m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

15 September 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 15 September 2014 commencing at 7:00pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

 

Council Meeting Procedures

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 


Ordinary Council 15 September 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

public forum

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 18 AUGUST 2014

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

2.      Bushland Fire Clearing Policy

 

3.      St Leonards Commercial Core - Independent Planning Advice

 

4.      St Leonards Commercial Core - Strategic Planning

 

5.      St Leonards Commercial Core - Infrastructure

 

6.      City of Sydney Amendment (Elections) Bill 2014

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

7.      Procedures for Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor and Councillor Representation on Council Committees for 2014-15

 

8.      10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code of Practice

 

9.      Pedestrian Safety - Lane Cove Village

 

10.    Draft DCP Part R: Traffic, Transport and Parking - Consultation Report

 

11.    Draft DCP Amendment - Boarding House Provisions

 

12.    Part Road Closure - Standish Street, Greenwich

 

13.    Review of Community Representatives on Council's Advisory Committees

 

14.    NSROC Regional Waste Strategy

 

15.    Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting Held on 19 August 2014

 

16.    Sustainability Lane 2014

 

17.    Annual Financial Statements for 2013/2014 - Referral for Audit

 

18.    Tender for Miscellaneous Trade and General Services - Property Works

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

19.    Better Business Partnership Project - Annual Report

 

20.    Council Snapshot   

 

 

 

 

                  


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 September 2014

Bushland Fire Clearing Policy

 

 

Subject:          Bushland Fire Clearing Policy    

Record No:     SU4906 - 49538/14

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):       Councillor Scott Bennison 

 

 

 

The new 10/50 vegetation clearing code of practice from the Rural Fire Service, which came into effect recently, allows people across NSW living within 350 metres of designated bushfire-prone areas to clear trees within 10 meters of a home without seeking approval. Scrub can also be removed within 50 metres of a home.

 

Councillors would be aware of the significance of bushland in Lane Cove LGA and I am concerned the new laws may create a situation where these laws could be used for purposes not intended.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Indicate its strong opposition to the application of the 10/50 Code to Lane Cove to the Emergency Services Minister, the Hon Mr Stuart Ayres; and

2.   Seek an exemption for to the application of the 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code to Lane Cove.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Scott Bennison

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 September 2014

St Leonards Commercial Core - Independent Planning Advice

 

 

Subject:          St Leonards Commercial Core - Independent Planning Advice    

Record No:     SU4559 - 52321/14

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):       Councillor Pam Palmer 

 

 

 

Background

 

In its Gateway Determination letter of 5 March 2014, NSW Planning & Infrastructure considered that “the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 and Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2031 in that the St Leonards centre is identified as an important location for employment growth and the rezoning will provide for significant residential expansion and a loss of commercial floor space and job opportunities. It is acknowledged that development of the site may act as a catalyst for further growth however the impact of this on commercial floor space should be further considered during the rezoning process.”

 

“Planning and Infrastructure would prefer a higher percentage of commercial floorspace be provided, possibly in the order of 50% of the current commercial floorspace capacity. This could, if necessary and considered appropriate, be provided by allowing additional height beyond that proposed to ensure no loss of residential floorspace.”

 

To date Council only has height recommendations as proposed by the proponents themselves.  It could be that these proposals provide the best planning outcome, but it is not an independent assessment.  Council could consider obtaining its own independent expert advice on appropriate heights and zonings for the area.

 

Independent expert advice potentially gives Councillors more information on which to base their decisions and would also better satisfy Council’s requirement for probity in its decision-making.

Independent expert planning advice about the precinct as a whole would provide valuable information about the possibilities for the future of the precinct to other landowners, to residents and to local businesses.

 

Council commissioned a similar study when contemplating the rezoning of the site at 150 Epping Rd.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council obtain independent expert advice on appropriate height and rezoning options for the St Leonards Commercial Core precinct.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Pam Palmer

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 September 2014

St Leonards Commercial Core - Strategic Planning

 

 

Subject:          St Leonards Commercial Core - Strategic Planning    

Record No:     SU4559 - 52328/14

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):       Councillor Pam Palmer 

 

 

 

Background

 

In its Gateway Determination letter of 5 March 2014, NSW Planning & Infrastructure acknowledged the potential for loss of employment opportunities in St Leonards if the amount of commercial floorspace was reduced.  It indicated that a target loss of 50% may be acceptable but to achieve this could require height increases.  It noted that these considerations “should be further considered during the rezoning process.”

 

The State Government will need to be involved in these discussions but it seems that Council would be best served if their advice was provided sooner rather than later.

 

It would not be a good outcome if those projects first off the mark were rezoned by Council only to find that the State later decided on a significant change of strategic direction.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.      Request NSW Planning & Infrastructure supply more information on its strategic vision for the future of the Lane Cove section of the St Leonards commercial core with respect to housing and employment targets; and

 

2.      Express to NSW Planning & Infrastructure the urgency and priority that should be given to this request given that multiple projects valued at over $100m are awaiting rezoning and hence will potentially require State Significant determinations within the next 12 months.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Pam Palmer

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 September 2014

St Leonards Commercial Core - Infrastructure

 

 

Subject:          St Leonards Commercial Core - Infrastructure    

Record No:     SU4559 - 52330/14

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):       Councillor Pam Palmer 

 

 

 

Background

 

The Leightons / Charter Hall proposal envisages over 1,000 apartments and over 2,200 new residents.

 

Council is proposing major infrastructure upgrades to accompany the anticipated population increase: construction of new public open space, a new bus interchange, road improvements, etc.

We are also funding a planning study for the St Leonards South precinct, instigated by the proposed development of adjacent sites.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council seek confirmation in writing from the Minister for Planning that any rezoning in the St Leonards Commercial core to a predominantly residential use will see support from State Government in terms of the provision of State-based services including primary schools, school bus services, increased rail capacity and sufficient local police capability to meet the needs of an increased population.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Pam Palmer

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 September 2014

City of Sydney Amendment (Elections) Bill 2014

 

 

Subject:          City of Sydney Amendment (Elections) Bill 2014    

Record No:     SU4951 - 52333/14

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):       Councillor Karola Brent 

 

 

At its September 5th meeting, the LGNSW Board resolved that in respect of the Shooters and Fishers Party’s City of Sydney Amendment (Elections) Bill 2014, LGNSW continue to oppose the Bill as it will have a detrimental impact on Local Government.

 

Background

 

Under the current law residents, owners of land in the City and rate paying occupiers or lessees (tenants) of land are entitled to vote. If a corporation is the owner, occupier or lessee of the land, then the corporation can nominate one person who is an Australian citizen to vote on its behalf.

 

Also under the current law, any one person can only have one vote in the same electorate. Only residents are required to vote. Non-residents and corporate representatives can choose to vote or not. Because of the churn in businesses and investors, non-resident voters are required to apply to be on the roll of electors for each election.

 

This system already gives votes to corporations and allows people who don’t live in the area but own property to have multiple votes at local government elections (once where they live and once more for every property they own in other local government areas).

 

The new proposed Bill maintains the existing classes of voters, namely: residents, owners of land in the City and rate paying occupiers or lessees of land. However, it then provides that:

A.      Corporations who own, lease or occupy land will have two votes (one for a director of the corporation and one for the company secretary),

B.      Corporate voters can be nominated by the company but if no one is nominated, one director and the company secretary automatically will be enrolled to vote,

C.      Corporate and non-resident voting becomes compulsory.

 

In short, the Bill doubles the votes for every corporation and makes corporate voting compulsory. 

 

Importantly for Lane Cove, in the Bill there is a new provision that allows these new electoral rules to be rolled out across the State.  They will likely start with Wollongong, Newcastle, Parramatta and North Sydney but there is no limitation on where they can apply them.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council

1.    Supports Local Government NSW in opposing the City of Sydney Amendment (Elections) Bill 2014 and,

2.    Contacts the Premier and the Minister for Local Government to convey its opposition to the Shooters and Fishers Party’s City of Sydney Amendment (Elections) Bill 2014 because of its negative impact on councils.

 

Councillor Karola Brent

Councillor

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 September 2014

Procedures for Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor and Councillor Representation on Council Committees for 2014-15

 

 

Subject:          Procedures for Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor and Councillor Representation on Council Committees for 2014-15    

Record No:     SU868 - 49540/14

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):       Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to outline the procedures for election of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor and to appoint Councillor representatives on Advisory and External Committees for the next 12 months.

 

Discussion

 

Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor

 

Councillors have previously been provided nomination forms for the position of Mayor and Deputy Mayor for the next 12 months. Clause 3(2) of Schedule 7 of the Regulation provides that if more than one Councillor is nominated, the Council is to resolve whether the election is to proceed by preferential ballot, by ordinary ballot (secret ballot) or by open voting (show of hands).

Councillor Representation on Committees

 

Council currently operates various advisory committees, and participates in other external committees to provide a forum for discussion of broad, local and regional issues among council representatives, local agencies and community members. 

 

Councillors should also note the following procedures apply to committees:-

 

·    The Mayor is an ex-officio member of all Internal Advisory Committees and has the right to give notice of business for the Agenda, move and second recommendations and vote on matters;

·    All Councillors can attend Internal Advisory Committees, however non-members of the Committee cannot;  give notice of business for the Agenda, move and second recommendations or vote on matters ; and

·    All Councillor representatives on Internal Advisory Committees may arrange an alternate Councillor to attend as required.

 

Councillors represent Council on a number of Advisory and External Committees, a list of these Committees, their purpose, current representation and meeting frequency is shown below:-

 

Aboriginal Advisory Committee

 

This committee was formed on 18 February 2013 to increase knowledge and understanding of Aboriginal culture, to foster positive relationships between Council and Aboriginal people and provide advice to Council regarding aboriginal education, health, tourism, employment, culture and customs. The Meetings are held monthly on the 4th Monday in the Training Room at 7.15pm. The role of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on issues relevant to Aboriginal people.

 

Current Representation: Councillors Bennison and Karpin and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

Age Friendly Advisory Committee

 

Council at its meeting of 21 July 2014 resolved to establish an Age-Friendly Advisory Committee to provide advice and assistance to Council on the implementation of the Age Friendly Action Plan including prioritisation and awareness of strategies and initiatives. The Committee meets at least bi-monthly.

 

Current Representation: Councillors Hutchens, Cheong and Karpin, with Councillor Palmer as alternate.

 

Bushland Management Advisory Committee

 

Commenced in the 1980’s to discuss bushland management issues and monitor implementation of Bushland Plan of Management. This committee provides advice and recommendations to the General Manager on bushland management within Lane Cove. Includes 3 Community Representatives and 3 Representatives of the Lane Cove Bushland and Conservation Society. The committee will meet monthly on a Wednesday at 6:00pm in the Committee Room.

 

Current Representation: Councillor Strassberg and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Cameraygal Festival Committee

 

Formed in 1991 to formulate, plan, develop, promote activities within Lane Cove. The Committee will meet from February to August and also in October on the 3rd Thursday of the month at 6pm in the Committee Room. The role of the committee is to organise the Festival and provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on the Festival.

 

Current Representation: Councillor Bennison and Councillor Palmer with Councillor Strassberg as an alternate and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Carisbrook Advisory Committee

 

Carisbrook is the oldest surviving house in its area, purchased by Council in 1969. The House and Gardens are managed and maintained by Council, and the Lane Cove Historical Society manages the furnishing and showing of the House.  This committee assists in setting the direction for Carisbrook House and will meet every 6 weeks on Wednesdays at 9.30am in the Human Services Committee Room. The role of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on Carisbrook House.

 

Current Representation:  Councillor Hutchens and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Centrehouse Management Committee

 

Centrehouse is a not-for-profit community art and leisure centre offering leisure learning for the community, including various courses for children to adults and facilities for hire. The Management Committee meets the 1st Wednesday of each month at Centrehouse at 5.30pm. As this is an external committee, the role of the committee is governed by Centrehouse.

 

Current Representation: Councillors Brent and Gold.

 


Council Selection Committee

 

This committee considers nominations and provides recommendations to the General Manager for Council's Citizenship Awards, Australia Day Awards, community appointments to Councils advisory committees, tenders, grants, and other awards as required and will meet when required. The Meetings are held as required during Council Workshops on 2nd Monday of the month.

 

Current Representation: All Councillors and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Internal Audit Committee

 

Formed in 2009 to provide independent assurance and assistance to Council on risk management, control, governance, and external accountability responsibilities. The DLG Guidelines recommend that the Mayor not be the Councillor representative on this committee. There are (2) two independent representatives on the Committee with one of them being the Chair of the committee. The committee will meet quarterly in the Cobra Room at 2.30pm on a Wednesday. The role of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on internal audit functions.

 

Current Representation: Councillor Karpin and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP)

 

The JRPP determines development applications for the following types of development:-

·    Development with a Capital Investment Value (CIV) over $20 million;

·    Development with a CIV over $5 million which is:-

council related;

lodged by or on behalf of the Crown (State of NSW);

private infrastructure and community facilities; or

eco-tourist facilities.

