m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

16 June 2014

The meeting commences at 6.30pm. If members of the public are

not interested in any business recommended to be considered in

Closed Session or there is no such business, Council will ordinarily

  commence consideration of all other business at 7pm.

 


 

Notice of Meeting

 

Dear Councillors

 

Notice is given of the Ordinary Council Meeting, to be held in the Council Chambers, 48 Longueville Road Lane Cove on Monday 16 June 2014 commencing at 6:30pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

 

Council Meeting Procedures

 

The Council meeting is chaired by the Mayor, Councillor David Brooks-Horn. Councillors are entitled to one vote on a matter. If votes are equal, the Chairperson has a second or casting vote. When a majority of Councillors vote in favour of a Motion it becomes a decision of the Council. Minutes of Council and Committee meetings are published on Council’s website www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au by 5pm on the Thursday following the meeting.

 

The Meeting is conducted in accordance with Council's Code of Meeting Practice. The order of business is listed in the Agenda on the next page. That order will be followed unless Council resolves to modify the order at the meeting. This may occur for example where the members of the public in attendance are interested in specific items on the agenda.

 

Members of the public may address the Council Meeting on any issue for a maximum of 3 minutes during the public forum which is held at the beginning of the meeting. All persons addressing the Meeting must speak to the Chair. Speakers and Councillors will not enter into general debate or ask questions.

 

If you do not understand any part of the information given above; require assistance to participate in the meeting due to a disability; or wish to obtain information in relation to Council, please contact Council’s Manager Governance on 99113525.

 

Please note meetings held in the Council Chambers are recorded on tape for the purposes of verifying the accuracy of minutes and the tapes are not disclosed to any third party under the Government Information (Public Access)  Act 2009, except as allowed under section 18(1) or section 19(1) of the PPIP Act, or where Council is compelled to do so by court order, warrant or subpoena or by any other legislation.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council 16 June 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

 

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

 

 

Confidential Items

 

1.       Update Purchase of 69 Longueville Road, Lane Cove

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (c) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; it further being considered that discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to public interest by reason of the foregoing and as it contains proposed purchase price information. 

 

public forum

 

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

 

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

2.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 19 MAY 2014

 

Petitions

 

3.       Petition - To Build a Skate Park in Greenwich

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

4.       Federal Government Proposed Changes to the Racial Discrimination Act

 

5.       Market Square Car Park Operations

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

6.       Draft Street Tree Master Plan

 

7.       Boarding House Provisions

 

8.       Update on Proposed Redevelopment of Rosenthal Carpark Site

 

9.       Financial Assistance Grants Program 2014/5

 

10.     Sustainability Small Grants Round 8 - Objections to Funding

 

11.     LEP St Leonards General Scale - 3 Sites

 

12.     Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Determination for Councillor Fees

 

13.     Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 20 May 2014

 

14.     Amendment to the Ordinary Minimum Residential Rate

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

15.     Plaza Gas Fire Incident

 

16.     Council Snapshot  

 

 

 

 

          


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 June 2014

Petition - To Build a Skate Park in Greenwich

 

 

Subject:          Petition - To Build a Skate Park in Greenwich    

Record No:    SU1222 - 29423/14

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A petition with over 500 signatures, has been received by Council, calling for the provision of a skate park at Bob Campbell Oval in Greenwich.

 

It is proposed that a Working Group be established to investigate the type of skate park facilities, possible locations for the facility and how funding could best be obtained. It is suggested that the Working Group could consist of any East Ward Councillors, staff nominated by the General Manager, the Head Petitioner and up to three (3) other interested members of the Lane Cove community. Following investigation into the provision of a skate park at Bob Campbell Oval, the Working Group could report back to Council.

 

 

Background

 

Lane Cove currently has one skate park within the Local Government Area (LGA), located within the grounds of Blackman Park (pictured below).

 

 

As there are no skate board facilities at the eastern end of the LGA, the petitioners are of the view that Council should look at building one within the Greenwich area. They have suggested the skate park should be at Bob Campbell Oval.

Discussion

 

On Friday, 23 May 2014, the Head Petitioner lodged a 21 page petition with over 500 signatories, calling for Council to build a skate park at Bob Campbell Oval.

 

Council’s current Open Space and Recreation Plans do not identify the need for another skate park within the LGA. However, both Plans are up for review it is considered appropriate to at least investigate whether a second skate park is needed and would be utilised. To undertake this investigation, it is suggested that a Working Party be formed to oversee community consultation and possible locations for a skate park within the Greenwich vicinity. The group can also investigate funding options and liaise with groups such as Skateboarding Australia and other interested bodies.

 

Community Consultation

 

The initial consultation required for this process will involve Council seeking nominations for interested persons to be involved in forming a Working Party. Consultation will then be undertaken by the Working Party in accordance with Council’s Consultation Policy to gauge the community’s interest in a second skate park facility.

 

Conclusion

 

Upon establishment, it is proposed that the Working Party will need to investigate whether in the first instance there is the need for a second skate park in the Lane Cove LGA. If it is determined that another one is required, the Working party will then need to investigate what skate facilities would work best, where would be the best location for the skate park, and how funding would be identified.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That a Working Party be established to investigate the type of skate park facilities, possible locations for the facility and how funding could best be obtained. The Working Group is to consist of any East Ward Councillors, staff nominated by the General Manager, the Head Petitioner and up to three other interested members of the Lane Cove community.

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

        


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 June 2014

Federal Government Proposed Changes to the Racial Discrimination Act

 

 

Subject:          Federal Government Proposed Changes to the Racial Discrimination Act    

Record No:    SU4952 - 31214/14

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Soo-Tee Cheong; Councillor Daniel Strassberg 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Australia has always been a nation of migrants, and it is because of this, that Australia is the diverse nation it is today.  Lane Cove is a harmonious multicultural community, every year Council holds events that celebrate the cultural diversity of our community and encourage activities, which promote social harmony.

 

Recently, the Federal Government signalled its intention to amend the Racial Discrimination Act in particular Section 18C of the Act.  The proposed changes, if passed will send an unhealthy message that hate speech is sanctioned by law, and that bigoted behaviour is acceptable.  The Government risks taking us back to the ugly time, when racism was tolerated everywhere from institutions to on the street, and bigotry was accepted in our society.

 

The proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act should be vigorously opposed.

 

Background

 

The Racial Discrimination Act was enacted in 1975 in a show of bipartisanship between Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser.  The law was to protect the community from hate speech and from racial, religious and cultural intolerance.  It was considered good law for almost four decades.

 

Section 18C and 18D were introduced to the Act in 1995 to ensure that the average person had a way of holding others accountable for racial abuse and harassment.

 

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to commit an act that is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone because of his or her race.

 

Section 18D provides one of the few explicit protections of freedom of expression in Australian law.  The section provides exemptions for any words or behaviour that is carried out reasonably and in good faith when it involves artistic expression, scientific inquiry or fair comment and reporting.

 

Recently the Federal Government indicated its intention to repeal Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.  The Federal Attorney General, Senator George Brandis released an exposure draft of amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act.

 

The proposed changes will water down the key provisions of the Act in a way which may render the key parts of the law ineffective.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Affirms its commitment to act within its authority to ensure Lane Cove remains a harmonious multicultural community.

 

2.   Writes to the Federal Attorney General to state its opposition to the proposed changes of the Racial Discrimination Act and to request the Attorney General to withdraw the Draft Exposure Amendment to the Act.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Soo-Tee Cheong

Councillor

 

 

 

Councillor Daniel Strassberg

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 June 2014

Market Square Car Park Operations

 

 

Subject:          Market Square Car Park Operations    

Record No:    SU4210 - 31404/14

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Scott Bennison; Councillor David Brooks-Horn 

 

 

 

Background

 

There are increased levels of concern in the community following the recent upgrade to the software which controls the operation of the boom gate at Market Square. Various issues have been identified, some of which have been addressed, but the key issue of queue lengths on exit at peaks time warrants further investigation.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the General Manager provide Council with a report on parking at Market Square that includes:-

 

  1. A summary of the history of the different systems and/or software changes and the reasons;
  2. The amount of revenue relative to the different systems and/ or software changes;
  3. Usage statistics relative to the different systems and/ or software changes;
  4. A Time and motion (traffic movement) study of the current system over a typical week during peak times, including weekends, to determine delays; and
  5. Based on results, provides solutions to alleviate traffic congestion and the estimated cost.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Scott Bennison

Councillor

 

 

 

Councillor David Brooks-Horn

Mayor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 June 2014

Draft Street Tree Master Plan

 

 

Subject:          Draft Street Tree Master Plan    

Record No:    SU5032 - 29807/14

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Susan Butler; Kirsten Mawby 

 

 

Executive Summary

The Draft Street Tree Master Plan has been on public exhibition and a number of submissions have been received. Some amendments have now been made to the Draft plan following the consultation period and the final plan is now ready for adoption by Council.


Background

 

There are nearly 12,000 street trees in the Lane Cove LGA, with around 200 different species of trees used in the 296 streets. Street trees are important community assets that are valuable to the amenity of the local area and are an integral part of Council’s infrastructure. They are under increasing pressure from services, development impacts and the changing environment. Council resolved at its meeting of 19 November 2012 that a Street Tree Master Plan be developed.

