m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

21 July 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 21 July 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 21 July 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

FOLLOW UP PRESENTATION OF LANE COVE CITIZENSHIP AWARDS

 

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.

2.       Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel Determinations

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (g) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains advice concerning litigation, or advice as comprises a discussion of this matter, that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege; 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. 

 

public forum

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

3.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 16 JUNE 2014

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

4.       Pedestrian Safety - Coles Car Park Exit Ramp....................................... 5

 

5.       Safety Concerns with Trees............................................................................. 6

 

6.       Anzac Centennary Working Party................................................................ 8

 

7.       Works by Public Utilities in the Village................................................... 10

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

8.       Appointment to the Aboriginal Advisory Committee........................ 11

 

9.       Events on the Lane Cove and Paramatta River foreshore........... 12

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

10.     Naming of New Road, Community Centre and Park in the Burns Bay Precinct .................................................................................................................... 13

 

11.     Market Square Car Park Operations........................................................ 28

 

12.     Voluntary Planning Agreement - 1-25 Marshall Avenue, St Leonards ......................................................................................................................................... 33

 

13.     Draft DCP - 472-520 Pacific Hwy, St Leonards .......................................... 61

 

14.     Voluntary Planning Agreement - Planning Proposal 472 -504 Pacific Highway St Leonards.......................................................................................... 74

 

15.     Acceptance into the World Health Organisation Global Network of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities........................................................ 103

 

16.     Local Traffic Committee Meeting 17 June 2014..................................... 110

 

17.     Tender for Construction of New Scout Hall and Amenities Building at Blackman Park .................................................................................................... 128

 

18.     Update on Planning Proposal: 8-14 Mindarie St, Lane Cove North 132

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

19.     Sustainability Levy - Cost Benefit Analysis ........................................ 137

 

20.     Community Wellbeing Survey....................................................................... 156

 

21.     Council Snapshot .............................................................................................. 170  

 

 

 

 

         


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 July 2014

Pedestrian Safety - Coles Car Park Exit Ramp

 

 

Subject:          Pedestrian Safety - Coles Car Park Exit Ramp    

Record No:    SU3476 - 35819/14

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor David Brooks-Horn 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

It has been highlighted to me by members of our community that the existing exit ramp from the Coles car park onto Burns Bay Road poses a significant safety risk to pedestrians with the limited sight lines available to vehicles using the ramp.

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 16 June 2014, Council called for a review and report on the pedestrian crossings in the Lane Cove Village and I believe this is another area that should be included in the review.  As an example of how safety could be improved, it may be possible to have a flashing sign, similar to buildings in the city, which warns pedestrians of vehicles coming up the ramp. I acknowledge that this would need to be undertaken in co-operation with the owners.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council include in the review and report on the pedestrian crossings in the Lane Cove Village, possible improvements to pedestrian safety for the exit ramp from the Coles car park onto Burns Bay Road.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor David Brooks-Horn

Mayor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 July 2014

Safety Concerns with Trees

 

 

Subject:          Safety Concerns with Trees    

Record No:    SU729 - 38663/14

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor David Brooks-Horn 

 

 

Background

 

Councillors would be aware from reports in the media from time to time that trees can unfortunately fail or drop limbs, which cause injury and unfortunately even death, as was the case at a public school earlier this year.

 

In our own Council area, I have received representations from members of the community about trees in their yards which have either dropped significant limbs or consistently dropped large limbs, which had the potential to cause injury or even death.

 

Council undertook a review of the Tree Preservation Controls in October 2013 and the changes were implemented on a 12 month trial period. This review included the following exemptions to address safety:-

 

·    Removing dead branches from live trees;

·    Removing tree branches overhanging the roof line of houses within 2 metres of the building line, except for Eucalyptus, Angophora, Corymbia and Syncarpia species, in which case a Permit is required; and

·    Pruning of tree branches that are within 2 metres of electric powerlines as required by State Legislation.

 

On reflection, I feel it would be appropriate to include a specific opportunity for applicants to prune or remove trees where there is a safety concern. This could be achieved by requiring an application to be submitted, but the assessment of the application would only focus on safety. Evidence to justify the application would include evidence of dropped significant limbs or consistent drops of large limbs. Consideration would also be given to the proximity of the trees to structures, and whether or not they were located in active use areas within the property.

 

Staff have advised me that the trial of the October 2013 controls commenced in January 2014, with the review due at the end of this year. I therefore propose that the safety concern criteria be introduced immediately, and the utilisation be monitored and its effectiveness included in the review report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council introduce a section, effective immediately, within its Tree Preservation Controls that permits an application to be made to prune or remove a tree solely on the grounds of safety. Evidence to justify the pruning or removal application must include:-

·    evidence of dropped significant limbs (200mm diameter branches) or consistent drops of large limbs (75mm diameter branches); and

·    proximity to structures and/or prime active use areas within the property.

 

2.   Use of the safety concern application process be monitored and its effectiveness be included in the Tree Preservation Controls Review report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor David Brooks-Horn

Mayor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 July 2014

Anzac Centennary Working Party

 

 

Subject:          Anzac Centennary Working Party    

Record No:    SU26 - 37557/14

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor David Brooks-Horn 

 

 

The Anzac Centenary will be one of the most significant commemorations to take place in our lifetimes.

- Chair of the Anzac Centenary Advisory Board, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, AC, AFC (Ret’d)

Discussion

 

Lane Cove is proud of the men and women who have fought for our nation. In recent years our Anzac Day and Remembrance Day celebrations have seen increased attendances by our community as we come together to remember and honour the ANZAC spirit.

 

2014- 2018 marks 100 years of the ANZACs, and it appropriate that our community conducts some special events and activities as part of the Centenary commemorations.

 

Staff have advised me that the Library is in the process of organising the following:

 

·   World War I 1914-1918:  100 years display will be featured in Local Studies Display cabinet 1 August 2014 – 30 December 2014.  Another related display will be in 2015.

 

·    A digital exhibition, Camera on Gallipoli will be on loan from the Australian War Memorial.   The digital exhibition will be available at the Library until the commemorations finishes in 2018 and the Library will be able to schedule screenings for schools and community groups. The Camera on Gallipoli exhibition will include a launch event at a date to be advised - after confirmation and information is provided by the Australian War Memorial.

 

·    Council has applied for an Anzac Centenary Local Grant from the Department of Veteran Affairs for the restoration and relocation of Lane Cove’s World War I Honour Board. The Board is located on the Library Wall near the Memorial.  If successful this grant includes volunteers from the Lane Cove Historical Society researching information about the servicemen which can be made available to members of the community. The project has the support of the Lane Cove RSL Sub-Branch and Lane Cove Historical Society. An unveiling ceremony will be arranged on completion of the relocation and restoration work.

 

·    Family History Workshop, during Family History Week 2015 – Researching Your World War I Ancestor.

 

I have had discussions with Harvey Porter, President of the Lane Cove RSL Sub-branch and we feel that a small Working Party  should be formed to co-ordinate local events and activities over the 4 years.  The Working Party would include, Harvey Porter, and two other representatives from the RSL Sub-branch, the Mayor and Deputy Mayor and staff nominated by the General Manager.


 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.          Council form a Working Party to co-ordinate local events and activities to mark 100 years of the ANZACs.

 

2.          The Working party comprise Harvey Porter, and two other representatives from the RSL Sub-branch, the Mayor and Deputy Mayor and staff nominated by the General Manager.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor David Brooks-Horn

Mayor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 July 2014

Works by Public Utilities in the Village

 

 

Subject:          Works by Public Utilities in the Village    

Record No:    SU4860 - 38667/14

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor David Brooks-Horn 

 

 

Background

 

Councillors you would be aware that Council has gone to a great deal of effort to minimise the impact of the current plaza works by undertaking excessively noisy and disruptive works between 7pm and midnight. 

 

Recently. Ausgrid needed to undertake works in the Plaza and proceeded to use a demolition saw during the day, which I feel is inappropriate given the level of pedestrian activity.

 

I therefore propose that we seek the support of relevant Federal and State Ministers and all utility providers to only undertake excessively noisy and disruptive works between 7pm and midnight, not during the day. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council write to the relevant Federal and State members, and all utility providers requesting that they only undertake excessively noisy and disruptive works in the Lane Cove Village between 7pm and midnight, not during the day, unless it is an emergency. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor David Brooks-Horn

Mayor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

         


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 July 2014

Appointment to the Aboriginal Advisory Committee

 

 

Subject:          Appointment to the Aboriginal Advisory Committee    

Record No:    SU5096 - 39103/14

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Scott Bennison 

 

 

 

Council recently advertised for nominations from community members interested in filling vacant Community Representative positions on the Aboriginal Advisory Committee.  One (1) nomination was received from Paul Morris who has previous experience on the City of Sydney Aboriginal Advisory Committee and was the former CEO of Metro Aboriginal Land Council.

 

The nomination form received by Council has been circulated separately to Councillors. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Paul Morris, former CEO of Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council be appointed to the Aboriginal Advisory Committee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Scott Bennison

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 July 2014

Events on the Lane Cove and Paramatta River foreshore

 

 

Subject:          Events on the Lane Cove and Paramatta River foreshore    

Record No:    SU5276 - 38799/14

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Deborah Hutchens 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A significant part of Lane Cove’s natural history is based on the Lane Cove River and Parramatta River foreshores. The majority of events that Council runs or assists with are based in the Plaza or within the Village area.  It is suggested that Council consider the opportunity to run a series of events as part of a new Festival by the River or similar annual event. The aim of the festival would be to utilise areas within Greenwich, Longueville, Riverview and Linley Point for a series of community-based activities that promote the affiliation that the Lane Cove community has with the river/s. 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive a report on the possibilities for developing a Festival by the River or similar annual event. That this Report give consideration to the timing, location and compatibility with other annual activities and festivals in Lane Cove and the best way of engaging community groups in the planning of the event.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Deborah Hutchens

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 July 2014

Naming of New Road, Community Centre and Park in the Burns Bay Precinct

 

 

Subject:          Naming of New Road, Community Centre and Park in the Burns Bay Precinct     

Record No:    SU5440 - 37169/14

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      John  Lee 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Community consultation was recently undertaken in respect of the naming of the new access road across 304-314 Burns Bay Road, the adjacent park and Community Centre located below the new road and in respect of readdressing a number of properties which have a Burns Bay Road address and which access Burns Bay Road at the signalised intersection adjacent to 296 Burns Bay Road.  This report summarises the responses received and includes recommendations for appropriate naming.

 

Background

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 19 May 2014, in regards to 304-314 Burns Bay Road and the adjacent areas highlighted above, Council resolved to:-

 “Endorse the proposal for modifications to the street address, road, park and community centre naming for the purpose of public exhibition and place the proposal on public exhibition for 6 weeks in accordance with the strategy outlined in the report.”

Community consultation was conducted from Wednesday 28 May to Wednesday 9 July 2014.  A number of responses were received with regards to each element of the proposal.

 

Discussion

 

Road Naming

 

Council received 74 suggestions for the name of the new access road across 304-314 Burns Bay Rd.  A list of these suggestions and their rational is provides as AT-1.

 

It should be noted that although owners / residents of 290 Burns Bay Road did not support readdressing for reasons set out below, a high percentage supported Bay View Close (13) as a prestige name incorporating what all residents enjoy about living in this area, being the beautiful views of Burns Bay.

 

The next 2 most supported suggestions were in recognition of Prime Minister Billy Hughes (Hughes Way) (8) and (Carisbrook Place / Road) (6) based on Carisbrook House as a destination. 

 

A number of suggestions related to the prior ownership and use of the land including “Ludowici” and “Radke” after owners, “Mangrovite” after the name of the belting belting company and “Tannery”,  “Woodpipe” and “Rope” after the nature of the business located on Burns Bay,

 

To comply with the naming requirements of the Geographical Names Board, it is recommended that Bay View Drive be selected as the road name, a Drive being defined as a “thoroughfare allowing a steady flow of traffic without many cross- streets”.

 

Park Name

 

Council received 53 suggestions for the name of the adjacent Park.  A list of these suggestions and their rational is provided as AT-2.  

 

The top 4 suggestions for the name of the park were Bay View Park (5), Carisbrook Park (7), Hughes Park (or variations of) (6) and Burns Bay Park (7) in addition to various suggestions for an aboriginal name. 

 

As Burns Bay Reserve is close by, it would not be appropriate to also name this park Burns Bay Park.  For similar reasons, as Carisbrook House is adjacent to Linley Point Reserve and may lead to confusion, if this park were named Carisbrook Park. Given that “Bay View” is recommended for the proposed street name, for differential reference Hughes Park is recommended for the Park.  It is therefore recommended that Hughes Park being the next highest nominated name be selected.

 

Community Centre Name

 

Council received 69 suggestions for the new Community Centre name. A list of these suggestions and their rational is provided as AT-3.  

 

The top suggestions for the name of the Community Centre were Bayview Community Centre, Burns Bay Community Centre (8), Carisbrook Community Centre (4), Ludowici Community Centre (6) and Hughes (William Morris or variations) Community Centre (6).

 

It would be prudent to set aside “Burns Bay Community Centre” for consideration as a suitable name for any future community facility built on or associated with Burns Bay Reserve. 

 

A number of suggestions related to the prior ownership and use of the land on which the Community Centre has been built.  This included “Ludowici” after the owner, “Mangrovite” after the name of the belting belting company and “Tannery” after the nature of the tanning business located on Burns Bay.

 

Given that many of the names put forward would be valid, it is recommended that the suggestions be further considered and the proposed name be included in a further report associated with the date for opening of the Community Centre.

 

Readdressing

 

Council received 65 submissions regarding the readdressing of the even numbered properties between 290 and 346 Burns Bay Road inclusive.  A summary of comments received is provided as AT-4.

 

290 Burns Bay Road

 

It is clear that inconvenience and notification of agencies in a readdressing exercise were reasons given as factors against the proposal.  Respondents (15 out of 19) from 290 Burns Bay Road generally did not support readdressing on the basis that their building, recently constructed, does front Burns Bay Road.  It is noted though that three (3) of respondents from 290 Burns Bay Road identified the difficulty experienced in the current addressing problem.  It is understandable that residents having recently moved to a new building do not want the inconvenience of readdressing.  The inconvenience however is acknowledged as being short term and is not out of proportion to anyone who moves address.

 

A logical place to define the boundary of the new road name with Burns Bay Road, is a line between the south west corner of 290 Burns Bay Road and the general alignment of the eastern side of Burns Bay Road to the south of the signalised intersection. Given the views of owners in 290 Burns Bay Road, it is not recommended that 290 Burns Bay Road be included in the readdressing program.

 


Remaining Properties

 

In considering responses, other than those 15 respondents opposing the proposal from 290 Burns Bay Road, it is clear that there was general support (29 out of 50) for readdressing the remaining properties to have a new unique name address, despite the acknowledged inconvenience.  A number of responses reaffirmed the known problems with emergency services, deliveries and taxis. 

 

It is noted that while around 330 residents are potentially affected, many owners have not directly expressed their opposition to the readdressing exercise.

 

For those respondents not in support and who have cited inconvenience or having to change records, it is entirely understandable that some residents may be attached to an address, and that the process of change can be daunting.  Nevertheless, 18 of the 28 respondents in support of a new address typically quoted It confusion and instructions for visitors, emergency services, taxis and couriers.

 

Subject to the new road name being adopted, it is strongly recommended that this opportunity to embark on changing the street address for even numbered properties between 292 and 346 Burns Bay Road inclusive.  Staff will proactively engage with relevant agencies during this program.

 

Conclusion

 

In light of the comments received throughout the community consultation as well as the geographic factors outlined in the report, it is recommended that:-

·    Bay View Drive is an appropriate name for the new road as a prestigious name incorporating what residents living in this area enjoy, being the beautiful views of Burns Bay;

·    The park be named the Hughes Park in recognition of Australia’s 7th Prime Minister who was also a resident of Lane Cove during World War 1;

·    Suggestions from the Community for the naming of the Community Centre be considered in association with a further report advising on the opening of the Centre; and

·    With the exception of 290 Burns Bay Road, properties having an even numbered Burns Bay Road Address between 292 and 346 Burns Bay Road inclusive be renumbered with a Bay View Close address.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.   Seek the approval of the NSW Geographical Names Board for the new road across 304-314 Burns Bay Road to be named Bay View Drive;

2.   Seek the approval of the NSW Geographical Names Board to readdress even numbered properties between 292 and 346 Burns Bay Road inclusive to address to the Boards’ approved street name;

3.   Proactively liaise with relevant agencies to assist residents in the readdressing program;

4.   Approve the naming of the park as Hughes Park;

5.   Take into consideration suggestions from the community and include the proposed name for the Centre in conjunction with a further report advising on the opening of the Community Centre; and

6.   Advise affected property owners of this decision.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

AT-1 Suggested New Road Names

3 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

AT-2 Suggested Park Names

2 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

AT-3  Suggested Community Centre Names

3 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

AT-4 Responses to Proposed Readdressing

3 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

AT-1 Suggested New Road Names

 




ATTACHMENT 2

AT-2 Suggested Park Names

 



ATTACHMENT 3

AT-3  Suggested Community Centre Names

 




ATTACHMENT 4

AT-4 Responses to Proposed Readdressing

 




Ordinary Council Meeting 21 July 2014

Market Square Car Park Operations

 

 

Subject:          Market Square Car Park Operations    

Record No:    SU4210 - 36416/14

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Wayne Rylands 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting of 16 June 2014, Council considered a Notice of Motion from the Mayor, Councillor Brooks-Horn identifying community concern with the Market Square Car Park since changes were initiated to the boom gate and software system. In response to Council’s resolution, traffic surveys have been undertaken by staff to ascertain the extent of the queue problem occurring in the car park. As a result of the traffic surveys, and observations made of traffic exiting the car park, staff has developed a number of options that should assist in improving traffic flow out of the Market Square Car Park. It is recommended that Council adopt the solutions provided. Staff’ will then implement the proposed changes, monitor the traffic flow, and report back to Council in six (6) months on the results.

