated the development would have on the amenity of the local area; and

·    the funds required to upgrade infrastucutre to accommodate to this. 

 

Community Bus Utilisation

When asked if they would use a community bus that would pick up Lane Cove residents and local workers and take them to shopping and employment hubs in the area including Lane Cove Village, St Leonards, Lane Cove West and Chatswood 68% (41) residents advised they would.

Public Bushland Reserve and Walking Trails Utilisation

 

In response to whether they would utilise the 1.35ha of public bushland reserve and walking trails required by the Concept Approval and included as part of the VPA contribution, Council received another overwhelming positive response with 83% (50) respondents indicating they would.

 

 

Other Comments

 

A follow up question was also included in the survey which allowed additional comments by respondents regarding the proposed VPA.  It is noted that significant number of these comments were not relevant to the VPA itself but rather addressed planning related concerns and were referred to Council's Development Assessment section to be taken into consideration as part of the assessment of the application. The remainder of comments received could be broken down into the categories outlined below.  A more comprehensive overview of the survey responses has been circulated to Councillors separately.

 

Issue

# of Responses

Comments

$2 million is an insufficient contribution considering the size of the proposed development

5

Contribution quantum set by Concept Approval and therefore non-negotiable.

Supporting improvements to transport infrastructure

3

Noted

Recommends funds be secured earlier than the Occupation Certificate stage. 

2

Respondents expressed that if the funds are received earlier the proposed public amenity can be developed in conjunction with the building work being undertaken so that it upon completion and occupation they are in place to be utilised immediately.   It is noted that $2 million infrastructure contribution is payable prior to the issue of the first construction Certificate. 

Supports community bus service but notes the provision of continuing funds will be required to ensure long term operation and availability of the service.

2

A funding model for ongoing costs needs to be developed.

Urging Council to ensure the full value of VPA is achieved and accounted for

1

VPA negotiated in best interests of residents of the development and wider community

General support for the concept

1

Support noted

Suggesting the developer should be responsible for the construction of the overpass

1

Issue not supported by Planning Assessment Commissioner

Supporting a pedestrian improvements

1

Including a pedestrian bridge at the location, and consideration of walking trails that serve ‘practical purposes’ citing the Thames River Path in London and Reading UK as an example.

Suggests Council use the compensation as an opportunity to showcase the character and history of the site.

1

Public Art proposed for site as well as interpretive walking trails.

Supports investment in renewable energy infrastructure suggesting this could be incorporated in the VPA

1

Respondent notes solar farm installed by Willoughby Council atop the Westfield car park

 

 

Written Submissions

 

A summary of the issues raised in the eight (8) written submission are outlined below.  Again, a number of these submissions were not relevant to the VPA itself but rather addressed planning related concerns and were referred to Council's Development Assessment section to be taken into consideration as part of the assessment of the application. One (1) submission advocated general support for the VPA in its entirety. 

 

Dedication of Bushland Handle

 

Two (2) submissions requested the dedication of land be brought in line with the issuing of the Construction Certificate rather than the Occupation Certificate to ensure that work for the upgrade of bushland track can be done in conjunction with the development construction and the track available for public use upon the completion of the complex.  This comment was also provided by two (2) survey respondents. 

 

Comment

 

The Concept Approval however provides that rights of public access to the bushland be executed prior to commencement of the final occupation / use of the development and is therefore not able to be changed by Council.

 

Upgrade of Bushland Track

 

One (1) submission supported the proposal but recommended that payment be received earlier and that an additional subsequent payment be required to aid with bush regeneration and ongoing maintenance.

 

Another submission again supported the proposal but emphasised that the track should connect with the existing bush tracks running along the river and to Blackman Park and be adequately signposted to encourage use by the general public entering from Epping Road or Sam Johnson Way.

 

Additionally one respondent suggested that investment in bush regeneration of surrounding land by Council, be coordinated with adjoining land owners in the Lane Cove Industrial Area to help restore the bushland in the area. 

 

Comment

 

There are no current plans to coordinate with adjoining land owners on bush regeneration works. However, Council staff have liaised with SC Johnson on weed management issues. There has been no contact with Macquarie University.

 

Community Bus

 

Two (2) submissions support this however is was noted by one (1) that continuing funds would be required to ensure long term operation and availability of this service.  This comment was also reflected in two (2) survey responses.

 

Comment

 

Council continues to lobby the State Government to allow local bus services to operate for a small fee to cover operational costs. This will be essential for the services to be introduced.

 

Conversion of Bus Stop to an All Weather Facility

 

One (1) submission supported this proposal but requested that this be extended to the bus stop on the north side of Epping Road.  

 

Comment

 

It is noted that the provision of an all weather bus shelter at the current bus stop to the east of the development was negotiated with the proponent as a sustainability measure under the Concept Approval.  Council can separately consider an additional shelter.

 

Conclusion

 

Council received eight (8) submissions and 60 survey responses in relation to the proposed Voluntary Planning Agreement.  It is important to note a number of these submissions were not relevant to the VPA itself but rather addressed planning related concerns and were referred to Council's Development Assessment section to be taken into consideration during the assessment of the application.

 

Whilst there is support for the concept, particularly the dedication of bushland and development of walking trails as well as the community bus, the majority of responses received indicate that a contribution of $2 million towards infrastructure upgrades is considered inadequate given the size of the development, the impact this will have on population growth in the area, the continued impact this population increase will have on local infrastructure, and the cost of upgrading this accordingly to accommodate additional residents. There may have been confusion however that this amount was in addition to s94 contributions payable, which would be in excess of $6 million.  The consultation revealed concerns about traffic related issues including parking and congestion as well as availability of recreation and green space, with these areas being highlighted most prominently as areas where the infrastructure contributions should be directed. 

 

On balance, it is considered that the community and future residents of the proposed development at 150 Epping Road, will benefit from the dedication of bushland, public works and facilities provided in the proposed VPA as well as improvements to the public infrastructure in the Lane Cove area, provision of an all weather bus stop near the development and seed funding for a community bus.  It is therefore recommended that Council receive and note the submissions and survey responses received during the community consultation process and proceed with the proposed Voluntary Planning Agreement for 150 Epping Road, Lane Cove.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.       Council receive and note the report;

2.       Council enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement with Meriton Property Services Pty Ltd in respect of the development of 150 Epping Road Lane Cove; and

3.       The General Manager be authorised to finalise the terms and conditions of the proposed Voluntary Planning Agreement and sign the Agreement on behalf of Council. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 22 April 2014

NSROC Regional Waste Disposal Tender

 

 

Subject:          NSROC Regional Waste Disposal Tender     

Record No:    SU4277 - 18988/14

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      David Wilson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for participation in a joint tender and unified contract arrangement with five (5) other Northern Sydney Councils (North Sydney, Ryde, Willoughby, Hunters Hill and Ku-ring-ai) for waste disposal and processing services for Municipal Solid Waste[1] (MSW), the related arrangements between councils, and the procurement strategy for calling and determining the tender. It is important to note that the regional tender is not for the waste collection and recycling services.

 

Background

Over the last two years, a detailed planning process managed by the Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (NSROC), in collaboration with waste managers from its member Councils meeting as the Waste Advisory Group, has developed a procurement strategy and tender plan to undertake waste transfer, disposal and processing services for the region through a joint contract.        

 

NSROC Councils’ waste management strategies are informed by the NSW Government’s Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery (WARR) Strategy, a strategy required to be developed by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) under the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001. Under this legislation the WARR Strategy includes targets for waste reduction, resource recovery and diversion of waste from disposal in landfill.

 

Acknowledgment of these targets is built into the funding provided to Councils under the EPA’s Waste Less, Recycle More initiative. The initiative’s local government funding program requires Councils to develop projects that contribute to achieving the targets in the WARR Strategy. NSROC Councils expect to receive an average of $200,000 per annum from the EPA for such projects for the next four years.

 

The new WARR target for diversion of MSW from landfill is that 70% should be achieved by 2022. Current achievement across the region is 55%, which is above the State average. Additional recovery will be challenged by the lack of processing services available for residual waste, which comprises around 50% of the domestic waste stream.

 

The procurement strategy for the regional contract has as one of its goals, increasing regional diversion from landfill performance. Given that in addition to the obligations of the WARR Strategy and the incentives under the Waste Less, Recycle More programs, reducing the amount of residual waste sent to landfill is the single biggest cost and environmental challenge in local government waste management.

The service market for waste management is characterised by limited facilities accessible to Metropolitan Sydney Councils for treating MSW and turning it into compost. Feedback from industry is that investment in new facilities is constrained by the high cost of the capital equipment, lengthy approval times for new or extended plant, and uncertainty related to multiple, low-volume, short-duration contracts.

 

The regional waste project will address these issues by offering service providers long-term security of volume and duration of supply of waste. The offer of a ten year contract term will add to other market and government incentives to industry to undertake investment in processing plant at existing or new sites, which is not currently available for the region’s total residual waste. Such investment is critical to meet the region’s goals for increasing resource recovery from waste and reduced reliance on landfills.

 

The proposed contract will require service providers to deliver otherwise unattainable levels of landfill diversion from amongst participating councils over the ten year contract term, and is the surest way for the region to achieve higher diversion. This is because the contract specification will require increasing levels of processing performance over the term as new or expanded facilities are brought on line in response to the service requirement.

 

Council has previously supported recommendations in two (2) reports on participation in a regional contract for waste disposal and processing services (shown attached as AT-1 & AT-2). This report provides more detail on the model discussed in those reports and recommendations that will allow the project to be implemented.