·    Extractive industries, waste facilities and marinas that are designated development;

·    Certain coastal subdivisions;

·    Development with a CIV between $10 million and $20 million which are referred to the regional panel by the applicant after 120 days; and

·    Crown development applications (with a CIV under $5 million) referred to the regional panel by the applicant or local council after 70 days from lodgement as undetermined, including where recommended conditions are in dispute.

 

Two (2) Council representatives are appointed by each council that is situated in a part of the State for which a Regional Panel is established. At least one (1) Council representative is required to have expertise in one (1) or more of the following areas: planning, architecture, heritage, the environment, urban design, land economics, traffic and transport, law, engineering or tourism. As this is an external committee, the role of the committee is governed by the NSW State Government.

 

Current Representation: Councillor Bennison and Manager - Strategic Planning Stephanie Bashford with Councillor Brooks-Horn as an alternate.

Kindy Cove Management Advisory Committee

 

This committee provides advice to the Management of the Long Day Care Centre, from a parent and community perspective. The committee will meet on the 3rd Wednesday of every month at 7.00pm, usually at Kindy Cove. The role of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on the operation of Kindy Cove.

 

Current Representation: Councillor Brent and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

 

Lane Cove Access Committee

 

The committee's objectives are to increase and promote general awareness of access, mobility and safety issues in the community.  The committee will meet on the last Wednesday of every second month at 10am. The committee includes five (5) representatives of access related service providers and up to five (5) community representatives. The role of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on access issues.

 

Current Representation: Councillors Karpin and Palmer and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Lane Cove Bicycle Advisory Committee

 

Formed in 1995 to provide advice on bicycle facilities. The committee provided significant input into the development of the Lane Cove Bicycle Plan. This committee will meet quarterly to consider the provision of bicycle facilities in accordance with the Bicycle Plan in the Committee Room at 6pm. The role of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on bicycle issues.

 

Current Representation: Councillor Gold and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Lane Cove and North Side Community Services Board of Directors

 

Founded in 1961 to provide health and community services to people in need and was initially based at Council but became independent from Council in 1962. Community Aid is an incorporated association which provides direct services to the elderly, disabled and their carers in Lane Cove. The Board meets on the 2nd Thursday of every second month at 7:30am at the Community Aid Centre. As this is an external committee the role of the committee is governed by Lane Cove and North Side Community Services.

 

Current Representation: Councillors Brooks-Horn and Hutchens.

 

Lane Cove Cultural Advisory Committee

 

This committee assists in the formulation of cultural planning strategies and initiatives.  The committee meets quarterly on a Wednesday at 6pm in the Training Room.  The role of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on cultural issues.

 

Current Representation:  Councillors Brent, Cheong and Hutchens and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 


Lane Cove Historical Society

 

The Society meets on the third Tuesday of each month at 2.30pm and provides a forum for the promotion and discussion of history in Lane Cove. As this is an external committee the role of the committee is governed by the Lane Cove Historical Society.

 

Current Representation:  Councillor Palmer.

 

Lane Cove Occasional Child Care Centre

 

This committee considers management issues of the Child Care Centre. The committee meets on the 4th Monday of each month at 7.30pm in the Centre. The role of the committee is to provide advice to the Management of the Occasional Child Care Centre.

 

Current Representation: Councillor Brent.

 

Lane Cove Public Art Advisory Committee

 

Formed on 1 November 2010 to provide Council with expert advice, critique, and comment on the ongoing development, guidance, and implementation of the Lane Cove Council Public Art Policy in relation to each Council or developer-based project including public art commissions. This committee will meet when public art projects arise. The role of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on public art issues.

 

Current Representation: Councillors Bennison and Brent and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Lane Cove Recreation Precinct Liaison Advisory Committee

 

With the proposed development of the site within the next 5 years, the committee will discuss issues with the current tenants and other stakeholders that will affect them during the time of development and assist with the design of the new club house. This committee meets quarterly on a Tuesday at 6pm. The role of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on the proposed development.

 

Current Representation: Councillors Brooks-Horn, Cheong and Karpin and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Lane Cove Retirement Units Association Ltd Board

 

Council purchased land in Central Avenue in 1966 for the constructions of units and transferred the land to the Association in 1994. The Association, a company limited by Guarantee, seeks to provide suitable accommodation for aged persons capable of independent living, and manages the land and buildings at Pottery Gardens to this end. The Board meets six times a year on a Tuesday at 6.45pm. As this is an external committee the role of the committee is governed by the Lane Cove Retirement Units Association, whose constitution provides for two (2) Councillor representatives.

 

Current Representation: Councillors Hutchens and Karpin.

 

Marjorie Propsting Memorial Library Consultative Forum

 

Established in 1988 to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on matters affecting Library services at the Marjorie Propsting Memorial Library. The committee includes the General Manager's representative, a representative of the Greenwich Library staff, up to 3 representatives of the Greenwich Community Association, 1 representative of the Greenwich Kindergarten, 1 representative of the Greenwich Senior Citizens’ Association, and 1 East Ward Councillor and will meet twice a year in the Greenwich Library on a Tuesday at 4pm.

 

Current Representation: Councillors Karpin and Palmer and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Metro Pool/United Independent Pools Boards

 

Established in 1990, Metro Pool is made up of nine (9) Councils which self insure against Public Liability claims and purchase excess layers of insurance. United Independent Pools (UIP) is a joint partnership of 19 councils established in 2005 to manage first party losses including property, motor vehicle and crime cover. The Boards comprise an Elected Representative and the General Managers of each Council and has the responsibility of ratifying decisions made by the Management Committee and ensuring the ongoing viability of the Pools. The Boards meet quarterly on a Wednesday at 10am at a host council. . As this is an external committee, the role of the Boards are governed by Metrol Pool/UIP

 

Current Representation: Councillor Karpin with Councillor Strassberg as an alternate and the General Manager and/or their nominee.

 

Mowbray Precinct Working Party

 

This committee was formed on 3 December 2012 to liaise with Council on issues relating to the precinct’s transition during the current and future development of properties and infrastructure in the Mowbray Precinct. However, this committee is not to be engaged in strategic planning issues such as rezonings. This committee meets quarterly on a Tuesday at 6:00pm in the Committee Room. The role of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on the Mowbray Precinct.

 

Current Representation: All West Ward Councillors and appropriate staff as appointed by the General Manager.

 

Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils - (NSROC)

 

Established in 1989, NSROC is a voluntary group of seven (7) Northern Sydney Councils who have joined together as a service organisation to support the needs and further the interests of the communities represented by member Councils. Main activities are policy advocacy for the region, professional development of staff and shared procurement. The board of the organisation meets quarterly at 6:00pm on the second Thursday of February, May, September and November at a rotating venue between member Councils. As this is an external committee, the role of the board is governed by the constitution of NSROC, which is an incorporated association.  The Mayor’s alternate must be the person acting as Mayor at the time, the Deputy Mayor ordinarily.  

 

Current Representation: The Mayor and Councillor Bennison with Councillors Cheong and Karpin as alternates.

 

NSW Metropolitan Public Libraries Association (Inc.)

 

The NSW Metropolitan Public Libraries Association (NSW MPLA) is the peak body that represents the interests and development of public libraries in metropolitan New South Wales.

The Association was established to ensure resource sharing programs, and for exchanging ideas. The Association meets quarterly on a Friday at alternate venues.  As this is an external committee, the role of the Association is governed by the constitution of the NSW MPLA.

 

Current Representation: Councillor Karpin with Councillor Palmer as an alternate and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Publications Editorial Task Force

 

This committee provides advice to the General Manager on the draft Quarterly Newsletter to the community and any other relevant publications. The committee will meet on an as required basis in the Committee Room in the Civic Centre at 6pm prior to Council Meetings.

 

Current Representation: Councillors Bennison, Brent and Hutchens and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Rosenthal Car Park Working Party

 

Formed in September 2013, with the objective to assist Council in the planning, consultation and design for the redevelopment of the Rosenthal Avenue Car Park site. The working party meets as and when required.

 

Current Representation: Councillors Brooks-Horn, Cheong, Bennison and Strassberg and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Shell Consultative Committee

 

Established in 1993 to provide a forum to discuss environmental and community issues. This committee is convened by Shell Australia and provides advice on the operation of the Refinery at Gore Bay. The committee meets quarterly on a Wednesday at 7pm. As this is an external committee, the role of the committee is governed by Shell.

 

Current Representation: All East Ward Councillors and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Shorelink Committee

 

The Shorelink Library Network was established in 1983 when five participating councils signed a Deed of Agreement. This committee discusses the Shorelink Library Network and comprises a Councillor and Manager – Library Services from Lane Cove, Manly, Mosman, North Sydney and Willoughby Councils. This committee meets 10:00am every 3rd Tuesday of each month at Council. As this is an external committee, the role of the committee is governed by Shorelink.

 

Current Representation: Councillor Karpin with Councillor Palmer as an alternate, Manager – Library Services and other appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Sustainability Advisory Committee

 

Established in 2005 to provide advice and recommendations to the General Manager on the formulation, prioritisation and implementation of strategies and initiatives to achieve sustainability as primarily set out in the Sustainability Action Plan. The committee meets five times a year on a Wednesday at 6pm, in the Council Chambers.

 

Current Representation: Councillors Cheong, Gold and Strassberg and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 


Traffic Committee

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee is established under a Constitution developed and managed by Roads and Maritime Services (RMS). Its core functions are to enact NSW Government road and traffic regulations at a local level and to ensure adequate safety measures are in place. The Committee includes representatives from RMS, Sydney Buses, North Shore Police LAC and the Local Member of Parliament (or nominee). The committee meets in the Committee Room at 10:00am on the third Tuesday of each month.

 

Current Representation: Councillor Karpin and appropriate staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

Willoughby/Ryde/Hunters Hill/Lane Cove District Bushfire Committee

 

This committee was established to meet the requirements of the Rural Fires Act in minimising the impact of bushfires on the community. Its functions include approving priorities and locations for hazard reduction works. Representatives are from the four (4) Councils, National Parks and Wildlife Service, NSW Police Service, TollAust and NSW Fire Brigades. The committee meets quarterly at the Lane Cove Fire Station, Artarmon at 10am on a Thursday. As this is an external committee, the role of the committee is governed by the NSW Fire Brigades.

 

Current Representation: Councillor Palmer and staff as determined by the General Manager.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.    Council conduct the Election for Mayor and Deputy Mayor for the next 12 months;

2.    If two or more nominations are received for Mayor or Deputy Mayor, Council resolve whether the election is to proceed by preferential ballot, by ordinary ballot or by open voting;

3.    Council determine Councillor representation on Advisory and External Committees for  2014-15, with it being noted that the Mayor is an ex-officio on all Council Advisory Committees;

4.    It be noted that any available Councillor may attend Internal Advisory Committees;

5.    Council authorise all Councillor representatives on Internal Advisory Committees to arrange an alternate as required; and

6.    Advisory Committee Charters be amended where necessary to reflect Councillor Representation.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 There are no supporting documents for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 September 2014

10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code of Practice

 

 

Subject:          10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code of Practice    

Record No:     SU707 - 51410/14

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):       Kirsten Mawby; Kerry Heatley; Terry Tredrea; Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to address the impact of the recently made Rural Fires Amendment (Vegetation Clearing) Bill 2014. On 1 August 2014, the Rural Fires Act 1997 was amended to allow landowners within 350 meters of designated bushfire-prone areas (known as 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Areas) to:

•    Clear trees on their property within 10 meters of a home, without seeking approval from Council; and

•    Clear underlying vegetation such as shrubs (but not trees) on their property within 50 metres of a home.

Under the 350m Entitlement Area rule, the new 10/50 legislation covers over 80% of the Lane Cove Local Government Area (LGA).

 

The legislative changes has had a number of unintended consequence for metropolitan councils such as Lane Cove, with trees being removed for non fire related reasons such as, improvement of views, clearing for buildings and landscaping preference.

 

It is therefore recommended that Council authorise the General Manager to explore appropriate measures to remove the Lane Cove LGA from the application of the amendment to the Rural Fires Act 1997, the 10/50 Vegetation Code.

Background

The intent of the Amendment, as indicated by the second speaker when introducing the legislation into the NSW Parliament (29th May 2014), is:

 

... to protect communities vulnerable to the devastating impacts of fire.... It has been called for in the wake of the devastating October fires. It strikes a balance between environmental protection and household property safety.”

 

However, within many Sydney metropolitan council areas, residents are currently using the 10/50 Code which enacts the legislation to remove trees for purposes other than the original intention of bushfire protection. The purposes identified include:

Removal on mass to improve views;

Removal of building restrictions or need for specialised approvals;

Personal preference to remove vegetation and trees;

To clear roots near walls;

Removal of the risk of branches falling on property.

The Act is therefore has unintended consequences for the management of the natural environment. Within the Lane Cove LGA, by the 8 September 2014 Council was aware of 49 trees that were removed in the area under the 10/50 Code. Several of these trees were remnant vegetation and of locally significant environmental value, and most had been previously rejected under Tree Preservation Order legislation. 