                                                                                                      

 

Background

Council at its meeting of 16 June 2014 resolved:-

“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 the results, provide solutions to alleviate traffic congestion and the estimated cost.”

 

Discussion

Market Square Car Park is the only major car park within Lane Cove Village that offers the flexibility to park in excess of 3 hours with charges well below the cost of overstay associated with Penalty Infringement Notices (PINs) issued in other Lane Cove Village parking areas.

The layout of the Car Park was designed by Woolworths in 2009. Wire and Wireless P/L were contracted by Council to custom develop the ticketless parking system in 2010. This method was ‘a first’ and was selected primarily because it has a superior exit capacity compared to a ticket/token system. This was critical given there is only one exit lane. Survey data has confirmed that as many as 23 vehicles are able to exit Market Square Car Park in 3 minutes. This is the equivalent of 460 vehicles per hour. In comparison, a typical ticket/token system only has a theoretical exit capacity of 300 vehicles per hour.

Since implementation of the ticketless parking system, the software code, detection camera configuration and location of pay stations have been refined on numerous occasions to improve the vehicle exit operations.

In early 2014, Council staff became aware of an increasing number of vehicles performing dangerous manoeuvres to evade payment of fees for stays in excess of 3 hours in the Market Square Car Park. The manoeuvres included tailgating other vehicles or speeding through the exit before the boom gate could lower following the exit of another vehicle. This created a potentially dangerous situation with the mix of vehicles and pedestrians that occurs within, and just outside, the car park.

Following a major power surge in March 2014, which affected the existing Car Park equipment, the Car Park operators updated the custom developed system software and hardware to standardise it with other parking installations under their management eg. Ipswich Health Plaza. The update aimed to minimise the occurrence of vehicles exiting without payment by closing the gate on each exiting vehicle and requiring operator intervention when a matching vehicle licence plate was not detected. A web-based data portal was also developed to provide Council with Car Park usage data.

After implementation, it became apparent that there were issues with the exit operation rules of the new software, which created vehicle queuing issues within the car park during peak exit periods. Staff began addressing these problems with the Car Park operator in April/May 2014.

Car Park Usage and Payment Data (October 2013 to June 2014)

Usage and payment data has been extracted from the web-based data portal to analyse how the changes to the system software have affected Car Park revenue and entry/exit traffic flows. The analysis shows that revenue has increased since the software change occurred in early March 2014, but that there is no correlation between the software change and entry/exit flows. Exit flow is less than entry as not all cars are successfully identified through the number plate recognition process.

 

Month

Previous Years

Entry flow

Exit flow

October 2013

$4,470.95

95,623

88,176

November 2013

$2,938.10

93,890

85,762

December 2013

$3,540.55

97,185

90,458

January 2014

$1,996.80

88,719

82,563

February 2014**

$414.10

102,365

94,108

New system implemented

March 2014

$7,079.20

106,553

94,603

April 2014

$6,714.10

91,234

83,224

May 2014

$8,229.90

99,300

91,712

June 2014

$8,429.00

94,748

87,835

** System malfunctioned for 22 days in February 2014

Traffic Surveys

Initially it was proposed to engage contractors to undertake on-site traffic surveys. However, given the impending school holidays, the surveys were conducted by Council staff. The surveys were designed to record the frequency and impacts of incidents that caused delays to vehicles exiting the Car Park. Incidents that were recorded include:-

·    Exiting vehicle not being detected by sensor system;

·    Vehicles giving way to roundabout traffic outside Car Park;

·    Vehicles required to pay on exit; and

·    Vehicle parking manoeuvres in parking aisle obstructing exiting vehicles.

Analysis of the Market Square Car Park traffic data was undertaken to identify periods of peak vehicle activity over the course of a typical week. In order to collect data during the school term, surveys were conducted on the following days:-

·    Thursday 26th June 2014 – 3pm to 4pm (after school pick-up);

·    Friday 27th June 2014 – 3pm to 4pm (after school pick-up); and

·    Saturday 28th June 2014 – 12pm to 1pm (lunch).

Post-survey analysis of the exit flow data confirmed that typical volumes of traffic were experienced on the survey dates.

 

Exit Flow

Date

May 2014

June 2014

Thursday (1/5 and 26/6)

287

255

Friday (2/5 and 27/6)

272

288

Saturday (3/5 and 28/6)

297

303

Frequency of Incidents

Results of the traffic surveys showed that:-

·    3-4 vehicles were not detected by the exit boom gate system during all one-hour survey periods;

·    17 vehicles needed to give way to traffic on the roundabout during the Saturday lunch period. Conversely only 3 and 9 vehicles needed to give way to roundabout traffic during the Thursday and Friday afternoon periods respectively;

·    A total of only two vehicles needed to pay at the exit gate across all three survey periods;

·    Parking manoeuvres caused delays to exiting traffic on far more occasions during the Saturday survey period than during the Thursday and Friday periods; and

·    Parking manoeuvres and roundabout traffic are the most common types of disruptions to traffic.

The frequency of each type of incident is summarised in the table below.

 

Frequency of incidents during 1-hour surveys

Date

No detection

Roundabout

Pay-on-exit

Parking Manoeuvre

Thursday

3

3

1

4

Friday

4

9

1

3

Saturday

3

17

0

12

Vehicle Clearance Times

Delays at the boom gate are sometimes caused by drivers being required to pay-on-exit or by vehicles not being detected by the system cameras. The delays are exacerbated by drivers leaving their vehicles in order to access the pay-on-exit station, rather than driving around to the pay station. It is noted that the information screen is not in the immediate line of sight of the driver and improvements are necessary.

Vehicles that are undetected by the system cameras should be encouraged to turn left and re-join the exit queue to try being detected again. However, drivers were observed to be reluctant or unaware of the need to do this and chose to contact the Car Park operators via the intercom at the pay-on-exit station. This further increased the internal congestion.

The time taken for undetected or paying vehicles to clear the car park exit was recorded during the traffic surveys. The results showed that:-

·    It takes just over 30 seconds on average for someone to pay-on-exit. This often involves drivers getting out of their vehicles, as their vehicle is not aligned to the pay-on-exit station;

·    The longest clearance time was caused by an undetected vehicle on Friday. The delay lasted 110 seconds because the driver chose to contact the Car Park operators via the intercom; and

·    Drivers of undetected vehicles wait for up to 40 seconds before deciding to turn left and re-join the exit queue.

The typical clearance times for the two types of incidents are summarised in the table below.

 

Clearance Times (s)

 

No Detection

Pay-on-Exit

Date

Freq.

Min

Max

Avg

Freq.

Min

Max

Avg

Thursday

3

9

54

28

1

41

41

41

Friday

4

12

110

49

1

25

25

25

Saturday

3

10

35

20

0

0

0

0

Queue Generation

The queues caused by the four types of incidents were recorded during the survey periods. The results show that:-

·    The longest queues were caused by undetected vehicles blocking the Car Park exit; and

·    Although parking and roundabout incidents are most common the queues generated by them are small in comparison.

 

Queues (Number of Vehicles)

 

No Detection

Roundabout

Date

Freq.

Min

Max

Avg

Freq.

Min

Max

Avg

Thursday

3

0

8

3

3

3

10

6

Friday

4

0

30

10

9

1

2

1

Saturday

3

1

11

6

17

1

2

1

 

 

Queues (Number of Vehicles)

 

Pay-on-Exit

Parking Manoeuvre

Date

Freq.

Min

Max

Avg

Freq.

Min

Max

Avg

Thursday

1

2

2

2

6

3

8

5

Friday

1

10

10

10

3

1

5

3

Saturday

0

0

0

0

12

1

12

5

Conclusion

From the surveys undertaken and observations made of vehicles exiting the Market Square Car Park, the following major conclusions can be drawn:-

·    Parking manoeuvres and roundabout traffic are the most common types of traffic incidents that cause delays to exiting Market Square Car Park traffic. However, the impacts of these incidents are not significant;

·    Vehicles that have not been detected by the exit cameras resulted in the longest delays and queues, as they get stuck at the boom gate. This requires them to back their vehicle up to the pay station, or get out of their vehicle and walk back to the paystation to talk to the Car Park operator via the intercom. This event also led to the highest level of arguments between the aggrieved commuter and system operator, which in turn lasted a longer period and created larger queue lengths within the car park. This matter can be addressed through software modifications to improve detection;

·    There is little need to have the boom gate in a closed position prior to 9.30am, as little to no commuters have overstayed in this period. Traffic flows can be improved by maintaining the gate open: after 9.30am, the level of overstay of the 3 hour free period starts to increase;

·    Traffic flow out of the car park in peak periods would be assisted by retaining the boom gate in an open position unless a vehicle is detected that requires payment, or there has a been a period of inactivity at the boom gate in excess of 10 seconds;

·    Additional cameras should be installed to allow better monitoring of traffic conditions within the car park. Cameras should be installed on all levels to assist in observing or recoding any incidents that may occur which impact on traffic flow in the car park; and

·    The wording on the large display screen is to be made more clear eg. “PAYMENT REQUIRED”. This was a feature of the original software system.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council implements the changes to the Market Square Car Park recommended in the report;

 

2.   Council continue to monitor the operation of the Market Square Car Park to ensure reduced queuing times.

 

3.   A further report be prepared for Council in six (6) months detailing how the proposed changes have impacted on traffic flows in the Market Square Car Park.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 July 2014

Voluntary Planning Agreement - 1-25 Marshall Avenue, St Leonards

 

 

Subject:          Voluntary Planning Agreement - 1-25 Marshall Avenue, St Leonards     

Record No:    SU571 - 37272/14

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

This report outlines a proposed Voluntary planning Agreement (VPA) with the developer, Loftex, of the property 1-25 Marshall Avenue, St Leonards. The VPA would require Loftex to pay a monetary contribution in return for the provision of nine additional storeys on the tower located at the eastern end of the site. The report recommends that the proposed VPA be endorsed and placed on public exhibition for 28 days when the Development Application is advertised.

 

Background

Council when considering the Planning Proposal for reconfiguration of the site of 1-25 Marshall Avenue, St Leonards, to provide a tower at the eastern end of the site, resolved:-

1. Council adopt the exhibited amendments to the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 relating to 1-25 Marshall Avenue, St Leonards, subject to the proposed building height map showing the height of the eastern portion reduced from 78m to 65m;

2.   The Department of Planning & Infrastructure be requested to finalise the Planning Proposal LEP Amendments;

3.   Council indicate it will only consider any further height increase if the applicant enters into a suitable Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) to enhance the public domain in the vicinity of the site;”

 

Discussion

The developers of 1-25 Marshall Avenue, St Leonards, Loftex, propose to lodge a development application for the tower at the eastern end of the site in the near future. As part of the DA, Loftex proposes to seek a variation under clause 4.6 of the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (LCLEP) to the building height development standard applying to the Land so that the tower building is approximately 94m above ground level, being an increase of 29m (or 9 storeys) above the existing LCLEP height limit of 65m.

 

The variation to the height triggers point 3 of Council’s previous resolution, in requiring a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) for such a variation. The objective of the Voluntary Planning Agreement system is to extend the means by which planning authorities such as Council may obtain development contributions to provide public amenities, services and other public purposes.

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

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

In keeping with the definition of public purpose, Council has identified the provision of a bus interchange and plaza over the rail corridor to improve the amenity of the area. Council considered a report on this project at its meeting of 17 March, 2014.

The Proposed Voluntary Planning Agreement

To assist Council in determining an appropriate value for the proposed VPA, HillPDA consultants were engaged to undertake an assessment and to provide advice to Council, which is included as AT-1.  The advice states:-

 

“The industry practice is to assess the uplift in land value the proposed planning benefit would provide to the subject development over and above its existing planning rights. The percentage of value-uplift capture varies between VPA to VPA as they are a negotiated outcome subject to varying interpretations of benefit. In the case of Green Square and Macquarie Park, the value capture is set at fixed rate of square metre of bonus floor space. This fixed rate was calculated at 50% of the average land value uplift for each square metre of gross floor space (GFA). This rate is applied to all developments within the area covered by their Plan. This reduced rate (50% of value) puts the calculated rate beyond dispute and sees most developers seek to take advantage of it.

 

The same approach (SO% of uplift value) is recommended for Lane Cove Council (Council) to ensure a consistent and fair approach that provides Council with a degree of certainty about developers taking up the planning benefit over time if it is made available to them. This gives also greater certainty to Council about forecasting developer contributions. The 50% discount rate is furthermore supported the property industry as they argue that a consent authority cannot expect to capture 100% of the value uplift because they require the developer to undertake the redevelopment. They would argue by nature therefore it is a development partnership and hence the uplift should be shared.”

 

The formula recommended for the St Leonard precinct is follows:

·    $/Rate (value of bonus FSR) x 50% x bonus GFA

Hill PDA have established through valuation the $/Rate to be $2,600per sqm of GFA as at June 2014. This rate would be reviewed annually or determined at the time of project commencement.

 

Loftex proposes payment to Council of a monetary contribution of $1,300 per m2 of Gross Floor Area, (that is $2600 less 50%), located above the existing height limit, prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate (CC) for the Development.

 

The payment will be made for the purposes of contributing towards the funding of the construction of a new public plaza over the railway line at St Leonards. In the event the Plaza does not proceed for the provision of infrastructure generally within the Lane Cove LGA.The VPA will not exclude the application of Section 94, Development Contributions.

 

The Loftex offer accords with the rate and methodology outlined by Hill PDA. If Council were to agree to the full nine floors proposed an estimate of the calculation would be:-

$2600 x 50% = $1300

$1300 x (9 floors x 715 approx sqm per floor) = $8.36M

The merits and impacts of the increased height will be considered in the assessment of the Development Application. The Development Application will be of a scale that the JRPP will be the consent authority for the development. However, prior to the JRPP’s consideration of the matter, Council will need to determine whether or not to accept the contributions and height variation proposed in the VPA, following the consultation.

Community Consultation

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to permit public submissions on the proposed VPA for the eastern tower section of the development of 1-25 Marshall Avenue, St Leonards. Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated as part of any determination as to whether or not to accept monetary contributions proposed in the VPA.

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Properties in the vicinity.

Local community associations.

St Leonards Community Liaison Committee

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and

eNewsletter.

 

Notification Letters

Public Exhibition,

Website Exhibition and Online Survey

Indicative Timing

In conjunction with the Development Application Notification

In conjunction with the Development Application Notification

In conjunction with the Development Application Notification

 

Conclusion

It is considered that the community and future residents of the proposed development, will benefit from the improvements to public infrastructure, in particular the plaza and bus rail interchange. It is recommended that Council exhibit the proposed VPA for public comment in conjunction with the notification of the Development Application for a period of 28 days as required by the legislation.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   The report be received and noted;

 

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

 

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

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Valuation Report - St Leonards VPA

24 Pages

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Valuation Report - St Leonards VPA

 

























Ordinary Council Meeting 21 July 2014

Draft DCP - 472-520 Pacific Hwy, St Leonards

 

 

Subject:          Draft DCP - 472-520 Pacific Hwy, St Leonards     

Record No:    SU5245 - 38267/14

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This draft Development Control Plan relates to a draft LEP amendment (Planning Proposal 18), approved by Council in December 2013, which proposes to rezone the site for mixed use tower redevelopment of forty storeys approximately. A second report to this meeting relates to a Voluntary Planning Agreement for the site. It is proposed that the two documents, if endorsed by Council, would be exhibited at the same time as the planning proposal.

 

The site is in a highly visible location in the St Leonards Specialized Centre which would experience significant increases in residential and workforce pedestrian numbers. The site-specific DCP is important in order to control the development outcomes for buildings of this scale.