During the planning process, the drivers for a regional approach to waste services procurement amongst northern Sydney Councils have been identified:-

 

·    shared objectives amongst NSROC Councils in waste management, in particular the objective to achieve more recycling and higher levels of diversion of waste from landfill;

 

·    high and increasing costs for waste disposal and processing and inadequate investment in new infrastructure;

 

·    limited competition in the waste services market, with two existing companies controlling all facilities;

 

·    medium term risks to security in waste disposal and processing due to capacity constraints; the capital intensive nature of the waste processing industry, where new forms of waste disposal through treatment of putrescible waste or greater separation require long term investments by the private sector;

 

·    the EPA’s State target for MSW diverted from landfill has been increased to 70% by 2022

 

·    alignment in NSROC Councils’ waste disposal contracts to the extent that all could migrate over a 12 month period to a regional contract commencing in 2015.This opportunity to harmonise contracts will be difficult to recreate in the coming decade if this regional contract does not proceed;

 

·    NSROC Councils do not control any residential waste transfer, processing or disposal facilities, and must purchase all services from the private sector, where two firms predominate;

 

·    constraints on establishing new infrastructure for processing waste due to lack of identified sites and lengthy, risky approval processes;

 

·    industry consultation during 2012-13 resulted in strong interest in higher volume and longer contract terms as pre-conditions for greater investment in waste processing infrastructure; and

·    demonstrated impact of regional co-operation under non-mandated circumstances.

On this last point, it should be noted that greater regional collaboration and shared services is one of the acknowledged future pathways under the NSW local government reform agenda. The Independent Panel on Local Government Reform’s (ILGRP) Final Report, Revitalizing Local Government, recommends several options for new approaches to metropolitan governance.

 

All options though involve increasing the scale of all or some Council operations and policy roles. The regional waste contract will demonstrate the capacity of the six (6) participating Councils to work co-operatively to improve economic and environmental outcomes in a fundamental area of council operations.

 

The diagram below captures the coverage of the regional waste tender.

 

Current Council Position

Council currently engages SITA Australia for the disposal and processing of our MSW. Our red bin waste is taken by waste collection contractors URM to the transfer station at Artarmon, the waste is compacted and taken to Eastern Creek for disposal as landfill. Our yellow bin (mixed containers) is taken for processing at SITA’s Chullora processing facility and the blue bin (paper) is taken to Visy. Green waste and bulky goods/household collection waste is taken to SITA’s Ryde facility and processed.

 

Council’s current waste disposal contract with SITA Australia was extended by 3 years and expires on 1 December 2015 .This extension was undertaken to allow for the option of a Regional Waste Disposal Tender to be investigated.

 

It is also important to note that Council’s Waste Collection and Recycling contract with United Resources Management (URM) concludes on 1 October 2015, and as is the situation for all Council’s participating in this process, there are logistical implications to be considered in the connection between the collection contractor and the disposal contractor, in regards to the collection points and the distance to transfer stations, tipping sites and processing facilities.

 

It is also important to note that Council has applied for grant funding for $300,000 for the provision of a 240 Litre green waste bin for each household, and also needs to consider the streamlining of its waste systems to the three core wastes of red (putrescible) yellow (mixed containers and paper – combined) and green (green waste/vegetation, that may include food waste in the future) as part of this process and to seek a greater level of consistency in how waste is processed and disposed of.

 

Council is not currently paying to have any MSW processed, although in the past Council has used the UR3R Alternative Waste Technology (AWT) at Eastern Creek for the processing of MWS. It is a consideration for Council that this will mean paying for a service not currently purchased, although the advantages of the regional contract are:-

 

·    Likely price advantage for disposal services will at least partially offset the price for processing;

·    Regional contract will result in higher diversion from landfill of Council waste, in line with EPA targets;

·    Demonstrating commitment to EPA targets is an advantage in attracting funds for waste education and other waste management projects; and

·    A positive community response to increased landfill diversion.

 

Discussion

Set out below is information supporting the three (3) recommendations, which relate to:-

 

·    Governance Model;

·    Procurement Method; and

·    Tender Goals.

 

Governance Model

 

The Local Government Act 1993 does not contain any specific provisions to formalise working arrangements between councils for shared contracts and services. As a consequence, a considerable amount of preparatory work has been undertaken to ensure that the regional waste contract can be established on a secure and business-like footing, which will serve councils as well as signal to the waste industry that transaction savings through consolidated tendering and contract management are part of the attraction of winning the tender. The three processes for establishing the governance framework are discussed below.

 

Participation Agreement between Councils

 

 A report on governance options for managing regional waste was prepared for NSROC in early 2013, and on the basis of this advice all councils agreed in-principle in May-June 2013 that formalising arrangements between NSROC Councils under a Participation Agreement would be the governance method for establishing the joint contract. By this method decision-making roles and delegated responsibilities for the shared waste service are documented to ensure transparent decision-making and clear allocation of roles in managing the contract or contracts for waste services.

 

A Northern Sydney Waste Services Alliance Participation Agreement has been developed and a summary of its provisions – as shown attached as Appendix 3 of AT-3. Key aspects of the Participation Agreement are:-

 

·    The Councils are parties to the Agreement, not the waste contractor;

·    In the procurement stage, the Agreement sets out processes for how decisions will be made in relation to releasing and evaluating the tender;

·    In the management stage, the Agreement sets out how decisions will be made in relation to administration of the contract(s);

·    Each Council will execute the same waste contract and that contract will bind Council in respect of the provision of waste and payment for processing and disposal of their waste; and

·    A legal entity is not established.

 

Under the Participation Agreement a Governance Board of General Managers is established to provide oversight of the operational aspects of the waste service, including reviewing the tender documentation and ‘final say’ review of the tender evaluation report, to ensure the tender result aligns with regional waste objectives and provides a value for money and environmentally sustainable outcome.

 

 

Minister for Local Government Consent

 

Under section 358 of the Local Government Act 1993, the Minister for Local Government’s consent is required for Councils to form an ‘entity’ and the Office of Local Government advice is that the creation of the Participation Agreement comes within the broad meaning of this section. Following specific resolutions by each Council to seek this consent in December 2013, an application was lodged on 11March 2014.

 

The application to the Minister includes detail on the operation of the Participation Agreement and Council’s obligations under it as shown attached as AT- 3. Finalising and signing the Participation Agreement is contingent on the Minister’s consent under section 358. The Office of Local Government has advised that a response will be available within 90 days of the application date.

 

Competition Law

 

To avoid any risk of action under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 by third parties who may deem the joint procurement as some form of anti-competitive behaviour, in December 2013 participating Councils applied under subsection 91C (1) of that Act for authorisation to source waste services through a joint contract. Authorisation was granted by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) on 9 April 2014, which allows for tenders to be called and evaluated, see Attachment AT- 4.

 

Procurement Method

 

A comprehensive planning process undertaken by Councils and NSROC developed the recommended procurement approach, which is to utilise Local Government Procurement Pty Ltd to conduct a joint tender, as allowed for under Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) and the Local Government Regulation.

 

The Act provides councils with the power to enter into cooperative or shared service arrangements to meet the needs of their areas.

 

The Act also provides for situations where tenders are not required to be invited by individual councils. These include those referred to in s55(3)(a) of the Act, where the contract is for services specified by ‘a person’ prescribed by the regulations and made with a contractor specified by a person prescribed by the regulations.

 

Local Government Procurement Pty Ltd (LGP), is a wholly-owned entity of Local Government NSW, and is prescribed by the Local Government Regulation for this purpose. This means LGP can specify the services and the contract, call tenders, accept a tender and engage the contractor(s) to provide services to the group of councils. This has been undertaken by LGP in the past for groups of councils for services such as legal services and electricity purchase.

           

Council officers and NSROC (with expert consultant support) are working with LGP to develop the tender and contract conditions and plan the tender assessment process. This removes the need for councils to resolve individually to accept the result that will be common to the group.

 

The advantage of this approach is that it avoids the problems evidenced in other council group contracts (which have not used a consolidation service such as LGP) which have resulted in one or more of the following problems because each council has had to resolve to accept a shared result from a joint tender:-

 

·    if the price or other contractual terms are dependent on all of the councils participating or a minimum number participating, it is not possible for any of the councils to know what they are voting to accept (except in the case of the last council to vote).  The result of this is that the resolutions may have to be held in escrow or ratified once the number of participants is known;

·    there is a risk that as each of the councils votes the unsuccessful contractor will seek to influence the remaining councils. These two issues might be managed by having simultaneous meetings and briefings of councils, but this is not considered practical; and

·    there is a risk of loss of confidentiality and procedural errors.

 

Engaging LGP to conduct the tender was anticipated in the 2013 report to Council on the regional waste project. It has proven to be a workable method to date, in terms of drafting the Request for Tender and Contract, and has brought the benefit of the various best practice procurement tools available from LGP.

 

Once Councils have considered the recommendation of this Report, Council and NSROC representatives will finalise the Request for Tender, Draft Contract and evaluation plan following LGP templates and procedural requirements. LGP’s role will be to conduct the tender and implement the evaluation plan, reporting the result to the governance board of the Waste Services Alliance, which will approve the tender report before LGP formalises (determines) the outcome. The fee for LGP’s service will be paid from the pooled funds already contributed by Councils to manage the regional waste project.

 

Tender Goals

Working with LGP and across multiple Councils requires clear understanding between participants on the outcomes that the tender is designed to achieve.

 

In order for Councils to be confident of a tender outcome that meets their minimum requirements and expectations, the evaluation plan will set out the minimum standards to be achieved in accepting one or more tenders resulting from the Request for Tender (RFT) process.