The 10/50 Clearing Code of Practice overrides the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and Council’s LEP and DCP.  As a result, many endangered tree species including those on Council’s Significant Tree Register are no longer protected. Only threatened vegetation under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), is protected as Commonwealth legislation overrides State legislation. However, Council does not have the delegated authority to press charges under Commonwealth legislation. Also from enquiries, the Federal Government has not resourced the individual assessment of trees that are sought to be removed, making the requirement for individuals to check Federal protection measures prior to removal in effective.

Most communities, particularly those in Inner Sydney, are not “vulnerable to the devastating impacts of fire”, yet the legislation permits removal of trees within 350m of potential, but extremely rare, sources of bush fire.  The Code is listed for review in 2 years time. However, concerns currently arising from these unintended consequences include potential:

·    Loss of significant vegetation within Lane Cove LGA;

·    Denuding of foreshore areas of trees and wildlife habitat;

·    Loss of the contribution of private trees to open space amenity;

·    Degrading of the streetscape character of the garden suburbs of Lane Cove.

 

1.1       The 10/50 Rule Explained:

The object of the Bill is “to amend the Rural Fires Act 1997 to make provision for vegetation clearing work to be carried out in certain areas near residential accommodation or high-risk facilities to reduce bush fire risk”.

A 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Area is determined and mapped for all local government areas of NSW by the Rural fire Service. It is based on calculating 350 metres from designated bushfire-prone areas. The new laws allow properties within the 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Entitlement Area to:

 

•     Clear trees on their property within 10 meters of a home, without seeking approval or advising Council; and

•     Clear underlying vegetation such as shrubs (but not trees) on their property within 50 meters of a home, without seeking approval. See the image below;

   Image from NSW Rural Fire Service website

Clearing can only be done with the approval of the landowner and is measured from the external walls of a building containing habitable rooms to the centre of the tree trunk. Clearing is restrained for Prescribed Streams, Aboriginal heritage or other cultural heritage, slopes above 18 degrees, and species protected federally under the EPBC Act, however it does not require owners to consider threatened species or ecological communities that would otherwise be protected under NSW laws.

 


1. 2      The 10/50 Rule Timeline:

 

•     24 June 2014 - The Rural Fires Amendment (Vegetation Clearing) Bill 2014 was assented to by both houses of the NSW Parliament.

•    July 2014 - The details of these legislative amendments were to be contained in the Draft 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code of Practice (Attachment 3). The Code was released for public exhibition until 21 July 2014. During this exhibition maps were not made available to Councils so they were unable to determine the impact on their LGAs.

•    3 July 2014 - Council received a letter from the RFS inviting comment on the Draft Code.

•    21 July 2014 – Submissions closed. Council made a submission to the RFS, where a number of serious concerns were raised (refer AT-1). It does not appear these concerns were taken into account despite being raised by other councils as well.

•    1 August 2014 - The Rural Fires Act 1997 was amended to include the Amendment.   The 10/50 Vegetation Clearing Code of Practice was implemented by RFS NSW. Notification to the public and Councils was via media releases and the RFS website. The Lane Cove Municipality is now included in the 10/50 Code.

•    18-4 September 2014 – Incidents reported by concerned members of the public on trees being removed from private property.  Each of the cases reported had previously been refused removal under tree preservation regulations.

 

Discussion

2.1       Concerns

 

Misuse of the Object of the Amendment -

•     The Code defines ‘Entitlement Areas’ as properties within 350 meters of bushfire prone land. This 350m is based on the distance embers can potentially fall, starting other fires (ember attack). These ‘Entitlement Areas’ include the majority of Lane Cove LGA, meaning that the majority of trees in Lane Cove are no longer protected from removal by land owners who wish to remove trees for any reason. In this regard, Sydney residents are currently using the 10/50 Code to remove trees for purposes other than bushfire protection. In other LGAs, trees are being removed on mass to improve views, open areas for developments, clear roots from near walls, remove the chance of branches falling on property, and for other purposes.

 

•     There have already been several examples in Lane Cove where properties which have been rejected under Council’s tree preservation orders have removed trees under the guise of 10/50 legislation. In one case trees were 20m from the landowner’s house but were still covered under the Act as they were 10m from the neighbouring houses, which is allowed under the legislation, even if the neighbours have not indicated that they wish the trees to be removed. In another example that made the ABC news, three Angophoras were removed for waterfront views – applications for removal had been previously rejected under the Tree Preservation controls.

The policy is inappropriate to Lane Cove -

•     The Rural fire Service defines a bush fire prone area as, ”an area of land that can support a bush fire or is likely to be subject to bush fire attack”. By this definition, removal of trees 350m from a potential, but extremely rare, source of bush fire is a questionable interpretation of the objects of the Act. The Bushfire risk in Lane Cove is relatively low, and as far as staff are aware there are no houses recorded as being lost due to bushfire in this LGA.

•     The nature and character of Lane Cove is a leafy green area where most houses are within 500 metres of a bushland reserve. The mass clearing of trees and other vegetation from private property is likely to result in large scale property devaluation as the character of the area changes, with the exception of houses with water views where the removal of trees may financially benefit.

The Code is inappropriate for many Sydney metropolitan councils -

•     In Victoria, which has already made a similar 10/30 Code of Practice, more urbanised areas were taken into consideration and councils with similar vegetative makeup to Lane Cove have been declared as exempt from the Victorian 10/30 Code of Practice.

•     Bushfire Safety has been taken out of the hands of Local Government and the NSW Fire and Rescue Service and handed entirely to the Rural Fire Service. The Rural Fire Service was designed to operate in rural areas and many of their practices are not suitable for metropolitan Sydney.

 

Lack of clear compliance authority -

•     The Amendment overrules Council’s ability to function with regard to trees under the Local Government Act and the Environment Planning and Assessment Act.  Council therefore does not have the powers to administer and ensure compliance with the 10/50 Code, yet at the same time the RFS are not responsible for the enforcement of the Code.

  

Endangered tree species no longer protected -

•     The 10/50 Clearing Code of Practice overrides the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and Council’s LEP and DCP.

•     Under the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999  (the ‘EPBC Act’), some endangered habitats are protected. However local Councils have no delegated authorities to allow them to police this. Actions that have, or are likely to have, a ‘significant impact’ on a matter of national environmental significance require approval from the Australian Government Minister for the Environment (the Minister). The Minister will decide whether assessment and approval is required under the EPBC Act.

2.2       Solutions

 

Staff have been working with other metropolitan councils and NSROC to formulate possible effective changes to the legislation and Code, to remove the impact on the Lane Cove LGA. The solutions include:-

 

a.         Exclude residential areas that are within the coverage of metropolitan Bushfire Risk Management Plans and are not within a Rural Fire District. In Victoria, 21 metropolitan municipalities are exempt, based on the risk profile developed by the local Bushfire Risk Management Committee.

b.         In areas where the Code does apply in metropolitan Sydney, address the unintended consequences of the very wide clearing entitlement zone by reducing the zone from 350 metres, on the basis of scientific assessment of the hazard risk of an area.

c.         Exempt properties that have been certified to meet the requirements of “planning for bushfire protection” and AS3959, which would mean that the Code would only be available for landowners of properties built before 2006.

d.         Integrate evidence-based Council policies and plans into the resolution of hazard reduction complaints made about Council-owned land, and give precedence to these plans over neighbour requests for clearing of public bushland.

e.         Reduce geotechnical risk through unlawful clearing by including information in the mapping tool that identifies and excludes slopes over 18 degrees, as per current conditions in the Code.


Conclusion

 

The amendment to the Rural Fires Act 1997 permits vegetation clearing work to be carried out within 350m of bush fire prone vegetation near all residential accommodation or high-risk facilities everywhere in NSW “to reduce bush fire risk”.  The legislation:

·    Permits misuse of the object of the Amendment;

·    Applies inappropriately to most Sydney metropolitan councils;

·    Removes protection of endangered tree species;

·    Overrides Council LEPs, DCPs with regard to the protection of trees;

·    Will denude much of the vegetated character of Lane Cove.

 

It is recommended that the matter be taken up via NSROC with the State Government to remove the Lane Cove LGA from the application of the amendment to the Rural Fires Act 1997, the 10/50 Vegetation Code.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Notes the concerns arising from the unintended consequences of the Rural Fires Amendment (Vegetation Clearing) Bill 2014;

2.   Authorises the General Manager to identify and explore appropriate measures to remove the Lane Cove LGA from the application of the amendment to the Rural Fires Act 1997, the 10/50 Vegetation Code.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

350 Metre Bush Fire Prone Exclusion Zone Map

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Lane Cove Council Submission to Rural Fire Service 10/50 Clearing Code of Practice

9 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 September 2014

Pedestrian Safety - Lane Cove Village

 

 

Subject:          Pedestrian Safety - Lane Cove Village    

Record No:     SU4513 - 45972/14

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):       Tim Sullivan 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 19 May 2014 it was resolved to investigate possible improvements to pedestrian safety at three (3) pedestrian crossings in Lane Cove Village. Subsequently, on 21 July 2014 it was resolved to include in the study the exit ramp from the Coles car park onto Burns Bay Road. This report details the outcome of the investigation, summarises the findings of the Road Safety Audit that was undertaken and concludes that a number of relatively low-cost improvements could be made to ensure pedestrian safety in this part of the Village. The recommendations include obtaining land owners’ consent to install a flashing warning sign on the exit ramp and installation of informal zebra crossings to indicate priority for pedestrians at both Coles entry and exit ramps.

 

Background

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 19 May 2014 it was resolved to investigate possible improvements to pedestrian safety at three (3) pedestrian crossings in Lane Cove Village, specifically the crossings at either end of Lane Cove Plaza and outside Coles. It was felt that visibility of pedestrians for oncoming motorists could be improved.

 

Subsequently, on 21 July 2014 it was resolved to include in the study the exit ramp from the Coles car park onto Burns Bay Road, including the consideration of a left only restriction at the exit. There are safety concerns in relation to the mix of traffic and pedestrians in this busy part of the Village. The situation is exacerbated by the steep gradient of the exit ramp which means vehicles approach the conflict point with pedestrians at a higher speed than normal.

 

Discussion.

 

Pedestrian Crossings

 

A qualified Road Safety Auditor was engaged to review the safety of three (3) pedestrian crossings in Lane Cove Village. The final report is attached as AT-1 and a summary of the findings and recommendations is attached as AT-2 and shown below.

 

The crossings under consideration were as follows:-

 

·    Marked Foot Crossing 1 (MFC1) – Longueville Rd, east of Lane Cove Plaza;

·    Marked Foot Crossing 2 (MFC2) – Rosenthal Ave, west of Lane Cove Plaza (near Post Office); and

·    Marked Foot Crossing 3 (MFC3) – Burns Bay Rd (near Coles).

 

It is considered that the road safety issues identified in the Road Safety Audit Report

could be improved by:-

1.     The introduction of restricted turn movements out of private access driveways particularly for turning traffic immediately adjacent MFC 3 to reduce vehicle conflicts;

2.     Provision of 20m barrier lines with RRPMs at 5m spacings on the approach to each MFC to improve visibility at night, provide a tactile warning for vehicles crossing the centreline and comply with RMS Standard;

3.     Upgrade warning and illumination of pedestrians crossing the driveway adjacent Coles nearMFC 3, possibly with vehicle activated warning lights and a sign warning motorists of high pedestrian activity;

4.     Provision of continuous barrier lines with RRPMs at 5m spacings between MFC 2 and 3 to improve visibility at night, incorporating a tactile warning for vehicles crossing the centerline and comply with RMS Standard;

5.     Re-mark existing zigzag marking to improve the awareness of those existing marked foot crossings (MFC) which, have a sight distance problem but cannot be reasonably re-located;

6.     General maintenance on signs and markings and replacement of signs to new standard;

7.     Consider the installation of a threshold treatment at MFC 3 to act as a visual and tactile cue that different conditions apply and potentially reduce speed, volume and improve road safety for pedestrians;

8.     Consider the extension of No Stopping to 7.5m where kerb extensions are 2.5m or more wide to improve sight distances and comply with RMS Standard on MFC 1 and 3;

9.     Assess crossing sight distance on each MFC and consider an additional 10m of No Parking to increase sight distance and provide additional pick up and set down opportunities;

10.   Consider additional No Stopping or an extension of the kerb blister on the approach of MFC 2 (to north in Rosenthal Avenue) to improve sight distances and remove reverse parking movements over the MFC 2;

11.   Consider a warning system visible to motorists southbound in Rosenthal Ave approaching the crest between Birdwood Lane and MFC 2 to provide warning of the high pedestrian activity and marked foot crossings;

12.   Provide warning of entering vehicles from Birdwood Lane into Rosenthal Avenue;

13.   Review on the number and location of signs with a view to minimising the number of signs and locating the signs in prominent positions to reduce driver distraction;

14.   Installation of midblock pedestrian signals to replace MFC 1 and 2 to improve pedestrian safety and traffic flow (see case study 1 below); and

15.   Changes to bus arrangements on the approach to marked foot crossings (MFC) to provide wider pedestrian footpaths, improve sight lines as well as better access for disabled people near MFC 2 and 3.

 

It should be noted that the Plaza Upgrade Stage 2 works include the extension of the kerb to provide greater visibility of pedestrians for drivers approaching from Rosenthal Avenue. This should partly address item (10) above.