 

Key components of the draft DCP relate to view corridors, setbacks producing a podium building form on Pacific Hwy, appropriate building separation for amenity, floor plate and building length incentives to promote site amalgamation, a minimum commercial component, façade articulation, public domain improvements for Friedlander Place (owned by Council) and the pedestrian network and other provisions. The DCP would be supplemented by the generic provisions under DCP 2010 and SEPP 65’s residential guidelines. The draft Development Control Plan is attached at AT 1.

 

Council is requested to adopt the draft DCP for exhibition for a six-week period, with notification to include the adjacent North Sydney and Willoughby Councils.

 

Background

 

On 16 December 2013, Council adopted the above LEP Planning Proposal to rezone the site from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use and increased height  for submission to the Department of Planning & Environment’s LEP Gateway. The Gateway approved the proposal on 5 March 2014 for exhibition, subject to the proponents’ traffic study being revised.

 

In May, draft development control plans were submitted for Leighton, Charter Hall and No 500 Pacific Hwy relating to the three properties and to Friedlander Place. The DCP process has involved detailed discussions between the property owners and Council. Council’s Strategic Section then commissioned an expert independent urban planning consultancy, Architectus, to provide an overarching review of the DCP, and the draft provisions have been informed by an extensive process of negotiations, amendments and 3D site and building envelope modelling.

 

Discussion

 

Independent Urban Planning Advice

 

The independent planning advice from Architectus supports the following principles in the current LEP and DCP and further refines controls to ensure achievement of identified outcomes:-

 

·    Mixed use – this LEP zoning would provide the best balance of employment space while responding to market demand for residential use.  The requirement for four storeys non-residential across the centre is supported and should also be expressed as a minimum FSR of 1.5:1.

·    Building heights: These should be highest at or near the rail station i.e. this site’s location is supported for the significant heights proposed.

·    Podium height (retail/commercial): A minimum height requirement should allow sufficient flexibility to encourage more non-residential floor space. (See comment below regarding a 15.6m minimum based on 4 storeys of commercial including a minimum height for ground floor retail of 4.8m)

·    Tower setbacks: The tower/podium form seeks to scale down the tower as viewed by pedestrians, reduces downdrafts at pedestrian level and provides greater sky exposure and daylight. Slim-line towers seen in the round are preferred.

·    Tower separation: A minimum standard, based on SEPP 65, of 18-24 metres is recommended, and for St Leonards a lower distance would not be supported.

·    Building floor plates may be increased for buildings in proportion to their height to provide flexibility (see site amalgamation below).

·    Public plaza: For a plaza to qualify as a major public open space it should be a public destination, be a major focus of pedestrian activity, need multiple connection points and have good solar access – this proposal is well-located in these terms.

·    Public domain view lines: To create a sense of openness and connection to the wider surroundings, the main opportunity is for the view line along Mitchell St to be opened with the Leighton proposal, extending to a low-angle view of the sky, and this would be a positive outcome. 

Similarly, Friedlander Place as a pedestrian connection between Nicholson St/Lane and Pacific Highway should remain open to the sky for pedestrian amenity, legibility of a complex intersection/sequence of urban spaces and pedestrian permeability.

·    Colonnades: The merits of this approach to pedestrian circulation are supported subject to their being of generous proportions - Council is proposing 4 metres wide by 4.8 metres high.

·    Rear lane: The lane behind No.504 needs to have a direct line of sight from end to end of the lane (it is currently a dogleg), and to be well lit, comfortable and safe for people to use. This would require ground-level redesign during redevelopment.

·    Car parking: Generally all parking/loading should be in basement with minimum visual presence/impact to the streets/lanes.  The entry/exit points should be from Nicholson St and the rear lane in order to minimize impact on pedestrians and to provide the best public domain amenity. 

·    Noise control: Apartments in a direct line of sight of Pacific Hwy should have fully enclosable balconies, double glazed/thick glass windows and acoustic treatment measures for internal amenity.  Fully enclosable balconies in such circumstances should be allowed as additional FSR. The DCP proposes a statement that requests under LEP clause 4.6 to vary the floor space control should be favourably considered in this location.

·    Solar access: The guideline that new developments should achieve 2 hours direct sunlight for at least 70% of apartments, under the NSW Residential Flat Design Code, would be applied as a rule of thumb with discretion in Major Centres/ Specialized Centres where densities are high.

·    Views from existing residential towers: These would be considered when locating new towers; however, view protection should not be used to prevent a development, and sharing among towers in an urban centre is appropriately provided by ‘view permeability’ where towers are slender and well separated from each other.

·    ESD: Achievement of high green star rating and ESD principles is to be encouraged as part of the goal of design excellence.

 

The key recommendations by Architectus have been incorporated into the draft DCP attached at AT 1.

 

The key components of the DCP are discussed below in terms of guiding principles and specific design controls.

 

Key DCP Principles

 

·    Public Domain: Friedlander Place’s connectivity is to be improved, with a new retail plaza to the east on No.472 (the Leighton site) leading through the development to the eastern boundary with No.470 Pacific Hwy, in preparation for a future extension through that site. The proposed location of the retail and tower on the Leighton site adjacent to the Pacific Highway significantly improves the public domain.

 

To the west, a new pedestrian link on No. 504 (the Charter Hall site) would connect Friedlander Place with the rear laneway leading west to Christie St, Christie Lane and the proposed Rail Plaza. Along the Highway, a covered colonnade would provide circulation space and all-weather protection for pedestrians with increased setback to the Highway. The rear lane network would provide an alternative, activated route away from Pacific Highway to increase the “pedestrian permeability” of the precinct.

 

·    Podium: A podium building form would be provided with the residential towers stepped away from Pacific Highway above the retail/ commercial levels, to improve visual quality viewed along the highway and from Mitchell St Plaza and Albany St on the North Sydney side.

 

·    View Corridors: View corridors through Friedlander Place and the two triangular towers on No.472-494 would assist sightlines towards the east and south from the Mitchell Street Plaza and the Abode, Forum and IBM towers on the northern side of the Highway.

 

In addition to southerly views preserved down Friedlander Place, residents in the south- facing Abode apartments would have a view corridor available between the two towers on Leighton’s site, avoiding a visual wall effect of the new development, as well as retaining their views along Pacific Hwy towards the city. The view corridor between the two proposed towers also has the aim that occupants of the IBM building would still enjoy a south-easterly view towards the CBD.

 

·    Site Amalgamation: The DCP provides two alternative scenarios in relation to the western area comprising Nos.500 and 504-520 Pacific Hwy. No.500 is a site of only 435m2 approximately, currently occupied by a six-storey commercial building. No.504 has an area of 1,830m2 approximately with a 10-12-storey commercial building. Both have a current LEP height limit of 72 metres (around 18 storeys).

 

The individual DCP site specific controls would allow 504 to develop to 138m, but 500 to remain limited to the current limit of 72m, with zero setbacks to their common boundary. No.500 could technically be redeveloped, with the rezoning, for mixed use or commercial but its small site area constrains its viability (to approximately three apartments per level).

 

A preferred outcome would be for Nos.500 and 504 to be amalgamated and, to promote this objective, an alternative set of controls for setbacks, building floor plate and length is proposed which would enable an increased height, and therefore floor space, to be achieved in a joint redevelopment. This would permit No.500 to develop to the 138 metre height together with No.504.

 

An indicative diagram of the amalgamation proposal is provided below.

 

 

Key DCP Design Elements

 

 

·    Podium: The podium form would be created by setting the residential tower 4 metres back from Pacific Highway, with a further 2 metre balcony articulation zone behind, above 4 storeys of retail/ commercial levels with a 0 metre setback.

 

·    Ground Floor Retail: The ground floor retail level wouuld be 4.8 metres high (compared with 3.6m for a standard commercial level), to add to the sense of space and daylight within the shops. Additionally the retail façade would be set back behind a 4 metre colonnade to allow for pedestrian circulation and this, together with the ground level of No.500’s stepped or curved building line, will would past the shops round to the plaza.

 

·    Plaza’s Area and Benefits: Cafes and shops will front a substantial and well-located public space comprising Friedlander Place and the Leighton plaza, north-facing to maximize sunlight, a clearly visible and accessible destination currently lacking on Pacific Highway, in a central location of St Leonards at existing traffic lights, to serve residents and workforce from both sides of the Highway.  Site amalgamation of Nos. 500 with 504 (see below) would allow No.500 to be pulled back from Friedlander Place. Council could, as land-owner, develop this site but aims instead to reinforce its ground-level importance visually and functionally. The total area of open space for the public will be over 1,700m2 (Friedlander Place 1,400m2 and Leighton 325m2). ).  Space under Friedlander Place may be incorporated with associated uses including car parking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The diagram below shows the concept submitted to Council in December 2013.

       

                   

 

The diagram below shows the revised concept now proposed to which attached draft DCP relates. 

 

                  

 

·    Side Setbacks: The side setbacks for the residential towers are 9 metres to the building line (7 metres to balcony edge) at Leighton’s eastern boundary (with No.460-470) and the western boundary of Charter Hall, if amalgamated with No.500, (to the Telstra site at No.530). This is the minimum for residential towers recommended by Council’s independent urban planning consultant, having regard to the experience of Sydney City Council and other councils in an urban environment.

 

The 0 metre setback would apply to the commercial levels throughout the centre, allowing for continuous office frontages and sense of address for the commercial sector.

 

The rear setback for all developments above the ground floor will be 0 metres for both residential and non-residential levels, if amalgamation occurs. This would allow flexibility to locate the buildings further back from the Highway and adjust view corridors appropriately.

 

Building separation between the two Leighton residential towers would be 22 metres minimum, having regard to the SEPP 65 guidelines of 18-24 metres. The 2 metres balcony articulation zone will be further set back 2 metres behind that line.

 

For other detailed DCP design controls, please see the draft DCP document.

 

An indicative graphic of the scheme viewed from the north side of Pacific Hwy is shown below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relationship with the LEP

 

A number of changes have been proposed since the LEP report was submitted to Council in December 2013. These comprise:-

 

·    Building Configuration: In particular the two Leighton towers have been redesigned from stepped rectangles to two triangular towers above a concave podium: This design response was made at Council’s request to maximize view corridors from the north and sunlight to the public plaza.

 

·    Non-Residential Floor Space: It is proposed that the LEP be strengthened in relation to the non-residential floor space component. The agreement between the Department and North Sydney and Willoughby Councils in 2013 was that a minimum of four levels of commercial floor space would be provided in developments throughout the St Leonards centre.

 

Having regard to factors such as the provision by Leighton of an open-air retail plaza, this is not expected to equate to an FSR as high as 4:1. However a minimum FSR of 1.5:1 of each site’s total potential floor space is to be required in a new local clause in the LEP.

 

Along the Pacific Highway facade, all sites are to provide four full non-residential levels, measured above the existing ground level at Pacific Hwy and extending the entire floorplate of each building fronting Pacific Highway.

 

·    Site Amalgamation: A clause is to require that Leighton (their site comprising two lots) and Charter Hall (their comprising five lots) are each to amalgamate their own site as a condition of development consent prior to development being undertaken.

 

A new clause has been drafted for exhibition relating to these amendments – see AT-2. The Department has advised that it is satisfactory for the proposed amendments to be exhibited for public consideration, together with the LEP amendment already formally approved by Council and the NSW Gateway, subject to these being formalized after exhibition if supported.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to seek public opinion on the draft DCP amendment attached.  Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with the draft DCP.

 


Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

· Property owners in precinct in Lane Cove  LGA

· Government authorities as required by NSW Gateway

· North Sydney & Willoughby Councils

· Property owners in NSC & WCC LGAs on those Councils’ advice

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and

eNewsletter

Notification Letters

 

Public Exhibition,

Website Exhibition

Indicative Timing

6 week period

6 week period

6 week period

 

Conclusion

 

Nos.472-520 Pacific Hwy comprise a highly visible site within the centre of the St Leonards Specialised Centre.. The draft Development Control Plan provides objectives and site-specific controls intended to guide and ensure high-quality outcomes that relate future redevelopment of this precinct within the context of the Centre.

 

The draft DCP has been prepared with Council’s independent urban planning consultancy, Architectus, in the course of considerable discussions with the property owners and 3D computer modeling. Promoting key planning principles including the enhancement of public domain and amenity, site amalgamation and view corridors has been the focus of the controls.

 

Council is requested to adopt the draft Development Control Plan for exhibition.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Adopt for exhibition the draft Development Control Plan amendment relating to 472-520 Pacific Highway, St Leonards as attached at AT 1.1 to this report; and

 

2.   Adopt for exhibition the draft Local Environmental Plan amendments listed in AT 1.2, noting that this would require formalization if endorsed after exhibition, in addition to the draft LEP planning proposal  already formally approved by the NSW Gateway.

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Development Control Plan Amendments: 472-520 Pacific Hwy, St Leonards

3 Pages

AT‑2 View

Draft LEP Amendment for 472-520 Pacific Hwy - 21 JUly 2014

2 Pages


ATTACHMENT 1

Draft Development Control Plan Amendments: 472-520 Pacific Hwy, St Leonards

 

Lane Cove Development Control Plan 2010 – DRAFT Amendment 21 July 2014  

 

Part D – Commercial Development and Mixed Use Localities

·      472-520 Pacific Highway, St Leonards

No.500 Pacific Highway refers to SP 82937.

Nos. 472-494 Pacific Highway refers to Lot 1 DP 628513 and SP 73071.

Nos. 504-520 Pacific Highway refers to Lots 2-6 DP 3175.

 

This precinct is located in the precinct area bound by Pacific Highway on the north and east, Nicholson

Street to the south, the eastern boundary of 472 Pacific Highway and the western boundary of 504-520 Pacific Hwy.

 

Note: This DCP section prevails over the remainder of DCP 2010 where inconsistency occurs.

 

Objectives:

 

1. Create a landmark precinct including taller and slender towers, of triangular form on 472-494 Pacific Hwy and rounded on 500 Pacific Hwy fronting Friedlander Place, at this prominent corner of the

Pacific Highway to provide visual interest upon approach from all directions.

 

2. Achieve design excellence and iconic new development in the centre of St

Leonards.

 

3. Create a distinctive architectural character to the Pacific Highway frontage with

engaging and legible ‘entrance’ points to reinforce St Leonards as a key location as an activity

centre.

 

4. Provide a new public space integrated with Friedlander Place to create a distinctive sense of

place for residents, workers and visitors.

 

5. Activate and integrate existing and new public spaces with appropriate ground floor retail and other uses, specifically Friedlander Place and the new retail plaza on 472-4994 Pacific Hwy and the colonnade fronting No.500.

 

6. Increase the amenity of Nicholson Street and the adjoining public access ways, maximising casual surveillance and activation.

 

7.  Provide viewlines through Friedlander Place, the new plaza on 472-494 Pacific Hwy and the new towers on that site.

 

8. Promote site amalgamation to avoid the creation of isolated sites within the precinct.

 

Tables

Notes:

·      Controls in all tables below are to be applied to the relevant properties.

·      Setbacks are to apply to the outer edge of balconies.

·      “Friedlander Place” refers to Lot 1DP 1179636.

 

Nos 504 and 500 Pacific Hwy (regardless of amalgamation)  

CONTROL

PROVISION

NOTES

Floor space ratio

1.5:1   min. (non-residential)

15.5:1 max (residential)

17:1    max (total

 

Setbacks – ground  level retail

4.0 m min.

Colonnade form to Pacific Hwy and Friedlander Place

Setbacks – non-residential podium

0 m from all boundaries

All commercial, except where retail colonnade provided

Setbacks – residential tower

4.0 m min. from Pacific Hwy

 

Setbacks – all levels

0 m

Along common boundary between 500 & 504

Levels – non-residential (including retail)

4 levels min.

To be floorplates above Pacific Hwy extending across the entire site area for buildings fronting Pacific Hwy

Floor to floor height

      - non-residential - ground level

      - non-residential - each level,

        other than retail            

     

 

4.8 m min.

3.6 m min.

 

Above ground level Pacific Hwy

Balcony area

10.0 m2 min.

 

Balcony articulation zone

2.0 m min.

Behind all building setbacks

Building separation

24 m min.

To residential towers east of Friedlander Place.

Vehicle access

From Nicholson St/ rear lane/ Friedlander Place

Via rights of way as necessary

Pedestrian  link

Within private property at rear of site. Rear lane to be redesigned to provide clear line of sight.

 

From rear lane to Friedlander Place

 

No.504 (Charter  Hall) – not amalgamated          

Site area approx.

1,834 m2

 

Height

138 m

Above ground level Pacific Hwy

Building floor plate

800 m2 max.

Excluding  balconies

Setbacks –residential tower

9.0 m min.

From western boundary with No.530 (Telstra) - to edge of balconies

Setbacks – residential tower

4.0 m min.

From rear lane

Building length

40.0 m max.

 

 

No..500 Pacific Hwy – not amalgamated

Site area approx.

435m2

From SP

Height

72 metres max.