Arterra Design Pty Ltd was engaged to prepare the Draft Street Tree Master Plan. As part of the development of the Plan, an online community survey ran from 27 March to 15 April 2013 to provide some preliminary feedback on the current street tree planting in Lane Cove and this was considered by the consultant during the preparation of the Draft Plan. The Draft Street Tree Master Plan is intended as a framework to inform the on-going management of street trees. It identifies plant species on a street by street basis, suitable for use as street trees consistent with the existing landscape character. It has the following information:-

·    An overview of the landscape character in each precinct in the LGA;

·    A description of the landscape character of each of the main road corridors in the LGA;

·    Street tree planting guidelines for the typical Lane Cove street and verge profiles;

·    A list of proposed tree species for each street in the LGA; and

·    Street tree data sheets with photos and detailed information for each recommended tree species.

Council resolved on 21 October 2013 to:-

1.   Adopt the Draft Street Tree Master Plan dated November 2013 for the purpose of public exhibition.

2.   Place the Draft Street Tree Master Plan on public exhibition for 9 weeks in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the report.

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

 

Discussion

 

The Draft Street Tree Master Plan was placed on exhibition for a period of 9 weeks starting in December 2013 to take into account the Christmas Holiday period. The public exhibition included e-newsletter, letters to residents’ associations and an advertisement in the North Shore Times.

 

There were 39 survey responses received, 3 written comments from individuals and 4 written submissions from residents’ associations/community committees. A range of opinions were received, but the majority of the submissions were in support of the plan. 


 


Submission

Response

General

 

Plan only covers new trees, not existing ones; does not include references to maintenance of existing trees; existing trees should be managed better; street trees are very messy and dirty and make the street look ill-cared for and encourage graffiti.

Comments noted. The focus of the plan is planting of new and replacement street trees - it is not intended to be a street tree maintenance manual.

Street Tree maintenance is ongoing with a maintenance schedule in place.

Plan seems short sighted; plan should not be too prescriptive and not allow for individual circumstances.

 

The plan is a framework to guide the future of street tree planting and so can allow for individual circumstances – the key objective is to provide the right tree for the right location.

Concerns about poor tree pruning under powerlines; need more ABC; needs long term strategy to put wires underground; diagrams 1-A and 1-B are misleading and unrealistic. 

Streets identified for priority ABC are to be done in conjunction with Ausgrid subject to available funding. Priority ABC streets are listed in 7-2.

Prefer mass planting; prefer lines of the same trees for design and aesthetics rather than the mixed species; reduce diversity but not at the expense of removing good trees; replaces hotch potch with dull; some streets should be given a theme.

The plan identifies streets with existing avenues to be strengthened; other streets have more mixed planting. The plan proposes to create a more unified and consistent theme of trees within the streets.

Species should be significantly expanded; don’t want a reduction in species; generally don’t mind quite varied plantings.

Over 200 species are currently growing as street trees. This plan identifies 57 key species to be used to gradually create a more unified and consistent tree theme.

Support for using native species; better for the environment and local wildlife; more prominence to role of street trees as linkages between reserves for wildlife; provide a walk rope/line for local wildlife to cross busy roads to reduce the large amount of road kill in Lane Cove.

See page 3-9.

An amendment has been made to the Executive Summary on page v to include role of street trees as linkages for wildlife.

Rope lines across busy roads are not part of this plan but could be considered at a later date.

Native species are scraggly and become tatty very quickly; limits designers without significant benefit; live in a metropolitan area not the bush, other varieties might provide a more attractive streetscape.

The Plan includes a mixture of native and exotic species.

Don’t use gums or angophoras; no gum trees near houses; Eucalypts are too tall and block city views and drop branches on powerlines and cause blackouts; lot of dead branches over the footpaths that are in need of scheduled lopping.

Comments are noted. Eucalyptus and Angophoras are currently a key species within the Lane Cove area and will continue to be defining species in the LGA, making up around one third of the proposed master species list.

Note that there are dwarf hybrids of some of the species proposed that could be used where deemed appropriate (e.g. Eucalyptus leucoxylon ‘Euky Dwarf’; max heigh 4-5m at maturity). Parent names have been used in the Master Plan because the hybrid varieties of these trees are continually changing as new hybrids are developed.

Street Tree maintenance is ongoing with a maintenance schedule in place.

No gums planted along existing foot and cycle paths; safety of cyclists and pedestrians should be first priority and infrastructure second; street trees should complement these not overshadow them; check for any future plans for cyclepaths before planting; plan needs to reflect cycling infrastructure needs.

Street Trees are an essential part of Council’s infrastructure assets. Locating infrastructure requires individual site assessment and will be determined on a case by case basis.

An amendment has been made to page 4-3, under Locating Street Trees to include reference to off road cycleways and shared user paths with other infrastructure.

Plan needs protocols for detailed assessment of a street prior to undertaking any planting to detail potential impacts of new trees on assests and other issues.

Protocols are not part of this plan. These will be done at the implementation stage, consistent with Council’s Street Tree Planting Policy.

Council should support tree removal if people can prove that tree roots are causing a lot of damage to their pipes.

This matter is covered under Council’s Tree Preservation and Landscape Policy. This issue is also addressed under policy RO4006.

Road widths given as nominal 9 m, but these vary. Scale of trees should be in proportion to the scale of the roadway.

See Detail 4 for narrow 5.0 m roadway and Detail 5 for wide 14 m carrageway.

Communicating and educating residents of the rationale for the species selected.

This is done during the notification stage.

Need to ensure sufficient resources for pruning and care of street trees, particularly for carrying out formative pruning.

Formative pruning of street trees is considered on request on a case by case basis.

Why not encourage people to look after their street tree, with nature strip garden as a carrot; new trees should be mature and able to survive and not be expected to be nurtured by the residents; only allow trees well spaced, not shrub planting under; street tree planting helps reduce nature strip parking.

This issue is dealt with by Council’s Street Tree Planting Policy and Nature Strip Planting Policy and is not considered in this Plan – street tree planting material is selected to ensure establishment is self supporting following initial planting.

Add bushland zoning on p2.4.

An amendment has been made to page 2-4 to include references to zoning bushland as a separate category to other Public Open Space.

Add guiding principles for species selection to section 3.9; Clarify endemic to where, cascading list of origin of species included as a principle and the master list annotated.

No changes to draft to include guiding principles will be made as this is more appropriate during implementation.

The tables in 3.9 Master Species List have been amended to include more specific information on origin of species, identifying those indigenous to Lane Cove LGA and the Sydney Region.

Include rational for selection of other non-native trees currently not relatively common street tree plantings.

 

See page 3-8 and 3-9 for discussion about a balance between native and exotic street tree selection. Trees such as Zelkova serrata which are not currently common are proposed for specific locations due to reliability and appearance. 

Specific Species

 

Brush boxes are too big and have excessive amount of leaf and bark litter.

Comments noted. Brush boxes are proposed only to continue existing avenues.

Bottlebrush need pruning and respond well to hard pruning, too messy.

Comments noted. Bottlebrush are proposed in streets where there are existing Bottlebrush.

Doesn’t like Jacarandas, too messy and spread into bushland.

Comments noted. Jacarandas are proposed in streets where there are a number of existing Jacarandas to create more uniformity.

Use blueberry ash more.

This species is already widely planted as a street tree.

Use old man banksia more.

This species is proposed for a number of streets.

Cotoneasters and the like can be dangerous and crowd paths.

Comments noted. Shrubs such as Cotoneasters are not included in this plan.

Specific Streets

 

Not happy about species for King William St, like to see Illawarra Flame trees, Jacaranda or bauhinia.

This street has extremely varied plantings and would benefit from more uniformity. Eucalyptus are proposed where there are wide nature strips providing space for larger trees. Existing Bauhinia under power lines will be retained.

Remove 2 existing trees outside 29 Innes.

Removal of existing street trees is not part of this plan. Tree removal is done following assessment  as part of the street tree maintenance program.

Like the paperbarks along the highway.

Comments noted. Paperbarks will be retained until they cause excessive issues or decline. Proposed species will suit narrow nature strips.

Tall eucs in Fourth Ave causing problems, plan should not include further planting of these tall trees as they are not practical Scale of trees proposed for Fourth Ave inappropriate.

The plan proposed a range of species, including lemon-scented gums and smaller trees under wires. Note there are dwarf Eucalyptus varieties available within the proposed species pallete.

Like ABC in Talleban.

Streets priorities for ABC have established trees where existing tree health and forms would be substantially improved.  

Why not native frangipani in Handcock Lane instead of camellia sasanqua.

There are a small number of native frangipani used as street trees, which will be retained but the species has not been included in the master plan due to the variable performance results of this species within the street scene.

What is meant by the existing cluster of tall signature trees at the terminal of the main corridors at Greenwich, Northwood and Longueville.

See specific sections on pages 6.6, 6.7, 6.9 and 6.12 for more detail. Proposal is for planting in or near parks at the end of these roads to reinforce the existing landscape.

Centennial Ave between Mowbray Rd and Epping Road should be included in main road corridor, currently undergoing majore change; reintroduce HH’s flexible and inexpensive approach (p2-4).

Included as main road corridor in discussion 6.2 and table on 7.50. Map on p6.2 has been amended.

Trees at the eastern end of Lucretia Ave are very messy, don’t extend this planting along street.

Avenue planting of Brush box planted at eastern end will not be extended. Species proposed are smooth barked gums.

Trees in Richardson St not maintained properly by Council.

Comments noted.

Concerns about trees in the Plaza block gutters, birds nesting in trees are too noisy; remove trees and plant shrubs.

Trees within Plaza are not included in this Plan.

Crepe myrtles in Romani are pleasant and serve the street well.

Comments noted. The plan proposes continuing with crepe myrtle in this area.

Replacing ornamental cherries in Best/Cope St with water gums – duller.