 

Tenders will be structured on the basis that the waste of each Council becomes part of a regional waste volume in order to create incentive amongst suppliers to invest and offer value for money pricing. The RFT and Contract will not specify how an individual Councils’ waste is treated, only that the total specified is processed or disposed of in the most cost-effective and environmentally sustainable manner and that the current regional diversion rate is not compromised.

 

Mandatory conditions of a conforming tender will include Council’s standard requirements as to financial, environmental and organisational capability on the part of the tenderers. Importantly they also include the requirement that a conforming tender shows how the share of regional MSW currently diverted from landfill will increase over the life of the ten-year contract.

 

Recovering resources from MSW can be achieved through a variety of technologies. The RFT will not specify any particular technology to be applied to the processing of waste. It will instead require that facilities conform to EPA requirements as licensed facilities for treating waste. This may include Energy from Waste (thermal treatment), for which a new policy was announced by the NSW Government on 18 March 2014.

 

The contract structure will allow for the establishment of new facilities as well as the potential for multiple suppliers, to ensure that all reasonable opportunities are embedded in the tender to encourage both new entrants and better and more innovative waste treatment technologies.

 

In general terms, evaluation of tenders will be based on the following criteria and assessed against the standards shown. Detailed information in support of all claims will be required and assessed by experienced waste, legal and financial staff and consultants, as required.

 

Evaluation criterion

Assessment

 

Costs to councils

Maximum value for money on the basis of the responses from the market

 

Track record in delivering existing services

Demonstrated reliable past achievement in delivering the waste disposal, transfer and processing services in comparable environment(s) and with comparable waste composition and volume.

Demonstrated history of compliance with environmental, work, health and safety and other regulations.

Capability to deliver the services

Reliability and efficiency of delivery of waste disposal, transfer and processing services through existing or new facilities, and proposed pathway to achieve or exceed the processing and recovery targets.

Risk allocation acceptance

Minimum variation of contract requirements based on equitable risk allocation between councils and service providers.

Contribution to regional waste objectives

Proposal supports regional waste objectives, and does not conflict with them.


With respect to capability assessment, tenderers will need to demonstrate the processing pathway they propose. This means setting out how their services will result in maintaining at least the current share of tonnage processed across the group of six (6) Councils in each of, or in total over, the three (3) years of the initial service period being the years 2015-2017.

 

Currently, about 5% of the region’s MSW tonnage is recycled and diverted from landfill as result of processing red bin waste[2]. Most of the region’s landfill diversion achievement (55%) comes from separate collections of dry recyclables (paper, cardboard, glass) garden organics.

 

The EPA Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy target is that by 2022, 70% of MSW should be diverted from landfill. There is some capacity to improve the share of waste placed correctly into the yellow and green bins, through better waste streaming by households. This margin for improvement is generally agreed by the waste community and the EPA to be not enough to reach the 70% target.

 

Improving the diversion of waste from red bin collections requires more processing of residual waste. As stated earlier, there is no currently available capacity in the waste industry to process a major portion of the region’s waste.

 

To contribute to new capacity being created, so that more processing can be provided to the market, Northern Sydney Councils will provide incentive for the much-needed new investment by contracting for a service over a ten year term, with secure tonnage volume which the industry can ‘take to the bank’. This can be reasonably expected to drive investment, with the result that Councils will be able to extend their environmental performance beyond the current 55% level of diversion from landfill.

 

To achieve 70% diversion from landfill over the life of the contract, assuming organic and dry recyclables share of total remains generally constant, will require a total of 40% (in round terms) to be recovered from the region’s total MSW tonnage.

 

Available facilities are expected to expand over the life of the regional contract, so that at least this share (its equivalent in tonnage) will be diverted into recovered product (compost). The RFT will also reward higher performance than 40% in the evaluation process. This planned progression and the tonnages involved (based on 2012 totals) is shown in current tonnage terms in the diagram below.

 

 

 

The governance board of the Waste Services Alliance (General Managers of participating Councils) will review the tender evaluation report to ensure that the tender panel has met the requirements of participating Councils in arriving at its recommendations.

 

The governance board will ensure that the result aligns with the regional waste objectives, which are:-

·    to achieve better waste outcomes.  This includes providing demand certainty to service providers so that they may invest in the supply of facilities that create marketable recovered materials and thereby create capacity to reduce the percentage of waste collected by councils that is disposed of in landfill;

 

·    to achieve improved value for money for communities in the cost of waste services.  This includes creating volume security over a sustained time period, thereby reducing transaction costs associated with multiple tenders and addressing feedstock uncertainly for service providers;

 

·    to ensure security of waste disposal and processing arrangements.  This includes identifying and implementing contract arrangements that ensure that putrescible waste is disposed of or processed in facilities that can operate efficiently and with minimum risk of service failure over a sustained time period; and

 

·    to create public benefits by working together to:-

 

stimulate market competition and economic efficiency;

support participating councils in working with the market to ensure the long-term provision of environmentally sustainable waste solutions; and

support community engagement in waste education as a contribution to better regional waste outcomes.

 

Financial Implications

It is expected that the price per tonne for waste disposal and processing that will be achieved through the regional contract will be lower than any single participating council could expect from an individual contract, at the least because of the scale economies available to the service providers from managing one rather than multiple contracts.

 

Disposal of waste represents between 40 and 50% of the total waste budget of most Councils. Waste costs are fully recoverable under the Domestic Waste Management Charge.

 

While the cost of processing waste is considerably more than the cost of sending it to landfill, the Waste Levy is imposed on landfilled tonnage and is set to continue to increase. It is currently $95.20 per tonne for metropolitan Sydney councils.

 

This market structure means that relying on landfill as the principal means of disposal in the medium-long term is both a costly and environmentally unsustainable scenario.

 

With only two (2) known service providers servicing a captive Sydney market, it is anticipated that current prices charged allow room for the two companies to compete on price. As well, the incentive to hold or increase market share is expected to drive active bidding for the regional waste contract.

 

By setting the target to maintain the current level of regional processing for the first three years of the contract, Councils will gain the benefit of new facilities coming on line, while maintaining current recovery tonnage across the region for the period 2015-17.

 

While there is never any price certainty available from an open tender and in the circumstances of market information asymmetry that characterises the waste industry, these factors should lead to downward pressure on prices, and resulting advantage to councils.

 

Council’s share of the costs of establishing the Northern Sydney Waste Services Alliance, seeking the ACCC authorisation and preparing the tender were paid in 2013. Future administrative costs will arise in transitioning to a regional contract and for Council’s share of the ongoing administration of the contract, which is will be done as a regional service.

 

Conclusion

 

The regional waste tender for disposal and processing of red-bin and related MSW represents a positive development in regional collaboration amongst Councils to achieve greater effectiveness and efficiencies in waste services. The recommendations are supported on the basis of benefit to Council and its community from:-

 

·   the reasonable expectation that price achieved for both disposal and processing will out-perform individual Council contracting;

 

·   the provision of incentive for investment by the private sector in improved waste facilities, to secure waste services for the medium and long term; and

 

·   demonstration of regional co-operation in support of existing local government structures and boundaries.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Agrees to membership in the Northern Sydney Councils Waste Services Alliance with the other participating Councils (North Sydney , Ryde, Willoughby, Hunters Hill and Ku-ring-ai), by entering into a Participation Agreement which sets out how the Councils will make decisions in relation to the procurement and management of a joint Municipal Solid Waste processing and disposal contract;

2.   Agrees to engage Local Government Procurement Pty Ltd through the Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils to conduct the procurement process, as allowed for under section 55 (3) (a) of the Local Government Act 1993 and Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 - Regulation 163 (1A)

3.   Agrees to the evaluation criteria for determining the tender under the process set out in the Participation Agreement and in accordance with regional and environmental objectives, being:-

Evaluation criterion

Assessment

Costs to councils

Maximum value for money on the basis of the responses from the market

 

Track record in delivering the services

Demonstrated, reliable past achievement in delivering the waste disposal, transfer and processing services in comparable environment(s) and with comparable waste composition and volume.

Demonstrated history of compliance with environmental, work, health and safety and other regulations.

Capability to deliver the services

Reliability and efficiency of delivery of waste disposal, transfer and processing services through existing or new facilities, and proposed solution to achieve the minimum tender waste recovery targets.

Risk allocation acceptance

Minimum variation in contract requirements based on equitable risk allocation between Councils and service providers.

Resource recovery performance

 

The degree to which the tendered solution delivers a resource recovery outcome which exceeds minimum tender resource recovery requirements on a value for money basis.

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

REPORT Northern Sydney Region of Councils (NSROC) Waste Disposal Strategy (20 May 2013)

4 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑2 View

REPORT Regional Waste Project - Application to Minister for Joint Participation Agreement (16 December 2013)

2 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑3 View

Minister for Local Government - Request for consent under s358 - 11th March 2014

16 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑4 View

A91401 - Revocation and Substitution of ~ Sydney Regional Organisation o

14 Pages

Circulated Separately


Ordinary Council Meeting 22 April 2014

Strategic Review of Lane Cove ALIVE Leadership Group

 

 

Subject:          Strategic Review of Lane Cove ALIVE Leadership Group    

Record No:    SU5093 - 19061/14

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

In March 2013, Council resolved that a review be undertaken of Lane Cove ALIVE Leadership Group (LCALG). Place Partners were subsequently engaged to undertake an independent review on behalf of Council. This report outlines the findings of the review and is presented for Council’s consideration and determination of it’s ongoing alignment with Lane Cove Alive Leadership Group.