Above ground level Pacific Hwy

Setbacks – all levels

0 m

All boundaries

 

 

Nos 504-520 and 500 Pacific Hwy - if amalgamated: These two sites must be amalgamated as a condition of development consent in order for the controls below to apply.

Site area approx.

2,268 m2

 

Height

138 metres max.

Above ground level Pacific Hwy

Building floor plate

1,075 m2 max. GFA

Excluding  balconies

Setbacks – all levels

0 m min. from rear lane

 

Setbacks - residential

4.0 m min from Pacific Hwy

7.0 m min. from western  

   boundary with No.530

 

Building length

51 m max. measured along the central east-west axis of the amalgamated site.

To a max. of 10 m from eastern boundary of 504. Rounded or stepped building form required – see diagrams.

 

 

Nos 472-494 (Leighton): These two sites must be amalgamated as a condition of development consent in order for the controls below to apply.

Floor space ratio

1.5:1   min. (non-residential)

10.5:1 max (residential)

12:1    max (total)

 

Building height

91m max. – building at front (Pacific Hwy)

115 m max. – building at rear (Nicholson St)

Above ground level Pacific Hwy

Floor to floor height

      - non-residential - ground level

      - non-residential - each level,

        other than retail           

     

 

4.8 m min.

3.6 m min.

 

Above ground level Pacific Hwy

Building floorplate of each residential tower

850 m2 max. GFA

Excluding  balconies

Levels – non-residential

4 levels min.- front building

 

To be entire levels of the building fronting Pacific Highway

Setbacks – ground  level

4.0 m min. from Pacific Hwy

2m min. elsewhere in site

Colonnade form

Setbacks – non-residential podium

0 m from all boundaries, except:-

20 m min from Friedlander

   Place – front building

All commercial, except where retail colonnade provided

Setbacks – residential tower

4.0 m min. from Pacific Hwy -

    front building

0 m min. from Nicholson St –

    rear building

7.0 m min. from side

   boundary with No.470

0 m from side boundary with

   Friedlander Place

 

Balcony area

10.0 m2 min.

 

Balcony articulation zone

2.0 m min.

Behind all building setbacks

Building separation

22 m min. between balconies

 

Retail plaza width

22 m min.

 

Vehicle access

From Nicholson St/ Friedlander Place

Via rights of way as necessary

New Public Open Space

The proposed new public

open space at the northern

end of the site is to have a

minimum area of 325sqm.

To ensure that the new public open

space is provided at that location and

contributes a desirable quality of public amenity.

Pedestrian  link

2.0. m min. within the property

To boundary with No.470 Pacific Hwy

 

All developments:

Uses

Encourage uses which operate during evening and early morning hours, such as local retail convenience stores, cafes and restaurants, community facilities, gymnasiums and other facilities, to encourage activity and safety outside of office hours.

 

Provide active uses at street level, and flanking public spaces.

 

In the tower form, provide a range of housing options,

including more affordable housing with less required

parking.

Ground level floor heights must allow for commercial or

retail uses.

 

Upper level non-residential

uses may include gymnasium and child care.

Podium form

Podium height to be expressed through external façade

material  changes to reinforce

commercial land use character

 

Car parking

 

Parking rates to comply with applicable rates in Table 2 of Part R, Draft DCP amendment, as at 31 August 2014.

 

Landscaping/

open space

New street trees, paving

and verge upgrades to be

incorporated into the site

development.

Tree species and paving design upgrades and

specifications to be agreed on with Council.

 

Pedestrian network/ mid-block

connections

Future development to

satisfy the precinct plan to

provide new and enhanced

connections in the precinct

 

Public Domain

A public domain plan is required to be submitted ensuring that development contribute positively to the overall precinct wide public domain outcome.

 

The plan is to include details of materials and the like in consultation with Council.

 

Façade colours

and materials

A mixture of non-reflective façade materials and colours are required to emphasis the podium level non-residential form and residential towers as separate elements.

 

External materials to be durable with a high quality

finish.

 

Façade detailing to also address shading, wind protection and solar access considerations.

 

Facade

articulation

Articulation of façades is to be designed to express a

base and top, with layering of levels of the building

complemented by the composition of rhythm, texture, and materials. Roof form should be integrated with the overall design of the building.

 

The elements comprise  balconies, sun-shading devices, bay windows and other similar elements, depending on internal programme and orientation

The intent of the building wall

articulation control is to incorporate sufficient

modulation in the architectural façade to reduce the scale

and massing of the building form, adding visual interest and diversity to the overall design.

Balconies floor space

An LEP cl.4.6 objection may be favourably considered for balconies with potential to be fully enclosed as noise control, to increase floor space for balconies of apartments in a direct line of sight of Pacific Hwy. These should have fully enclosable balconies, double glazed/thick glass windows and acoustic treatment measures for internal amenity. 

 

 

Solar access

The guideline that new developments should achieve 2 hours direct sunlight for at least 70% of apartments, under the NSW Residential Flat Design Code, should be applied as a rule of thumb with discretion in Major Centres/ Specialized Centres where densities are high.

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 2

Draft LEP Amendment for 472-520 Pacific Hwy - 21 JUly 2014

 

Draft Amendment to Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

The following clause is to be added:-

 

Clause 4.4(3):

 

In relation to 472-520 Pacific Highway, St Leonards:-

 

(i)       Floor space ratio:

 

a.    The floor space ratio for 472-494 Pacific Highway (Lot 1 DP 628513 and SP 73071 respectively) is to comprise a minimum of 1.5:1 non-residential floor area within the total FSR of 12:1.

b.    The floor space ratio for 500 and 504-520 Pacific Highway, whether developed separately or following amalgamation, is to comprise a minimum of 1.5:1 non-residential floor area within the total FSR of 17:1.

 

(ii)            Height:

 

The height of No.500 Pacific Highway, St Leonards (SP 82937) may be a maximum of 138 metres subject to a condition of development consent that the site is to be amalgamated with Nos. 504-520 Pacific Highway (Lots 2-6 DP 3175) prior to development.

 

(iii)      Site amalgamation:

 

The LEP amendments to amend the zoning, floor space ratio and height for these properties are permitted to be applied only if a condition of development consent for each property is approved that:-

 

a.    Lot 1 DP 628513 and SP 73071, known as Nos. 472-494 Pacific Highway, are to be amalgamated prior to development.

b.    Lots 2-6 DP 3175, known as 504-520 Pacific Highway, are to be amalgamated prior to development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

38798/14

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 July 2014

Voluntary Planning Agreement - Planning Proposal 472 -504 Pacific Highway St Leonards

 

 

Subject:          Voluntary Planning Agreement - Planning Proposal 472 -504 Pacific Highway St Leonards    

Record No:    SU571 - 38956/14

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

This report outlines a proposed Voluntary planning Agreement (VPA) with the proponents of the Planning Proposal for 472-504 Pacific Hwy, St Leonards which is the subject of a separate report to this meeting. The VPA requires the payment of a monetary contribution to fund the St Leonards Rail Plaza and Bus Interchange, Tenant Attraction Scheme and Affordable/Key Worker Housing in return for the provision of additional storeys on the proposed towers on each site. The report recommends that the proposed VPA be endorsed and placed on public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days when the LEP and DCP amendments are advertised.

 

Background

On 16 December 2013, Council adopted the above LEP Planning Proposal to rezone the site from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use and increased height for submission to the Department of Planning & Environment’s LEP Gateway. The Gateway approved the proposal on 5 March 2014 for exhibition, subject to the proponents’ traffic study being revised. A report in relation to the DCP is included as a separate report to this meeting.

The Planning Proposal offers an opportunity to revitalise an ageing precinct, improve public domain activation and circulation space and provide considerable public benefits. To realise the public benefit, a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) is a requirement of the Planning Proposal.

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

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

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

In keeping with the definition of public purpose, Council has identified following matters to be funded via the VPA. The VPA is in addition to s94 Developer contributions:-

(i)         St Leonards Rail Plaza and Bus Interchange: Council’s vision for this project over the rail corridor, will provide a significant increase to the amenity of the St Leonards commercial precinct, including a possible child care centre for residents and the workforce of this and other sites. Council continues to work with transport for NSW to obtain final approval for the project.

 

(ii)        Tenant Attraction Scheme: It is proposed to create a pool of funds to offer rental subsidies to promote start-up or new tenants to St Leonards. The Planning Proposal incorporates a scheme to provide a 20% discount to market rent over a 5 year period with the intent to support start-up businesses and/or businesses new to St Leonards. This would be in addition to any incentives offered by landlords. This scheme is designed to ensure the preservation and revitalisation of St Leonards as a commercial centre with long-term viability. It is noted that much of the commercial component in the North Sydney mixed use developments has involved serviced apartments which are not desirable for the commercial component as they are effectively residential uses. The subsidy is designed to avoid this.

 

(iii)       Affordable/Key Worker Housing: St Leonards is an excellent location for key worker housing in view of its proximity to a rail-bus transport network, the Royal North Shore Hospital and educational facilities for which the Specialised Centre will continue to attract a related workforce. Council’s preference is for a smaller quantity in perpetuity, in lieu of a greater amount for a time limited period, as suggested by the SEPP.

 

Discussion

To assist Council in determining an appropriate value for the proposed VPA, HillPDA consultants were engaged to undertake an assessment and to provide advice to Council, which is included as AT-1.  The advice states:-

 

“The industry practice is to assess the uplift in land value the proposed planning benefit would provide to the subject development over and above its existing planning rights. The percentage of value-uplift capture varies between VPA to VPA as they are a negotiated outcome subject to varying interpretations of benefit. In the case of Green Square and Macquarie Park, the value capture is set at fixed rate of square metre of bonus floor space. This fixed rate was calculated at 50% of the average land value uplift for each square metre of gross floor space (GFA). This rate is applied to all developments within the area covered by their Plan. This reduced rate (50% of value) puts the calculated rate beyond dispute and sees most developers seek to take advantage of it.

 

The same approach (SO% of uplift value) is recommended for Lane Cove Council (Council) to ensure a consistent and fair approach that provides Council with a degree of certainty about developers taking up the planning benefit over time if it is made available to them. This gives also greater certainty to Council about forecasting developer contributions. The 50% discount rate is furthermore supported the property industry as they argue that a consent authority cannot expect to capture 100% of the value uplift because they require the developer to undertake the redevelopment. They would argue by nature therefore it is a development partnership and hence the uplift should be shared.”

 

The formula recommended for the St Leonard precinct is follows:

·    $/Rate (value of bonus FSR) x 50% x bonus GFA

Hill PDA have established through valuation the $/Rate to be $2,600per sqm of GFA as at June 2014. This rate would be determined at the time of project commencement (Construction Certificate) based on a formula to be incorporated into the Planning Agreement. Payment would be secured by bond or bank guarantee, with the final payment, adjusted by CPI depending on the length of the construction period, payable prior to Occupation Certificate.


VPA Offer Charter Hall – 504 Pacific Highway

 

Charter Hall have submitted an offer which accords with the proposed rate and methodology outlined by Hill PDA. Under the VPA, the site would be entitled to approximately 21 additional residential floors above the existing height limit. Charter Hall have requested that Council grant an offset for the four floors of commercial required by the DCP, effectively meaning the VPA would apply to 17 floors.

 

HillPDA consultants in their advice to Council have indicated that the four floors of commercial is a legitimate requirement in exchange for the change to a Mixed Use Zoning. Notwithstanding this, it is recommended that to incentivise the inclusion of commercial FSR, an offset be provided equivalent to the commercial FSR included in a typical form. Based on the DCP requirement of 1.5:1 commercial FSR, ordinarily the floor space would fit within two levels as commercial extends boundary to boundary. Therefore two levels would be offset. Should for example commercial FSR of 2.2:1 be provided, then 3 floors would be offset, as a minimum of 3 floors would be required to provide the space. Based on the current scheme the VPA would apply to approximately 19 floors. An estimate of the contribution is as follows:-

 

Charter Hall have indicated they wish Council to accept a minimum of 50% (more if Council determines) of the contribution in the form of units for affordable/key worker housing. This would satisfy Council’s objectives, and is considered acceptable.

The merits and impacts of the increased height have been assessed in the preparation of the DCP for the site. They would be further considered in the assessment of the Development Application. The Development Application will be of a scale that the JRPP will be the consent authority for the development. Prior to finalization of the LEP and DCP Council will need to determine whether or not to accept the contributions and height variations proposed in the Planning Proposal, following the consultation.

VPA Offer Charter Hall – 504 Pacific Highway if combined with 500 Pacific Highway

The DCP provides the option of 500 and 504 Pacific Highway amalgamating. If this were the case a VPA would need to extend to both owners. CBRE on behalf of the owners, BMax Pty Ltd, have submitted an identical offer to Charter Hall which accords with the proposed rate and methodology outlined by Hill PDA.

The amalgamated site would also apply to 19 floors as outlined above with a larger floorplate. An estimate of the contribution is as follows:-

VPA Offer Leighton – 472 - 486 Pacific Highway

 

Leighton have submitted an offer which accords with the proposed rate and methodology outlined by Hill PDA. Under the VPA, the site would be entitled to approximately 25 additional residential floors in the two proposed towers above the existing height limit. Leighton have also requested that Council grant an offset for the floors of commercial required by the DCP, effectively meaning the VPA would apply to 19 floors.

 

As outlined above, to incentivise the inclusion of commercial FSR, an offset is recommended to be provided equivalent to the commercial FSR included in a typical form. Therefore two levels would be offset in the two towers, a total of 4 floors. Should for example commercial FSR of 2.2:1 be provided, then 3 floors per tower would be offset (total 6 floors in the development), as a minimum of 3 floors would be required to provide the space. Based on the current scheme the VPA would apply to approximately 21 floors. An estimate of the contribution is as follows:-

 

Leighton have indicated they wish Council to accept a minimum of 50% (more if Council determines) of the contribution in the form of units for affordable/key worker housing. This would satisfy Council’s objectives, and is considered acceptable. Leighton have indicated they would seek an offset for any work on the current Friedlander Place, which again is considered acceptable.

The merits and impacts of the increased height have been assessed in preparation of the DCP for the site. They would be further considered in the assessment of the Development Application. The Development Application will be of a scale that the JRPP will be the consent authority for the development. Prior to finalisation of the LEP and DCP Council will need to determine whether or not to accept the contributions and height variations proposed in the Planning Proposal, following the consultation.

 

Community Consultation

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to permit public submissions on the proposed VPA for the eastern tower section of the development of 1-25 Marshall Avenue, St Leonards. Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated as part of any determination as to whether or not to accept monetary contributions proposed in the VPA.

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Properties in the vicinity.

Local community associations.

St Leonards Community Liaison Committee

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and

eNewsletter.

 

Notification Letters

Public Exhibition,

Website Exhibition and Online Survey

Indicative Timing

In conjunction with the Development Application Notification

In conjunction with the Development Application Notification

In conjunction with the Development Application Notification

 

Conclusion

It is considered that the community and future residents of the proposed development will benefit from the improvements to public infrastructure, in particular the plaza and bus rail interchange. The commercial role that St Leonards currently plays will also be boosted through the tenancy attraction scheme. It is recommended that Council exhibit the proposed VPA for public comment in conjunction with the LEP and DCP exhibition for a minimum period of 28 days as required by the legislation. Subject to Council’s consideration the VPA’s would then be executed, prior to Gazettal of the LEP and DCP.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   The report be received and noted;

 

2.   Council give notice of its intention to enter into Voluntary Planning Agreements as outlined in the report with the developers of the subject sites in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the report in conjunction with the Planning Proposal; and

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Valuation Report - St Leonards VPA

24 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Valuation Report - St Leonards VPA

 

























Ordinary Council Meeting 21 July 2014

Acceptance into the World Health Organisation Global Network of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities

 

 

Subject:          Acceptance into the World Health Organisation Global Network of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities    

Record No:    SU5300 - 38023/14

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Carol Sinclair 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At the Council meeting of 17 February 2014 Council considered a report discussing the development of an ‘Age-Friendly Lane Cove’ Strategy. The consultation process for this strategy has been completed.  On 10 June 2014 World Health Organisation (WHO)  wrote to Council to welcome Lane Cove as a member of the WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities and provided Council with a WHO Certificate of Membership.  This membership is valid until 1 June 2016.

 

Discussion

 

The consultation process with people aged 55 years and over who live, work or care for someone living in Lane Cove began in February 2014. Information and an invitation to be involved in the strategy was promoted widely, through the seniors newsletter ‘The Lane Cove Connection’, the North Shore Times, The Village Observer, Council’s quarterly newsletter ‘In Focus’, letters to community groups, visits to Seniors Week and seniors activities and information provision at service providers networks.

 

A total of 10 focus groups and 4 general community forums were conducted and surveys, either online or by paper, were received from 275 people. A total of 450 people provided their views on the age-friendliness of Lane Cove. Respondents said what they thought was friendly, un-friendly and offered suggestions for improvement.