Existing ornamental cherries will be retained but these trees are not included in the master species list due to their overall performance, limited life expectancy and problems associated with being shallow rooted street trees.

Difference between 2 sections of Cope St, LC need a difference mix of species either side of Penrose St.

Comments noted. Different character is mentioned in the key observations.

Don’t introduce exotic species in streets where they currently aren’t planted eg Buckinghamia in William Edward St and Gordonia in Kenneth St.

This is one of a number of species suggested as accent species in specific locations as there are no comparable native trees available.

Include rational for camellia sasanqua for Osborne Park.

Camelias are  reliably perfoming small tree suitable for narrow nature strips under wires – there are no comparable native trees available.

Not happy with suggestions for Northwood Rd to replace Phoenix palms if they fail, suggest white trunked Eucs, Angophora or Turpentine.

Comments noted. Proposed species are yellow bloodwoods and paperbarks. Eucalyptus species are also likely to be utilised.

 

These submissions have been considered and as a result there are a number of minor changes to the Draft Plan that had been exhibited.

 

Councillors should note that dwarf varieties of some of the Eucalyptus species mentioned in the plan are available. Due to the fact that hybrid varieties continually change as hybrid technology develops the Master Plan only includes the parent names (genus/species) in the master plan, allowing more flexibility for future plant selection. Dwarf varieties of some of the species proposed in the plan could be utilised in appropriate locations.

 

The final Street Tree Master Plan dated April 2014 is now ready for adoption by Council. Due to the size of the Plan it has been attached electronically at AT-1 and can be viewed online. Hard copies will be available at Lane Cove and Greenwich Libraries.

 

Conclusion

 

The Draft Street Tree Master Plan has been on public exhibition between 1 December 2013 and 17 February 2014. A number of submissions have been received, the issues raised in these submissions have been considered and consequently a number of amendments have been made to the draft plan. The Lane Cove Street Tree Master Plan dated April 2014 is now ready for adoption by Council.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Lane Cove Street Tree Master Plan dated April 2014 be adopted.

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Street Tree Master Plan - April 2014

182 Pages

Circulated Separately

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 June 2014

Boarding House Provisions

 

 

Subject:          Boarding House Provisions    

Record No:    SU5265 - 30784/14

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Terry Tredrea 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to examine issues that have arisen or may arise that have the potential to cause community concern about proposed boarding houses where they are inconsistent with local planning.  The outcome is to address measures required to be taken by Council and the State government to rectify community concerns.

 

A key difference between “boarding house” and “affordable housing” is the building form, not the income of residents. Affordable housing is only for people below a certain income level, whereas, boarding houses are modest in scale (max. 25m2 rooms) and may be occupied by people from a wide range of incomes, such as students, hospital visitors, contract workers and others not wishing to commit to a 6 month or longer lease.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) (the SEPP) encourages new affordable rental housing by providing incentives in expanded zoning permissibility, floor space ratio bonuses and non-discretionary development standards like fewer parking spaces, and S94 exemption. The SEPP expresses a long-held and broadly accepted policy that every LGA should play its part in providing a supply of low-cost accommodation. It is designed to assist councils to meet this need.

 

A summary is attached at AT-4 of the character and issues associated with the six boarding houses in Lane Cove LGA. This report relates to six development applications for boarding houses dealt with by Council to date, as well as other issues of community concern.

 

Where the bulk and scale of the proposal complies with the SEPP but not Council’s LEP on such matters as FSR, height, private open space, parking requirements, landscaped area, and solar access, Council cannot refuse consent to development. This resultant development may create over-shadowing and intrusion into visual and acoustic privacy. On the other hand, because the SEPP is silent on impacts on neighbouring solar access and privacy, Council is able to exercise some control over this matter in assessing a D.A. under the LEP.

 

In response to concerns that boarding houses would have a negative impact on the local character, streetscape and heritage items, there is some scope under Clause 1.2(c) of the LEP to assess impacts on local character, while acknowledging support for housing mix and urban consolidation. For example, elements such as architectural styles and housing types, streetscape, lot size, etc are not directly addressed by the SEPP. Boarding houses are no different in this respect from residential flats and other uses permitted in a zone. The DCP also requires that an area’s character is assessed in detail in a Statement of Environmental Effects at the D.A. stage.

 

In response to concern about the nature and type of residents of boarding houses, a recent ruling in the Land and Environment Court concluded that because “subjective fears and concerns must have a rational basis and be amenable to objective assessment in order for any significant weight to be attached to them”, it is not suitable for a development control to address this issue directly. However, under Section 79(c) of the EP&A Act, Council could require a social impact assessment (SIA) for proposals such as boarding houses where social concerns may arise.

 

“New generation” boarding houses have much in common potentially with residential flat buildings, allowing as they do en suites and kitchen facilities in rooms of up to 25m2. There is concern that such lodgings could easily become motels, RFBs or backpackers’ accommodation, for example, especially by subdivision to strata or community title.. Again, the Land and Environment Court has ruled that this would involve a ‘change of use” and as such become subject to the LEP and not the SEPP. Furthermore, a further ruling states that, “no strata or community title subdivision of the [affordable housing] development is to occur”. A development consent for a boarding house may include a condition of consent that future conversion to a residential flat building and subdivision to strata or community title are not to be permitted, and it is recommended that Council follow that policy.

 

Having regard to the information and concerns highlighted in this report, it is recommended that Council write to the Minister requiring that the SEPP be strengthened in Section 30 Standards for boarding houses to clarify this policy. 

 

Background

 

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting, dated 2 December, 2013, under Agenda Item 324 in connection with boarding houses, it was resolved on the motion of Councillors Palmer and Strassberg:-

 

“That Council review applications to date and provide suggestions for making the Boarding house provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) more suited to our community’s expectations for local planning and a report come back to Council the Ordinary Council Meeting of 17 March 2014.”

 

This resolution followed a number of boarding house applications, including court cases, which have raised community concern.

 

Discussion

 

Definitions

 

The following definitions, taken from the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (the LEP) or the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (the SEPP), are for the purposes of understanding the difference in definition between “boarding house” and “affordable housing”.

 

“Boarding House”  (the LEP)

 

…means a building that:-

 

(a) is wholly or partly let in lodgings, and

(b) provides lodgers with a principal place of residence for 3 months or more, and

(c) may have shared facilities, such as a communal living room, bathroom, kitchen or laundry, and

(d) has rooms, some or all of which may have private kitchen and bathroom facilities, that accommodate one or more lodgers, but does not include backpackers’ accommodation, a group home, hotel or motel accommodation, seniors housing or a serviced apartment.

 

“Affordable Housing” (Clause 6 of the SEPP)

 

…means housing for very low income households, low income households or moderate income households, being such households as are prescribed by the regulations or as are provided for in an environmental planning instrument.

 

(1)  In this Policy, a household is taken to be a very low income household, low income household or moderate income household if the household:-

 

(a)  has a gross income that is less than 120 per cent of the median household income for the time being for the Sydney Statistical Division (according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics) and pays no more than 30 per cent of that gross income in rent, or

 

(b)  is eligible to occupy rental accommodation under the National Rental Affordability Scheme and pays no more rent than that which would be charged if the household were to occupy rental accommodation under that scheme.

 

(2)  In this Policy, residential development is taken to be for the purposes of affordable housing if the development is on land owned by the Land and Housing Corporation.

 

There may be a perception that lodgers in boarding houses are on low incomes. This is not necessarily the case. Boarding houses are only one of many forms of affordable housing. Furthermore, not all boarding houses are affordable housing. For example, the boarding house at 7 Park Road, St Leonards offers heritage rooms with en suites from $400 per week. Nor is every resident of a boarding house of a similar socio-economic status. For example, the Property Owners’ Association of NSW indicates on its website that:-

 

“Although boarding houses cover less than 3% of the accommodation market, they meet the accommodation needs of a diverse groups of residents requiring low to moderate cost accommodation ranging from students, guest house residents, single people, older men, lodgers who seek onsite management services, contract workers, those who want a community, those requiring flexibility.

 

At least 80% of accommodation available to boarding house residents is occupied by long term residents...”

 

Boarding houses may appeal to some people who do not wish to be committed to a 6 month or longer lease. For example, people from the country making ongoing hospital visits, as a result of the proximity of Royal North Shore Hospital.

 

In summary, a key difference between “boarding house” and “affordable housing” is the building form, not the income of residents. Affordable housing is only for people below a certain income level. Affordable housing stock may include public housing (Department of Housing), community housing (managed by a non-profit organisation), and private rental housing which attracts a rent at or below the local median. Boarding houses involve occupancies of modest scale (max. 25m2 rooms) and may be occupied by people from a wide range of incomes.

 

Types of Similar Development

 

Other similar residential uses, namely Backpackers’ Accommodation, Serviced Apartment, Hotel or Motel, Group Home (Permanent), Group Home (Transitional) and Hostel are defined in Attachment AT-1. All of these land uses differ from standard privately-owned properties or those in long-term leases.

 

A table which shows more clearly how each differs from “boarding house” is in Attachment AT-2. In summary, the basic differences are:-

 

·    Boarding houses provide residents with a minimum 3+ months tenure (other uses either do not stipulate, or in the case of Group Homes, are permanent);

·    Boarding houses are permitted in all residential zones (and most business zones) - but close to public transport in the R2 Low Density Residential zone (other uses are only permitted in certain Business zones, or in the case of Group Homes only in R3);

·    If proposed as affordable housing, Boarding houses may receive an FSR bonus (it is unlikely the other uses in the Table would propose to be affordable);

·    If proposed as affordable housing, Boarding Houses receive a relatively low parking requirement; and

·    Boarding houses have a minimum room size of 12m2 and a maximum of 25 m2 (other uses vary – for example, studio apartments must be at least 35 m2).