 

Coles Exit Ramp

 

Recently Council installed a speed hump on the Coles exit ramp to slow vehicles on the approach to the footpath on Burns Bay Road, which is heavily trafficked by shoppers during the day. Prior to this, warning signage had already been placed on the approach to alert drivers to the need to stop at the top of the ramp. However, it appears there are still community concerns about road safety, particularly amongst more vulnerable pedestrians such as the elderly and mothers with prams.

 

A left-out only treatment has been considered for the Coles exit. However, this would increase the number of circulatory trips on an already congested town centre road network. Also, with the proposed upgrade of the Tambourine Bay Rd / Burns Bay Rd intersection in the medium term it is likely that the roundabout u-turn facility will be removed. The consequences of removing the right turn option out of Coles would therefore be that any drivers wishing to head east on Burns Bay Rd (towards the Post Office) would either:-

a)   Detour via Sera St / Tambourine Bay Rd, adding traffic to an already narrow street;

b)   Detour via Austin St / Longueville Rd, adding traffic to an already busy intersection and main shopping street; or

c)   Perform illegal and possibly dangerous u-turn or banned right turn movements on Burns Bay Rd.

 

Furthermore, the left out only option would not address the main problem at the initial conflict point where vehicles meet pedestrians on the footpath.

 

It is therefore proposed that Council liaise with the landowners to install a flashing warning sign called a PANDA (Pedestrian and Driver Alert System, see Figure 1) which can be purchased for around $5,000 per unit.

 

Figure 1 - Example of Pedestrian and Driver Alert System (PANDA)

 

Depending on the effectiveness of the PANDA system, consideration will be given to installing informal marked pedestrian or zebra crossings, examples of which can be found at many car park entries in NSW (see Figure 2 from Westfield Chatswood).

 

Figure 2 – Zebra crossing at Archer St, Chatswood

 

 

Conclusion

 

A comprehensive Road Safety Audit was undertaken to specifically look at the issue of pedestrian safety at three crossings in Lane Cove Village. The recommendations of the Road Safety audit have been reviewed and endorsed by Council’s Traffic and Transport staff and are recommended for approval by Council.

 

The proposed left out option at the Coles exit ramp has been assessed and is not considered a practical solution to the road safety issues at this specific location. An alternative is to install a flashing ‘PANDA’ sign and land owners’ consent should be sought to install this on the exit ramp. Council may also wish to consider an informal zebra crossing to indicate priority for pedestrians at both Coles entry and exit ramps.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Adopt the recommendations of the Road Safety Audit as attached at AT-2.

2.   Authorise the General Manager to negotiate with the landowners to install a flashing ‘PANDA’ warning sign on the Coles exit ramp; and

3.   Consider the installation of informal pedestrian crossings at both Coles entry and exit ramps.

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Road Safety Audit - Final Report

32 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Road Safety Audit - Recommendations

4 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 September 2014

Draft DCP Part R: Traffic, Transport and Parking - Consultation Report

 

 

Subject:          Draft DCP Part R: Traffic, Transport and Parking - Consultation Report    

Record No:     SU5113 - 45067/14

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):       Tim Sullivan 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Draft DCP Part R, attached as AT-1, was developed by Council staff in order to strengthen and consolidate provisions for new development in relation to traffic, transport and parking. The Draft DCP was first presented to Council on 19 March 2014 and was then placed on public exhibition for 6 weeks between 16 May and 27 June 2014. There were six (6) individual submissions received and a total of 51 respondents to the online survey. Feedback was also gathered from Council’s own town planning and strategic planning staff.

 

In general there was widespread support for the provisions in the Draft DCP. The main changes recommended as a result of the consultation feedback relate to tandem and stacked parking.  It is proposed that the Draft DCP Part R: Traffic, Transport and Parking be adopted by Council for incorporation and gazettal as part of the Lane Cove Council Development Control Plan. 

 

Background

 

Since early 2013 Council’s Traffic and Transport Team have been developing this new DCP in order to consolidate and strengthen provisions relating to traffic, transport and parking. The objective of the new provisions is to achieve better outcomes for new developments.  On 19 March 2014 Council resolved that the proposed Development Control Plan (DCP) Part R should be placed on community exhibition for 6 weeks.

 

Discussion

 

The existing traffic, transport and parking provisions detailed in Council’s current DCP do not reflect the rapidly increasing population and density of the LGA. Existing provisions do not give strong guidance on how to design developments to provide good traffic, transport and parking outcomes for future users and the local community. Council staff have therefore developed a revised set of controls in this area in the form of the proposed Part R.

 

The proposed DCP Part R: Traffic, Transport and Parking has been developed to address recurring issues with development applications in the LGA. The revised DCP provisions will address a multitude of issues, ensuring consistent and robust Traffic Impact Assessments; shifting some responsibility for identifying and implementing local transport infrastructure from Council to the Developer; ensuring good parking and transport amenity for new and existing Lane Cove residents; ensuring sustainable and integrated transport outcomes in new development sites; requiring safe and efficient management of construction traffic; and providing a flexible, evidence-based approach to car parking rates.

 

Community Consultation

 

The public exhibition period commenced on Friday 16 May 2014 and ended at 5pm Friday 27 June 2014. The consultation was designed to receive feedback on the intent and specific provisions contained within the Draft DCP Part R.  In accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the Council report of 21 May 2014, Council’s Traffic Team and Strategic Planning Team prepared an advertisement which was published in the North Shore Times, an eNewsletter which was sent to 7954 recipients, public exhibition material which was displayed at the Civic Centre, Lane Cove Library and Council’s Website, an online survey and notification letters to relevant community groups and the Traffic Committee.

 

Council’s Traffic Team has also sought feedback from Council’s Planning section regarding the proposed DCP Amendment and has tested the strength of the proposed provisions in a recent case held at the Land and Environmental Court.  Comments received were reviewed and evaluated and informed the revised content within the Draft DCP Part R: Traffic, Transport and Parking.

 

Tandem and Stacked Parking

 

Generally speaking there was widespread support for the intent and provisions contained within the Draft DCP. The public consultation feedback is detailed in the separate Public Consultation Report, attached as AT-2.  The only area where a strong consensus emerged was around the area of non-standard parking configurations e.g. mechanical stacked car spaces and tandem parking. 71% of online survey respondents were against mechanical stacked parking in new developments and 65% of online survey respondents were against the provision of tandem parking. It is relevant to consider this feedback as the survey respondents are likely to be viewing the issue from the perspective of an end-user, considering issues around convenience, amenity and likelihood of damage to private vehicles.

 

This feedback informed the creation of a new Objective 3 in Section R2 – Parking:

“Ensure that car parking spaces are convenient and accessible so that they are utilised for their intended purpose.”

This builds on and strengthens Objective 2 in Section R2 – Parking:

“Ensure that developments do not impose excessive demand for on-street parking on surrounding streets.”

 

It is also relevant that in a recent Land and Environment Court case (DA No. 205/13: 390-398 Pacific Highway), where Council staff tried to apply the draft control of maximum 10% tandem parking, the Commissioner dismissed Council’s objection due to the 10% being an “arbitrary” figure without any basis in technical standards or guidelines.

 

Based on the consultation feedback, the evidence from the Land and Environment Court case and the need for the parking provisions to align with Parking Objectives 2 and 3 in Section R2 it is proposed to amend the provisions in the Draft DCP Part R to be as follows:

 

“Tandem parking means two or more vehicles sharing a parking space at the same level configured nose to tail. This is often the most efficient and cost-effective use of car parking space but these considerations do not override the need for safe and accessible parking areas.

 

Mechanical stacked parking arrangements are not permitted. This is due to the high risk of such devices breaking down, which would lead to complete loss of amenity and may result in overspill parking on surrounding local streets.

Provisions

Council does not support the use of tandem parking provision in new developments. Council may consider its use only in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated:

 

a.       That the use of tandem parking configurations will enable a reduced level of excavation to preserve existing significant tree(s) and or natural landscape features on the site; and

 

b.       That the site’s shape is physically constrained, such that conventional parking arrangements would not enable compliance with the parking provision requirements of this DCP; and

 

c.       That the number of spaces in the tandem parking configuration does not exceed 10% of the overall parking stock.”

 

Removal Trucks

 

Based on feedback received from Council’s planning staff, and first-hand experience of assessing DA’s for residential flat buildings, the following minor change (in bold) is proposed to Provision (b) in Section 2.10 – Parking and Access for Service Vehicles:-

“All parking areas for delivery and service vehicles must be designed in accordance with AS 2890.2:2002 Parking facilities - Off-street commercial vehicle facilities. On site delivery and service areas for residential flat buildings must be large enough to accommodate removal trucks.”

This addition will require all new residential flat buildings to provide enough space within the property boundary to allow for residents to safely and conveniently load and unload removal trucks and prevent the removal trucks from being parked on the public road, footpaths or nature strips.

 

Other Minor Changes

 

Following the consultation period other minor changes to the structure and formatting of the DCP were undertaken to improve the readability of the document and to remove any internal inconsistencies. No material changes to provisions or parking rates were made during this process, other than those described above.

 

Conclusion

 

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

·    Consistent and robust Traffic Impact Assessments;

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

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

·    Sustainable and integrated transport outcomes in new development sites;

·    Safe and efficient management of construction traffic; and

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

The 6 week exhibition revealed a widespread support for the DCP, with the only strong themes emerging relating to tandem and mechanical stacked parking controls. The feedback has been reflected in minor but significant changes to the provisions in these areas.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.       Adopt the amended Draft DCP Part R: Traffic, Transport and Parking dated September 2014 attached as AT-1.

2.       Advise the adoption of the DCP Amendment in a local newspaper as soon as practical. 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Amended Draft DCP Part R - Dated September 2014

43 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

DCP Part R - Consultation Report

36 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 September 2014

Draft DCP Amendment - Boarding House Provisions

 

 

Subject:          Draft DCP Amendment - Boarding House Provisions    

Record No:     SU5475 - 51121/14

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Terry Tredrea 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At its meeting of 16 June 2014, Council resolved to exhibit amendments to the Development Control Plan (DCP).

 

Three submissions were received, one of which supported the amendments in total. The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the issues raised in the exhibition, to address these issues, and recommend DCP Draft Amendment – Boarding House Provisions for adoption without change, together with a minor modification (below) arising from the practical application of the amendment. A copy of the submissions has been circulated electronically to Councillors.

 

The proposed DCP amendments to proceed without change after exhibition are:

 

To require that:-

 

i.          Social Impact Assessments be provided for all boarding house applications; and

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

 

Council additionally proposes to impose, as exhibited, a Standard Condition of Consent for all future Boarding House applications that advises that the strata or community title subdivision of boarding houses is prohibited.

 

The only modification to Council’s documents since exhibition is to amend Council’s DA checklist to inform proponents of a boarding house that a Social Impact Assessment is required.

 

Background

 

Council’s at its Ordinary Meeting of 16 June, 2014, considered a report addressing boarding house provisions generally, including under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP of 2009 (the AHSEPP) and Lane Cove DCP 2009 and resolved that Council:-

 

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

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

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

 

2.         Impose as a Standard Condition of Consent for all future Boarding House applications that advises that the strata or community title subdivision of boarding houses is prohibited; and

 

3.         Write to the Minister for Planning, requesting that the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 be strengthened in relation to affordable housing by:-

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

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

 


Discussion

 

The above actions have been undertaken and the exhibition of the draft DCP amendments was held from 11 July, 2014 to 22 August, 2014 and three submissions were received.

 

The Issues

One submission entirely supported the proposed amendment to the DCP and two contained in total five objections to parts of the proposals. One also raised three further objections to the outcome of Land and Environment Court Judgement for Rianon Mateer v Lane Cove Council (10115 of 2014) regarding a proposed boarding house at 1 Johnston Lane, Lane Cove West. Although not directly related to the proposals in this report, they are addressed in the Table below.

 

Amendment

Issues of Concern

Response

Social Impact Assessments  must be provided for applications for boarding houses (BHs)

1. There is concern about the negative social profile implied for BH tenants. Under clauses 5 and 36 of the Boarding Houses Act 2012, registrable boarding houses are divided into:

a. General boarding houses;

b. Assisted boarding houses (for persons with additional needs, such as disabled, frail aged, mental illness).

The majority of boarding houses will fall under the “General” category. Those under the “Assisted” category are policed by the Department of Family and Community Services with powers to regulate. As a result the profile of tenants can be better predicted and standards of accommodation and behaviour are policed.

 

1. Noted. The process for a SIA in support of a boarding house should require identification as either:

 

a. a general boarding house, where tenants are not expected to include recipients of benefits as a result of being disabled, frail aged, or having a mental illness; or

 

b. an assisted boarding house, where tenants will be policed by DF&CS with powers to inspect and fine.

 

 

2. Areas with large numbers of children (e.g. Lane Cove West), and “ with elevated socio- economic residents (but not elitist), are not a suitable area for boarding houses”.