 

The findings have been presented in a Baseline Report. The results of the consultations showed Lane Cove scored an above average rating of 3.81 on a scale of 1 to 5 for being age-friendly. 14% of people thought that Lane Cove's level of age-friendliness was “excellent”, 60% of respondents thought it was “good” 22% thought it was “average”.  At the other end of the scale, only 3% thought it was “poor” and just one respondent thought it was “very poor”. 

 

A three year Action Plan has been developed based on the many excellent suggestions for improvement that were made by older members of the community. Council officers are currently reviewing this Action Plan in conjunction with a community summary plan. The Community Summary Plan will be a summary of the action plan that will be provided to the community.  The full plans and Baseline assessment will be made available on Council’s Website.

 

To maintain membership in the Network, Council will need to continue an ongoing cycle of continuous improvement and submit subsequent workplans, assessments and evaluations to WHO for their approval in a five year cycle.

 

Conclusion

 

To the best of our knowledge Lane Cove is the first Council in NSW to be admitted into the WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities Network. WHO recommends that it is ‘best practice’ to involve older people in the ongoing implementation, monitoring and review of the Action Plan. 

 

It is recommended that Council establish a Committee to oversee the implementation of the Action Plan and act as a sounding board for Council in determining its priorities for action. It is recommended that the Committee  consist of three Councillors, 16 members of the community and Council Officers as recommended by the General Manager, and would meet monthly for the first 6 months and then every two months for the life-cycle of the Action Plan. A copy of the draft Charter for the Committee is attached.

 

Council’s implementation of the process of continual improvement will be crucial to its ongoing membership in the Network.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.    Receive and note the report;

 

2.    Notes WHO’s  warm  acceptance of Lane Cove Council into the WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities;

 

3.    Establish a Committee to oversee the implementation of the Action Plan and the           cycle of continuous improvement; and

 

4.    Appoint Councillors for the Age-friendly Advisory Committee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Letter from WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities welcoming Lane Cove as a new member

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Certificate from WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities to Lane Cove

1 Page

 

AT‑3 View

Age-Friendly Advisory Committee Charter

4 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Letter from WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities welcoming Lane Cove as a new member

 


ATTACHMENT 2

Certificate from WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities and Communities to Lane Cove

 


ATTACHMENT 3

Age-Friendly Advisory Committee Charter

 

 

HomebannerAGE-FRIENDLY ADVISORY  COMMITTEE

CHARTER

 

 

PREAMBLE

 

 

 

1          NAME OF THE COMMITTEE

 

The name of the committee is: The Age-Friendly Advisory Committee (The Committee).

 

 

2          STATUS AND TERM OF THE COMMITTEE

 

The Committee is formed under the Local Government Act 1993. It is constituted to achieve the objective stated hereunder.

 

The Committee commences on the day following the date that first appeared in this Charter and terminates on the day before the date of the next general election of Council unless dissolved by Council earlier.

 

3          OBJECTIVE

 

To advise and assist Council on the implementation of the Age-friendly action plan including assisting in the prioritisation and implementation of strategies and initiatives.

 

4          FUNCTIONS

 

The Committee acts as the formal interface between Council and the community and has the following functions:

 

 


a)             To provide advice to the General Manager on the implementation of Council’s     Age-friendly Action Plan including identifying priorities for consideration by       Council for inclusion in the Management Plan;

 

b)                         To evaluate and, where possible, improve the efficiency and or effectiveness of existing programs in an ongoing capacity;

 

c)              To identify ways and opportunities to educate our community and raise     awareness of age-friendly issues;

 

d)              To encourage and promote a “whole of Council” approach to ‘age-friendly’           planning with a view to ensuring appropriate facilities.

 

 

5               MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE

 

Subject to the membership being confirmed by the Committee in October each yearitsmembers are appointed in the following manner:

 

Community Members

 

a)             Twelve members of Lane Cove appointed by Council from public    nominations,

 

b)             Four alternate community member appointed by Council from public                           nominations to attend meetings in the event that one of the community                              representatives cannot attend a meeting.

 

c)              Attendance:-

 

            Committee members who do not attend meetings regularly may be removed from a committee. Council resolved on 16 September 2013 to "Remove community representatives of an Advisory Committee where they have missed three (3) consecutive meetings or missed 50% of the total number of meetings between September and August each year, without giving acceptable reasons.

 

Council Members

 

a)             Three Councillors, appointed by a formal resolution of Council in September       each year, and

 

b)             Staff as appointed by the General Manager.

 

Casual Vacancies

 

Casual vacancies are filled in the manner prescribed in clause 5 and are appointed for the remainder of the Term of the Committee.

 

 

6               EXECUTIVE POSITIONS

 

Chair

 

The Chair is elected from Community Members by a simple majority in October each year. The functions of the Chair are to:

 

a)             Chair meetings,

 

b)             Ensure the Agenda and Minutes are distributed prior to each meeting, and


 

c)              Convene sub-committees from time to time to address specific issues or                prepare reports for Council.

 

Deputy Chair

 

A Deputy Chair is elected from Community Members by a simple majority in October each year to carry out the functions of the Chair should the Chair be unavailable.

 

 

7               MEETING PROCEDURE

 

a)             The quorum of the Committee is 50% of the total members plus one (1).

 

b)             Decisions of the Committee are made, generally, on a consensus basis.    However, at the discretion of the Chair, formal voting may be called.

 

c)              The Chair, in consultation with the appointed member of staff, has the       responsibility for preparing and distributing the Agenda and Minutes.

 

d)             The Minutes of the Committee shall be kept by the staff member appointed to       the Committee.

 

e)             A copy of the Agenda and Minutes shall be sent to the General Manager for         distribution to Councillors.

 

 

8                           MEETING SCHEDULE

 

Meetings shall be held at least bi-monthly. In the first six months of formation of the committee, meetings shall be held monthly with a reduction in meeting frequency after this time. Meetings will then be held bi-monthly.

 

The Committee may conduct site visits as required. Notice of such visits should be given in writing to the General Manager seven (7) days in advance.

 

 

9               REPORTING RELATIONSHIP

 

The Committee makes recommendations to the General Manager.

 

The Committee may upon a majority vote request the General Manager to place a report prepared by the Executive of the Committee to a meeting of Council.

 

 

10                        DISSOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE

 

Unless otherwise dissolved by Council, the Committee shall dissolve on the day before the date of the next General Election of the Council.


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 July 2014

Local Traffic Committee Meeting 17 June 2014

 

 

Subject:          Local Traffic Committee Meeting 17 June 2014    

Record No:    SU1326 - 38219/14

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Tim Sullivan 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday, 17 June 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, 17 June 2014.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

AGENDA - Traffic Committee - 17 June 2014

10 Pages

AT‑2 View

MINUTES - Traffic Committee - 17 June 2014

3 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

AGENDA - Traffic Committee - 17 June 2014

 













ATTACHMENT 2

MINUTES - Traffic Committee - 17 June 2014

 






Ordinary Council Meeting 21 July 2014

Tender for Construction of New Scout Hall and Amenities Building at Blackman Park

 

 

Subject:          Tender for Construction of New Scout Hall and Amenities Building at Blackman Park     

Record No:    SU5138 - 38947/14

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Tony Fazio 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council invited selective tendering in accordance with Council’s Tender and Quotations Procedures for the construction of the New Scout Hall and Amenities Building at Blackman Park east of the new playing field facilities. This report provides details on the tender process conducted and recommends that all tenders be rejected and that the General Manager be authorised to conduct negotiations with all tenderers. 

 

Background

 

Early in 2013 the Scout Association of Australia NSW Branch -1st Lane cove Scouts Group (the Scouts) approached Council in relation to the sharing of resources to design and construct a new building to accommodate the Scout facility and Council’s amenities/storage areas at Blackman Park east of the new synthetic playing fields with direct access from Lloyd Rees Drive.  The Scouts engaged pro bono Architects Johannsen and Associates Pty Ltd (AJA) to prepare preliminary documentation for the proposed facility. As a consequence it was agreed to engage AJA for the preparation of the detail design work to DA stage.

 

The DA documentation was prepared early December 2013 and the DA lodged with Council on 10 December 2013 (DA13/203). Deferred Development Consent was issued on 1 April 2014. The consent becomes operational subject to the satisfactory design of the methane gas mitigation measures and the signing off by a NSW Accredited Site Auditor specifically engaged for this project because the new building will be located on a landfill site.

 

The new approved facility provides for:-

 

·    Approximately 530 square meters reserved for the Scouts comprising Venturers Rooms, Meeting Rooms, Kitchen, Amenities, Hall, Garage and Storage area. The Kitchen, Main Hall and the amenities will be available to sporting groups and other community groups subject to leasing arrangements and conditions between Council and the Scouts;

·    Approximately 353 square meters reserved for Council amenities and storage areas; and

·    Adjacent covered concourse facing the new synthetic playing fields and associated access driveway, ramps and pathways.

 

The design features a Fielders “Aramax” metal long span roofing system and external metal cladding.

 

Expressions of Interest were invited on 8 April 2014 from reputable construction companies and submissions received up to 2 pm, Tuesday 6 May 2014. Eight (8) submissions were received. Five (5) out of the eight (8) tenderers were shortlisted to progress to the next phase.

 

Following the completion of the Tender and Construction Certificate (CC) documentation, tenders were invited from the shortlisted tenderers on 6 June 2014 with submissions received at 2.00pm, 1 July 2014.

 

Assessment Criteria

 

The Tender Panel, made up by Tony Fazio Manager - Special Projects (chairperson), Martin Terescenko Manager - Assets (panel member) and Tracey Collins Manager -  Human Resources (panel member), together with Mr Paul McIntyre a representative of the Scouts, met to assess the tenders based on the following Selection Criteria:-

 

 

Criteria

Weighting

(i)

The Tender Prices, including deviation from mean Tender Price.

50%

(ii)

Track record of the Tenderer, including experience with Government projects, to undertake and complete the project for similar type and scale of projects and site constraints in the past 5 years.

20%

(iii)

Methodology proposed for the project including tailoring the sequence of activities to ensure desired project outcomes.

15%

(iv)

Proven environmental and energy sustainability performance outcomes including energy efficiency, water consumption, waste management, material selection, biodiversity and indoor environment quality.

10%

(v)

Timeliness in being able to complete the project

5%

Total

100%

 

The results of the evaluation by the Tender Panel are shown in Table 1. A detailed analysis has been circulated separately to Councillors on a Confidential basis.

 

Table 1

Tenderer /

Selection

Criteria

Price

Track

Record

Delivery Methodology

Proposed

Environmental

Considerations

Program

Total

Score

 

% Weighting

50

20

10

15

5

100

Project Corp Australia P/L

Preferred

 

 

 

Equally

Preferred

 

Momentum Built  P/ L

 

 

 

 

Equally

Preferred

 

Stephen Edwards P/L      

 

Preferred

Preferred

Preferred

Equally

Preferred

Preferred

Bermagui Constructions P/L

 

 

 

 

 Equally

Preferred

 

Australian Prestressing Services P/L

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion

 

All tenderers have the expertise and financial capability to successfully deliver the project. The major obstacle to the project delivery, however, is the unexpected high construction costs. The Tender Panel and the Scouts’ representative met on Wednesday, 9 July 2014 with the three lowest tenderers to better understand the tenderers’ cost structures and to identify areas of significant cost difference and constructional issues.

 

The following areas have been identified where costs have escalated over and above the original budget estimate:-

 

 

 

Cost of Substructure, Ground Works Including Methane Gas Mitigation Measures

·    This item has been identified as a high risk cost because of the unknown below ground conditions as the new building will stand on a former landfill site.

·    The cost of the piles down to rock and including disposal of any contaminated spoil to an approved landfill depot is considered excessive.  

·    A number of tenderers have proposed different alternative design measures which may reduce the cost of these works.

 

Cost of the Fielders “Aramax “ Long Span Roofing

·    The cost of the Fielders “Aramax” long span design roofing is considerable when compared to conventional roofing systems. The reason for choosing the “Aramax” roofing system was for architectural look, ease and speed of construction which in turn will reduce construction costs.

·    Although conventional roofing systems require additional steel (purlins etc) the roofing systems would need to be explored with a view to achieve a substantial reduction in construction costs.

 

Finishes

·    All three lowest tenderers indicated that the level of finishes for the building is too high for the intended uses and this has caused a significant cost increase compared to more conventional finishes.

·    Tenderers indicated that a significant cost reduction can be achieved by scaling down the level of finishes 

 

Council has a number of options to deliver the project. These are:-

1)   Increase the level of funding to commence and complete the project. The Scouts and Council would need to identify additional funding sources from current or future capital works budgets;

2)   Scaling down the level of finishes. This would lead to a considerable potential saving;

3)   Redesign the substructure below ground level to achieve a more economic solution; and

4)   Reduce the scale of the project by eliminating 2 to 3 of the existing bays. This would lead to a cost saving. This option requires the submission of a Section 96 Application which may delay the delivery of the project.

 

Options 2 – 4 are not permissible under the Local Government Tender Regulations without Council first rejecting all tenders.

 

It is recommended Council reject all tenders and negotiate with all tenderers. Bermagui Constructions and APS, two (2) of the five (5) tenderers, are currently completing projects for Lane Cove Council. APS are completing the synthetic playing fields whilst Bermagui are completing the Lane Cove Aquatic Centre upgrade works. The purpose of extending negotiations particularly with APS is to draw from their expertise in post tensioned slab construction and piling. APS have proposed a cost reduction in the subsurface works. Bermagui in their tender bid have offered the use of screw piles in lieu of bored piles with a significant potential saving.

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

The project in its current configuration cannot be delivered unless the Scouts and Council inject significant level of funds into the project. Alternatively to successfully deliver the project, Council and the Scouts will need to scale down the project, redesign the substructure works and scale down the high level finishes to more affordable finishes.

 

It is recommended that Council reject all tenders and commence negotiations with all tenderers. Should a reduced scale option be developed it will be necessary for a Section 96 Development Application to be lodged. Council would normally, for a project of this size, notify the application and refer the matter to IHAP for determination. In order to expedite the matter, having regard to the fact of the scale of the project, it is recommended Council vary its policy to allow the application to be dealt with by the General Manager under delegated authority.

 

It is also recommended that Council approve the lodgment of a Section 96 Application to scale down the project as required.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Note all tenders are considerably above Council and the Scouts estimated budget for the project;

 

2.   Reject all tenders and as Council has called tenders and identified suitable organisations, rather than call fresh tenders, enter into negotiations with all tenderers to achieve a lower cost by scaling down the level of finishes and revisiting the design and construction alternatives for the substructure works;

 

3.   Authorise the General Manager to conduct negotiations with all tenderers and a further report be submitted to Council outlining the result of the negotiations; and

 

4.   Approve the determination of any Section 96 Application, under delegated authority by the General Manager.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 July 2014

Update on Planning Proposal: 8-14 Mindarie St, Lane Cove North

 

 

Subject:          Update on Planning Proposal: 8-14 Mindarie St, Lane Cove North    

Record No:    SU5039 - 37872/14

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Christopher Pelcz 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The planning proposal to rezone 8-14 Mindarie Street, Lane Cove North from R4 High Density Residential to E4 Environmental Living was refused approval by the NSW LEP Gateway. Council subsequently requested a Post-Gateway review of the decision, which was referred by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment to the NSW Planning Assessment Commission.    

 

The NSW Planning Assessment Commission has now determined that the planning proposal for 8-14 Mindarie Street, Lane Cove North lacks sufficient merit and that the planning proposal should not proceed.

 

Background

 

The recommendation to rezone 8-14 Mindarie Street, Lane Cove North to E4 was the result of consultation regarding a previous Local Environmental Plan amendment for the Mowbray Precinct which had resulted from the Strategic Review 2011.

 

On 16 April 2012, Council adopted amendments after the above draft LEP’s exhibition, in particular (i) to retain the current high density R4 zoning for 46-60 Gordon Crescent and 15 Centennial Avenue, rather than low density as exhibited, and (ii) to rezone 8-14 Mindarie Street from high density to low density. The revised Planning Proposal was submitted to the Department in April 2012.

 

In September 2012, the Department advised that it intended to finalise the LEP for two of the three amendments made after the exhibition. The two for 46-60 Gordon Crescent and 15 Centennial Avenue were permitted because they would merely confirm the R4 zoning which had applied before exhibition.

 

The proposal for 8-14 Mindarie St, however, would require the preparation of a separate planning proposal, as it would alter the zoning from the high density applying since LEP 2009 to a low density.

 

At its November 2012 meeting, Council resolved that: “A planning proposal be submitted to the NSW Department of Planning & Infrastructure to enable public exhibition of a draft LEP amendment to rezone 8-14 Mindarie St to Environmental Living E4”. The purpose of the planning proposal was to ensure that the planning controls for 8-14 Mindarie St were comparable with the adjoining E4 Environmental Living zone. Council submitted the proposal on 10 April 2013.