 

Note that provision of private facilities (such as in “new generational” boarding houses) varies between uses.

 

Applications to Date

 

A summary of the character and issues associated with the six boarding houses in Lane Cove LGA is attached at AT-4. This report relates to six development applications for boarding houses dealt with by Council to date.

 

In summary, impacts of concern to the community are:-

 

·    bulk and scale (over-shadowing, privacy)

·    street parking

·    streetscape and setback

·    effective change of use (defacto hotel/motels, backpackers’ accommodation, RFBs) including strata subdivision to create substandard housing (e.g. very small studios, motel units or serviced apartments in R zones, etc)

·    the nature of residents

 

These are issues addressed below.

 

Issues of Concern and Possible Responses

 

The following comments relate to issues arising from AT-4 and other concerns raised with Councillors:-

 

A.   Intrusive Amenity Impacts

 

Issue: Where the bulk and scale of the proposal complies with the SEPP but not the LEP on such matters as FSR, height, private open space, landscaped area, solar access, Council must not refuse consent to development. This development may thereby create over-shadowing and intrusion into visual and acoustic privacy.

 

Comment: Similarly, the low on-site parking requirement has the potential to put extra demand on street parking. Council cannot require a higher parking allowance, and the SEPP does not set a maximum.

 

Response: As the SEPP is silent on impacts on neighbouring solar access and privacy, i.e. it does not contain specific exemptions, Council can therefore insist on compliance with the LEP and DCP controls in assessing a D.A.

 

B.   Local Area Character

 

Issue: There are concerns that boarding houses may have a negative impact on the local character, streetscape and heritage items.

 

Comment : Clause 30A of the SEPP aims to ensure that “the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area”. In this regard, Clause 1.2(c) of the LEP states that the one aim in relation to residential development is to provide a housing mix and density that:-

 

  1. accords with urban consolidation principles, and
  2. is compatible with the existing environmental character of the locality, and
  3. has a sympathetic and harmonious relationship with adjoining development.

 

Response: In this regard, there is some limited scope under the LEP to assess impacts on local character, while acknowledging support for housing mix and urban consolidation. For example, elements such as architectural styles and housing types, streetscape, lot size, etc are not in conflict with clauses of the SEPP. Boarding houses are no different in this respect from residential flats and other uses permitted in a zone. The DCP also requires that an area’s character is assessed in detail in a Statement of Environmental Effects at the D.A. stage.

 

C.  Nature of Residents

 

Issue: There is often concern as to the nature and type of residents of boarding houses.

 

Comment:  In response, Land and Environment Court ruling 1096 [2014], Bolliaris v Hurstville City Council states on 23 May, 2014:-

 

44. A number of residents expressed fears about the nature of people who will occupy the property. There is no evidence that those fears will eventuate. Whilst I recognize that concern, the test to be applied is that stated by Lloyd J in New Century Developments Pty Ltd v Baulkham Hills Shire Council [2003] NSWLEC 154, where his Honour stated:

 

“That the subjective fears and concerns must have a rational basis and be amenable to objective assessment in order for any significant weight to be attached to them.”

 

It is therefore not suitable for a development control to address directly the issue of the “nature” of potential residents. Also, as indicated by the Property Owners’ Association of NSW above, there is a potential for residents to include a wide range of residents and income levels, the main common factor being that at a certain period in their lives they need only a very small dwelling.

 

For example, 33 Greenwich Road, Greenwich accommodates mostly international students and 7 Park Road, St Leonards caters mostly for “business travellers with working contracts, couples visiting nearby, hospital visitors and tourists”.

 

Response: The social impacts of planned development activity are required to be addressed under Section 79(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979). In addition to this, Community Impact Statements are required under Section 48 of the Liquor Act (2007). Council could require a social impact assessment (SIA) for developments such as boarding houses where social concerns may arise. In this regard it is recommended Council adopt Parramatta Council controls, which require SIAs for:-

 

·         RFBs of greater than 100 units

·         Affordable housing of greater than 20 units

·         Group homes

·         Social housing

·         Boarding houses of greater than 10 rooms.

 


D.  Potential Changes of Use Creating Poor Quality Mainstream Housing

 

Issue: There is community concern that a boarding house can gain approval with measures for FSR, parking, setback, solar access and private open space that are inconsistent with its residential zone location, and by a change of use, possibly with some internal alterations, creates another:

 

·         Defacto Change of Use

 

Comment: The example of 7 Park Road, illustrates how a boarding house can change use to become a hotel or motel with studios areas. Similarly, “new generation” boarding houses are capable of effectively becoming self-contained dwellings. Subclause 29(3) of the SEPP states that:

 

A boarding house may have private kitchen or bathroom facilities in each boarding room but is not required to have those facilities in any boarding room.

 

Therefore, “new generation” boarding houses have much in common potentially with residential flat buildings. There is currently no limit on the size of kitchens and bathrooms within a boarding house room, which may allow configuration to facilitate later conversion to an RFB.

 

In the ruling by the Land and Environment Court, Warlam Pty Ltd v Marrickville Council [2008] 23, Biscoe J states:

 

“36. In my opinion, rooms in a boarding house cannot be changed to separate domiciles without changing the use to a residential flat building.

 

Response: In effect, any change of residential use would require development consent, allowing Council to assess the merits of the building. In addition, Boarding houses have a minimum room size of 12m2 and a maximum of 25 m2 (other uses vary – for example, studio apartments must be at least 35 m2), thereby preventing such a change of use without physical configuration.

 

·         Strata Titling

 

Issue: In addition, there is concern that a strata title consent would permit a “new generation” boarding house to become a non-complying RFB.

 

Comment: In the ruling by the Land and Environment Court, Sales Search Pty Ltd v The Hills Shire Council [2013] 1052, Biscoe J Conditions of Consent state: 

 

“13. Subdivision

No strata or community title subdivision of the development is to occur.”

 

Response: A development consent for a boarding house may include a condition of consent that future conversion to a residential flat building and strata titling are not to be permitted, and it is recommended that Council follow that policy. Additionally, it is recommended that Council write to the Minister requiring that the SEPP be strengthened in Section 30 Standards for boarding houses to clarify this policy.

 

Conclusion

 

Community concerns have been expressed that current and future boarding houses in Lane Cove could change use to become RFBs, motels, packpackers’ accommodation, villas, etc by either redevelopment or strata/community-titling. Given the previous concessions, it is feared that in the future boarding houses could result in substandard housing into inappropriate zones.

 

However, State policy has long required affordable housing in response to a wide-spread, verified need. There is a need for low-cost accommodation in the LGA. For example, with proximity to centres such as St Leonards and RNSH, there is inevitably a flow-on responsibility as a trade-off for the advantages that proximity brings to Lane Cove residents.

 

In response, Council’s LEP provides an adequate defence against changes of use of buildings no longer protected by the provisions of the SEPP. The LEP also has limited authority to protect impacts on “local character”, such as on solar access and privacy.

However, the social impact of affordable housing is not addressed by the LEP or SEPP. It is recommended that, in response to community concerns, the SEPP be amended to require a social impact assessment of affordable housing proposals of some prescribed size. Parramatta Council provides detailed guidelines here; for example, boarding houses with over 10 rooms.

 

To address concerns about the effect of future strata or community title subdivision on the creation of substandard housing, it is recommended that, consistent with a recent Land & Environment Court ruling, the SEPP be amended to prohibit strata or community title subdivision of affordable housing.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

  1. Advertise draft amendments to the Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 with regard to boarding houses, to require that:-

                   i.           Social Impact Assessments be provided for boarding houses; and

                  ii.           the maximum kitchen area within a boarding house room is 2m2.

  1. Impose as a Standard Condition of Consent for all future Boarding House applications that advises that the strata or community title subdivision of boarding houses is prohibited; and
  2. Write to the Minister for Planning, requesting that the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 be strengthened in relation to affordable housing by:-

                      i.        Requiring Social Impact Assessments (SIA) for all development applications under the SEPP; and

                     ii.        Prohibition of strata or community title subdivision of boarding houses.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Definitions of similar uses

3 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Table of Definitions

2 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Affordable Rental Housing SEPP

3 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

Table of Boarding Houses in Lane Cove

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 June 2014

Update on Proposed Redevelopment of Rosenthal Carpark Site

 

 

Subject:          Update on Proposed Redevelopment of Rosenthal Carpark Site    

Record No:    SU4965 - 27044/14

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli; Geoff Douglas 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on progress with planning for the redevelopment of the Rosenthal Carpark site in Lane Cove Village.  This report recommends that Council endorse the design brief for the staging and conduct of a design ideas competition and receive and note the project update information provided in this Report.

 

Background

 

Council at it’s meeting of 2 December 2013, following consideration of an update report on progress with planning for the redevelopment of the Rosenthal Car park site, resolved that Council:-

 

1.   Endorse the process for the development of the design brief and the staging and conduct of the design ideas competition as outlined in the report, with the addition of the following new point 6.

“6. Following community consultation, the design ideas shall be reviewed by the Working Party who will make recommendations to Council on the preferred design ideas.”;

2.   Receive a further report on the design brief for endorsement prior to the commencement of the design competition; and

3.   Adopt the Charter for the Rosenthal Avenue Car Park Working Party shown attached as AT-2 subject to the following amendments:-

·     The following additions to ‘Functions’:-

c)     To report back to Council on a quarterly basis;

d)     To make recommendations to Council as appropriate; and

e)     To ensure that appropriate due diligence is undertaken with respect to the project.