2. The above L&EC Ruling, “afforded little weight to the subjective fears and concerns of the resident objectors in regard to the potential for the proposal to change the character of the family orientated, quiet and safe neighbourhood of Lane Cove West (New Century Developments Pty Limited v Baulkham Hills Shire Council [2003] NSWLEC 154 at 61).”  I.e.: the negative consequence must be “likely, objective, concrete, specific and observable”.Council is not likely to succeed in opposing a finding of the Court.

However, the amendment requiring a SIA will assist objectors to be more focussed in their objections.

The maximum kitchen area within a boarding house room to be  2m2

3. A 2m2 kitchen seems “unworkable”. The result is likely to be an overflow of use into the common kitchen, with subsequent overflow into the private open space – an undesirable situation for cooking and eating.

3. A. The U.S. “Kitchen work triangle”, a model for a “workable kitchen” space originating in the 1940s, defines a space which is equivalent to 4m2. Other configurations involving a stove, sink, fridge, movement space and prep bench with cupboards of modern dimensions also produce a 4m2 kitchen area.  It is therefore likely that the amendment would create an “unworkable” “kitchen” space.

However, the Boarding Houses Fact Sheet, issued by the Department of Planning & Environment, defines “Adequate kitchen facilities” as only requiring “a food preparation area (kitchenette)” in self-contained rooms. This is comparable in style to that in student housing rooms, and can be as small as approx. 2m2.

3.B. Secondly, if the DCP did not  limit the kitchen size, a potential 15m2 kitchen and bathroom area for example (on staff estimates), would permit a boarding house room to be equivalent to a studio apartment of 40m2. The AHSEPP does not address private kitchen size, which allows Council to impose this  constraint.

 

4. The distinction between the new style boarding house and a studio apartment is not clear. Limiting a kitchen size may help to clarify the position but the sufficiency of that constraint will probably be inadequate. 

4. The design distinction is primarily that the ‘new generation’  boarding house room has a maximum area of 25m2 (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) under the AHSEPP, whereas the minimum area of a studio apartment in Lane Cove is 40m2, close to the 38.5m2 in the Residential Flat Design Code of the SEPP 65—Design Quality of Residential Flat Development. Both figures are State mandated.

 

Strata or community title subdivision of boarding houses is prohibited

5. The AHSEPP currently prohibits strata subdivision – not necessary to mention. I.e.:  Clause 52 of the AHSEPP under No subdivision of boarding houses:

“A consent authority must not grant consent to the strata subdivision or community title subdivision of a boarding house.”

 

5. The prohibition is currently in the AHSEPP. The amendment seeks only to bring to the attention of applicants for boarding houses through the agency of a Standard Condition of Consent, that the strata or community title subdivision of boarding houses is prohibited under the AHSEPP.

Any proposal for a change of use would be refused on such grounds as zoning, room size, parking, public open space, etc.

Issues not relevant to the proposed amendment: off street car parking requirement.

6. What controls the car parking requirements for BHs? Can the DCP be altered to clarify this, and address the discrepancy of car parking requirements now described [between studios and boarding house rooms] ?

Boarding Houses are controlled by the AHSEPP, which prevails over other instruments such as Council’s DCP to the extent of any inconsistency, such as for parking requirements.

 

Issues not relevant to the proposed amendment: precedent of further BHs where one is approved.

7. “We would advocate any measure, regarding the DCP or otherwise that will prevent an existing boarding house becoming a compelling precedent for additional development applications. In particular, when the original development was opposed by Council and then over ruled.

7. The AHSEPP expresses a long-held and broadly accepted policy that every LGA should play its part in providing a supply of low-cost accommodation. It is designed to assist councils to meet this need. In response, the Social Vision within Council’s Community Strategic Plan is that “Lane Cove will be a vibrant and inclusive community that supports all ages, abilities and backgrounds”. Previous boarding houses - as listed in the 16 June, 2014 Report to Council (see AT-2 below) - have not had the effect of encouraging a concentration or accumulation of further boarding houses. If it is observed over time that clustering is occuring, Council can approve a policy to prevent this occurrence.

 

Issues not relevant to the proposed amendment: Rezoning

8. Some zoning (e.g.: around 1 Johnston Lane) should be “commercial only”.

8. Boarding houses are permitted in most commercial zones. A local policy cannot prevail over a SEPP.

 

Conclusion

 

This report outlines the submissions received during the public exhibition of DCP Draft Amendment – Boarding House Provisions. Three submissions were received; one in total support of the amendment and two with objections.

 

This amendment requires that kitchens in proposed boarding houses be limited to 2m2, and that DAs be supported by a Social Impact Assessment (SIA). These requirements are broadly supported, though one submission considers that a 2m2 kitchen is “unworkable”. This has been shown not to be the case. One submission was also concerned at the “negative social profile” implied for boarding house tenants by the requirement for a SIA. Conversely, the SIA provides the opportunity to distinguish between “General” boarding houses, and controlled “Assisted” boarding houses (for persons with additional needs, such as disabled, frail aged, mental illness). Under such a distinction, community concern about the presence of what are usually “assisted” boarding houses can be addressed.

 

To ensure that Social Impact Assessments are provided in DAs for boarding houses, it is further recommended that Council’s DA Checklist contain a note to this effect.


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Adopt Development Control Plan Draft Amendment – Boarding House Provisions for finalisation as exhibited to require that:-

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

b.      The maximum kitchen area within a boarding house room is 2m2.

 

2.   Impose as a Standard Condition of Consent for all future Boarding House applications that the strata or community title subdivision of boarding houses is prohibited, as exhibited;

 

3.   Amend Council’s DA Checklist to require a Social Impact Assessment for boarding house proposal; and

 

4.   Advertise the adoption of DCP Amendment – Boarding House Provisions in a local newspaper as soon as practical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 September 2014

Part Road Closure - Standish Street, Greenwich

 

 

Subject:          Part Road Closure - Standish Street, Greenwich     

Record No:     SU3021 - 45815/14

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):       John  Lee; Tony Fazio 

 

 

Executive Summary

This report assesses the merits of submissions received in respect of the public notification for the proposed part closure of Standish Street, Greenwich.

The report recommends that Council resolve to advise Trade & Investment, Crown Lands that there are no reasons preventing the approval of the proposed road closure.

 

Background

 

The part closure of Standish Street, Greenwich originally commended with a resolution of Council on 18th December 2006 (No 371) to proceed with the part closure of Standish Street, subject to a deed of agreement.  On returning to Australia in August 2010 the owner resumed negotiations and on 7th February 2011(No. 5) Council again resolved to proceed with the part closure of Standish Street subject to the deed of agreement

 

On the 2nd February 2012 the application was lodged with the Department of Lands now renamed Trade & Investment Crown Lands (TICL) following a Crown Lands restructure late in 2013. 

On the 22nd January 2014 Trade & Investment Crown Lands (TICL) (formerly Crown Lands Department) replied giving approval to progress the closure in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Council dated 28 April 2006 in progressing a number of administrative functions associated with the closure of public road.  The Owner signed a deed with Council to effect a land swap should the road be formally closed. AT-1 shows the proposed closed road lot.

 

Public Notification

 

The public notification was advertised in the North Shore Times on Wednesday, 14 May 2014 and the notification period for submissions to be received was extended through to 4 July 2014.  Neighbours in the vicinity were also advised, extending beyond the notification specified by TICL.

Letters were also sent to the Public Agencies and Service Providers requesting their comments on the proposal.

 

Submissions

No Objections

Submissions advising no objections were received from:-

·    Jemena Asset Management P/L (Jemena);

·    Roads and Maritime Services (RMS); and

·    Telstra;

No responses were received from Sydney Water, Optus and NSW Planning and Infrastructure. 

Ausgrid advised that it would require suitable easements be created over the existing aerial service wires in accordance with Ausgrid’s requirements. Any future structures under the existing service wires will need tom comply with the clearances of AS 7000.  Such easements would only be required if their wires are physically located within the proposed road lot.

Objections

Objections to the proposed road closure were received from a number of residents and from the Lane Cove Bushland and Conservation Society Inc.

 

Discussion

 

It is the responsibility of Council on behalf of the Minister to assess the validity of each objection.  As the objections can be grouped the assessment of each group is set out below.

 

Lack of public consultation

 

In addition with the public notification made in accordance with Section 35 of the Road Act 1993, Council exceeded the Department’s public consultation requirements.  In additional an informal site inspection occurred with residents on Saturday 28 June.  As the public notification exceeded the Department’s requirements and extended to time for submissions beyond the 28 day, the notification process does not constitute a valid objection.

 

Section 5 Roads Act 1993- Right of Passage

 

Objections are raised under the Right of Passage provisions of Section 5 of the Roads Act 1993. These provisions require consideration to be given to the impact on the closure of the land in terms of it being required as a road. The following comments are made:

 

a)   The section of road between Standish Street and Fleming Street across Gore Creek has already been closed by the Minister;

b)   The proposal involves only a partial closure of Standish Street, public access is still available;

c)   The terrain is quite steep within the section being closed and with a cross slope of steeper than 1:2.5 in the section to the west (forming in part the road embankment to River Road);

d)   The closing of public roads provisions in Section 38 of the Roads Act expressly extinguishes existing rights of passage;

e)   The proposed road closure does not alienate the potential – assuming it to be feasible – should in the future Council construct an access from Standish Street down into Gore Creek Reserve; and

f)    Alternate access into Gore Creek Reserve is available.

Having regard to these matters, there is no validity to the objections raised under the Right of Passage provisions of Section 5 of the Roads Act 1993 to the proposed road closure.

 

Area / Dimensions of the Proposed Road Closure

 

A number of objections were based on the area and width of the proposed closure and the width of a driveway.

 

The area of the proposed road closure (284 m2) is commensurate with the exchange area (287m2) to be excised from Lot 2 DP1123693 15 Standish Street to be given to Council for incorporation into the Gore Creek Reserve as part of the Deed of Agreement.

 

The position of the western boundary of the proposed road closure (the depth) relates more directly to the location of the previous road closure boundary undertaken by the Minister.  In respect of width, it would be normal practice to close the entire road and provide an easement for access.  In this case, the section of Standish Street not closed provides embankment support to River Road. 

 

There is no validity in objections made in relation to the area of land involved, its width or depth.

 

Loss of Public Parking along Standish Street

 

Objections in relation to loss of parking in Standish Street were made. 

 

Standish Street operates as a two way two lane road with parking only permissible in the direction of travel, and limited by the position of objectors own driveways.  As the owners/residents of 15 Standish Street do not have off street parking at present they are could park on the formed section of Standish Street.   While the road closure itself does not change the parking regime, it does provide the owner of 15 Standish Street to provide off street parking. 

 

When visiting the site it was evident that with minor alterations to the embankment and the formalization of the parking arrangements, additional parking capacity can be provided that would offset any perceived loss of parking. These adjustments can be funded from the proceeds of the sale.

 

Loss of Property Value

 

No evidence was provided in respect of changes property values.  In any event the impact on property values from proposed road closure or subsequent amalgamation with an existing lot does not constitute a valid objection to the proposed road closure.

 

Value of land being Traded

 

As set out below, the area involved does not equate to a residential lot in its own right.  While there is some merit in comparing the commercial aspects associated with exchange of lands which may have different monetary values, this is not a valid matter for consideration in respect of the process to close the section of Standish Street.

 

Sale of Crown Land

 

Our investigations indicate that Standish Street is not a Crown Road but has vested in Council as the local road authority. 

 

Roads Act 1993

 

A number of submissions lack an understanding of the process under the Roads Act to close a public road which involves:

 

a)   The proposal to close public road;

b)   The application for closing of public road;

c)   The publication of the proposal;

d)   Assessment of Public submissions

e)   A Decision and gazettal; and

f)    The effects of the closure.

 

Objecting submissions based on that the process set out in the Roads Act not being satisfactorily complied with have no validity.

 

Planning Assessment Matters

 

It is stressed that the Deed of Agreement does not fetter the statutory responsibilities of Council as a Planning Authority nor contemplates a development outcome.

 

The following objections grouped as matters for consideration under the Environment Planning and Assessment Act may be considerations in respect of any future development application, but have no validity in considering a road closure proposal.  Residents do have opportunity to comment when and if a future development application is lodged.

 

a)   Width of Driveway

b)   Significance of the Gore Creek Reserve- Zoning E2 Environmental Conservation, noting that the proposed road closure is within an area zoned Residential R2;

c)   Bushland Buffer development controls;

d)   Visual impact of streetscape and natural surroundings;

e)   Storm water, drainage and kerb and guttering requirements, noting that the Deed of Agreement makes provision for an easement for drainage.

f)    Overlooking/Loss of Privacy/impact of residential amenities/visual impact of future development;

g)   Increase in noise;

h)   Impact on native fauna

 

Probity

 

As questions of probity were raised in submissions, the following comments are made:

 

a)   Council’s resolutions relate to the exchange of land should the road closure be successful;

b)   The owner providing the exchange is the only property owner capable of making the exchange

c)   There are no plans by Council to expend funds in providing vehicular access to the Owner;

d)   In addition to the exchange of land, the owner is required to pay Council $18,500 plus CPI adjustments;

e)   The area being closed (284 m2) is too small to be considered as an individual residential lot capable of being offered on the open market, and hence only one party to these transactions exists.