 

Background

 

Council at its meeting of 18 March 2013 resolved to:-

 

1.   Review its Lane Cove ALIVE Strategic Plan and update the Plan to take into account new and proposed development in the area;

2.   Review LCALG operations, structure and goals to ensure that they align with Council’s Strategic Plan for the area;

 

3.   Review LCALG to compare the operations, projects and outcomes of Lane Cove ALIVE with their original Strategic Plan objectives and actions; and

 

4.   Receive a further report after the completion of the Review including the recommendations of the Review.

 

In accordance with the above resolution, an independent review of Lane Cove ALIVE Leadership Group was commissioned and Place Partners were subsequently engaged to investigate and prepare a report for Council addressing the following issues:-

 

·    Carry out an audit of current actions in place by LCALG to compare the operations, structure and outcomes of Lane Cove ALIVE with Council’s original Strategic Action Plan objectives and actions;

 

·    Verify five (5) key actions from the Strategic Action Plan identified by Council in terms of meeting economic, social or environmental objectives;

 

·    Identify opportunities for LCALG to generate additional funding and income sources;

 

·    Undertake a survey of local businesses and the community to identify their level of understanding and participation in the activities of LCALG and how they can be further engaged;

 

·    Compare LCALG against ‘best practice’ in town centre revitalisation and management and identify the appropriate model for deli

 

·    very of related aims and objectives; and

 

·    Assess the capacity and potential benefits for widening the activities of LCALG across other areas within or the whole of Lane Cove.

 

Discussion

 

Lane Cove ALIVE Leadership Group was established as an independent organisation charged with implementing the Lane Cove ALIVE revitalisation project designed to invigorate and enhance the character and amenity of Lane Cove Village.

 

LCALG was created as a result of a key recommendation of Council’s Lane Cove ALIVE Action Plan 2005. The initial LCALG Board was selected in 2006 through an independent interview panel process and currently there are 10 members comprising 4 community/resident members, 4 local business/ commercial property owners, a youth representative and the General Manager or his/her nominee of Council. Current members are Jon Johannsen - Chairman; Josh Blake – Treasurer; Bruce Crowe - Executive Member; Julia Kaars – Secretary; Richard Harris - Director; Helen Shao - Director; Emily Patterson – Director; Lucy McCutcheon – Director (Under 23); and Craig Dalli - Director (Council Nominee). The Board is supported by the Project Manager Bronwyn Clarke.

 

The Lane Cove ALIVE Action Plan was developed in 2005 by Council through a process of extensive consultation with all community stakeholders. The Action Plan identified actions to ensure the future prosperity of Lane Cove Village Centre. In its designated role of implementing the findings outlined in the Action Plan, LCALG has prepared a Strategic Plan which identifies ways of moving forward to create a sustainable and revitalised town centre that is responsive to social and economic, community and cultural needs. LCALG is currently reviewing that Plan for the period 2013-16 to reflect the term for the current Board and contemporary priorities.

 

The Strategic Plan is available on both Lane Cove Council’s website www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au and the LCALG website www.lanecovealive.com.au

Review Methodology

The review was informed by both qualitative and quantitative research. Utilising primary and secondary data sources provided an understanding of the role and function of Lane Cove ALIVE, the current activities, as well as the business and community perception of the LCALG, its activities and its purpose.

 

Background Document Review & Research

Place Partners conducted a high level review of all relevant strategic and governance documents pertaining to the history, operation and activities of the LCALG since its establishment in 2006.

Place Partners had discussions with the directors of both the Central Geelong Marketing and Fremantle Business Improvement District to understand the specific challenges and benefits of the organisation’s governance structure, funding and the key challenges and benefits of their organisation.

Place Partners also conducted two interviews with key stakeholders Bronwyn Clarke (Project Manager, - Lane Cove ALIVE) & Jon Johannsen (Chairman, LCALG); and Deborah Hill (President, Lane Cove - Chamber of Commerce).


An online survey consisting of 13 questions was undertaken, including basic demographic information. A total of 115 responses were received from local residents, business owners and visitors to Lane Cove Village.

The purpose of the survey was to understand community and businesses awareness and perceptions of Lane Cove ALIVE and the level of participation in activities and events.

Place Partners also conducted a total of 66 face-to-face surveys with businesses in the Lane Cove. The face-to-face surveys consisted of the same questions as the online survey with the addition of three business specific activities.

The purpose of the survey was to understand the involvement, awareness and perceptions of businesses in regards to Lane Cove ALIVE and how they would like to be engaged in the future.

It is noted that a number of business owners and managers, when approached, indicated that they had or were intending to complete the survey online. Including the online results, a total of 82 business surveys were completed.

A follow up survey was also conducted with 17 businesses within the Plaza and Longueville Road to gain a snapshot of how actively businesses are using the Lane Cove ALIVE App and what benefits they see it brings to their business.

 

Key Findings

 

The following provides an executive summary of key findings from the strategic review of the LCALG and their activities, with detailed findings addressing the terms of reference being outlined in the Place Partners report:-

 

·    LCALG is led by passionate people committed to Lane Cove;

·    LCALG has built a strong foundation of relationships with local community organisations;

·    The Art & Design Markets attract people and emerging businesses to Lane Cove as well as providing an additional revenue source for LCALG;

·    LCALG is supportive of local community groups and advocates of other projects (ie. support for the farmers markets and working with Lane Cove Primary School with the Eco Transport Challenge); and

·    Strong support for the re-establishment of the Lane Cove Chamber of Commerce.

 

Key Facts

·    LCALG was established in 2005 as an innovative but untested model for community capacity building, economic and 2006 social revitalisation;

·    It has been operating for 8 years but the effectiveness of the governance, funding and delivery of stated objectives has not been reviewed;

·    A total of $1,135,939 has been allocated to LCALG for its operation and project specific funding between 2007 and 2012;

·    Approximately 6 community focused activities events have been delivered by LCALG as a one off activities or as an annual event;

·    LCALG has delivered 3 main business development and marketing programs, including Lane Cove Alive App, Visual merchandising makeovers and marketing mentoring program; and

·    Lane Cove ALIVE Project Manager and LCALG members are actively represented on four committees mainly for local cultural events and festivals.

 

Planning

·    The roles and responsibilities of the different organisations are not clearly defined and as a result achievements are difficult to assess;

·    Lack of continuity between iterations of the strategic plans therefore difficult to see the rationale for change or new actions;

·    Strategies to achieve the vision not aligned with the strategic plan themes;

·    Strategic planning does not demonstrate a response to future changes that will influence the village;

·    Key stakeholders not defined and projects/activities do not articulate who they intend to benefit and how; and

·    No implementation or management plan that clearly defines the project, tasks, delivery responsibilities, cost/funding and how it achieves the LCALG objectives.

 

Reporting and Review

·    The lack of formal reporting measures reduces the ability to consider the value of the organisation to the community, businesses and the council. The project manager’s role includes “Establish a system of review to monitor progress of task groups and overall progress of projects”;

·    No clear annual reporting standards/requirements to allow for Council and LCALG to adequately assess the success and value for money of activities and programs; and

·    Lack of ongoing formal engagement with community and stakeholders to plan for future activities or as a way to monitor/measure Lane Cove ALIVE activities.

 

Lack of Evaluation

·    LCALG model when first developed was innovative but the lack of change and review over the past 8 years has resulted in the organisation becoming ‘stuck’;

·    Significant development that has taken place within the village and the expected population increase that will occur in the future, the strategic planning does not reflect changes occurring in the community;  and

·    Original intention of Council was for LCALG to transition to a self funding organisation, however revenue generating activities have been minimal and little time is put into investigating alternative income opportunities (ie. grants, marketing revenue etc).

 

Passion for People and the Place

·    LCALG uses best practise knowledge to inform the day to day work;

·    Place making is a priority for LCALG to create a cohesive community in Lane Cove;

·    LCALG activities provide for an enhanced community experience of the village; and

·    Strong support by LCALG for other local groups and projects, however some of these projects do not benefit Lane Cove ALIVE’s key stakeholders.

 

Lane Cove Village or Lane Cove ALIVE

·    Slight shift in the strategies to achieve the vision “create a shared vision for Lane Cove Village” to “share our vision and encourage its acceptance and promotion”;

·    Shift from promoting Lane Cove Village to promoting the Lane Cove ALIVE brand and governance model; and

·    There is no coordinated plan for marketing Lane Cove and communications policy not updated since 2007.

 

 

Advocacy Over Action

·    The LCALG prioritise advocacy rather than action, i.e long term change rather than short term activity (note LCALG Sub Committees for Structure Plan, Public Realm and Public Art, not for marketing, business development etc);

·    Marketing budget of 7% (2012) compared with 90% for administration and salaries; and

·    No formal community engagement in the preparation of the strategic plans since the 2005 Strategic Action Plan.

 

Summary Findings

In summary, the key findings of Place Partners are as follows:-

i.    There is a misalignment between Council, and LCALG as to the future role and priorities for the organisation;

ii.    Council and the Chamber of Commerce’s priorities and vision for the future role of Lane Cove ALIVE is more aligned and more clearer than LCALG;

iii.   Council, the CoC, business and the community all see the priority for Lane Cove ALIVE to be supporting local business and attracting new business into the Village;

iv.  LCALG see the future priorities to be specific to the governance of LCALG and a new vision for the village renewal;

v.   Collaboration, improving relationships and partnerships with key stakeholders was a priority shared by LCALG, Council and the Chamber; and

vi.  The community also working with Council for better public space was a key role and purpose which aligns with the LCALG priority to contribute to the village renewal.

 

Review Recommendations

As a result of the review Place Partners recommend the following actions take place:-

1.   Define and agree on the roles and responsibilities of Council, LCALG and the Chamber of Commerce to delivery of the following priorities for the Lane Cove Village:-

·    Marketing and communications

·    Activation

·    Business retention, attraction and support.