·     The following amendment to ‘Councils Members’:-

a)     Four (4) Councillors appointed by formal resolution, in September each year.

·               The ‘Meeting Schedule’ being amended to read ‘The Committee shall decide the meeting schedule for itself as determined by the Committee, but shall meet at a minimum on a quarterly basis’.

Project Background and Progress

 

Council’s adopted Major Projects Strategic Management Plan 2007-2016 includes the redevelopment of the Rosenthal carpark site.  The redevelopment involves the following three (3) components:-

 

i.      Below Grade Parking and Retail

-    Retail  - up to 4,500m2;

-    Initially proposed 450 plus car parking spaces (However, following a detailed design development process approximately 500 car parking spaces can be provided);

ii.     Public Space

-    Proposed ‘Town Square’ for Lane Cove, approximately 50m x 50m in size; (Council is now pursuing increased public domain, in excess of 66% of the site surface).

iii.    Development Site (northern end of site)

-    Area to be developed for commercial, civic and/or other uses to be determined at a later time.  Potential overshadowing will be factored in the design of the public space.

 

As noted above, planning for the site is made up of the carpark, retail and public domain components. To ensure the viability of the project it is essential that the retail component be financially viable. Council will recall that previous attempts to deliver public parking on this site relied upon a residential scheme, with minimal public domain.

 

Status of Retail and Parking Components

 

In terms of planning for the retail component of the project, the following progress has been made to date:-

·    Appointment of Raine and Horne Commercial as retail consultants;

·    Expressions of Interest invited from retailers to lease premises within the proposed retail space, with a significant response received;

·    Preliminary discussions with the retailers to identify design needs, business models and whether they meet Council’s objectives for the site;

·    Preliminary feasibility analysis has been undertaken by the retail consultant on the basis of submissions received and discussions with the various retailers;

·    Saunders Global, specialist retail architects, were engaged to prepare concept plans for the retail space and parking including proposed ‘pop up’ location, loading dock(s) location, site access and carpark design. The Concept plans were presented to a Councillor briefing session in September 2013, with updates presented at the Corporate Planning Weekend in February 2014;

·    Initial retail space concepts were presented to and discussed with prospective retailers to identify any further specific needs;

·    Retail Architect, Saunders Global in consultation with the Rosenthal Avenue Carpark Working Party, considered, requirements of retailers to progress the plans from concept stage to a more detailed schematic design development phase, providing enough detail to seek firm proposals and offers from retailers; and

·    The Rosenthal Avenue Carpark Working Party at it’s meeting on 16 April 2014, endorsed the design development plans for the retail and carpark components of the project.

 

Next steps:-

 

·    The schematic retail plans to be incorporated into the design brief for the development of the public domain to ensure that integration issues such as the location of the ‘pop up’, pedestrian and vehicular access, ventilation, loading dock(s) and other structures are addressed in the design ideas competition;

·    Retailers to be invited to submit final commercial proposals and terms and conditions for leasing the space;

·    Initial costings and financial feasibility to be completed following determination of the retail and carpark space requirements, as well as negotiation of commercial terms.  A quantity surveyor is to be engaged to assist with the costing; and

·    Develop and consider a business case for the overall project.


Public Domain

 

To further develop the public domain component, a design ideas competition is to be conducted to translate the design principles developed through the consultation process undertaken in 2013 into concepts that the community can consider. The process for the design ideas competition as endorsed by Council at it’s meeting of 2 December 2013 is as follows:-

 

1.     A design brief will be developed in consultation with the Rosenthal Avenue Carpark Working Party and referred to Council for endorsement. Draft Design Brief for the design ideas competition is at AT -1 for consideration by Council;

2.     An advertisement for Expressions of Interest will be placed to attract suitably qualified and experienced designers to participate in the design ideas competition;

3.     Five (5) designers will be selected in consultation with the Working Party to participate in the competition;

4.     The successful respondents will be offered a set fee of $20,000 to participate. They will be required to prepare graphical concepts on the basis that their designs become the intellectual property of the Council and therefore, be capable of being developed further by the Project Architect for the whole project (whose appointment will be subject to tender);

5.     The design ideas will then be the subject of community consultation to determine the preferred design ideas through static displays, workshops, promotional material and surveys;.

6.     Following community consultation, the design ideas shall be reviewed by the Working Party who will make recommendations to Council on the preferred design ideas; and

7.     Council will then determine the preferred design ideas to be incorporated in the project.

 

The brief for the design ideas competition at AT -1 has been informed by the following:-

 

·    The endorsed design principles developed through the community consultation for the public domain; and

·    The schematic design development plans for the carpark and retail space as endorsed by the Working Party.

 

The endorsed design principles adopted by Council on 19 August 2013 appear in the brief. The core design principles include:-

 

·    Cultural – Ownership, Self Expression, Community Events, and Welcoming.

·    Social - Attractive to All, Social Spaces, Peaceful Places, Places for Youth, and Places for Children.

·    Environmental - Green Space,- Climate Comfort , Use of Level Changes, Hierarchy of Users, and Interactive Edges.

·    Economic - Village Connections, Built Form, Types of Business,  Future Development, and Evening Economy.

 

The brief also includes the following objectives and strategies having regard to the Lane Cove Village Structure Plan adopted by Council in 2008:-

 

1.         Objectives for the Site

 

·    Creating an outdoor public domain space on top of the proposed Rosenthal Carpark redevelopment;

·    Encourage a mix of uses (e.g. cafes, amenities, outdoor recreation) on this site;

·    Integrate the precinct with retail areas to the east and south;

·    Improve and enhance the public domain and outdoor public amenity of Lane Cove;

·    Redevelop the site for community uses;

·    Provide for a possible multi-storey building at the northern end of the site;

·    Provide space for major retailers (below the public domain – this area is not part of the design ideas competition); and

·    Target a minimum 500 public car park spaces (below the public domain – this area is not part of the design ideas competition).

 

2.         Strategies

 

·    Activate the roof / surface of the Rosenthal Ave carpark redevelopment through the design of an innovative outdoor public domain space,

·    Identify design ideas that:

are inclusive of and reflect the diversity of the Lane Cove community;

recognise and celebrate the unique Lane Cove village atmosphere;

reflective of the bush land setting and the local flora / fauna;

anticipate and encourage a variety of patterns of community use;

preserve the opportunity for a building at the northern end of the site; and

strengthen the pedestrian link between the existing Lane Cove Plaza and the proposed Rosenthal outdoor public domain space

·    Provide active retail edges along to Birdwood Lane / Rosenthal Lane that:

encourage active uses in the laneways;

include pedestrian zones in the laneways; and

recognise existing cross links and pedestrian desire lines from existing retail arcades that feed onto Longueville Road and Lane Cove Plaza.

 

Following the determination of the preferred design ideas for the public domain and the concurrent negotiations over the retail space, feasibility analysis will be carried out and reported to Council for consideration. Additionally, a specification will be developed and tenders invited for a Project Architect to develop the schematic design plans, incorporating the preferred design ideas for the public domain, to the development application stage, and subject to the project proceeding, retaining the lead Architect role.

 

Conclusion

 

Planning for the redevelopment of the Rosenthal Carpark site is progressing in a timely manner. It is recommended that the project continue to progress with the next key stages being conduct of the design ideas competition, submission of the final commercial terms by retailers, development of a business case and calling of tenders for a Project Architect and relevant consultants.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Endorse the design brief for the staging and conduct of the design ideas competition shown as AT – 1;

2.   Following the conduct of the design ideas competition, including the community consultation and review of ideas by the Working Party, Council to receive a report to determine the design ideas to be incorporated into the project;

 

3.   Following determination of the preferred design ideas for the public domain and negotiation of commercial terms with the retailers, detailed feasibility analysis be carried out and reported to Council through the Rosenthal Avenue Carpark Working Party; and

 

4.   Tenders be invited for the Project Architect and reported to Council for selection of the successful respondent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Expressions of Interest to Participate in Design Competition for Public Domain – Rosenthal Car park Redevelopment

51 Pages

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 June 2014

Financial Assistance Grants Program 2014/5

 

 

Subject:          Financial Assistance Grants Program 2014/5    

Record No:    SU5301 - 30813/14

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Carol Sinclair 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This Report discusses the 2014/2015 application process and recommends grants to Council.

 

Under Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993 Council may grant Financial Assistance to Community Organisations. Each year Council calls for applications for financial assistance from community groups either based in the Lane Cove Local Government Area (LGA), or if not based in the LGA, whose assistance addresses the identified needs of people within the LGA. 

 

The Financial Assistance Grants program was promoted though The Village Observer, Council’s Website and through an extensive mailout during December 2013 and January 2014. Applications closed on 3 March, 2014.

 

The 2014/2015 budget includes a provision of $452,000 for Financial Assistance to Community Groups.  Council has received a total of thirty one (31) applications requesting funds to the value of $622,712.73. 

 

Discussion

 

Background to Local Community Organisations

 

Community organisations play a critical role in providing vital community and recreational activities, keeping the community healthy and connected.

 

Council’s approach to working with local community organisations is to work in partnership so that the local community can receive high-quality services and participate in important community orientated activities which improve their connectedness to the community and ability to participate.

 

Our philosophy is to enhance the relationship that exists between community groups and Council and provide a vision for local community services where:-

·    The groups are viable and can meet the needs of their clients and participants;

·    The limited resources are used effectively and groups are supported in their work and encouraged to develop; and

·    We interact using a variety of methods such as information and communication technology, telephone, in person, at meetings and on committees, etc to support their efficiency and effectiveness.