 

Conclusion

 

In respect of public utilities, easement requirements of Ausgrid (if any is required) can be accommodated on registration of the closed road lot.

In respect of the various objections outlined, for the reasons set out in the report, it is appropriate for the proposed road closure to proceed.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1.    Incorporate easement(s) the existing aerial service wires to meet the requirements of Ausgrid;

2.    Lodge with the Trade Investment Crown Lands the formal road closure application for for the part road closure of Standish Street Greenwich, designated in AT-1; and

3.    Advise each of the objectors of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Plan

1 Page

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 September 2014

Review of Community Representatives on Council's Advisory Committees

 

 

Subject:          Review of Community Representatives on Council's Advisory Committees    

Record No:     SU827 - 49541/14

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):       Kirsty Fleming 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to fulfill Council’s resolution of 19 November 2012 to annually review the community representation on Council’s Advisory Committees. This report recommends that Council review the current representation, determine whether to advertise the current vacancies on the committees and if any other changes are required.

 

Discussion

 

During the current Council term, Council has made several resolutions to accept nominations received from members of the community to be community representatives on Council’s Advisory Committees. Council also resolved on 19 November 2012 to review these appointments annually. The current community representation on Council’s Advisory Committees and any vacancies on these committees are detailed below:-

 

Lane Cove Bicycle Advisory Committee

 

This committee’s charter allows for six (6) community representatives.  The community representatives on the committee are:-

 

Susan Loane, Russell Webber, Don Murchinson, Maggie Burke, Gavin Imhof and Rod Taylor.

 

Bushland Management Advisory Committee

 

This committee’s charter allows for four (4) community representatives.  The committee currently has three (3) representatives being:-

 

Ruth Neuman, Lynne McLoughlin and Frances Vissel.

 

Cameraygal Festival Committee

 

This committee’s charter allows for up to 12 community representatives and the committee currently has 11.  The community representatives on the committee are:-

 

Pat Madson, Lyndall McNally, Sarah Balzer, Anthony Nolan, Marie James, Shirin Kanji, Paul McGregor, Shideh Modabber, Susan Morrison, James Shevlin and Michelle Dickson (with Natalie Ahmat as her alternate).

 

Lane Cove Cultural Advisory Committee

 

This committee’s charter allows for 12 community representatives and the committee currently has nine (9). The community representatives on the committee are:-

 

Chrissie Lloyd, Graham Ball, Bill McLaughlin, Kathy Elton, Anthony Nolan, Emily Patterson, Kay Freedman, Jonghee (Jo) Kim and Trent Gardiner.

 


Sustainability Advisory Committee

 

This committee’s charter allows for five (5) community representatives, one (1) alternate community representative and a youth representative or six (6) community representatives and one (1) alternate community representative in the event that a youth representative cannot be appointed. The committee currently has no youth representative. The community representatives on the committee are:-

 

Jane Blackmore, Paul McGregor, Erin Cini, Anthony Melinz, Bronwyn Winley and Emma James.

 

Lane Cove Access Committee

 

This committee’s charter allows for up to five (5) community representatives. The community representatives on the committee are:-

 

Anthony Melinz, Kay Freedman, John Baxter, Mark Edward Twynam Horn and Peter Tiffin.

 

Lane Cove Public Art Advisory Committee

 

This committee’s charter allows for seven (7) community representatives and the committee currently has three (3). The community representatives on the committee are:-

 

Bridget Kennedy, Melissa McElhone and Jayne Whitford.

 

Mowbray Precinct Working Party

 

Council resolved on 18 March 2013 to increase the number of community representatives from five (5) to eight (8) for a period of 12 months. To date, there remain eight (8) community representatives on the working party being:-

 

Guy Hallowes, Deborah Hill, Ann Proudfoot, Mark Joyner, Kylie Bryden-Smith, Frances Vissel, Brian McDonald and Elizabeth McDougal.

 

Lane Cove Recreation Precinct Liaison Advisory Committee

 

This committee’s charter allows for four (4) community representatives with two (2) having an interest in sports to be accommodated at the facility and (2) having an interest in town planning, urban design and/or architecture. The committee currently has two (2) representatives with an interest in sport to be accommodated at the facility. The community representatives on the committee are:- 

 

Ted Merewether and Andrew Zbik.

 

Aboriginal Advisory Committee

 

This committee’s charter allows for eight (8) community representatives.  The community representatives on the committee are:-

 

Margret Campbell, Peter Shine, Natalie Ahmat, Michelle Dickson, Shane Phillips, Kaleb Taylor, Max Harrison and Paul Morris.

 

Attendance at Committee Meetings

The review of community representation on Council’s Advisory Committees revealed that some community representatives have missed several meetings since September 2013.  Council’s Code of Meeting Practice states that members of a committee cease to become a member where they miss three (3) consecutive meetings without giving acceptable reasons.  On 16 September 2013 Council resolved to also include an attendance provision for all Advisory Committees that allows for the removal of community representatives who do not attend at least 50% of the total number of meeting during a Council year (from September to August), without giving acceptable reasons. 

 

It is recommended that Council review the membership of any community representatives of an Advisory Committee where they have missed three (3) consecutive meetings without giving acceptable reasons to Council or miss 50% of the total number of meetings during a calendar year.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Review the current community representation on Council’s Advisory Committees;

 

2.   Retain eight (8) community representatives positions on the Mowbray Precinct Working Party;

 

3.   Determine whether to advertise the current vacancies on the Advisory Committees; and

 

4.   Review the membership of community representatives of an Advisory Committee where they have missed three consecutive meetings or miss 50% of the total number of meetings during a calendar year, without giving acceptable reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 September 2014

NSROC Regional Waste Strategy

 

 

Subject:          NSROC Regional Waste Strategy    

Record No:     SU4277 - 50373/14

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       David Wilson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report seeks adoption of the Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy (the Strategy) 2014-2021 by Council and agreement to its incorporation into Council’s strategic planning framework. 

 

The Strategy has been developed on behalf of the seven northern Sydney Councils by NSROC, working closely with the Waste Managers at the councils. The NSROC General Managers Advisory Committee has also been consulted and endorsed the Draft Strategy for adoption by member councils.

 

The Strategy creates an ongoing platform of agreed goals in waste management for the seven NSROC councils to work on together for the mutual benefit of their communities. Adopting the Strategy should improve funding opportunities for Council through the NSW Environment Protection Authority‘s Waste Less, Recycle More initiative and also offer economies of scale by implementing projects over multiple council areas.

 

The Strategy covers a seven year period and includes Annual Action Plans, which are revised by NSROC in consultation with its member Councils.

 

It is recommended that Council resolves to endorse the Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy 2014-2021 as an element of its strategic planning framework, and the priority projects identified in the 2014/15 Action Plan, noting that the Annual Action Plan will be revised each year to reflect progress, as well as the individual Council needs and ability to adapt to changing circumstances.

 

Background

The NSW Government’s Northern Sydney Regional Action Plan includes a commitment for the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to deliver a Regional Waste Strategy for Northern Sydney.

 

 In 2012 the EPA sought expressions of interest from regional groups of councils to apply for four-year funding for regional waste coordination. The funding - available under the five-year $465.7 million Waste Less, Recycle More initiative which is the funding mechanism supporting the Draft NSW Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2013-21 and the means by which a share of funds collected under the Waste Levy (section 88 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act) is returned to local government.

 

Following consultation with General Managers and waste specialists in member councils the NSROC submission for funding under this program was successful. In December 2013 the EPA confirmed a grant over the four years of $600,000 for regional waste coordination, including the preparation of the Regional Waste Strategy (the Strategy) by June 2014.

 

In order to obtain greater consistency and allow comparison across regions, the EPA required all strategies to follow their Regional waste avoidance and resource recovery strategy guidance document. In addition to the NSW policy settings expressed in the Draft Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy, the approach to the Strategy in Northern Sydney has been guided by the shared objectives for waste management developed in 2013 for the NSROC Regional Waste Tender project and formally endorsed by member Councils, which are:-

·    Better waste outcomes: reducing the total volume of waste and the percentage of material disposed of to landfill.

·    Public benefits by working together: combining resources to tackle market, behavioural, infrastructure and policy challenges.

·    Improved value for money: containing costs escalation by combining demand over a sustained time period to stimulate market competition.

·    Secure waste disposal, processing and recycling infrastructure: working together to ensure long-term provision of economically and environmentally sustainable waste solutions.

 

Strategy Development

 

In late January 2014 NSROC appointed a Regional Waste Management Coordinator to project manage the development and implementation of the Strategy. The Coordinator’s role, will also include sourcing additional funding through the Waste Less, Recycle More programs for regional action on waste avoidance and resource recovery.

 

In developing the Strategy, NSROC has worked closely with the Waste Advisory Group, and the NSROC Executive Director has facilitated reporting to and endorsement by the General Managers Advisory Committee for key steps in this process.

 

In March 2014, SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd was engaged to prepare the Draft Strategy. Given the limited timeframe available and the fact that all councils had undertaken extensive community consultation in preparing their Community Strategic Plans, it was decided to rely on council staff to provide input on behalf of their communities. The consultant interviewed staff at each of the councils and facilitated three workshops to ensure that both local and regional issues were considered and that key staff were able to contribute to developing the Strategy.

 

Waste management is influenced by a complex web of legislative, policy, market, demographic and behavioural factors. In developing the Strategy, these factors were condensed into the following key drivers:-

 

 

The basis of regional waste management planning and the current services provided by the seven councils and their experiences in developing and implementing policies to minimise waste and increase reuse and recycling, were integral to the development of the Strategy.

 

It should be highlighted that more than 50% of all household waste produced in the NSROC region is recycled from waste separated by residents at the kerbside.  An additional 5% of waste is recovered for recycling at an alternative waste treatment (AWT) facility, which means that approximately 56% of waste generated within the NSROC region is currently diverted from landfill.  This leaves 44% of total household waste collected is being disposed of at a landfill facility. A diversion rate that has been relatively stable for the last 4 years. While this is better than both the NSW and Sydney Metropolitan area average, it is still well below the State target for 2021 of 70% recycling of municipal solid waste.

 

The challenge for the Northern Sydney region is the lack of available capacity of waste infrastructure to increase reuse and recovery rates. Increasing capacity requires both State and Local Government to work together to create incentives for industry to invest in new facilities and technology to recover high rates of waste resources.

 

In identifying the overarching direction for the Strategy, council waste staff agreed on the following vision and objectives, which were endorsed by the General Managers Advisory Committee.

 

VISION: A community actively engaged in waste reduction, recycling and resource recovery, to protect the environment and enhance community well-being.

 

Concept

Regional Objective

Service Quality

To continuously improve waste management services for the community.

Responsibility

To better integrate waste management into council policies, plans and processes.

To contribute to an improved policy framework with appropriate allocation of roles and responsibilities consistent with statutory powers.

Amenity & Public Health

To improve public amenity and maintain public health and safety through effective waste management.

Community Engagement

To increase the regional community’s understanding of and participation in waste reduction, recycling and resource recovery.

Innovation & Sustainability

To increase access to improved waste management services and facilities for the region.

Value for Money

To increase the cost effectiveness of waste management services.

 

Once the direction was identified, five regional targets were proposed. These targets will contribute towards State objectives while at the same time recognise the particular circumstances and challenges of the region.  The targets and the basis for them are as follows:

 

1.         70% landfill diversion by 2021-22 (based on regional 2010-11 data)

 

 

2.         1% per capita reduction in waste generation by 2021-22 (based on regional 2013‑14 data)

 

o    changes in individual behaviour in respect of waste management ;

o    economic conditions (e.g. reduction in consumer spending will reduce waste generation); and

o    changes in technology and manufacturing (e.g. changes to packaging and increased use of electronic equipment can change the overall composition and quantity of waste generated).

·          Based on the future waste growth forecasts the waste generation per person in 2021-22 will be 509 kilograms.

·       To achieve the 1% reduction in waste generation per person would require a reduction of 5.09 kilograms per year or 100 grams per week per person.

 

3.      Access to waste drop-off centre for all NSROC LGA residents on the basis of 1 per 50,000 households by 2021-22 or within 11 km1 of home

 

·      Annual Household Chemical Clean-out events are becoming overly subscribed.

·      Collection volumes for increasing by 10% per year.

·      Approximately 85% of the waste collected is low toxicity, with over 50% being paint

 

4.      20% reduction in reported illegal dumping incidents  by 2021-22 (based on regional 2012‑13 data)

 

·      Baseline data for regional illegal dumping incidents is not readily available. At a Strategy workshop one of the councils reported a reduction in illegal dumping incidents of more than 20% in one year following a targeted illegal dumping campaign.

5.      Increased promotion of active community participation in litter control through targeted programs

 

·      Baseline data for litter is not available at the regional level. NSROC councils manage litter collection and collaborate on litter management issues which can be built upon under the Strategy.

Achievement of the targets will be heavily influenced by external economic and social impacts such as the commercial sector’s response to increased service demand and success in influencing behaviour of local residents and businesses.  In addition, any changes to legislation and State waste management policies and objectives will have an impact on local council waste management services and policies.  Accordingly the implementation plan for the Strategy allows for flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances and opportunities through the Annual Action Plan revision process.