2.   LCALG 2013-2016 Strategic Plan to be reviewed to reflect agreed priorities and the new definition of roles;

3.   A detailed 12 month action plan be prepared with deliverables, associated budgets and KPIs; and

4.   Formal measurement and reporting mechanisms be put in place as a requirement of any new funding agreement.

 

Lane Cove ALIVE Leadership Group Response to the PP Report

Following presentation of the report to Councillors by Place Partners, the report was presented and discussed with LCALG and an opportunity provided for feedback. Therefore, actual comments provided by LCALG are as follows:-

·    The Report attempts to measure LCALG’s 7 year’s of activities against the actions nominated in the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) 2005; and then against the Lane Cove Community Strategic Plan (LCCSP) 2025; and then against examples in cities that are not comparable with Lane Cove.

·    The Report has many gaps and inconsistencies due to their enquiries not including enough input from the people who put the LCALG concept and program together and those who have run it for 7 years.

·    Some of the survey reports ring true and they can inform aspects of LCALG future activities.

·    Comprehensive information about LCALG activities has been broadcast and reported throughout its 7 years, and much of what is in the public arena appears to have been overlooked or omitted from consideration by PP.

·    As stated in the original 2005 SAP, many programs are shared responsibilities and that considerable co-ordination will be needed to operationalise them.

·    PP criticises LCALG for under-utilising shared activities, and LCALG’s response to that opinion is that LCC has usually accommodated LCALG co-operation offers while the Chamber of Commerce (CoC) has been absent from the field

·    LCALG was created as an independent entity in the first place, and the point is that although Lane Cove groups have common interests they have great difficulty co-ordinating and co-operating with each other to find commonly agreed answers.

·    LCALG was created outside this scenario so that independent and responsible professional input from people drawn from the major sections of the Lane Cove community could be accessed by LCC.

·    The  Report provides example of different places as if to suggest that there is a common way of doing these things (e.g. all four BiDs detailed derived their income from compulsory payments levied by their respective councils) and LCALG is not on that path.

·    LCALG considers PP’s views and suggestions drawn from those examples as being more a window on PP’s lack of understanding of Lane Cove, its community, culture and history with methods they espouse (e.g. levies).

·    LCALG has consulted, advised and counselled key personnel in several LGAs, and LCC knows this because of the reports and arrangements the LCALG Program Manager makes through LCC.

·    The PP report “final” recommendations are strong on encouraging measurable results and performance evaluations, as was the 2005 SAP, which are laudable objectives, but many of the “measures” are beyond LCALG’s capacity to influence directly or assess accurately, especially on projects that are shared responsibilities.

·    The PP report quite fairly limits LCALG’s obligations to produce Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to projects for which LCALG is solely responsible.

·    LCALG has been in discussions with LCC about the forms of measures or metrics that might be useful, and LCALG has produced 2 internal documents on options for assessing outcomes.

·    LCALG is concerned that the Place Partners review gave almost no recognition of the substantial pro-bono time contributed and achievements that the voluntary board had enabled over the 7 years since its inception.

·    LCALG believe there has been a significant return on investment by board members in addition to efforts by their Project Manager, Bronwyn Clarke, who performs as a LCC salaried staff member.

·    Over the past 7 years, they estimate that Board Members have contributed close to 5,000 hours that, when augmented by PM’s work over and above the contractual baseline, generates a figure approaching $700k that represents substantial benefits across a range of projects and value added services to LCC and the Lane Cove community.

 

Conclusion

 

The Place Partners report identifies a number of issues which going forward Council should address. While Lane Cove ALIVE provides clarification and further information to a number of matters, it is not considered that they change the basis for the recommendations. Council has advanced considerably its management of grant funding in recent years. It is essential that there be alignment between Council and the grant recipient, in this case Lane Cove ALIVE. The review identifies the misalignment of priorities and the importance of establishing relevant KPI’s which needs to be addressed.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Receive and note the report; and

 

2.   Convene a workshop with Lane Cove ALIVE Leadership Group to discuss the misalignment between Council and Lane Cove Alive Leadership Group as to the future role and priorities for the organisation, as identified within the Place Partners report.

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 22 April 2014

Sustainability Small Grants Round 8 - Recommended Recipients

 

 

Subject:          Sustainability Small Grants Round 8 - Recommended Recipients    

Record No:    SU5183 - 18914/14

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Katy Christian 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report advises of organisations seeking funds under Round 8 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program. Council received nine (9) applications seeking funding. The report recommends providing funding for four (4) of the nine (9) applications to the total of $6,000.

 

Background

 

Council, under Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993, may grant financial assistance to organisations. This report discusses the application process for Round 8 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program and recommends Council provide the grants nominated. 

 

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

 

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

 

Discussion

 

All applications were assessed against the criteria provided in AT-1 by a panel comprising of the Chair of the Sustainability Advisory Committee, Council’s Manager-Environmental Health and the Sustainability Coordinator.  Applicants were required to show how their application could meet the needs of the Lane Cove community and promote and enhance our vision for sustainability in all its forms. Included in AT-2 is a summary of all the applications and Small Grants Assessment Panel comments and recommendations.

 

The budget for the Sustainability Small Grants Program includes a provision of $15,000 in funding for this financial year (Round 7 and Round 8). $9,000 was allocated to projects in Round 7 leaving $6,000 available for Round 8. Further funding will be available in the 2015/16 financial year.

 

Conclusion

 

Council’s Sustainability Small Grants Program assists the development of a broad range of initiatives that are of direct and practical benefit to a sustainable Lane Cove community. Furthermore Council’s Sustainability Action Plan provides guidance to assist in identifying priority projects for funding.

 

Applications for Round 8 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program closed on Thursday 20 March 2014. It is recommended Council approve funding for four (4) of the nine (9) applications being:-

·    Possums Corner Child Care Centre Inc;

·    St Ignatius’ College Riverview;

·    Greenwich Public School P & C and

·    Lane Cove Out of School Inc.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.    Approve  funds under Round 8 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program for the following projects:-

·    $2000 – Possums Corner Child Care Centre Inc;

·    $1000 – St Ignatius’ College Riverview;

·    $2000 – Greenwich Public School P & C; and

·    $1000 – Lane Cove Out of School Inc.

2.    Give Public Notice of the proposed funding under Round 8 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program, and subject to no objections being received, grant the funds as outlined above.

3.    Thank all participants for their nomination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Selection Criteria for Round 8 of Sustainability Small Grants Program

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Summary of Grant Applications received under Round 8 and Panel Recommendations

4 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 22 April 2014

NSW Public Library Funding

 

 

Subject:          NSW Public Library Funding    

Record No:    SU2122 - 19668/14

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Jennifer Bice 

 

 

Executive Summary

Successive New South Wales State Governments have failed to increase public library funding. As a result, State funding of NSW public libraries has decreased as a proportion of total public expenditure from 23% in 1980 to 7% in 2013. This means that Local Councils are now providing 93% of public library funding.

In October 2012, the Library Council of NSW provided a submission to the State Government called Reforming Public Library Funding. The evidence-based submission recommended a fairer, simplified and more transparent method for the distribution of funds. Despite a high level of expectation that the State Government would review and increase its funding allocation to NSW public libraries, this did not eventuate in the 2013 state budget.

  

The NSW Public Library Associations (NSWPLA) are co-ordinating a targeted campaign to bring the situation to the attention of politicians and funding decision makers.  Local Government NSW (LGNSW) and the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) are assisting NSWPLA in this campaign. In addition, local supporters of public libraries including library users will be engaged in the campaign to lobby State Members.

Background

The NSW public library funding situation is an historic issue that has been ignored by successive New South Wales governments. The funding level has now reached a crisis point.  The key issues are:-

·    NSW receives the lowest per-capita funding for public libraries from the State Government of all States in Australia;

·    State Government expenditure on public libraries has decreased as a proportion of total public library expenditure from 23% in 1980 to 7% in 2013;

·    NSW Local Government Councils are currently paying 93% of the costs to operate public libraries in NSW (which are governed by state legislation) NSW Library Act;

·    The current NSW Public Library Funding Strategy includes three components:-

Per capita subsidy (legislated at $1.85 per NSW resident) - $13,503,243 in 2012-13;

Disability & Geographic Adjustment (DGA) $6,551,966 - includes a component of population-based payments and a proportion of payments based on five disability factors developed by the NSW Local Government Grants Commission (pre-school children; people over 65; people from a non English speaking background; population distribution; and isolation); and

Library Development Grants - $549,996 (this amount has reduced from $3.3m in 2005-06). These competitive grants assist with large capital projects and service innovative projects that can be replicated across New South Wales. Maximum grant available is $200,000.

·    The NSW Public Library Funding Strategy is not indexed to population growth or the consumer price index (CPI). This means that:-

Funds have been taken from the Library Development Grant pool over a number of years to meet the increased per capita subsidy costs (and the per-capita component of the Disability and Geographic Adjustment fund) as the NSW population increases each year. If the government had not provided an “additional” $2m to maintain the Country Public Libraries fund contribution in 2013-14, there would be no funding left for Library Development Grants; and

If the current funding situation is not addressed urgently, NSW Councils will suffer a reduction in their Disability and Geographic Adjustment payments to meet the increase in legislated per-capita subsidy costs for additional NSW population.

Discussion

During the 2011 election campaign, the current NSW State Government made a pre-election commitment to undertake a comprehensive review of the quantum and allocation of funding for NSW public libraries. To date there has been no significant action by the Government to meet this commitment.

 

The Library Council of NSW used the government’s pre-election commitment as a trigger to convene a committee of representatives from the Public Libraries NSW Association (representing regional and rural councils and libraries), the NSW Metropolitan Public Libraries Association (representing metropolitan councils and libraries), and the State Library of NSW, to develop an evidence-based submission about public library funding.