 

 

Applications Received for 2014/2015 Under the Current Program

 

Currently Council’s Financial Assistance Grants to community organisations fall into the following categories:-

·    Arts and Cultural Services;

·    Children’s Services;

·    Youth Services;

·    Community Development and Support Services; and

·    Aged Services;

 

Applications are assessed against the criteria provided in the Guidelines attached as AT-1

 

Applicants are required to show how their application meets the needs of Lane Cove by referring to Council’s Community Strategic Plan and the Social Plan. 

 

The commitment for Council based on the recommendations from the Council Selection Committee of 10 June, 2014 is $414,375. A copy of these recommendations has been circulated separately to Councillors in a Confidential Memo.   In addition there are recurring commitments to community organisations totaling $36,616.55. The recurring commitments to community organisations are listed in AT-2. The majority of these are longstanding commitments relating to Council’s contributions to rate payments, or the waiving of payments and other costs.  The estimated cost of the Presentation ceremony in August is $3,300, this amount is also included in the total amount.

 

The total amount of the Financial Assistance Grants Program for 2014/5 is $448,344.55.

 

Funding recommendations have been made with focus on several areas including:-

·      Supporting several longstanding and established organisations within the community, namely Lane Cove and North Side Community Services, Centrehouse and the Meeting House;

·      Contributions to workable projects that can be successfully completed within the 2014/15 financial year; and

·      Assisting organisations which need Council Funds/ Support for their continued sustainability.

 

Three groups are recommended to receive $20,000 or more in funds for 2014/2015. They are: Centrehouse, Meeting House and Lane Cove and North Side Community Service.  As outlined in the funding guidelines, organisations which receive over $20,000 will be asked to undertake service agreements. The Service Agreements outline the mutual obligations between Council and the organisation and stipulates how the organisation will use the funds against performance measures. 

 

The guidelines also recommend that a substantial evaluation should be undertaken every three to five years for groups receiving funding of over $20,000. Successful reviews have occurred in the past with Meeting House and Centrehouse.  It is recommended that Lane Cove and North Side Community Services be reviewed in the 2015/16 financial year, with a focus on Council’s contribution to the service.

 

Community Groups Training

 

Council has offered the following training to community groups in the past three years in an effort to support their growth and development, capacity and sustainability:-

·    ‘Grant and submission writing’;

·    ‘How to market your organisation’;

·    ‘People and teams’ (dealing with people who behave badly and building effective teams);

·    ‘Strategic planning and financial management for non-accountant board members’;

·    ‘Using social media’;

·    ‘Recruiting, retaining and recognising volunteers’;

·    ‘Community asset building and social enterprise’;

·    ‘Facebook 101’ and

·    ‘Gaining and sustaining more members’.

 

 Further seminars for community groups are being planned for the new financial year.

 

Again this year it was noted that the content of some applications were definitely in the category of ‘could do better’. Despite grant writing seminars being presented in both 2012 and 2013 some community groups fail to grasp the significance of answering the questions and relating their application to the Community Strategic and Social Plans.  It is also noted that while both seminars were well attended very few attendees were from the community groups and organisations who apply for Council Financial Assistance Grants.  A compulsory session will be held in 2014 for all groups who wish to submit grants for the 2015/16 Financial Assistance Grants Program.

 

Financial Assistance Grants Comparisons with Other Areas

 

It is difficult to compare what occurs in other Council areas because of the following:-

·       Some Councils run more direct services than others and within any given area, there is a mix of community based and local government services;

·       Some areas have the benefit of applying funds under the ClubGRANTS program, whereby Clubs that earn over $1 million annually in gaming machine revenue provide funding for community projects and services, and in turn receive dollar-for-dollar gaming tax deductions. Lane Cove does not receive funds from this source;

·       There is no consistent accounting procedure across Councils which captures the value of other contributions that local organisations receive from Councils; and

·       Some Councils may support local groups out of separate line items as identified in their Delivery and Operational Plans and budgets.

 

Below are some comparative figures for the 2013/2014 financial year. 

 

Council

Community Grants Program

Budget for Community Grants

Population*

Per Capita Funding

Willoughby

Up to $4,000

85,000

67,355

$1.26

Ku-ring-gai

Up to $5,000

95,000

109,297

$0.87

Hornsby

Up to $3,000

52,000

156,842

$0.33

North Sydney

Up to $2,000

16,500

62,289

$0.26

Hunters Hill

Up to $800

10,000

13,216

$0.76

Lane Cove

No limit

434,308

31,510

$13.78

Ryde

Up to $3,500

100,000

103,038

$0.97

Mosman

Up to $2,000

25,000

29,983

$0.83

 

            Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census of Population and Housing 2006 and 2011.

 

Several councils have reviewed or are currently reviewing their Financial Assistance Grants Program and have already separated out the ‘Community Grants’ from the rest of their program, making it easier to gain a comparison in future years.


Transport Issues

 

A major issue for the Lane Cove area and for other North Shore areas is the lack of flexible transport options available. In this round of grant submissions, three applications were received from Lower North Shore Community Transport. Only one of these applications has been recommended for funding.

 

A separate report will be presented to Council in 2014 outlining the issues connected to transport issues and recommending options for the future.

 

Community Grants Presentation

 

Council over the past six years has invited all funded groups to a Presentation Ceremony in August to receive their funding cheques. This provides the opportunity for the Council to showcase its Grants Program and for local groups to receive recognition for the work they do in a wider forum. It is suggested that the practice be continued and the ceremony take place on Wednesday 6 August 2014 at the Civic Centre with funds being set aside for this purpose.  It is estimated that approximately $3,300 will be needed to stage the Community Grants Presentation Ceremony.

 

Changes to the Current Financial Assistance Grants Program

 

It is proposed to submit a further report to Council recommending changes to the Guidelines and Policy that covers the existing Grants program.  The changes will be aimed at clarifying the expectations of the program within the community.

 

Conclusion

 

Council’s Financial Assistance Grants Program continues to assist in the development of a range of community based services which meet, and are responsive to changes in the needs of people living and working in Lane Cove, and which promote equitable outcomes in terms of access to services and quality of life for all residents.

 

Council uses its planning documents, the Social Plan and the Community Strategic Plan, to assist in organisations understanding the needs of the community and in assessing the grant submissions. 

 

A review of the Financial Assistance Grants Program accompanied by a review of the current Financial Assistance Grants to Community Groups Policy to clearly separate the different sections of the program would prevent inconsistencies and more clearly clarify the parameters for community organisations.  A further report with revised policies will be presented to Council in 2014.

 

In addition, it is envisaged that a further report discussing the lack of individual community transport options and analyzing possible solutions will be provided to Council in late 2104 or early 2015.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 That Council:-

 

1.   Give consideration to Financial Assistance Grants to Community Groups for 2014 to 2015.

 

2.   Give Public Notice of the proposed Financial Assistance Grants to Community Groups for 2014/2015, and subject to no objections being received, grant the funds as outlined in this report.

 

3.   Host the Community Grants Presentation Ceremony on Wednesday 6 August 2014 as part of the Financial Assistance Grants process.

 

4.   Receive a further report with Policies recommending proposed changes to the Financial Assistance Grants Program.

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Information for Applicants and Grant Guidelines - 2014-2015

7 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Standard Rates Contributions - Financial Assistance Grants - 2014-2015

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 June 2014

Sustainability Small Grants Round 8 - Objections to Funding

 

 

Subject:          Sustainability Small Grants Round 8 - Objections to Funding    

Record No:    SU5183 - 29053/14

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Katy Christian 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to address four (4) submissions that have been received opposing the funding of a Sustainability Small Grant of $1,000 to St Ignatius College.

 

Background

 

Council, under Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993, may grant financial assistance to organisations. Through Round 8 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program, in April 2014 Council called for applications for financial assistance from organisations based in Lane Cove Local Government Area to deliver projects that educate the Lane Cove community on sustainability issues, or address environmental concerns such as:-

 

·    energy or water consumption;

·    waste avoidance;

·    biodiversity; and

·    transport.

 

Council received nine (9) applications seeking funding and recommended providing funding for four (4) organisations. The following organisations were recommended to receive funding:

 

Organisation

Funding awarded

Possums Corner Child Care Centre Inc

$2,000

Greenwich Public School P & C

$2,000

Lane Cove Out of School Inc

$1,000

St Ignatius’ College Riverview

$1,000

 

 

The four (4) recommended projects were placed on public exhibition and four (4) responses were received objecting to funds being granted only to the St Ignatius College project. The objections to the project can be summarised as follows:-

 

·    The school is a very well off financially and should not need council funding to complete this project.

·    Many students that go to the school come from out of the area.

·    The funding should be provided to public schools in the area rather than a private school.

·    Concerns with the school in regards to traffic and noise.

 

Discussion

 

All applications for the grant process 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.  The selection criteria do not consider the financial capacity of the community organisation, and projects are awarded on merit and proposed sustainability outcomes. St Ignatius College was eligible to apply for funding and the project submission was considered to be of high quality.

 

The project aims to improve waste management by implementing a trial of organic collection bins on the playground, implementing a three bin system, and a two bin system in the boarding house. Sustainability staff at the college would lead an education program to assist with the behavior change needed. A House Sustainability program at the school has recently been set up that can assist with rewards for correct behaviour.

 

Conclusion

 

The awarding of Small Grants to eligible community groups and organisations is in keeping with the long term vision and objectives of the Sustainability Levy being to raise awareness, to educate and to implement sustainability programs across the community.