 

The planning proposal was refused Gateway approval on 23 January 2014, Council then resolved on 17 February 2014 to seek a post-gateway review of this decision. This application was referred to the NSW Planning Assessment Commission by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment.

 

Discussion

 

Process

 

The Planning Assessment Commission has now considered Council’s request in accordance with the process outlined in the Department’s ‘Guide to Preparing Local Environmental Plans’.

 

It states that after a council or proponent has requested a post-Gateway review, the Department will write a report stating the intention of the original planning proposal and why the original decision was made. This will then be forwarded to the regional panel/PAC for its advice.

 

The regional panel/PAC reviews the planning proposal, giving consideration to the council or proponent’s submission and the reasons given for the original determination in the Department’s report. It will then provide advice on whether or not the original Gateway determination should be altered and whether the planning proposal should proceed to public consultation.

 

Determination

 

In consultation with Council, staff re-iterated the points that were raised in the 17 February 2014 Council report with regard to the grounds given in support for public consultation on the planning proposal.

 

Upon the Department and Council’s reports, studies, and other supporting documents the Commission (AT-1) determined that the proposal lacks sufficient merit and that it should not proceed past the Gateway for the following reasons:-

 

·    With respect to the issues raised by Council, the Commission notes the exhibition of the draft LEP provided the opportunity for public consultation prior to gazettal;

 

·    The Commission is also satisfied that Council's Development Control Plan includes specific provisions for an appropriate transition between high and low density residential uses in the precinct to guide future development and maintain amenity for the adjoining and nearby dwellings fronting Kullah Parade. This would include having regard to the significant change in topography that also provides a natural boundary for the change in zones; and

 

·    The Commission considers there is no uncertainty for either landowners or developers in maintaining the current zoning and controls.

 

No further review mechanisms exist under the legislation to appeal this decision under current processes. Therefore the original Gateway decision stands and is refused based on the determination dated 23 January 2014 and the PAC’s advice dated 25 June 2014.   

 

Conclusion

 

Council resolved to seek a post-Gateway review of the refusal of the 8-14 Mindarie St Planning Proposal at its meeting on 17 February 2014. The proposal was referred to the NSW Planning Assessment Commission for advice on whether the planning proposal had merit and should proceed to exhibition. The Commission has determined that the proposal lacks merit and agrees with the original Gateway determination for the reasons discussed above. Under current processes, no further appeal or review mechanisms are available. It is recommended that Council inform the owners of the properties and people who made submissions on this Planning Proposal to advise them of the Commission’s decision.  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Receive and note this report; and

 

2.   Write to the owners of these properties and persons who made a submission on the Planning Proposal advising them of the Commission’s decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Commissions Advice on Mindarie St Gateway Determination Review

2 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Commissions Advice on Mindarie St Gateway Determination Review

 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 July 2014

Sustainability Levy - Cost Benefit Analysis

 

 

Subject:          Sustainability Levy - Cost Benefit Analysis     

Record No:    SU5089 - 34429/14

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      David Wilson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 22 April 2014 Council resolved to:-

 

“1. Provide a report describing a sustainable cost benefit analysis of projects over $20,000 funded from the Sustainability Levy since October 2012 and following this report; and

 

2.  All future funding allocations over $20,000 include a sustainable cost benefit analysis be included in the budget papers, acknowledging that benefits may be non financial.”

 

This report provides a context and background to the general principle of undertaking cost benefit analysis that is appropriate for Council projects.

 

Background

 

As part of the funding decision process for use of the Sustainability Levy funds, a basic cost benefit analysis is undertaken to estimate the relative strengths and weaknesses of proposed projects against social, economic and policy expectations or outcomes. A cost benefit analysis is undertaken at the project submission phase and determines if the project is likely to deliver desirable outcomes in efficiency/effectiveness.

 

There were approximately 40 sustainability levy projects undertaken by Council during the period 2012-2013 ranging in cost from $300 to $125K.  The projects were across the major categories of Built Environment, Community Engagement, Economy, Society, Transport, Water and Biodiversity. The list of projects, their cost, an overview of their aims and outcomes achieved are provided at AT-1.  To date there has not been a focus on financial benefits in terms of return on investment, as the benefits are not often monetary.  Also the Levy was specifically introduced to fund projects which did not provide a positive ROI, otherwise Council would most probably do the project anyway.

 

It has not been practicable to undertake a retrospective cost benefit analysis on the 2012/2013 sustainability levy projects.  However, cost benefit analysis principles and guides were used by staff as part of their assessment and the Sustainability Advisory Committee (SAC) when assessing project proposals listed in AT-1, that provides a post project evaluation of each project.

 

Cost benefit analysis can in some instances be a prohibitive exercise, particularly for smaller projects given the level of time and resources required to identify cost savings relative to expected benefits.  For projects that have a substantial cost estimate (+$150K) it is more feasible to engage specialist consultants to undertake a comprehensive cost benefit analysis, at the early stage of a project.

 

For projects under $20K cost benefit analysis principles are embedded in the project submission, planning and evaluation process.  Project Managers must identify project activities, costs and outcomes as part of their submission for funding and these are reviewed by the Sustainability Coordinator, the SAC and the Council as part of the Budget process.  The project submission form template (AT-2) provides the embedded principles and guidelines that are used as part of the submission process.

 

Council staff review and recommend acceptable projects to the SAC for a final review before being reported to Council for determination and approval of levy projects for the next financial year.

Project plan applications (AT-3) and project evaluation forms (AT- 4) are required to be submitted by each Project Manager as part of the assessment levy project outcomes.

 

Evaluation requirements on projects have become more comprehensive for the 2013/14 budget projects.  The more detailed assessment and evaluation forms (AT3 and AT4) provide greater vigour and understanding of expected outcomes for smaller sustainability levy projects that will be reported to Council at the end of 2014. Larger projects (+$150K) enable more sophisticated feasibility analysis and each assessment will vary depending on the project scope and type and should involve analysis by a specialist consultant to undertake a cost benefit analysis as part of the assessment process.

 

A more detailed review occurred in 2013/14 for the refurbishment of Council’s heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system ($900K+), the Energy Conservation in the Cove project and building controls system (BCMS) which underwent rigorous consultancy assessment in 2012 before funding was awarded. Documentation in support of these projects and the analysis by staff is provided separately to Councillors.

 

Conclusion

 

Council has in place appropriate processes to ensure that projects funded under the sustainability levy are assessed on their potential sustainability benefits in relation to cost at the project submission phase.  An emphasis on project assessment and evaluation that considers cost and complexity of projects has been adopted to ensure transparency of levy funded projects and better communication of these outcomes to Council and the community in the future.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receives and notes the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Evaluation Report - Sustainability Levy Projects 2012/13

9 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Sustainability Levy Project Submission Form

2 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Sustainability Levy Project Plan Template

4 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

Sustainability Levy Project Evaluation Form

1 Page

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Evaluation Report - Sustainability Levy Projects 2012/13

 

Sustainability Levy Projects 2012/2013

 

Biodiversity

 

Project

Expenditure ($)

Overview

Outcomes

 

Bush regeneration – Gore Creek Reserve

 

 

 

37,000

The project aims to control Monkey Comb vine (Pithecoctenium cynanchoides), a South American vine that only occurs in two locations in NSW. This vine is a major weed on the eastern side of Gore Creek in Gore Creek Reserve. The control of this weed has helped to regenerate the bushland.

 

·      Removal of all known mature Monkey Comb plants.

·      Continuous suppression of all Monkey Comb seedlings

·      Increased area where primary weed control has been completed

·      Maintenance and bush regeneration of all areas where primary weed control completed

 

Upper Stringybark erosion stabilisation

22,900

The aim of the project was to upgrade the walking track and creek crossing.  However, it was not possible to undertake these works until the creek banks were fully stabilised.  Therefore the funds were spent stabilise the creek banks above the bridges. Further funding will be sought to complete upgrade works.  

·      Stabilisation of creek banks using large pieces of sandstone.   

·      Creation of rock riffles in creek to reduce creek bank and bed erosion.

 

Backyard habitat program

 

 

30,000

Lane Cove’s Backyard Habitat Program is designed to help residents create native gardens, leading to enhanced wildlife corridors and bushland protection throughout the municipality.

 

·      49 Initial consultations delivered

·      14 Follow up consultations

·      2160 native plants given away

·      Identification of existing and potential wildlife corridors throughout the Lane Cove LGA

·      Increased involvement of the community

·      Strengthening of local indigenous species planted

 

Volunteer bushcare program

10,500

The Bushcare program is a partnership between Lane Cove Council and the community to regenerate and manage publicly owned bushland for the long-term.

 

 

·      New volunteers recruited: 45 volunteer enquiries into Bushcare and 35 recruited into program

·      Number of total participants: 249

·      Number of Bushcare groups: 21 (including one new group)

·      Number of plants propagated at the Community Nursery approx : 21,000

·      Number of volunteer hours contributed to bush regeneration and Community Nursery: 2903

·      Number of educational activities/workshops delivered: 28

Wildlife protection areas

5,500

This project will undertake the necessary work for the scoping of Wildlife Protection Areas in Lane Cove. This will include background research into Lane Cove wildlife, including consultation with groups such as NPWS and Wires.

 

·      Production and delivery of Wildlife Protection Area notices to all residents

·      Purchase of special cameras for monitoring animals in reserves

·      Study of cats in reserves using cameras

Feral animal control – rabbit and fox

6,500

Fox Control Program:

Due to the licensing restrictions for baiting foxes in areas close to houses, shooting was the main control method. The shooting program was timed to coincide with regional fox control programs.

 

Rabbit Control Program:

Works were focussed on implementing and monitoring a baiting program. 

·      Fox shooting nights incorporated Lane Cove Golf course, Blackman Park, Gore Creek Reserve and Burns Bay.

·      Soft jaw trapping for foxes in Battern and Warraroon Reserves.

·      Rabbits were baited with calicivirus in 11 sites around Lane Cove.

·      6 dead rabbits found on old bowling club.

·      4 foxes shot

Street tree masterplan

45,000

A street tree master plan (STMP) was prepared to provide a framework to raise awareness and educate the community on the need for trees and inform the selection of tree species. The plan included tree species selections for all streets in the LGA.

·      Preliminary community consultation completed with 288 surveys answered;

·      Draft STMP provided for internal review end June 2013.

·      Public exhibition following workshop with Councillors on 9 Sept 2013;

Walking track upgrades 

100,000

Walking track upgrades improve access to the tracks and include installation of directional signage at key locations along the track.

 

·      Warraroon Reserve – completion of trackworks below Karingal Road, including stone steps.

·      Bushland Park – completion of trackwork below Osborne Road, including FRP steps.

·      Batten Reserve – materials for track upgrade, construction of steps and repairs to bridges.

Every child, a bushland experience

8,000

Every child a bushland experience engaged year 4 children in the natural heritage and bushland of Lane Cove and ensured these children experienced the bushland.

 

·      3 primary Schools in Lane Cove have participated in the program with further rollout for the remaining schools planned.

·      Students and teachers to be made aware of Councils Bushcare Program, how to be a responsible pet owner and protect bushland, natural heritage values, threatened species etc

Greenwich Bath seawall

14,000

This project reconstructed, re-pointed  and raised sections of  a deteriorating sandstone seawall at Greenwich Baths. In doing so it created opportunities for low key marine habitats to establish themselves.

·      All works have been completed within the scope of this funding with additional works carried out to embellish the overall approach to the baths and water’s edge.

Bushland path signage

96,000

The park sign project involved the the manufacture and installation of signs at Blackman Park, and parks on busy roads (Shell, Greenwich, Ronald, Central, Charlish, Turrumburra Parks, Goodlet, Nichols Reserve & Propsting Playground)

·      Design, manufacture and installation completed.

 

Community Nursery upgrade

18,800

The project made improvements to the nursery’s facilities and much needed undercover work area.

The shelter will provides staff and volunteers protection from all extreme types of weather conditions.

·      New roof and guttering installed.

·      Potting up area leveled off.

·      New storage benches installed.  

·      New roof installed

 

Digital archiving of Lane Cove bushland

6,000

This project archived and digisitised photographic records or bushland reserves that are currently owned by numerous individuals and organisations in Lane Cove. These photos not only record the regeneration history but may play a valuable role in the future in locating/identifying species in the reserves. 

·      Feasibility report has been completed.

·      285 images out of 379 from the Lane Cover River have been catalogued by staff.

·      Photos have been made accessible to the Bushland team in council 

TOTAL

400,200

 

 

 

Built Environment

 

Project

Expenditure ($)

Overview

Outcomes

Sustainable Building Advisory Service

10,600

This program provided free and voluntary architectural advice to improve the sustainability of residential dwellings. The program is available to residents considering building a new home or doing extensive renovations that requires a DA. Residents receive a consultation from a qualified architect at the proposed work site.

www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au/sbas

·      16 one-on-one consultations with residents.

·      Promotional activities in relation to Sustainable House Day (September) and Sustainability Lane (October).

Meeting House ESD development project

36,000

Council’s Meeting House redevelopment project constructed community facilities including meeting rooms and a long day care centre for 40 children, 6 residential units and basement car parking for the public and residents. The project gave Council the opportunity to demonstrate sustainable leadership in its newly developed facilities.

·      Installed  2.1 kW solar PV system to service the Child Care Centre

·      Installed solar gas boosted evacuated hot water system and a 315 L tank to service the Child Care Centre

·      Installed 20,000 L rainwater re-use tank which supplies flushing for the toilets and non potable water for irrigation of the landscaped areas and to wash down points in the public car park.

TOTAL

46,600

 

 

 

Community Engagement

 

Project

Expenditure ($)

Overview

Outcomes

Library Resources Program

3,400

This project involves the purchase of books on sustainability-related topics for the library collection.

 

·      78 books purchased which

·      Books have been borrowed 285 times

·      Promotion of books in sustainability e-newsletter

Awards and Community Grants

8,500

The Sustainability Small Grants Program offered local community organisations up to $2000 for community sustainability projects.

 

 

·      Rounds 5 and 6 of the program awarded.

·      The following community Organizations received grants: Chatswood South PermaPatch Inc, LCM Anglican Churches and Currambena School. 

Sustainability Workshop Series

 

8,500

A variety of pop up style workshops were delivered to engage the broader community in sustainability issues.

·      Workshops reached 500 residents.

·      65% of participants had never participated in a Lane Cove Council event

·      95% of all participants improved their knowledge and awareness of specific sustainability issues.

·      147 positive sustainability actions were formally committed to including reusing leftover food, trying cloth nappies, buying local produce and replacing chemical cleaners with natural alternatives.

 

Environmental Education

25,000

This project involved six monthly sustainability events schedule to encourage residents to adopt more sustainable ways of living.

·      Engagement of the Lane Cove community in sustainability events with most workshops having at least 20 participants in each class.

·      Evaluation of event by participants revealed that the majority found involvement in the workshop to be positive and contributing to their understanding of the issue.

·      Assisted the  community to adopt sustainable behaviours

Sustainability Lane

13,500

Sustainability Lane is Council’s annual environment expo held as part of the Lane Cove Village Fair. The event featured 15 stalls filled with ideas for sustainable living.

 

·      15 stallholders ranging from lifestyle products, education information, local community groups, not for profits

·      280 native plants given away by Council’s Bushcare team

·      20 sign-ups for Bushcare and Backyard Habitat programs

·      launch of the Golden Whistler mascot

Captured Photography Competition

8,500

The Captured Photography Competition is an annual competition with an environmental theme. It is run between March and June each year.

 

 

·      This year’s theme was ‘My Lane Cove’.

·      One hundred entries received across the three age catagories.

·      The winners were announced at an awards evening at Gallery Lane Cove and was well attended.

Youth programs

4,600

Girls night in – involved a recycled bag making workshop teaching young women how to make a simple bag from recycled materials.

 

The provision of a series of upcycling workshops at Synergy Youth Service and provide excursions to The Bower and/or Reverse Garbage.

·      5 girls took part in the workshop - bags made out of old t-shirts.

·      Young people were taught to see the potential in unused items, learnt basic seamstress skills.

·      6 workshops delivered by Reverse Garbage educators with 49 kids attending

Mock  court case

300

This project held a mock court case for 50 children from Lane Cove Public School discussing the Case 'Can the Lane Cove Community Save the Planet'

·      Debate and discussion about sustainability issues occurred with the students.

TOTAL

72,300

 

 

 

 

 

Economy

 

Project

Expenditure ($)

Overview

Outcomes

Access/ Directory Signage

2,100

Quarterly updates of the Access Directory which lists shops and services within the village including wheelchair access to buildings.

 

 

·      Access signage updated quarterly.

Village Graffiti Reduction

30,200

This project will remove graffiti from the Village Centre, both public space and from private commercial addresses. Emphasis is placed on the rapid removal as a deterrent. 

 

·      Graffiti is removed within 72 hours of report. 463 incidents covering 1903 m2 of graffiti removed.