 

Based on the targets, council identified a list of possible projects/programs and agreed on the assessment criteria used to rank them. These were:-

 

 

After assessing the projects/programs against the criteria, the five highest ranked options became the five key Focus Areas in the Strategy:-

 

 

Each of these Focus Areas includes a priority project which forms the basis of the Strategy and the Action Plan. These are shown at pages 28-32 of the Directions document (AT-1). The Action Plan is reviewed and updated each year until 2017 when the funding initiative ends. Following endorsement by the General Managers Advisory Committee, the 2014-15 Action Plan was submitted to the EPA as part of the draft Strategy.

 

Council Position

 

Council staff have contributed towards the development of the Regional Waste Strategy and the priority of projects under the five focus areas. The information in the Regional Profile has been checked for accuracy and the Strategy reflects the discussion and input from the member councils. The draft Strategy is consistent with Council’s objectives for waste management and with the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy of the NSW Government, a document established under legislation.

 

Discussion

 

The suite of documents which make up the Strategy consists of:-

·    the Directions report setting out the regional vision for sustainable waste management and the objectives, targets and projects which will help achieve the vision (AT-1);

·    the Regional Profile report sets out regional waste data, the policy context and the current services offered by councils (AT-2);

·    the Project Options Assessment report explains the process used to appraise and prioritise projects (AT-3); and

·    the Action Plan lists the actions and timetable necessary to implement the priority projects (AT-4).

 

The limited time available to prepare the Strategy has meant that it is a high level strategy with a focus for implementation coming under the Annual Action Plans. Annual reviews of that Plan by NSROC in conjunction with the Councils will ensure the Strategy remains relevant and reflects any changes in regional priorities.

 

The positioning of the Regional Waste Strategy within the planning framework for Councils is intended to be that it will both influence and be influenced by their waste management plans, as they evolve over the life of the Strategy.

 

Not all the actions proposed in the Strategy will be high priorities in each LGA, but the Strategy creates a valuable opportunity for the seven NSROC Councils to work collaboratively for the mutual benefit of their communities in waste management. Greater regional collaboration and shared services is one of the acknowledged future pathways under the NSW local government reform agenda.

 

The Final Report of the Independent Panel on Local Government Reform Revitalising Local Government, recommends that increasing the scale of all or some Council operations and policy roles is one of the pathways for increased efficiencies in council operations. Joint action and shared projects in waste management will demonstrate the capacity of the seven northern Sydney councils to work co-operatively to improve economic and environmental outcomes in a fundamental area of council operations.

 

Financial Implications

The funding model for the Regional Waste Strategy has three components:

 

·    Funds granted to NSROC to help implement the Strategy. NSROC will receive $160,000 per annum for the next three years, which will generally be used to establish business cases for regional projects.

·    Council contributions -where Councils participate in a regional project, they will contribute a share of its cost. These funds may be sourced from EPA allocations.

·    EPA special purpose program funds. In most cases, regional projects will seek additional funding through the Waste Less Recycle More initiative.

Adopting the Strategy should improve Council’s own chances of obtaining individual Council project funding where projects are consistent with the Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy.

 

Conclusion

 

Council has contributed towards the development of the Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy and the Strategy’s objectives support Council’s waste management plan. Adoption of the Strategy is recommended to help create a more consistent approach to waste management across the region and obtain the benefits of cooperation, where appropriate. As waste management has high community recognition amongst Council services, it is recommended that the Strategy is incorporated into the next update of Council’s Community Strategic plan.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorse the Northern Sydney Regional Waste Strategy 2014-2021 as an element of its strategic planning framework.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

NSROC Directions Report - June 2014

34 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑2 View

NSROC Regional Profile - 27 August 2014

41 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑3 View

NSROC Project Options Assessment - June 2014

23 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑4 View

NSROC Action Plan - 01 July 2014

7 Pages

Circulated Separately

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 September 2014

Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting Held on 19 August 2014

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting Held on 19 August 2014    

Record No:     SU1326 - 51779/14

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):       Sashika Young 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday, 19 August 2014.  The Agenda and Minutes are included as AT-1 and AT-2.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the recommendations of the Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday, 19 August 2014.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

AGENDA - Traffic Committee - 19 August 2014 (with attachments)

69 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

MINUTES - Traffic Committee - August 2014

13 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 September 2014

Sustainability Lane 2014

 

 

Subject:          Sustainability Lane 2014    

Record No:     SU5362 - 45834/14

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Michael Mason 

 

 

Introduction

 

Sustainability Lane is part of the annual Rotary Lane Cove Village Fair, that showcases the many and varied sustainability programs that are funded by Council’s Sustainability Levy, with the theme of this year’s event focusing on the new green waste service.

 

Sustainability Lane also incorporates local community groups which are assisting Lane Cove become a sustainable community and enable businesses to showcase sustainable products and services which contribute to a more sustainable Lane Cove.

 

At last year’s event an issue arose in relation to the gathering of petitions in Sustainability Lane which was not in keeping with the general function of the event to educate, raise awareness and celebration.

 

It is recommended Council formalise the role of Sustainability Lane to allow the better management of stall holders.

 

Background

 

For Sustainability Lane 2014, new terms/conditions were inserted into to the Application Form which was distributed to stallholders/community groups in July, which prohibited petitions and political material being promoted by stallholders. Six community groups have raised objection to the new terms and conditions.

 

Discussion

 

Council maintains a non political policy for community groups which directly utilise council facilities free of cost, including use of the library and community photocopier.

 

The library policy ensures that political announcements for Federal, State and Local Government matters and petitions are not to be displayed on Library notice boards. The use of the community photocopier at Council is also restricted to approved non-profit community groups for printing of their official publications of a non-political nature.

 

These policies have been put in place to ensure that the general public can easily differentiate whether Council is sponsoring an activity or the actions are solely of the community. Council cannot be seen as promoting particular political agendas, outside of formal processes.

 

After discussion with the Community Groups concerned, a compromise is proposed which preserves Council’s neutrality.

 

Community Groups will be allowed to run petitions provided they:-

 

1.   Comply with Council’s Guide to petitions or the relevant Parliament’s guidelines, depending in on to whom the pedestrian is addressed. In this regard petitions will need to be submitted to Council for checking, 14 days prior to the event.

 

2.   The wording must comply with the key principles under Council’s Code of Conduct for Community Committee Members on Council.

 

3.   Names for petitions are to be collected within the individual stall of the group sponsoring the petition, with the stall clearly named and branded as the individual group.

 

The limitations in relation to political material shall remain, but further clarity of the term is appropriate. Currently Council’s Code of Conduct prohibits council property or facilities being used for the purpose of assisting in election campaigns (unless such property or facilities are available for use and proper payment is made where appropriate). Therefore political, in the context of Sustainability Lane, refers to the prohibition of any material relating to electioneering, for example political party logo, brochures etc. All materials must be issue based not “party” aligned.

 

The above has been incorporated into the Sustainability Lane Stallholder Information and Application Kit, which is included as AT-1.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed amendments to the Sustainability Lane Stallholder Information and Application Kit will ensure that Sustainability Lane continues to showcase Sustainability and contribute to a sustainable Lane Cove. 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.    Receive and note the report.

 

2.    Endorse the Sustainability Lane Stallholder Information and Application Kit included as AT-1.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Sustainability Lane - Stallholder Information Application Kit

7 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 September 2014

Annual Financial Statements for 2013/2014 - Referral for Audit

 

 

Subject:          Annual Financial Statements for 2013/2014 - Referral for Audit    

Record No:     SU740 - 49323/14

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):       Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

Council's Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2014 are presented for referral to external Audit.  A statement is required in respect of the accounts from Council and Management in relation to the accuracy of the accounts.  It is recommended that Council sign the statement and refer the accounts for Audit.


Discussion

Council's Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2014 have been prepared and are ready to proceed for external Audit. The general purpose financial statements, special purpose financial statements and special schedules are required to be audited by 31 October 2014 following the financial year end.  In accordance with Section 413(2)(c) of the Local Government Act, Council is required to include with the Annual Financial Statements a "Statement by Councillors and Management" signed under resolution of Council, by the Mayor, one other Councillor, the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer, which will allow Council's external Auditor to complete the Audit.  A similar "Statement by Councillors and Management" is also required for the Special Purpose Financial Statements.

Following the Audit, the Annual Financial Reports will then be presented to Council in November, with the Auditors Report. In order for Council's Annual Financial Statements for 2013/2014 to go forward for Audit the following resolution of Council is now required and the Statements to be signed by Councillors and Management are attached.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.    In respect to Council's General Purpose Financial Reports the following statement be provided for signature by the Mayor, one other Councillor, the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer:-

GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2014

Statement by Councillors and Management made pursuant to section 413 (2)(C) of the Local Government Act 1993 (as amended).

The attached General Purpose Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2014, have been drawn up in accordance with the:-

·     Local Government Act 1993 (as amended) and the Regulations made thereunder;

·     Australian Accounting Standards and professional pronouncements; and

·     Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting.  

 

To the best of our knowledge and belief, this Report:-

·     presents fairly the Council's operating result and financial position for the year; and

·     accords with Council’s accounting and other records.

We are not aware of matter that would render this Report false or misleading in any way.

The General Purpose Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2014 are shown at AT-1.

2.    In respect to Council's Special Purpose Financial Reports, the following statement be provided for signature by the Mayor, one other Councillor, the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer:-

SPECIAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS  FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2014

Statement by Councillors and Management made pursuant to the Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting.

The attached Special Purpose Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2014, have been drawn up in accordance with:-

·     NSW Government Policy Statement "Application of National Competition Policy to      Local Government";

·     Division of Local Government guidelines "Pricing & Costing for Council Businesses: Guide to Competitive Neutrality"; and

·     The Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting.

To the best of our knowledge and belief, these Reports:-

·     present fairly the Council's operating result and financial position for each of Council’s declared Business Activities for the year; and

·     accord with Council’s Accounting and other records.

We are not aware of any matter that is false or misleading in any way.

3.    Council's Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2014 be referred for audit by Council’s external Auditors.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

General Purpose Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2014

68 Pages

Available Electronically

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 September 2014

Tender for Miscellaneous Trade and General Services - Property Works

 

 

Subject:          Tender for Miscellaneous Trade and General Services - Property Works    

Record No:     SU5402 - 49754/14

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):       Kirsty Fleming 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

As part of Council’s Preferred Supplier Agreement process, Council called for tenders in accordance with the Tender and Quotation Procedure for the provision of a range of miscellaneous trade and general services for works categories including Property Works.  The successful tenders will be included on Council’s Preferred Supplier Panel for a term of up to 3 years.      

 

This report provides details on the tender process conducted and lists those service providers recommended for appointment to the panel to carry out the specified trade and general services in accordance with the technical specifications developed for the tender.

 

Background

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 18 August 2014, Council considered Tenders submitted for the Civil and Infrastructure Works, Open Space Services and Traffic Services categories and resolved to accept a number of those tenders and appoint those suppliers to Council’s Preferred Supplier Panel for a contract term of two (2) years, plus one option to extend for a further duration of one (1) year, subject to performance.

 

The Property Works category is the final service category to be considered by Council as part of the Preferred Supplier appointment process. 

 

Discussion

 

Tenders for the following trade and general services were invited by open tender:-

 

 

·   Architectural and Plan Drafting Services

 

·   Bricklaying

 

·   Building

 

·   Carpentry / Joinery

 

·   Electrical

 

·   Fencing and Hand/Guard Rail

 

·   Floor and Wall Tiling

 

·   Painting

 

·   Plumbing

 

·   Roof Contracting

           

Council advertised the tender in the Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday, 10th June 2014 as well as through Tenderlink and on Council’s website.  Tenders closed at 2:00pm on Tuesday, 8th July 2014. 

Council received 25 submissions.  The tender specification prepared for these service categories outlined that the tender submissions would be assessed based on the following criteria:-

 


Mandatory Criteria

·    Completion of price schedules in the format requested;

·    Completion of all returnable schedules;

·    Submission of the tender by the specified closing date and time;

·    Trade Certificates and Licences - All Suppliers and Subcontractors must have all current certificates and licences associated with the category of work to be completed;

·    Insurances - All Suppliers and Subcontractors must hold and keep current all relevant Insurances;

·    Accreditation with BNG Contracting Services Pty Ltd – All Suppliers must agree to registration and accreditation with Council’s risk assessor if successful;

·    Provision of references; and

·    Acknowledgement of commitment to act in accordance with Council’s Code of Conduct and Statement of Business Ethics.

 

Weighted Criteria

(a)    Pricing (40%)

·   Best value to Council; and

·   Assessment involved the identification of all relevant costs, including individual analysis of costing contained in each Tender submission, and cost comparisons between all competing submissions, with initial (once only) and ongoing costs being differentiated and evaluated where applicable.

(b)    Capacity & Capability (20%)

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

·   Structure of the Organisation;

·   Resources available to provide the services in a timely manner to Council;

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

·   Contingency plans in place and how they will be activated to ensure uninterrupted supply; and

·   Capability of the Tenderer to work within relevant policy frameworks and applicable legislation including WH&S regulations.