 

The Library Council of NSW then provided a submission to the State Government called Reforming Public Library Funding in October 2012. The evidence-based submission recommended a fairer, simplified and more transparent method for the distribution of funds.

 

The following principles for a new approach were recommended:-

·    Establish a base level of funding for Councils with populations below 20,000 people (a safety net for small Councils);

·    Grant a modest increase in per capita allocations for all Councils to recognise cost movements since 1994;

·    Address disadvantage transparently through the application of appropriate disability factors;

·    Phase out anomalies in current allocations due to former Council amalgamations;

·    Ensure sustainability by providing that no Council receives less recurrent funding than 2012/13; and

·    Build and maintain infrastructure via a substantial capital fund, entitled the Building Library Infrastructure Program.

The Library Council recommended that recurrent public library funding to Councils be adjusted from the current $26.5M to $30M per annum from 2013/14 and indexed from the following year. This would be allocated as follows: 68% ($20.4M in 2013/14) to Councils by population with a base level of funding for Councils with fewer than 20,000 residents, 17% ($5.1M) to Councils by NSW Local Government Grants Commission (LGGC) disability factors to explicitly address disadvantage and 15% ($4.5M) applied to Statewide Programs.

 

In addition, a Building Library Infrastructure Program of $30M per annum for building and maintaining infrastructure was recommended to replace the now defunct provision of grants from operating funds. This program would enable councils to renew library buildings, systems, collections and equipment in regional, urban and growth areas. It was proposed that this be phased in, rising to $30M over the 4 years from 2013/14 and indexed thereafter.

 

Despite a high level of expectation that the State Government would fulfil its pre-election undertaking to review and increase its funding allocation to NSW public libraries, this did not eventuate in the 2013 State budget.   

 

Local Impact

 

While some other Councils would receive a significant increase using the proposed funding model the benefit to Lane Cove would not be immediate. However, as Lane Cove’s population grows the increase to per capita funding would have an impact on overall funding.

 

If a Building Library Infrastructure Program was introduced this would allow Council to apply for grant funding for major projects including digitising Local Studies collections, building projects, automated handling system, etc.

 

Lane Cove Council received an $180,000 Library Development Grant 2008/09 to assist with the Lane Cove Library extension project. The available Library Development Grant funding (without supplementing it with the Revitalising Regional Libraries Grants) is now only $549,996 for the entire State. If Council were to undertake another significant Library building project it would be unlikely to receive any grant funding using the existing funding model.

Campaign

The NSW Public Library Associations (NSWPLA) are co-ordinating a targeted campaign to bring the situation to the attention of politicians and funding decision makers to address the problem. 

 

Local Government NSW (LGNSW) and the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) are assisting NSWPLA in this campaign and information will be provided to Councils and public libraries on an ongoing basis from these bodies throughout the campaign. In addition, local supporters of public libraries and library users will be engaged in the campaign to lobby State Members.

 

Given that 44% of the State’s population are library users (more than 70% in Lane Cove), it is anticipated that there will be strong support for the campaign in the community. Research also highlights the high value placed on public libraries by users and non-users alike. In Council’s 2013 Customer Satisfaction Survey the Library achieved a Customer Survey Index (CSI) of 8.69 which was the highest rating for any service offered by Council. There will be high level media engagement and local and national champions of public libraries will be advocating for funding reform.

Conclusion

There is currently a high degree of uncertainty as to the level of ongoing funding for public libraries in NSW from the State Government. The intent of the NSW Library Act in 1939 was for equal funding from State and Local governments to provide library services. Since that time local government has increasingly carried the funding burden and the situation has deteriorated significantly over the past few decades.   Without urgent action from Local Government and NSW Public Library Associations, this situation will continue and Local Councils will once again be forced to pick up the funding shortfall.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council provide support to the campaign mounted by the NSW Public Library Associations for increased State funding to local government for public libraries by:-

1.   Writing to the Hon. George Souris, Minister for the Arts and to the local State Member, the Hon. Anthony Roberts MP, Minister for Resources and Energy, Special Minister of State in relation to the need for additional funding from the NSW State Government for the provision of public library services;

2.   Approving the distribution of NSW Public Library Associations campaign information in Council libraries; and

3.   Taking a lead role in activating the campaign locally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 22 April 2014

Tender for the Supply and Installation of replacement Heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) equipment at the Lane Cove Council Civic Centre

 

 

Subject:          Tender for the Supply and Installation of replacement Heating, Ventilation and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) equipment at the Lane Cove Council Civic Centre    

Record No:    SU5174 - 20336/14

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Donald Gibson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council called for tenders in accordance with Council’s Tender and Quotation Procedure for the Replacement of HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning) at Lane Cove Council Civic Centre. This report provides details on the tender process conducted and recommends that the tender from Beaver Air Conditioning be accepted.

 

Discussion

 

Council has been successful in obtaining two (2) grants towards the costs of improving the energy efficiency of the Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system at the Civic Centre. The grants were from Federal Government Community Energy Efficiency Program for the amount of $294,800 +GST and NSW Government Waste and Sustainability Improvement Payment (WaSIP) Program funds of $280,115 + GST.

 

Council engaged the services of ARUP to work with staff to develop a brief that would achieve the aims of reducing the operating costs of the HVAC system while also addressing some of the problems that have arisen due to the changes in use of the building since it was opened in the early 1990s.

 

ARUP’s tender documents were then subjected to a peer review, which confirmed that the approach proposed would be the most cost effective way to improve the energy efficiency of the existing system. The approach involves retaining most of the original ductwork which is still in serviceable condition, replacing the air conditioning units and replacing the localised electric heating with a centralised boiler to heat the water being circulated to the units. Associated with this will be a new Building Management and Control System (BMCS) to allow for more accurate control of the temperatures throughout the building and changes to the way that the air flows are handled that will accommodate large meetings in the Cove Room and provide additional control for the Council Chambers.

 

Tenders were advertised on Tenderlink on 11 February 2014, in the Sydney Morning Herald on 11 February 2014 and the North Shore Times on 14 February 2014. A compulsory site inspection was held on 20 February 2014, to ensure that all companies wishing to tender were aware of the site limitations and the location of the equipment to be replaced. The work will be let using “AS 4000:1997, General Conditions of Contract”, as amended by Schmidt –Liermann lawyers to meet Council’s preferences. Tenders closed on 21 March 2014 at which time six (6) tenders were received. These were from AAA Air Conditioning, Airconomy, Beaver Air Conditioning, Innovative Air Conditioning (T/as James and Scott), NBR Mechanical Services and RCR Haden Infrastructure.

 

Tenders were assessed based on the following weighted criteria.

 

Assessment Criteria

 

The specification identified the selection criteria as follows:-

 

(a)        Pricing: 35%

 

·    Best value to Council.

 

Bids were scored 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.

·    Proposed methods of service delivery.

·    Continuous Improvement.

 

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.

·    Structure of the Organisation.

·    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.

·    Experience of Sub-Contractors.

·    Referees responses.

 

To achieve the maximum score the tenderer is to have the relevant experience, preferably 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.

·    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.

·    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.

 

Three (3) companies, AAA Air Conditioning, Airconomy and NBR Mechanical Services did not complete the returnable schedules or excluded elements of the specified work from their pricing so were deemed to be non-compliant.

 

Following the initial assessment representatives of two (2) companies, Beaver Air Conditioning and RCR Haden, were interviewed. Interviews were held on Monday 7 April, 2014. Both companies demonstrated knowledge and experience which would indicate that they are capable of carrying out the required work.

 

The following table lists all tenders. Non-compliant tenders are notable to be considered so are not identified as “Preferred” in any category.

 

Company

Price (35%)

Capability & Capacity (25%)

Experience (incl References) (25%)

Environmental & OH&S Programs (15%)

 

Overall

AAA Air Conditioning

 

 

 

 

 

Airconomy

 

 

 

 

 

Beaver Air Conditioning

= Preferred

 

 

= Preferred

Preferred

James & Scott

= Preferred

 

 

 

 

NBR Mechanical Services

 

 

 

 

 

RCR Haden Infrastructure

 

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 14th April, 2014. 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 grant funds and Sustainability Levy funds allocated in the 2014/15 Budget.

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 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 supply and installation of replacement HVAC at Lane Cove Council Offices be awarded to Beaver Air Conditioning for an amount of $729,500; and

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

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.         Council accept the Tender from Beaver Air Conditioning Pty Ltd for the Supply and Installation of replacement HVAC at Lane Cove Council Offices for an amount of $729,500 ex GST; and

 

2.         The General Manager be authorised to enter into contract with Beaver Air Conditioning Pty             Ltd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 22 April 2014

Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 18 March 2014

 

 

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

Record No:    SU1326 - 19557/14

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Tim Sullivan 

 

 

 Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday, 18 March 2014.  The Agenda is included as AT-1.  The Traffic Committee recommendations are shown in the Minutes of the Meeting, included as AT-2.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the recommendations of the Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday, 18 March 2014.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Agenda - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 18 March 2014

15 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Minutes - Lane Cove Traffic Committee 18 March 2014

5 Pages

 

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 22 April 2014

Voluntary Planning Agreements

 

 

Subject:          Voluntary Planning Agreements    

Record No:    SU560 - 18247/14

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

Council at its meeting on 17 March 2014 resolved that the General Manager report back to Council on the future projects to be funded by Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPA’s) and the standard legislative framework for VPA’s.

 

This Report will therefore outline the legislative framework, NSW Planning and Infrastructure Practice Note and processes for considering VPA’s. The Report will also identify the types of public benefits that might be covered by future VPA’s. Additionally, the Report will recommend that the relevant legislation and NSW Planning and Infrastructure Practice Note be the basis for Council to consider any VPA proposals.