 

The application for a $1000 grant to St Ignatius College is in keeping with the criteria for the Small Grants program and as such should be considered on its sustainability merits.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council approve funding to the following projects under Round 8 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program:-

 

Organisation

Funding

Possums Corner Child Care Centre Inc

$2,000

Greenwich Public School P & C

$2,000

Lane Cove Out of School Inc

$1,000

St Ignatius’ College Riverview

$1,000

 

2.   A letter be sent to the four (4) residents that made a submission on the recommended projects from Round 8 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program advising them of the resolution of Council and thanking them for their input.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Selection Criteria - Round 8 Sustainability Small Grants Program

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 June 2014

LEP St Leonards General Scale - 3 Sites

 

 

Subject:          LEP St Leonards General Scale - 3 Sites    

Record No:    SU4496 - 30897/14

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report relates to LEP Planning Proposal 6 involving three sites in the St Leonards Specialised Centre for which draft amendments to the floor space ratio and height were exhibited.

 

The three sites comprise commercial properties at: (i) 448-452 Pacific Highway, (ii) 69 Christie Street and (iii) eight lots south-east of the Nicholson/ Christie Streets intersection.

 

The changes had been proposed in response to requests from owners at around the time of the preparation of LEP 2009 and in its 12-month review. Since then, however, a number of factors have arisen, as a result of which the amendments are not considered appropriate, in particular the Department’s changing approach to provision of employment floor space under the Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney and the recent approval by the LEP Gateway of a planning proposal for 472-520 Pacific Hwy.

 

Additionally, consideration has been given to the following responses to the exhibition, in particular: (i) submissions on the first site from North Sydney Council relating to the amenity of an adjacent residential precinct, (ii) the fact that the minor changes to the second site, proposed for it to be consistent with the rest of its block, would not be achieved due to the properties adjacent not proceeding, and (iii) the view of owners of the third site that the proposed scale changes would not achieve commercial redevelopment.

 

It is recommended that Planning Proposal 6 relating to the St Leonards commercial centre not proceed on the grounds of submissions received and the need to monitor changing factors within the precinct.

 

Background

 

Lane Cove’s Draft LEP, adopted for submission to the Department on 4 August 2008, supported the revitalisation of the St Leonards commercial centre through increased development scale in its floor space ratio and height controls.

 

This supported the goal of the St Leonards Strategy 2006, prepared by Lane Cove, North Sydney and Willoughby Councils and the Department of Planning, that:-

 

"St Leonards will continue to develop as one of the major employment centres for knowledge-based industries within the Sydney metropolitan region… New development and public domain improvements will create a more consistent and high quality image throughout the centre, leading to an identifiable ‘sense of place’ (page 29).

 

In the exhibition of the Draft LEP during 2008, submissions were made regarding economic viability and, as a result, higher-scale controls for some sites had been included in the second exhibition and in the draft submitted to the Department after exhibition. Additional submissions requesting increased FSR and height were also received after the exhibitions had been completed.

 

The Department advised that, on legal grounds, those LEP changes would appropriately be undertaken within the following LEP 12-month Review. Consequently Council submitted a planning proposal to amend controls for five sites in the St Leonards commercial centre.

 

The LEP Gateway supported the exhibition of amendments for the following three of the five sites:-

 

(i)         448-452 Pacific Highway (the car wash site and two office blocks adjacent, west of Oxley St) – to increase FSR from 2:1 to 6:1 and height from 15 metres to 36 metres (10 commercial storeys);

 

(ii)        69 Christie Street (a 6-7 storey strata plan office block including medical suites) – to increase FSR from 10:1 to 12:1, to facilitate amalgamation with the adjacent Telstra site, which was also proposed for that scale; and

 

(iii)       The Nicholson precinct: 67 Christie St (4 strata commercial units in one ownership at the triangular tip of Nicholson and Christie Sts, only 340m2 approximately in site area) and adjacent 59-65 Christie St and 46-50 Nicholson St (seven lots occupied by Nature Care College). The draft LEP specified that these sites were to be amalgamated as a prerequisite to the scale being changed, to increase FSR from 4.5:1 to 9:`1 and height from 25m to 45m (12 commercial storeys).

 

 

 

The Gateway did not agree to the two other sites being exhibited:-

 

·           A group of lots known as 88 Christie Street (Winten site):  This site proceeded instead under Part 3A and was approved by the Planning Assessment Commission for an 18-storey commercial building in 2011; and

·           500-542 Pacific Hwy (comprising office buildings, the Telstra site and four shops between Friedlander Place and Christie St): This site was proposed for FSR 12:1, and Site 2 above was proposed to be consistent with this one. (Note: Nos.500-520 now form part of Planning Proposal 18 to be exhibited shortly for mixed use towers).

 

The Gateway’s letter of determination, of 1 December 2011, is attached at AT-1.

 

The Planning Proposal provides detailed background relating to the draft amendments and is attached at AT-2.

 

The exhibition for the three sites was held from 6 June to 17 July 2012. Consultation included North Sydney Council, Willoughby Council and Transport for NSW, as required by the Gateway, and a significant number of properties within the three council areas on both sides of Pacific Highway.

 

In May-June 2012, the Department had released a discussion paper: “Sydney over the next 20 years”, prior to releasing its draft review of the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy 2036. Related reports studied scenarios for different distributions of housing and employment between strategic, larger urban centres, local, smaller urban centres and greenfield areas. Six months later the Draft  Metropolitan Strategy was released for consultation, with a proposal that Lane Cove be part of a new subregional grouping. During this period councils discussed with the Department the future residential and employment densities appropriate to St Leonards and other areas, with consultation ending in June 2013.


At the same time, the Department issued new delegations for current planning proposals, advising Council on 6 May 2013 that it was given delegation to complete this St Leonards planning proposal. This was followed by advice on 30 August 2013 that the planning proposal was to be resolved by June 2014, which the Department has agreed may cover the current council meeting of 16th.

 

Discussion

 

Seven submissions were received, making the following comments:-

 

·           North Sydney Council requested that the changes to 448-452 Pacific Hwy (Site 1) not proceed on the grounds of potential impact on the low-medium density residential precinct on Oxley Street’s eastern side, and the agreement made formerly to retain a lower scale on the western side of Oxley St for that reason. It is to be noted that this agreement was referred to also by Lane Cove within its planning proposal for exhibition, as it relates to the St Leonards Strategy 2006. It is proposed by North Sydney that the reduced scale of FSR 3.3:1 may be appropriate, as in the Hill PDA study of 2008. This would require a revised planning proposal, however, and so it is not supported that the current planning proposal proceed;

·           A resident of Nicholson St in the North Sydney LGA made the similar submission as above, that 10 storeys on Pacific Highway and the corner of Oxley St would be excessive, in particular in terms of shadowing impact;

·           The owner of 67 Christie, within the Nicholson precinct, wrote in support of the increases in FSR and height;

·           The RMS submission, of 10 October 2012, raised no objection to the increase in scale of the three sites; and

·           Bike North Inc. requested setbacks to make provision for cycle access, the North Shore Bicycle Group commented on re-allocation of Highway space, road linkages and the relationship with the rail corridor; and a former president of Council’s Bike Committee requested that major changes for laneways, access ways etc be brought to the Committee before decision: These issues would be appropriately considered at the DCP and DA stages, rather than in the LEP, and in discussions with the RMS.

 

The submissions have been circulated electronically to Councillors with this Report.

 

Comments relating to these submissions:-

 

 (i)        Site 1: 448-452 Pacific Hwy

 

North Sydney’s submission, as above, expressed concern that the proposed scale may result in loss of amenity, specifically due to overshadowing, of its medium-density residential precinct on the eastern side of Oxley Street. The increase in scale to FSR 6:1 and height of 36 metres was requested by the owners to gain consistency with the adjacent offices to the west. It is agreed, however, that this factor is not in itself as important as the protection of amenity of the existing neighbouring residential precinct, and this submission is supported.

 

(ii)        Site 2: 69 Christie St

 

This site had been proposed for FSR12:1 in association with the adjacent 500-542 Pacific Hwy site. The latter, however, was the second of the two sites not permitted by the Gateway to proceed. In that situation, in view also of the fact that Telstra has shown no indication that it will redevelop its adjacent site in the foreseeable future, and that 12:1 is not adequate incentive in itself above the existing 10:1 to produce redevelopment of the ageing but substantial strata medical units as a stand-alone site, it is recommended that the planning proposal not proceed in relation to this site.

 

 (iii)      Site 3: The Nicholson Precinct

 

As mentioned above, the owner of 67 Christie St, within the Nicholson precinct, wrote in support of the increases in FSR and height.

 

A letter was, however, subsequently submitted to Council on 12 August 2013 by Michael Standley & Associates, consultant planner for Jemalong St Leonards Pty Ltd, owner of the majority of the precinct’s properties and negotiating at that time with 67 Christie St, requesting that the zoning for the Nicholson precinct be amended from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use, on the following grounds:-

 

·           Research by Jemalong and anecdotal evidence suggests that the most likely form for a successful and commercially viable redevelopment would be mixed use with a commercial podium and residential above;

·           A maximum achievable lettable floor area would be approximately 800m2, with maximum gross floor area of 1,000m2, whereas the demand for office  space is for floorplates considerably larger than that, and the acquisition of the small corner block would not substantially alter that situation. It was unlikely that a significant commercial development on the site will attract the necessary lease commitments to proceed;

·           The current development [of 3-5 storey commercial buildings] is fragmented and of poor quality, but is likely to remain under the present zoning of the site; and

·           Proximity to the St Leonards transport hub and Royal North Shore Hospital support residential accommodation there.