Better Business Partnership

125,400

The better business partnership is a program designed to improve the sustainability of businesses on Sydney's north shore. The program works with businesses to save money through reduced energy and water bills, to improve their environmental performance and provide promotion and recognition of their actions.

 

·      Total number of registered Lane Cove Businesses - 38

 

TOTAL

157,700

 

 

 

 

Society

 

Project

Expenditure ($)

Overview

Outcomes

Public Art Initiatives

27,000

This project includes the implementation of the Public Art Strategy and Masterplan for the Village and elements from the Public Art Policy.

 

·      Banner projects updated regularly at Community Centre.

·      Sculpture designed and installed.

 

Walk Around the World

20,800

Throughout the month of March members of the Lane Cove community – all ages and fitness levels – are encouraged to participate in a challenge to walk 10,000 steps each day (or nominate a goal relevant to their age and ability level).

 

 

·      355 people registered to participate in the program and 281 people logged their steps. 

·      The majority of participants reported that they did more physical activity within the program.

·      The project also received media coverage in the TVO with an article written on the program

Poets in Residence

4,000

Poets in Residence is a group of like-minded people in the community who share ideas and write poetry, with support from Lane Cove Library. This project allowed the group to publish their work. The collection includes poems with a sustainability theme.

·      10 poets published 30 poems about sustainability and the Lane Cove community.

 

Volunteer  coordinator setup

1,000

This project promotes volunteer opportunities within Council and in the wider community.

·      New website material including links to community groups and Council opportunities to volunteer. A referral service for volunteer opportunities more broadly is also promoted.

·      New promotional brochure text produced

·    Volunteer agreements, procedure and responsibility templates and thank you certificates drafted.

Community wellbeing index

27,000

This project involves the development of a community wellbeing index for Lane Cove with deliverables that will be able to be assessed against other councils.

·      Consultants selected and community indicators have been selected for preview.

TOTAL

79,800

 

 

 

Transport

 

Project

Expenditure ($)

Overview

Outcomes

Town centre pedestrian study

26,000

In Lane Cove Town Centre there are a number of intersections that are a barrier to pedestrian movements due to poor design and layout. This project assessed the redesign of problem intersections to help make the town centre more permeable.

·      Feasibility study complete

·      Base microsimulation models

·      Future-year 2021 Options microsimulation models

·      Intersection road safety report

 

Pedestrian Access Mobility Plan (PAMP)

50,000

Implementation of improvements to pedestrian access routes. The scheme will upgrade pedestrian access to achieve a safe, direct, attractive and comfortable pedestrian environment in Lane Cove.

·      New shared user path at Bridge Street.

·      Upgraded kerb ramp at Banksia Close/Avalon Avenue, Wood Street/Banksia Close, Cullen Street/Yethonga Avenue

·      New kerb ramp at Cullen Street/Currawong Avenue. New footpath at Henley Park.

TOTAL

76,000

 

 

 

Waste

 

Project

Expenditure ($)

Overview

Outcomes

Bagshare program

$4,000

BagShare aims to reduce plastic bag use in the community by providing free reusable shopping bags to residents that can be borrowed before they enter a shop and then returned later for other members of the community to use.

·      Project launched successfully and two major retailers – Coles and the Agora, already agreeing to having BagShare bins placed on their sites.

·      People in the community using the bags as identified from visual inspections of the BagShare Bins

TOTAL

$4,000

 

 

 

Water

 

Project

Expenditure ($)

Overview

Outcomes

Water monitoring study

7,000

Quarterly water quality monitoring will occur with water sampling at four stream locations – Gore Creek upper, Gore Creek lower, Tambourine Bay and Stringybark Creek.

·      Four quarterly reports have been produced.

Aquatic centre – rainwater harvesting

11,000

This project investigated the potential for rainwater harvesting from the roof of the Lane Cove Aquatic centre. In particular, the project will look at the appropriate size and location of the tank, and potential end uses for rainwater and the level of treatment required.

 

·      This project was not completed due to additional research required due to public health concerns over reusing the water in the pool.

·      Project will be implemented in 2013/14

Carisbrook cistern

1,000

Project was to re-instate the historic cistern collecting rain water from the roof of Carisbrook House Museum.

·      This project was delayed due to heritage approval requirements.

·      Project will be implemented in 2013/14

Sydney harbor catchment stormwater plan

7,500

Council contributed to the development of a co-ordinated, catchment-wide plan with sufficient technical data to guide the improvement of water quality catchments draining to Sydney Harbour.

·      Bathymetry survey of Lane Cove River completed

·      Hydrological model of Lane Cove River catchment recalibrated with improved data.

·      Pollutant Export Model completed for the Lane Cove River to include sewer overflows.

Gore Creek stormwater saltmarsh study

20,000

In this project consultants where engaged to investigate water quality & sediment loading in Gore Creek and investigate mitigation options to reduce erosion and improve water quality.

 

·      Development of Gore Creek Stormwater Rehabilitation Plan

·      Vegetation Management Report

·      Aboriginal Site Conservation Management Plan & Monitoring Strategy

TOTAL

46,500

 

 

 

Program Management

 

Project

Expenditure ($)

Overview

Outcomes

Program Management

64,000

This project will fund the position of Sustainability Levy Project Coordinator.

·      Sustainability Levy Project Coordinator employed.

Communication

34,000

This program ensures that the community is well informed about the Sustainability Levy and the project it funds.

·      Monthly TVO ads

·      Signage designed and printed

·      Bus shelter campaigns and event promotion

Sustainability Reporting

7,800

This project will fund the annual subscription fee for online energy and water monitoring services. Sub-metering will also be installed in the civic centre to better evaluate energy efficiency projects.

·      Annual subscription renewed.

·      Water and energy consumption data reported in review of the Management Plan.

·      Sub-metering installed.

TOTAL

105,800

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 2

Sustainability Levy Project Submission Form

 



ATTACHMENT 3

Sustainability Levy Project Plan Template

 

Project Plan

Sustainability Levy

 

This Project Plan must be completed within one month of receiving confirmation of funding. It should provide more detail that your project application and will be used to measure project progress. This plan must be completed in its entirety and signed by the project manager and relevant Executive Manager.

 

A meeting between the project manager and relevant Executive Manager is required to ensure the project is incorporated into the department’s work plan. 

 

Project Details

 

Project Summary

Project name:

 

Project Submission TRIM Ref:

 

Funding allocated:

 

 

Project Participants

 

Project Participant

Project Responsibilities

 

·  

 

·  

 

·  

 

Risk Management

Outline any perceived risks to the completion of the project and propose mitigation strategies

Identified Risk

Mitigation Strategy

e.g.  Project goes over time

·   Plan for adequate time per task

·   Review project progress at regular intervals

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Implementation Schedule

 

The following table will outline the project activities, the proposed start and completion dates for the activities, responsible staff and budget. This should have greater detail than your project application. The table is divided into five stages which align to reporting dates on project progress. This table will be used to track if your project is delivering on time and to budget.

 

 

Project plan

Project Activity

Start Date

End Date

Responsibility (list all staff )

Planned Budget spend

Stage 1: 1st July – 1st September 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stage 2: 2nd September –  1st November  2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stage 3: 2nd November – 1st February  2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stage 4: 1st February – 5th May 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stage 5: 6th  May – 31st  June 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation of project

 

 

 

 

Project report produced

 

 

 

 

 

Total Project Expenditure

 

 


Evaluation Plan

 

Evaluation is a significant as Sustainability Levy funded projects need to demonstrate delivery sustainability outcomes.

 

The following evaluation plan template will assist you in setting up project evaluation from the beginning to ensure you are able to accurately complete you Project Evaluation Form at the end of the project. You can use outcomes and performance indicators from your project application to populate the table. Guidance for each section is included in the table below.

 

Identify the Ultimate Sustainability Outcome – more than one may be applicable

 

Sustainability Ultimate Outcome – see TRIM 67161/13

e.g.  The people of Lane Cove live sustainably/choose sustainable living options

 

 

 

Please identify immediate and intermediate outcomes for your projects and identify how and when you will collect this evaluation information. Please add rows where required and delete the guided information before populating the table.

 

 

Outcomes

Data Source / collection method

Unit of measurement

Frequency/timing of data collection

Immediate Outcomes

 What will be achieved by your project in the short term i.e. straight after works have been completed/ event held etc.? These need to be related to sustainability.

 

See relevant list in 2308/13

E.g. Event held and participants committed to change in behaviour/ Track installed and people using

How will you collect relevant evaluation?

- Pre and Post Survey’s of participants

- Sub- meter data

- Invoicing data

- Sydney Water data

- Auditing

- Attendance figures etc

KWh/annum saved

 

ML/annum Saved

 

Numbers attended

 

M2 of track rebuilt

Quarterly

 

Post project completion

 

Post each event

 

(Insert planned dates)

Intermediate Outcomes

How will your project seek to achieve the ultimate outcome noted above through the medium term? These need to be related to sustainability. See relevant list in 2308/13

 

E.g. Infrastructure produces changes /

Measured behaviour & attitudes change in individual or group 

How will you collect relevant evaluation?

- Pre and Post Survey’s of participants

- Sub- meter data

- Invoicing data

- Sydney Water data

- Auditing

- Attendance figures etc

KWh/annum saved

 

ML/annum Saved

 

Numbers attended

 

M2 of track rebuilt

Quarterly

 

Post project completion

 

Post each event

 

(Insert planned dates)

 


Executive management sign off

 

The project manager is to meet with their Executive Manager to discuss the project, resourcing required and the priority of the project in relation to other core business work. The project is to be incorporated into the departments work plan

 

Sustainability Levy Partnership Agreement

We agree to be held accountable for the budget, deliverables and performance indicators specified in this project plan.

We agree to include this project in our department work plan.

We agree to attend project management meetings and supply all information required for the efficient management of the project in a timely manner.

This project is considered to be as important as core business projects being completed.

Project manager:                                                      Executive Manager:

 


ATTACHMENT 4

Sustainability Levy Project Evaluation Form

 

Project Evaluation Form

Sustainability Levy

 

This evaluation form must be completed in its entirety for all projects funded under the Sustainability Levy.

 

Please refer to the original Project Submission Form when completing this document.

 

Project summary

Project name:

 

Project Submission TRIM Ref:

 

Study or implementation:

 

Funding allocated:

 

Actual funding spent:

 

Project details

Provide a brief description of the project.

 

Note: If project description has changed since original project submission then please update.

 

Outline actual project activities – in point form.

 

Note: Please refer to original project submission form.

 

How successful was your project in meeting the identified sustainability objectives?

What sustainability outcomes were achieved and how did the project achieve these? Please include any evaluation results you collected. 

Note: Please refer to original project submission form.

 

If expected sustainability outcomes were not achieved please explain what you would have done differently.

 

If applicable: outline any ongoing maintenance requirements of this project. Who is responsible for overseeing maintenance? What is the ongoing cost to council for maintenance? How will maintenance be funded?

 

I have sent a photograph of my project to the Sustainability Coordinator. This photograph can be used for promotional purposes.

 

Note: Applicable to implementation projects only.

 Yes

 N/A

 

If printing this form, please consider printing double-sided.

 

 

                                                            


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 July 2014

Community Wellbeing Survey

 

 

Subject:          Community Wellbeing Survey    

Record No:    SU5061 - 38273/14

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Jane Gornall 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

In 2009 the New South Wales Government introduced a new planning and reporting framework for local government – the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework.  This framework requires Councils to develop a range of measures for strategic objectives and outcomes. While not setting specific measures, the Planning Framework makes it clear that a range of measures are to  be developed,  some  to be output measures (e.g. the number of garbage bins collected) while many requires Council to assess and report on more subjective measures (e.g. how safe does our community feel).

 

The collection and assessment of subjective measures can be difficult. This Report discusses the development of a community wellbeing index to assist in the collection of subjective data. The index will inform Council and the community as to the current state of Lane Cove and suggest ways of improving Lane Cove. It will also track changes in attitudes over time.

 

 As part of the project that developed the wellbeing index, additional indicators were suggested for objectives in the Community Strategic Plan.

 

 

Discussion

 

Under the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework, Council is required to develop a range of Plans including a Community Strategic Plan.   The Framework also requires Council’s to develop ways of measuring and understanding community wellbeing and reporting against community visions or aspirations. In addition, the new framework required Councils to consider community concerns that may not directly relate to Councils’ responsibilities or under its controls or influence.

 

To assist in developing these more  subjective measures,  Council employed the consultancy services of the University of Technology: Centre for Local Government (UTS:CLG) to work with staff to develop an indicator framework that would establish a set of indicators and measures of community wellbeing informed by the social issues aligned to Council’s Strategic Plan (CSG). The indicator framework is built upon the objectives of the Council’s Strategic Plan (CSG) and encompasses indicators and data sources that will increase Council’s awareness, knowledge and monitoring of current social issues and trends in Lane Cove.  A Community Wellbeing Survey has been developed as part of this project.

 

The addition of a community indicator framework and a community wellbeing survey will increase Lane Cove’s awareness and knowledge of the current social issues and trends in the Local Government Area through research and data analysis and develop further the range of indicators that reflect the social issues that are aligned with Council’s Community Strategic Plan.

 

Council currently has the following ways of collecting data about its Plans:-

 

·    Council’s annual satisfaction survey; and

·    Internally collected Council data – including data already reported as part of the quarterly Delivery Program and Operational Plan reviews.


Arising from this latest project is the inclusion of:-

 

·    A new Community Wellbeing Survey; and

·    Additional publicly available government data sources (e.g. from the Australian Bureau of Statistics).

 

It is intended that all of these data sources will be used to better understand and respond to the Lane Cove community needs.

 

The community wellbeing indicators, both objective and subjective can be combined to develop a greater understanding of local contexts and the impact on individual elements of wellbeing. A good example of the use of the combined indicators, which can help drive a range of actions are crime statistics. Crime statistics may show that safety has increased in an area, but this might not be reflected in a community measure of perceived safety.

 

The objective indicator for this area would be the Bureau of Crime Statistics level of reported crime for Lane Cove, while the subjective indicators could be from the answers to the questions in the Wellbeing Survey regarding Personal Safety:-

 

How safe do you feel at home on your own during the day?

How safe do you feel at home on your own during the night?

How safe do you feel walking on your own around the your local area in the day?

How safe do you feel walking on your own around the your local area in the night?

 

Very safe; Safe; Neutral: Unsafe; Very unsafe

 

And

 

Do you feel your local area is:-

 

1.   Less safe than other areas in the Lane Cove local government area

2.   As safe as other areas in the Lane Cove local government area

3.   Safer than other areas in the  Lane Cove local government area

 

Are there specific areas where you feel less safe? OPEN

 

Answers which reflect a high rate of concern for personal safety while the crime statistics reflect a falling or stable rate of crimes actually committed should feed into decision making processes and actions. The actions could include an education program about safety in the area, programs such as “Love Where You Live” and “Meet the Neighbour” events, as well as improved and enhanced infrastructure such as better street lighting.

 

It is anticipated that the Survey will be conducted in the 2014/15 financial year and will be considered the benchmark survey and be conducted on a two yearly basis. The indicators are not purely quantitative measures, but rather a way of identifying trends in the community to assist Council in prioritizing its actions. Currently the survey consists of 35 questions. A copy of the draft survey questions is attached to this Report. (AT1).  A summary report on the Wellbeing Survey will be produced for the Lane Cove community.

 

Comparable Data

 

The consultants were also requested to identify other Councils who are conducting wellbeing surveys and align our questions, where appropriate, with the other Councils.  Victoria also has a long-running wellbeing survey, ‘Community Indicators Victoria’. The ability to compare results might be useful when assessing actions for implementation and talking to other Councils regarding the success of actions.

 

Additional Objective Indicators - Publically available Government Data Sources

 

The consultants were also requested to provide additional/alternate indicators for assessing actions within the current delivery plan.  These indicators were required to be “off the shelf” indicators.  “Off the shelf” meaning easily obtainable from consistent data sources such as Australian Bureau of Statistics data and Health Statistics data. The advantage of these statistic sources are that the agencies continue to collect the data, so it is possible to compare across time. They also collect statistics at the local level, thus the statistic is applicable to Lane Cove. Overtime some of these additional indicators will be included in the quarterly or annual reports on the Delivery Program and Operational Plan.

 

Conclusion

 

The introduction of a Community Wellbeing Index will assist in increase Council’s knowledge and awareness of current trends and issues in the area. The Survey will be used in conjunction with the annual Community Satisfaction Survey and internally collected data. In addition, the project has identified a range of additional publicly available government data sources to augment Council data when applicable.

 

The first Wellbeing Survey will be conducted in the 2014/15 financial year and then every two years. A summary report will be provided to the community as part of our community reporting program.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Community Wellbeing Survey

11 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Community Wellbeing Survey

 

1.5            Community Wellbeing Survey

 

1.5.1       The survey questions

 

The Community Wellbeing Survey was developed to enable Council to collect data relevant to the social and wellbeing objectives in the CSP. The survey questions are contained in the table below. The first column identifies how the each question links back to the objectives of the CSP (by number) and the related indicator in the Framework (by indicator name). The third column points to the source of the question. In some cases it may be appropriate and interesting for Council to compare results from Lane Cove against other jurisdictions.