 

Background

 

The regime for Voluntary Planning Agreements was introduced by the Environmental Planning & Assessment Amended (Development Contributions) Act 2005 (EP and A Act) and then followed by the Regulations on 8 July 2005.

 

A Practice Note was also issued by the then Department of Planning and Infrastructure (now NSW Planning and Infrastructure) in 2005 to explain the operation of the VPA system.

 

The object of the VPA system was stated in the Explanatory Notes to the legislation as follows:-

 

The object……is.to extend the means by which planning authorities may obtain development contributions to be applied for the provision of public amenities and public services and for other public purposes. .. Planning authorities (including the Minister) will be specifically authorised to obtain development contributions for any public purpose through Voluntary Planning Agreements with the developer.

 

NSW Planning and Infrastructure’s Practice Note lists the objectives of VPAs as being:-

 

·        To meet the demands created by development for new public infrastructure, amenities and services;

·        Prescribing the nature of development to achieve specific planning objectives;

·        Securing off-site planning benefits for the wider community so the development delivers a net community benefit; and

·        Compensating for the loss of, or damage to, a public amenity, service, resource, or asset by development through replacement, substitution, repair or regeneration.

 

Since the introduction of the legislation, many councils have entered into planning agreements with developers to deal with more complex proposals by enabling greater flexibility in the way contributions could be levied than is provided for under s94 or s94A.

 

The only way for development contributions to be made to Council is by the provision of s94A or through a VPA. Council is required to have a s94A Plan proposed in accordance with the EP & A Act and Regulation 2000. There is no similar requirement to adopt a VPA policy as the benefits of a VPA are generally adhoc in routine.

 


The Legislative Framework

 

The requirements for a planning agreement are set out in Section 93F of the Environmental

Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and may be summarised as follows:-

 

·          a voluntary agreement;

 

·          between the planning authority, such as a council, and a developer;

 

·          where the developer "has made, or proposes to make, a development application" or seeks a change to an environmental planning instrument, under which a developer is required to;

 

·          dedicate land free of cost;

 

·          pay a monetary contribution;

 

·          provide any other material public benefit; and

 

·          to be used for or applied towards a public purpose.

 

The term public purpose' is not defined in the Act, but Section 93F(2) states that the following are included:-

 

a)         the provision of (or the recoupment of the cost of providing) public amenities or public services;

b)         the provision of (or the recoupment of the cost of providing) affordable housing;

c)         the provision of (or the recoupment of the cost of providing) transport or other

d)         infrastructure relating to land;

 

e)         the funding of recurrent expenditure relating to the provision of public amenities or public services, affordable housing or transport or other infrastructure;

 

f)          the monitoring of the planning impacts of development; and

 

g)         the conservation or enhancement of the natural environment.

 

A VPA can be entered into along with the separate levying of s94/s94A contributions for the same development but the VPA must specifically allow for this to happen.

 

The Planning and Infrastructure Practice Note provides the following definitions to explain some of the key concepts:-

 

planning benefit means a development contribution that confers a net public benefit, that is, a benefit that exceeds the benefit derived from measures that would address the impacts of particular development on surrounding land or the wider community,

 

public facilities means public infrastructure, facilities, amenities and services,

 

planning obligation means an obligation imposed by a planning agreement on a developer requiring the developer to make a development contribution,

 

public includes a section of the public,

 

public benefit is the benefit enjoyed by the public as a consequence of a development contribution.

 

The VPA is an enforceable legal contract between parties. It establishes responsibilities and obligations.

Procedure

 

In summary, the procedure required by the Act and Regulations is for a developer to offer to enter into a Planning Agreement prior to lodging a Development Application or with a Planning Proposal to amend an LEP. If the developer voluntarily offers to enter into a Planning Agreement, then the council can require that the Planning Agreement be entered into as a condition of Development Consent: Section 93I(3). Council however, cannot impose a condition requiring that an applicant or developer enter into an agreement that is not voluntary.

 

The unwritten part of the Planning Agreement legal process is an assumption that a developer will undertake negotiations with the council prior to lodging the Development Application or a Planning Proposal and the outcome of the negotiations form the basis of a draft Planning Agreement. This is endorsed by the Practice Note issued by Planning and Infrastructure.

 

Where a Planning Agreement is offered by a developer, the following steps are appropriate:-

 

1.         Prior to lodgement of the relevant application by the developer, the Council (represented by an authorised delegate) and Developer (and any other relevant person such as the landowner) will decide whether to negotiate a planning agreement;

 

2.         The parties will decide whether to appoint an independent person to facilitate or otherwise participate in the negotiations or aspects of it, and appoint such a person;

 

3.         The parties will also agree on a timetable for negotiations and the protocols and work practices governing their negotiations;

 

4.         The parties will then identify the key issues for negotiation and undertake the negotiations, including any negotiations or consultations with relevant public authorities;

 

5.         If agreement on the general contributions to be offered is reached, the developer will prepare the proposed planning agreement including the explanatory note and provide a copy to Council;

 

6.         Once agreement is reached on the specific terms of the proposed planning agreement, the developer may then make the relevant offer to Council accompanied by a copy of the proposed agreement;

 

7.         The proposed agreement and explanatory note will be notified and exhibited together with the relevant draft application or Planning Proposal;

 

8.         Submissions will be considered and further amendments to the proposed agreement may be negotiated. This will occur separately to the assessment of the merits of the application or Planning Proposal.

 

9.         The Agreement is entered into once both parties finalise any amendments and according to when the agreement should be activated through a development consent or the making of an LEP amendment.

 

Public Notice

 

The Council must give public notice of the proposed Planning Agreement in accordance with Clause 25D of the EP & A Regulations. This notice will usually be part of the public notice given for the relevant Development Application or planning proposal public exhibitions.  The public notice must allow for not less than 28 days inspection of the following:-

 

a)         the proposed Planning Agreement; and

b)         an Explanatory Note.

 

The Explanatory Note must be drafted in accordance with clause 25E of the Regulations. Under Section 93G of the Act, any variation or assignment of the agreement requires another public notice.

 

Approval and Execution

 

If Development Consent is granted or the Planning Proposal is supported by Council after

the exhibition of the Planning Proposal and the proposed Planning Agreement is accepted by both parties then it would be expected that a condition of consent or resolution will require

that the developer enter into the Planning Agreement.  Council and the developer would then formally execute the Planning Agreement. At this time, the Planning Agreement becomes a separate contract and is enforceable against the developer.

 

Registration

 

A Planning Agreement can be registered on the land to which it relates: Section 93H(1). The consequence of registration is that the Planning Agreement is binding on and enforceable against the owner of the land from time to time: Section 93H(3). Thus a registered Planning Agreement will "run with the land" in a similar way to a Development Consent or land use zoning.

 

 

Safeguards in the Legislation

 

An important factor of the legislation is that it outlines a number of safeguards to ensure that VPAs are used in a legitimate fashion. Section 93F(9) of the Act prevents a planning agreement from creating any obligations on Council to either grant development consent or amend an LEP. The existence of a proposed VPA cannot fetter Council's role as a consent authority or as a planning authority for the LEP.

 

Similarly, a consent authority cannot refuse development consent on the basis that a planning agreement has not been entered into or offered. The Independent Commission against Corruption (ICAC) has commented strongly on the potential for corruption within the planning and land development approval processes. The safeguards created under the Act attempt to minimise the potential for corruption.

 

Public Interest and Probity Considerations

 

·          The public interest in the context of Planning Agreements is directed toward the fair and open imposition of a legal agreement for the benefit of the community and to be consistent between one developer and another. Benefit to a private developer is not a primary consideration.

·          The Practice Note issued by NSW Planning and Infrastructure sets out several tests for assessing whether planning obligations are appropriate.

·          These include an acceptability test to ensure that planning agreements:-

·          are directed towards proper or legitimate planning purposes that are based on the statutory planning controls and other adopted planning policies applying to development;

·          provide for public benefits that bear a relationship to development and that are not wholly unrelated to the development;

·          produce outcomes that meet the general values and expectations of the public and protect the overall public interest; and

 

·          provide for a reasonable means of achieving the relevant purposes and outcomes and securing the benefits, and protect the community against planning harmfrom development impacts.

·          Council can consider entering into a planning agreement for a proposed change to an environmental planning instrument or a proposed/submitted development application.

·          Some examples of circumstances where VPAs may be appropriate include:-

o    Providing for development contributions that compensate for the loss of or damage to a public amenity, service, resource or asset that will or is likely to result from the carrying out of a development;

o    Providing for development contributions that meet the demand for new public infrastructure, amenities and services created by development that cannot be provided by the usual s94A levy;

o    Requiring development to incorporate particular elements that confer a public benefit such as open space, recreational facilities, retention of urban bushland etc that cannot be achieved through a s94A levy;

o    Providing an overall net benefit to the wider community rather than purely addressing the direct impacts of the development;

o    Planning benefits may take the form of additional or better quality public facilities than may be required through a consent condition or s94A levy to meet the demand created by the development; and

o    Providing for public benefits in the form of contributions towards the recurrent costs of infrastructure, facilities and services.

 

Circumstances in which Voluntary Planning Agreements are Inappropriate

 

While planning agreements may be used in a wide range of circumstances, it is important to identify situations when Council shouldnt consider entering into a planning agreement.

 

Such circumstances include the following:-

 

·          Where the suspicion may arise that a change to an environmental planning instrument or a development consent can be bought by the highest bidder via a planning agreement;

 

·          When the planning agreement incorporates or suggests an obligation for Council to grant consent to the development application or Planning Proposal;

 

·          Where a breach of the EP & A Act or other Act may result from the provisions of a planning agreement; and

 

·          Where Council has a direct commercial interest in the development and should avoid, wherever possible, a conflict by entering a VPA and acting as consent authority.