 

The submission indicates that the site amalgamation is dependent on finalization of the height and FSR controls, but that if that is done under the current commercial zoning it will not result in redevelopment, and so the zoning is requested change to mixed use. The staff comment is that this would require a new planning proposal rather than the current one, and not only for different zoning, but also scale reduction, as 9:1 and 45 are unlikely to be an achievable combination with SEPP 65 setbacks and other residential controls. An example that may support this view is the recent mixed use development proposal for 545 Pacific Hwy on the North Sydney side at FSR 6.6:1 and 50 metres.

 

A further factor is that in June 2013 the developers for 472-520 Pacific Hwy commenced discussions with the Department and Council seeking mixed use zoning in three towers. Council sought the Department’s view as to the resultant loss of employment floor space, but prior to this being formally received, the planning proposal was lodged for that precinct on 25 October 2013 and has been given Gateway approval for exhibition to proceed shortly.

 

Conclusion

 

The draft amendments were exhibited in response to requests by various property owners around the time of the preparation of the LEP finalized in 2010 and in its 12-month review from 2011. Shortly afterwards, however, the NSW government released the draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney, which discussed changes to the residential and employment balance between centres as well as the council subregions themselves, and that Plan has not been finalized to date. This has introduced a changing planning context which is as yet to be clarified before the controls for St Leonards can be resolved with confidence that they would be appropriate to the Specialized Centre as a whole.

 

Having regard to the above issues, it is recommended that the planning proposal should not proceed, taking into consideration in particular the site-specific factors below:-

 

·           Site 1 – 448-452 Pacific Hwy: In response to the property owners’ request for increased scale, the submission of North Sydney Council is supported that the scale of FSR 6:1 and height of 36 metres would be excessive having regard to the amenity of the medium density residential precinct retained on the south-eastern side of Oxley Street under the North Sydney LEP, which was not determined at the time when this proposal was put forward;

·           Site 2 – 69 Christie St strata medical offices: The increase in floor space ratio appears not to be a factor which will promote redevelopment of the adjoining telephone exchange or therefore of this site itself; and

·           Site 3 – Nicholson precinct: The case has been put by the site’s major property owner that the draft amendments to scale would not produce redevelopment of this site under its existing commercial zoning.

 

Furthermore, in light of the emerging changes in terms of land use and scale to be exhibited for 472-520 Pacific Highway, it is considered appropriate to await the outcomes of that planning proposal in order to understand the future of the precinct as a whole and the preferred approach of the Department of Planning & Environment.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.   Council resolve that LEP Planning Proposal 6, relating to three sites at 448-452 Pacific Highway, 69 Christie St and the Nicholson Precinct not proceed, on the grounds described in this Report.

2.   The NSW Department of Planning & Environment be advised of the resolution.

3.   The property owners be advised of the resolution.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Department/ Gateway correspondence

8 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Planning Proposal No.6

6 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 June 2014

Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Determination for Councillor Fees

 

 

Subject:          Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Determination for Councillor Fees    

Record No:    SU839 - 27997/14

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Kirsty Fleming 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report details the recent determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal for Councillors Fees.

 

Discussion

 

The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal is responsible for categorising councils and determining the maximum amount of fees to be paid to Mayors and Councillors in each category.  The Tribunal handed down a determination on 24 April 2014 under Sections 239 and 241 of the Local Government Act on the level of fees to be paid to Councillors and Mayors from 1 July 2014.

 

The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal has increased all minimum and maximum fees for Mayors and Councillors by 2.5%.  The table below shows the current annual fees paid to Lane Cove Councillors and the new minimum and maximum annual fees as determined by the Tribunal:-

 

 

Current Annual Fee

New Minimum Annual Fee

New Maximum Annual Fee

Mayor (in addition to the Councillor Fee)

$38,160

$17,310

$39,110

Councillors

$17,490

$8,130

$17,930

 

 

The program in Council’s Draft Budget for 2014/15 provides for a 2.5% increase.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council determine the appropriate fee to be paid to the Mayor and Councillors for 2014/2015.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 June 2014

Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 20 May 2014

 

 

Subject:          Local Traffic Committee Meeting - 20 May 2014    

Record No:    SU1326 - 30548/14

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Hastono van Hien 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday, 20 May 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, 20 May 2014.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

AGENDA - Traffic Committee - 20 May 2014

21 Pages

AT‑2 View

MINUTES - Traffic Committee - 20 May 2014

9 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 June 2014

Amendment to the Ordinary Minimum Residential Rate

 

 

Subject:          Amendment to the Ordinary Minimum Residential Rate    

Record No:    SU5131 - 30505/14

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Tracey Collins 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to advise Council that an amendment is required to the resolution of the Council Meeting of 19 May 2014 in relation to the Minimum Residential Rate for 2014/15. It is recommended that Council increase the Minimum Ordinary Residential Rate to $592 and the Ad Valorem $0.182040 respectively.

 

Background

 

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 19 May 2014, it was resolved that:-

Council fix the Ordinary Rates and Charges for 2014/15 as:-

a) Ordinary Rates

(i) An Ordinary Residential Rate* of 0.186056 cents in the dollar, on the Land Value of all Rateable Land categorised as Residential in accordance with S.516 of the Local Government Act, (with the exception of heritage properties which are rated on their heritage value), with a Minimum Rate of $550, to yield $15,657,025.

*Subject to IPART approving Council’s application to review the Minimum Residential Rate, the Minimum Rate for 2014/15 will be $588 and the Ad Valorem Residential Rate will be $0.182425 cents in the dollar.”

 

Following IPART’s approval of Council’s application to adjust its Minimum Rates, the Minimum Residential Rate is recommended to be amended from $588 as previously reported to $592, being the exact amount approved by IPART. The Ad Valorem Residential Rate is then required to be amended from $0.182425 to $0.182040 cents in the dollar, to ensure there is no change to the total amount received by Council in Rates.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Rescind the resolution of the Meeting of 19 May 2014, Minute No. 98, 2a)(i) in relation to the Minimum Residential Rate; and

 

2.   Fix the Ordinary Rates and Charges for 2014/15 as follows:-

a)    Ordinary Rates

(i)      An Ordinary Residential Rate of 0.182040 cents in the dollar, on the Land Value of all Rateable Land categorised as Residential in accordance with S.516 of the Local Government Act, (with the exception of heritage properties which are rated on their heritage value), with a Minimum Rate of $592, to yield $15,657,025.

 

Tracey Collins

Manager Human Resources

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 June 2014

Plaza Gas Fire Incident

 

 

Subject:          Plaza Gas Fire Incident    

Record No:    SU4860 - 31400/14

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

Councillors would be aware that during construction of the ‘Lane Cove Plaza Upgrade Stage 2’ works, a 50mm low pressure gas main ruptured and caught fire at approximately 1pm on Monday 26 May 2014. This report provides details of the event, and the current situation.

 

Discussion

The incident occurred in a construction access only zone at the Eastern end of the Plaza, the area was separated from the public by way of hoardings and control gates.

 

Construction personnel were preparing the ground for a new garden bed wall footing.  Prior to working in the works zone, all underground services had been located and identified through ‘Dial Before You Dig’ surveys, ground penetrating radar and ‘potholing’, whereby the gas line was exposed by manual digging and positively located before any construction works commenced. 

 

An excavator was required to prepare the ground for the garden bed wall footing.  The machine was working in compliance with Workcover’s safe operating distances from the gas line. There is no evidence to suggest there was direct impact by the excavator or any hand tools on the gas line.  The gas leak began slowly from an unexcavated area of the ground, and as it gained momentum, rock and ground debris were ejected into the atmosphere.  Shortly thereafter, the gas plume ignited, the exact ignition source is unknown.  The contractor immediately commenced the evacuation of the construction zone and also of nearby members of the public in the Plaza.

 

One worker received burns to his forearm that required hospitalisation and a skin graft.  He has now been discharged and is recovering well.

 

Emergency services, Jemena Gas, and Workcover attended the incident. Jemena shut off the gas while the fire brigade maintained a stream of water on adjacent buildings. The Fire Brigade observed it was safer to allow the gas to burn off in a controlled way rather than extinguish the flame as if the gas could potentially gather in areas such as adjoining shops and present a greater threat.

 

Workcover investigators interviewed the contractor’s personnel, inspected the scene of the incident and reviewed the Contractor’s Safety systems and documentation.  Following the investigation Workcover approved the Contractor to recommence work the next day.  The Contractor did a safety review of equipment and the consisting before resuming work, and the incident has not resulted in a delay to the construction program. Council understands a formal Workcover Report is being prepared written but is not yet available.

 

The incident demonstrated the expertise of emergency service personnel, and it is worth noting the hierarchy of responses in emergencies.

 

The Police, Fire, Ambulance and SES are the normal response agencies for emergencies. The NSW Police Local Area Commander, who is the designated Local Emergency Operations Controller (LEOCon) and is able to convene the Local Emergency Management Committee to ensure a coordinated response from all agencies, including Council. This is normally warranted when a sustained response is required.

 

Conclusion

I am satisfied a genuine accident has occurred and subsequent investigations have indicated Council’s contractor has been diligent in its approach to safety. Given the seriousness of the incident I am thankful the incident didn’t result in loss of life. The response of Emergency Services staff was excellent who not only ensured the safety of the community but restored the situation back to normal in a relatively short period of time.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 16 June 2014

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot    

Record No:    SU220 - 30816/14

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

53 Pages