Table 2: Community Wellbeing Survey

Objectives

No.

Survey questions

Source

1.1

Opportunity for Community Interaction

1

How satisfied are you with the opportunities in your local area for participation in clubs, groups or organisations that meet your interests?

 

Very Dissatisfied; Dissatisfied; Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied; Satisfied; Very Satisfied

UTS: CLG[1]

1.1

Community Interaction

2

How often are you involved in a

a)    Sport/ recreation group

b)   Church group

c)    Arts/crafts group

d)   Bushcare/environmental group

e)    Youth group e.g. Guides, Scouts

f)    Seniors group

g)    Residents’ Association

h)   P&C, school council

i)     Community College/Adult Education

j)     Musical/drama/performing arts group

k)   Street or local neighbourhood events and activities

 

Often; Sometimes; Infrequently; Never

 

Are there any other clubs, groups or organisations that you are directly involved in? OPEN

Sutherland[2]

1.2

Wellbeing

a general ‘index’ question, important aspects of which will be tested further in other questions

3

How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

1.    I am able to afford a reasonable standard of housing in my area

2.    I have little to do with the people in my neighbourhood

3.    I will help if a neighbour calls on me for assistance

4.    If I am unhappy about a local issue I can express my concerns to Council

5.    I believe I have a responsibility to be involved in planning for Lane Cove’s future

6.    I am prepared to be involved in issues concerning my local area

7.    I trust those in my community

8.    In the last month I have been physically able to enjoy my usual activities

9.    In the last month I have been emotionally able to enjoy my usual activities

10.  I have an optimistic view of Lane Cove’s future

11.  The sort of housing I need is available in my area

12.  There are enough education and training opportunities available in the area

13.  There are enough employment opportunities available in the area

14.  I have a supportive network of friends

15.  I have a supportive network of family

 

Strongly Agree; Agree; Neither agree nor disagree; Disagree; Strongly disagree; Don’t know

 

Sutherland

(adapted)

1.2

Quality of life

4

Over the past few years, do you think the quality of life in your local area has been

 

Improving; remaining steady; or declining?

Melville[3]

1.2

Connection to Neighbours

5

If you went away would you leave a key with your neighbour? Yes/No

Do you have the phone number or email address of a neighbour? Yes/No

Would you call on your neighbours for help or assistance?

Yes/No (skip)

If yes, in which of the following circumstances, how likely would you be to ask your neighbours for help?

1.    For transportation

2.    For minding children

3.    When you are going away… (to water plants, mind pets)

4.    An emergency

5.    For advice

6.    For borrowing tools, equipment, a food item etc

7.    Illness

8.    To shop for you

 

Completely likely; Very likely; Moderately likely; Slightly likely; Not at all likely

Sutherland (Adapted)

 

1.2

Volunteering

6

Some people in our community are contributing their time to causes they consider worthwhile. In the past year have you given your time, without pay, to any charitable, civic, religious or other volunteer organisation?

Yes/No

 

City of Sydney[4]

1.2

Civic Engagement

 

7

In the last 12 months have you done any of the following

a)    Attended a town meeting, public hearing or public affairs discussion group

b)   Met with, called or sent a letter to any government member/local councillor

c)    Joined a protest march, demonstration or rally

d)   Signed a petition

e)    Written a letter to the editor of a newspaper

f)    Completed a research survey or taken part in any other research

g)    Participated in online discussion

h)   Been actively involved in a civic group or organisation (e.g. Neighbourhood Watch

i)     None

In the last 12 months have you been actively involved in any of the following groups or taken part in an activity they organized

a)    Trade union, professional/technical organisation

b)   Political party

c)    Civic group or organisation

d)   Environmental or animal welfare group

e)    Human and civil rights group

f)    Body corporate or tenants’ association

g)    Consumer organisation

h)   Other civic or political organisation

i)     None

Yes/No

Community Indicators Victoria[5], Community Indicators Queensland[6], City of Sydney, Leichhardt[7] (adapted)

1.2

Services

8

Thinking about the social and welfare services you need, are there any services that you are unable to access locally? OPEN

UTS: CLG

1.2

Diversity

9

How would you rate your local area as a place for

 

Young children

Teenagers

Seniors

Families

Singles

 

Very suitable; Suitable; Neither suitable or unsuitable; Unsuitable, Very unsuitable

NSW Planning Whitepaper consultation survey[8]

1.4 (a)

Sport and Recreation

10

How satisfied are you with the opportunities in Lane Cove for engaging in sport and recreation?

 

Very Dissatisfied; Dissatisfied; Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied; Satisfied; Very Satisfied

UTS: CLG

 

1.4 (b)

Physical Activity

11

Did you participate in any sport or physical recreation in the last 12 months? Yes/No

 

If No; Why not? OPEN

 

1.    In the last 12 months, how often have you been involved in organized sporting activities such as netball, soccer, golf, competition swimming, bowls, cricket, football etc.?

2.    In the past 12 months, how often have you been involved in non-organised sporting or recreation activities such as skateboarding, swimming, tai chi, yoga, surfing, jogging, picnics, walking, bushwalking etc?

 

Often; Sometimes; Infrequently; Never

 

3.    In the past 2 weeks, on how many days did you do vigorous exercise which made you breathe harder or puff and pant such as football, tennis, squash, netball, jogging, fast walking, dancing, aerobics etc? Every day; Every second day; Weekly; Once a fortnight; Don’t undertake; Can’t undertake.

ABS Participation in Sport and Recreation[9], Sutherland (Adapted)

1.5

Healthy behaviour

12

1) How often do you currently smoke cigarettes or any tobacco products?

Daily; At least weekly (but not daily); Less often than weekly; Not at all.

 

2) Did you eat healthily yesterday? Yes/No

 

3) How many serves of vegetables do you usually eat each day? NUMBER

 

4) How many serves of fruit do you usually eat each day? NUMBER

Gallup Wellbeing Index[10], Community Indicators Victoria

1.7

Personal Safety

13

How safe do you feel at home on your own during the day?

How safe do you feel at home on your own during the night?

How safe do you feel walking on your own around your local area in the day?

How safe do you feel walking on your own around your local area at night?

 

Very Safe; Safe; Neutral; Unsafe; Very Unsafe

Sutherland,

Community Indicators Victoria,

Leichhardt

1.7

Personal Safety

14

Do you feel your local area is

1.    Less safe than other areas in the Lane Cove local government area

2.    As safe as other areas in the Lane Cove local government area

3.    Safer than other areas in the Lane Cove local government area

 

Are there specific areas where you feel less safe? OPEN

UTS: CLG

1.7 (b)

Living in Lane Cove

This question also has relevance to 4.3 (a)

15

How important to you personally are each of the following reasons for living in Lane Cove

1.    Friendly community

2.    Proximity to the city

3.    The waterways

4.    The village atmosphere

5.    The bushland

6.    Close to work

7.    Close to schools

8.    Close to family and friends

9.    Access to services I need

10.  Access to public transport

11.  More affordable than other areas

Very important; Somewhat important; Neither important or unimportant; Somewhat unimportant, Very unimportant

 

UTS: CLG (based in part on characterisation of Lane Cove in DVD Lane Cove: Where Sydneysiders Live)

1.7 (c)

Tolerance

16

How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements

a. Lane Cove is welcoming of people of different lifestyles

b. Lane Cove is welcoming of people from different cultures

c. Lane Cove is welcoming of teenagers

 

Strongly disagree; Disagree; Neither disagree or agree; Agree; Strongly agree

UTS: CLG

2.1 (a) & (b)

Development

17

How well does new development fit in with the character of Lane Cove?

Extremely well; Well; Neither Well nor poorly; Poorly; Extremely poorly

Penrith[11] (adapted)

2.2

Housing Availability

18

How long have you lived in Lane Cove? YEARS

How long have you lived at your current address? YEARS

 

Thinking about the next time you will need to move house because your needs have changed, how confident are you that you will be able to find suitable accommodation in Lane Cove?

 

Very Confident; Confident; Neutral; Not so confident; Not at all confident

 

Thinking about the next time you will need to move house because your needs have changed, to what extent do you agree with the following statements:

·    I expect to find the type of accommodation I want in Lane Cove

·    I expect to be able to afford to stay in Lane Cove

·    I expect to find accommodation with the transport options I need in Lane Cove

·    I expect to not be close enough to my friends and family if I stay in Lane Cove

 

Strongly Agree; Agree; Neither Agree or Disagree; Disagree; Strongly Disagree

 

Within the next five years, would you like to:

a.            Stay in this neighbourhood

b.            Move elsewhere

c.            Don’t know

 

UST: CLG

2.3

Density

19

When thinking about your local area, which view is closest to yours?

a.     We can accommodate more housing and people if we have effective plans to deal with it

b.    Where I live cannot accommodate more housing or people

c.     Unsure/Don’t know

 

NSW Planning Whitepaper consultation survey

2.4 (a)

Public Transport

20

How would you rate the adequacy of your access to public transport for getting you to the places you want to go?

Very Good, Good, Neither good nor poor; Poor; Very Poor

UTS: CLG

2.4 (a)

Non-car alternatives

21

Do you have a practical non-car transport option for the following

-     Social/recreation

-     Education/childcare

-     Shopping

-     Work commute

-     Work related business

-     Accessing services (health and community services)

 

Always; Often; Sometimes; Rarely; Never; Not Applicable

UTS: CLG (adapted from NSW Household Travel Survey[12])

2.4 (b)

Walking and Cycling

22

Are there particular parts of Lane Cove where you find it difficult to walk around? OPEN

 

UTS: CLG

2.6 (a)

Road Safety 1

23

Thinking about the local roads in Lane Cove, how has road safety changed in the last 12 months?

a.     Road are a lot less safe

b.    Roads are a bit less safe

c.     I don’t perceive a change

d.    Roads are a bit safer

e.     Roads are a lot safer

Lane Cove Council Staff

2.6 (b)

Road Safety 2

24

How concerned are you about the following aspects of road safety in Lane Cove?

a.     As a driver

b.    As a pedestrian

c.     As a cyclist

d.    Around schools

e.     Around shops and car parks

f.     On specific roads or intersections

Very concerned; Concerned; Neither concerned or unconcerned; Not so concerned; Not at all concerned; Not applicable

 

Please name the specific roads or intersections where you have safety concerns? OPEN

Lane Cove Council Staff

3.1 (a)

Environmental Sustainability 1

25

To what degree are you concerned about environmental sustainability?

 

Very concerned; Concerned; Neither concerned or unconcerned; Not so concerned; Not at all concerned

Office of Environment and Heritage[13] (Adapted)

3.1

Environmental Sustainability 2

26

For each item in the following list, have you in the last twelve months

Often done it; Sometimes done it; Just occasionally done it; Never done it

 

a.     Chosen household products that you think are better for the environment

b.    Decided for environmental reasons to re-use something instead of throwing it away

c.     Made an effort for environmental reasons to reduce water consumption

d.    Taken active steps to reduce energy consumption, for example, turning off lights or using appliances or home heating and cooling more efficiently

e.     Taken active steps to reduce fuel consumption and vehicle air pollution, for example by driving a smaller or more fuel efficient car, car-pooling, using public transport, bicycling or walking

f.     Composted food or garden refuse, or used a worm farm

g.     Avoided plastic bags to carry home shopping

h.    Reduced the amount of food that your household throws out

i.      For environmental reasons, bought fewer items that you don’t really need

j.      Avoided putting things like oil, fat, turps, paints or chemicals down the sink or toilet

Office of Environment and Heritage

3.2 (a)

Bushland Tracks 1

27

How often do you walk on Lane Cove’s bushland tracks

Most days; Weekly; Once a month; A couple of times a year; Less frequently; Never

UTS: CLG

3.2 (a)

Bushland Tracks 2

28

How important to you are Lane Cove’s bushland tracks?

Very important; Somewhat important; Neither important or unimportant; Somewhat unimportant, Very unimportant

UTS: CLG

3.3 (a)

Waterways 1

29

Which of the following best describes your relationship to Lane Cove’s waterways?

a.     I swim in the waterways

b.    I paddle in the waterways

c.     I row a boat/sail on the waterways

d.    I walk along the waterways

e.     I look at the waterways

f.     I commute

 

UTS: CLG

3.3 (a)

Waterways 2

30

How important to you are Lane Cove’s waterways?

Very important; Somewhat important; Neither important or unimportant; Somewhat unimportant, Very unimportant

 

UTS: CLG

4.1 (a)

Opportunities to attend cultural activities

31

Do you agree that there are enough opportunities in your local community for you to attend arts & related cultural activities

 

Strongly Agree; Agree; Neither Agree or Disagree; Disagree; Strongly Disagree

Community Indicators Victoria

4.1 (b)

Being Creative

32

In the last 3 months have you done any of the following activities (Yes; No)

a)    Painting or drawing

b)   Other art of craft activities

c)    Playing a musical instrument

d)   Singing

e)    Other types of performing, for example acting or dancing

f)    Creative writing

g)    Other

(measure based on proportion who say ‘Yes’ to any question)

Community Indicators, City of Sydney

6.1-6.4

 

a. Governance

b. Value

c. Expectations

d. Democratic Engagement

e. Communication

f.  Capacity

 

33

Thinking about the way Lane Cove Council interacts with the Lane Cove community, to what degree do you agree with each of the  following statements

 

a.     Council works in the best interests of the community

b.    The work of Council provides value to the community

c.     Council understands the community’s needs and expectations

d.    Council provides opportunities for residents to participate in planning and have a say about Lane Cove’s future

e.     Council communicates effectively with residents

f.     Council can be relied upon to get things done

 

Strongly Agree; Agree; Neither Agree or Disagree; Disagree; Strongly Disagree

Penrith (adapted)

Screening Questions

 

Have you lived in Lane Cove longer than 6 months? Yes/No

 

Demographic Questions

 

What is your gender? Male; Female

What is your age in years? NUMBER

Which of the following best describes the residence in which you live?

a.     Separate house

b.    Semi-detached, row or terrace house, townhouse etc.

c.     Flat, unit or apartment

d.    Other dwelling

How many bedrooms does your residence have? NUMBER

Is this residence:

a.     Owned outright

b.    Owned with a mortgage

c.     Being purchased under a rent/buy scheme

d.    Being rented

e.     Being occupied rent free

f.     Being occupied under a life tenure scheme

g.     Other

In which country were you born? Australia; England; New Zealand; China; Hong Kong; India; Other

What is your ancestry (tick up to two ancestries only)? English; Australian; Irish; Scottish; Chinese; Other

Have you completed any educational qualification (including a trade certificate) since school? Yes/No

If yes, what is the highest educational qualification you have completed? Postgraduate Degree; Graduate Diploma/Graduate Certificate; Bachelor Degree; Advanced Diploma/Diploma; Certificate

What street do you live in?

How did you hear about this survey?

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 July 2014

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot     

Record No:    SU220 - 37544/14

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

46 Pages

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Council Snapshot

 














































         

 



[1] Developed by UTS: CLG for this project

[2] Sutherland Shire Council (2012) Neighbourhood Interaction and Participation Survey Retrieved from http://www.sutherlandshire.nsw.gov.au/Council_The_Shire/Our_Future/Monitoring_and_reporting

[3] City of Melville (2011) Community Wellbeing Survey Retrieved from http://www.melvillecity.com.au/index.php/component/alfrescocontent/?nodeid=13ee003d-076c-4395-941c-546441c2cb6b

[4] City of Sydney (2013) Community Indicators Retrieved from http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/learn/research-and-statistics/community-indicators

[5] Community Indicators Victoria http://www.communityindicators.net.au/

[6] Community Indicators Queensland http://www.communityindicatorsqld.org.au/content/community-indicators-queensland

[7] Leichhardt Council (2010) Community Wellbeing 2010) Retrieved from http://www.leichhardt.nsw.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/340/community-wellbeing-survey.pdf.aspx

[8] UTS: CLG project for NSW Department of Planning

[9] Australian Bureau of Statistics Participation in Sport and Physical Recreation, Australia, 2011-12 Cat. No. 4177.0 Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4177.0

[10] Gallop-Healthways http://www.healthways.com/solution/default.aspx?id=1125

[11] Penrith City Council (2011) Community Survey 2011 Retrieved from http://www.penrithcity.nsw.gov.au/uploadedFiles/Website/Your_Council/Publications/PCCCommunitySurveyReport.pdf

[12] Bureau of Transport Statistics Household Travel Survey http://www.bts.nsw.gov.au/Statistics/Household-Travel-Survey/default.aspx?FolderID=215#top

[13] Office of Environment and Heritage (2012) Who cares about the Environment? Retrieved from http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/community/whocares.htm