 

Governance Arrangements for Voluntary Planning Agreements

 

The following steps have been adopted as specific measures to maintain responsibility, transparency and accountability:-

 

1.         Only staff with appropriate delegated authority will negotiate a planning agreement on behalf of Council. This will be the General Manager or Executive Managers

 

2.         Councillors are not be involved in the face-to-face negotiation of the voluntary planning agreement.

 

3.         If Council has a commercial interest in the subject matter of a planning agreements as a landowner, developer or financier, Council will ensure that the Council officer who assesses the application to which a VPA relates is not the same Council officer who was involved in the negotiation of the terms of the planning agreement;

 

4.         Council appoints an independent person to facilitate or otherwise advise in the negotiation of a planning agreement, or aspects of it, such as where:-

 

a)         an independent assessment of a proposed local environment plan change or development application is necessary or desirable;

 

b)         factual information requires validation in the course of negotiations;

 

c)         sensitive financial or other information must be verified or established in the course of negotiations;

 

d)         facilitation of complex negotiations are required in relation to large projects or where numerous parties or stakeholders are involved; or

 

e)         dispute resolution is required under a planning agreement.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Council has recently dealt with several draft Voluntary Planning Agreements providing additional facilities and benefits for the community, which may not have been achieved in the absence of relevant legislative provisions.

 

The process for entering into, notification and drafting of a VPA is set out in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Regulations and a NSW Planning and Infrastructure Practice Note. It is therefore not necessary for Council to have a separate policy, but rather rely upon compliance with the relevant legislation and Practice Note, as its basis and framework for assessing and managing any VPA proposals submitted to Council.

 

Should there be any amendments to this framework including any changes issued to the Practice Note, Council procedures would be amended accordingly.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.         Receive and note the content of the Report; and

 

2.         Adopt as the basis and framework for assessing and managing any Voluntary Planning Agreement proposals submitted to Council, the relevant legislative provisions contained within the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulation and related Practice Notes issued or amended by the NSW Government.

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 22 April 2014

Residential Development Activity

 

 

Subject:          Residential Development Activity    

Record No:    SU1441 - 20342/14

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Following a Notice of Motion from Councillors Strassberg and Brent in relation to development in Lane Cove a meeting was held in the relevant with the Councillors to discuss the issues. The following provides the background to the current level of development activity in the Local Government Area (LGA). It is recommended the report be received and noted.

 

Background

 

Council at its meeting of 17 March 2014 considered a Notice of Motion from Councillors Strassberg and Brent “Lane Cove Developments Numbers & Impact Analysis. Council resolved in relation to the motion “that the matter be deferred for consultation with the General Manager.”

 

Discussion

 

The Comprehensive LEP process completed in 2009 was a long, exhaustive process which predates the current Council. The following information is provided to provide context to the current level of Residential activity within the Local Government Area (LGA).

 

The Draft Inner North Subregional Strategy required the following growth targets to be achievable within the Lane Cove LGA over the 25-year period to 2031 (it assumed a base year of 2006):-

 

Residential

3,900 new dwellings

Employment

6,500 new jobs

 

(a)        General principles for increased density

Council’s original response to the target was to provide for a 15-year timeframe within a 25-year overall timeframe, in an attempt to stage the intensification of residential areas, to encourage the orderly development of a series of areas.  This would allow for a Stage 2 Residential LEP to be prepared for the 15-25 year residential component in the future.

 

The Department ultimately agreed to Council’s LEP providing for a minimum of 2,700 new dwellings. This is slightly less than the 2,900 dwellings which would achieve two-thirds of the 25-year target of 3,900. Council set about providing in the LEP suitable rezoning to achieve this target, but the R4 Mowbray precinct was not envisaged at this time and therefore was included to only a small extent to make up the dwelling target, as town houses were proposed in some areas.

 

(b)       Criteria for proposed residential growth areas

The selection of areas for residential intensification was based on clustering growth around retail/ commercial and transport nodes, in support of the principle of the integration of land use and transport.

 

In order to identify specific areas, the following methodology was applied:-

 

(i)         A set of ten criteria was developed (see below);

(ii)        A range of  locations was ranked according to a score under those criteria; and

(iii)       The appropriate scale in terms of floor space ratio and height for each area, and the potential number of dwellings, were determined taking into account surrounding land uses, scale and character.

 

 

1

3

5

Walking distance to shops

Over 800 metres

400-800 metres

400 metres or less

Gradient to shops

Mostly steeper than 1 in 6

A few areas up to  1 in 6 (electric scooter capacity)

Generally more level  than 1 in 14

Transport availability

No bus routes

A few bus routes to a centre

Rail & several bus routes to centres

Traffic network – intersections ’ expected capacity regional roads local roads

 

F level

E level

 

D-E level

C level

 

A-D level

A-B level

Conservation – building & vegetation quality

50% or more of site is significant

Up to 10% of site significant

None significant

Existing housing quality / loss of area’s character

50% or more recently built/ upgraded, unique streetscape

Approx. 10% recently built/ upgraded, some attractive features

Ageing, run-down stock

Interface with adjacent areas

Conflicting land uses

Transitional and compatible eg flats next to townhouses

Would extend similar uses eg other flats areas adjacent

Site qualities

Noisy, no views

District or verdant outlook, noise moderate

Water views, quiet

Recreation  proximity

Over 800 metres walk to recreational facilities

Moderate walk to parks and/or recreational facilities

400 metres or less to major park, Aquatic Centre, waterfront  etc

Change from existing land use

Unique existing land use

Loss of stock will be made up elsewhere

Remaining stock meets Metropolitan Strategy

 

(c)        Co-ordination with Infrastructure Providers

During the preparation of a local environmental plan, Council consulted as per the legislation (s62 of the EP&A Act) with the government authorities, in particular infrastructure providers, regarding the implications of proposed rezonings and other amendments.

 

The consultation originally commenced in late 2000 with written requests to water, power, transport and other authorities for information on their capacity to meet the needs of increased residential and commercial/ industrial growth, their legislation, planning policies and other relevant factors. Following the preparation by 2004 of the Draft LEP, this process was undertaken a second time to update the information, with a range of authorities being added according to specific issues.

 

In the consultation 2000 – 2005, growth was envisaged to be approximately one thousand new dwellings, principally through the rezoning of the obsolete Burns Bay Road industrial area (TUTA etc) and intensification of the dwelling capacity of existing townhouse zones. Employment growth was based on the remaining capacity within existing business and industrial zones.

 

This consultation was undertaken before the 2007 Draft Inner North Subregional Strategy’s residential and employment growth targets. A third round of consultation with the various authorities was undertaken in 2007-8 to enable them to factor this growth into their comments.

 

In relation to all aspects, infrastructure providers advised that their capacity would be satisfactory with augmentation as development occurred.  Council’s consultants also assessed the traffic capacity of key intersections before the draft LEP was endorsed.

(d)       The emergence of the Mowbray Precinct

In response to the 2008 consultation, the comments of particular significance at that time were those of the Department of Housing, who requested residential density increases in two areas in which it owns several properties. Lane Cove North, around Mindarie Street, and Murralah Place were suggested for rezoning from a detached housing zone to a townhouse zone. This would support the Mowbray Public School with a catchment of relatively affordable housing stock.

 

The Department of Housing was a key land owner in the precinct, owning some 46 low density residential properties, (total area 31,906 sqm). As time progressed the Department of Housing changed its position to requesting High Density Residential R4 across all of its sites, which was ultimately supported by the Department of Planning. Council opposed the rezoning throughout 2008/9, but ultimately the Department of Planning decided to proceed with the R4 zoning.  

 

(e)        The Residential Capacity of LEP 2010

With the increased density included in the Mowbray Precinct and the Part 3A approval for the 150 Epping Road site, the capacity within the LEP grew from the agreed 2,700 to approximately 4.300 dwellings. Included as attachment AT 1, is a map showing the zoning changes which occurred as a result of the LEP, in force from February 2010 (individual height and FSR controls may now have changed).

 

The following provides a summary of the development activity to date based on the information readily available. Council has approved 2212 units, with 536 with Council for consideration, a total of 2748 units. The approved units are in the following precincts, 373 Burns Bay, 467 Finlayson/Birdwood, 950 Mowbray and 321 in other areas. In terms of the status of the approvals, 241 units have been completed, while 1214 are under construction, the remaining are pending.

 

(f)        Future Residential Capacity

In the past, whilst there is no formal legislative requirement, the Department of Planning has normally allowed any “excess capacity” to be counted as part of achieving future residential targets. As an example in the preparation for the 2010 LEP, the Department allowed Council to count towards the target any developments that had occurred since 2004.

 

Going forward, based on this principle, the additional capacity over Council’s target within the current LEP should be recognised in achieving future increased residential targets for the LGA. This, combined with Council’s identification of the St Leonards and St Leonards South precincts, will provide capacity for Council to meet any residential targets well beyond a 25 year horizon.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the report.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Zoning changes to 2010 Comprehensive LEP

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 22 April 2014

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot    

Record No:    SU220 - 19715/14

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

 

 

          

 



[1] Municipal solid waste The solid component of the waste stream arising from household waste placed at the kerbside for council collection and waste collected by council from municipal parks and gardens, street sweepings, council engineering works and public council bins. (NSW Department of Environment, 2010).

 

[2] North Sydney’s total red bin collection is processed and 60% of Willoughby City Council’s red bin waste is processed. Around half of the processed amount is recovered into useable compost and the balance is landfilled.