(c)    Experience (20%) 

·   Experience of the Tenderer and its personnel, including management and supervision;

·   The experience of any sub-contractors to be used;

·   Relevant industry experience;

·   Demonstrated experience in the provision of goods and services to the local government sector; and

·   Positive reference checks

(d)    Service Delivery (15%)

·   Key competitive areas and initiatives;

·   Value adding offers; and

Proposed methods of service delivery including continuous improvement and Quality Assurance systems and procedures.

(e)     Environment and Sustainability (5%)

Refers to the manner in which environmental issues are to be appropriately addressed, including commitment to due diligence and the principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD) in regard to environmental legislation and documentation outlining past performance in regard to environment protection and enhancement initiatives. This was assessed based on the:-

·   Response to Council’s Environmental Questionnaire; and

·   Details of environmental policies and procedures provided.

 

All tenders have been scrutinised and assessed by the tender evaluation panel consisting of the following Council staff:-

·    Manager – Governance;

·    Manager – Assets; and

·    Acting Manager – Facilities.

 

The Tender Assessment Panel utilised a scoring method in the assessment of the tenders.  Based on the quality of the offer, a numerical score out of 10 was allocated for each of the weighted assessment criteria.  Pre-determined weightings for each of the assessment criteria were then applied to the scores and the submissions were ranked to reveal those considered to best meet the requirements of the tender documentation in providing best value to Council.

 

Tenders were scored individually by each member of the Tender Assessment Panel and then averaged to provide the final score / ranking.  The tables below summarise the results of the tender assessment with the preferred supplier/s in bold.

 

Architectural and Plan Drafting Services

Company

 

Smith & Tzannes Pty Ltd

Equally  Preferred

Dillon and Savage Architects  

Equally  Preferred

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

Equally  Preferred

Group GSA Pty Ltd

 

Vim Design Pty Ltd     

 

Caldis Cook Group Architects  (CCG Architects)

 

 

Bricklaying

Company

 

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

Equally  Preferred

CMS Construction Maintenance Services Pty Ltd 

Equally  Preferred

J&CG Constructions Pty Ltd     

Equally  Preferred

Statewide Facility Maintenance Services Pty Ltd

 

Sudiro Constructions Pty. Ltd.

 

 

Building

Company

 

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

Equally  Preferred

Kevcour Building & Property

Equally  Preferred

Avant Constructions Pty Ltd

Equally  Preferred

J&CG Constructions Pty Ltd     

Equally  Preferred

CMS Construction Maintenance Services Pty Ltd 

 

Sudiro Constructions Pty. Ltd.

 

Statewide Facility Maintenance Services Pty Ltd

 

 

Carpentry / Joinery

Company

 

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

Equally  Preferred

Avant Constructions Pty Ltd

Equally  Preferred

Douglas Hand Carpenter

Equally  Preferred

CMS Construction Maintenance Services Pty Ltd 

 

J&CG Constructions Pty Ltd     

 

Sudiro Constructions Pty. Ltd.

 

Statewide Facility Maintenance Services Pty Ltd

 

 

Electrical

Company

 

Lane Cove Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd

Equally  Preferred

Randall Electrics & Communications Pty Ltd   

Equally  Preferred

TwoFortyVolt Electrical Contracting Group

Equally  Preferred

CMS Construction Maintenance Services Pty Ltd 

 

J&CG Constructions Pty Ltd     

 

Sudiro Constructions Pty. Ltd.

 

Statewide Facility Maintenance Services Pty Ltd

 

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

 

 

Fencing and Hand/Guard Rail

Company

 

Amrod Pty Ltd T/A Summit Fencing

Equally  Preferred

J&CG Constructions Pty Ltd     

Equally  Preferred

Northern Fencing Specialists Pty Ltd 

Equally  Preferred

Playsafe Fencing Pty Ltd 

Equally  Preferred

Avant Constructions Pty Ltd

Equally  Preferred

CMS Construction Maintenance Services Pty Ltd 

 

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

 

Kevcour Building & Property

 

 

Floor and Wall Tiling

Company

 

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

Equally  Preferred

J&CG Constructions Pty Ltd     

Equally  Preferred

Statewide Facility Maintenance Services Pty Ltd

Equally  Preferred

CMS Construction Maintenance Services Pty Ltd 

 

Sudiro Constructions Pty. Ltd.

 

 

Painting

Company

 

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

Equally  Preferred

Prime Facility & Asset Management Pty Ltd

Equally  Preferred

Programmed Group (Corporate) 

Equally  Preferred

CMS Construction Maintenance Services Pty Ltd 

 

J&CG Constructions Pty Ltd     

 

Sudiro Constructions Pty. Ltd.

 

Statewide Facility Maintenance Services Pty Ltd

 

 

 


Plumbing

Company

 

Answer Plumbing Services   

Equally  Preferred

CMS 24/7 Plumbing Services P/L 

Equally  Preferred

Peter Beard Plumbing

Equally  Preferred

Roseville Plumbing

Equally  Preferred

J&CG Constructions Pty Ltd     

 

Sudiro Constructions Pty. Ltd.

 

Statewide Facility Maintenance Services Pty Ltd

 

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

 

 

Roof Contracting

Company

 

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

Equally  Preferred

Kevcour Building & Property

Equally  Preferred

CMS Construction Maintenance Services Pty Ltd 

Equally  Preferred

J&CG Constructions Pty Ltd     

Equally  Preferred

Sudiro Constructions Pty. Ltd.

 

Statewide Facility Maintenance Services Pty Ltd

 

 

Conclusion

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

It will be recommended that Council accept the following tenders and authorise appointment of those suppliers to Council’s Preferred Supplier Panel for a contract term of two (2) years, plus one option to extend for a further duration of one (1) year, subject to performance:- 

Property Works

Service

Recommended Service Providers

Architectural and Plan Drafting Services

Smith & Tzannes Pty Ltd

Dillon and Savage Architects  

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

Bricklaying

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

CMS Construction Maintenance Services Pty Ltd 

J&CG Constructions Pty Ltd     

Building

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

Kevcour Building & Property

Avant Constructions Pty Ltd

J&CG Constructions Pty Ltd     

Carpentry / Joinery

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

Avant Constructions Pty Ltd

Douglas Hand Carpenter

Electrical

Lane Cove Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd

Randall Electrics & Communications Pty Ltd   

TwoFortyVolt Electrical Contracting Group

Fencing and Hand/Guard Rail

Amrod Pty Ltd T/A Summit Fencing

J&CG Constructions Pty Ltd     

Northern Fencing Specialists Pty Ltd 

Playsafe Fencing Pty Ltd 

Avant Constructions Pty Ltd

Floor and Wall Tiling

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

J&CG Constructions Pty Ltd     

Statewide Facility Maintenance Services Pty Ltd

Painting

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

Prime Facility & Asset Management Pty Ltd

Programmed Group (Corporate) 

Plumbing

Answer Plumbing Services   

CMS 24/7 Plumbing Services P/L 

Peter Beard Plumbing

Roseville Plumbing

Roof Contracting

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

Kevcour Building & Property

CMS Construction Maintenance Services Pty Ltd 

J&CG Constructions Pty Ltd      

 

^   To be appointed as alternates to the panel but will only be required to register with BNG Conserve in the event that the primary suppliers are unable to complete work required by Council

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Accept the following tenders and authorise appointment of those suppliers to Council’s Preferred Supplier Panel for a contract term of two (2) years, plus one option to extend for a further duration of one (1) year, subject to performance:-

Property Works

Service

Recommended Service Providers

Architectural & Plan Drafting Services

Smith & Tzannes Pty Ltd

Dillon and Savage Architects  

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

Bricklaying

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

CMS Construction Maintenance Services Pty Ltd 

J&CG Constructions Pty Ltd     

Building

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

Kevcour Building & Property

Avant Constructions Pty Ltd

J&CG Constructions Pty Ltd     

Carpentry / Joinery

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

Avant Constructions Pty Ltd

Douglas Hand Carpenter

Electrical

Lane Cove Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd

Randall Electrics & Communications Pty Ltd   

TwoFortyVolt Electrical Contracting Group

 

 

 

Property Works

Service

Recommended Service Providers

Fencing & Hand / Guard Rail

Amrod Pty Ltd T/A Summit Fencing

J&CG Constructions Pty Ltd     

Northern Fencing Specialists Pty Ltd 

Playsafe Fencing Pty Ltd 

Avant Constructions Pty Ltd

Floor & Wall Tiling

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

J&CG Constructions Pty Ltd     

Statewide Facility Maintenance Services Pty Ltd

Painting

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

Prime Facility & Asset Management Pty Ltd

Programmed Group (Corporate) 

Plumbing

Answer Plumbing Services   

CMS 24/7 Plumbing Services P/L 

Peter Beard Plumbing

Roseville Plumbing

Roof Contracting

TJS Services Group Pty Limited 

Kevcour Building & Property

CMS Construction Maintenance Services Pty Ltd 

J&CG Constructions Pty Ltd     

2.    Delegate to the General Manager authority to finalise and execute the contracts and any other documentation required to give effect to this resolution.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 September 2014

Better Business Partnership Project - Annual Report

 

 

Subject:          Better Business Partnership Project - Annual Report    

Record No:     SU4806 - 51020/14

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       David Wilson 

 

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this report is to provide an update of the performance of the Better Business Partnership (BBP) Program.

 

The BBP is a joint initiative of Willoughby, Ku-ring-gai, North Sydney and Lane Cove councils. The BBP works with businesses to save money through reduced energy, waste and water usage, to improve their environmental performance and provide promotion and recognition of their actions.

In the past year the BBP has achieved the following key outcomes:-

 

·    550 businesses recruited to BBP

·    117 energy efficiency small business audits

·    $235,500 potential energy savings identified for small business

·    $88,000 in energy rebates

·    Secured $246,000 grant from the NSW Government for the Waste Saver (Bin Trim) program.

·    Delivered 6 business forums with guest speakers on a range of specialised business topics including, e-marketing, creating a visual impact for your shop front.

·    Annual Awards Event at Luna Park – attended by over 200 business people.

 

Discussion.

 

This year’s BBP Progress Report (AT-1) provides an extensive detail regarding the work of the BBP during 2013/14.  In reviewing the Report, it is useful to visit the BBP’s website, which provides a greater insight into the amount of work that has gone into promoting local businesses in the community (http://www.betterbusinesspartnership.com.au). The BBP website compliments this report and provides an array of case studies and business resources, some of which are in video format, which allow for a greater level of interaction with businesses that have been showcased.

 

The Progress Report highlights the 9 key performance indicators for the BBP Program:-

 

1.   Appraisal system for businesses - number of appraisals completed

2.   Develop streamlined solutions – waste , energy,CO2 emissions, water

3.   Reward and recognise businesses achieving sustainable results

4.   Education of consumers

5.   Communicate and build social capital

6.   Increase the level of understanding of the small business community

7.   Establish strategic partnerships with Government agencies

8.   Encourage collaboration between businesses and building owners to work together

9.   Strive towards the sustainability of the BBP program  - sourcing of grant funding

 

Results for Lane Cove

 

The results shown in the Progress Report highlight that there are currently 82 Lane Cove registered businesses that are involved with the program and since the 1 July 2014, a further 58 have joined the program from the Lane Cove West area.

 

The bulk of the work undertaken by the BBP has been in the form of onsite audits, review and facilitation that assist small business that otherwise would not have the resources to undertake. An audit of a small business may take up to 4 hours per business with additional post audit time being spent on researching or providing solutions to site specific enquiries including advice on retro fitting or upgrading of equipment and the pay back periods for investing in these initiatives, that can be generated by reducing energy, waste and water expenditure.

 

A highlight of the past year for the BBP Project has been the businesses forums that have been well attended with 401 businesses attending these events from across the region. The 2014/15 event series that offers businesses networking and learning opportunities for the next 12 months is included in the BBP’s 2014/15 Operational Plan (AT-2).

 

Four local businesses were Finalists in the 2013 Better Business Awards, – One Village Shop (AT-3), Renegade Cycles (AT-4), Pottery Green Bakers (AT-5), and Pablo & Rusty’s. The case studies on each of these businesses can be read in these attachments, which highlight that sustainability in business is not just about a profit margin, but is also what a business can give back to the community through developing social and community capital.

 

Conclusion

 

The BBP’s Report highlights the key achievements and progress to date and can be read in conjunction with the on-line resources that have been developed for businesses to use and apply and learn from other similar businesses.

 

The ‘After 5’ business forums conducted by the BBP have been well received, with some very motivated and experienced business leaders, that have presented at these events, that have generated both excitement and encouragement for local small businesses as to how they can maximize their potential from embracing e-commerce and e-marketing, as well as more traditional sustainability initiatives such as waste avoidance, energy savings and product stewardship.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the report.

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

2014-15 Annual Progress Report - Final

45 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑2 View

Operational Plan - Phase  2 Year 3 Draft to SC 280714

5 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑3 View

BBP-CaseStudy-OneVillage_FINAL

2 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑4 View

BBP-CaseStudy-Renegade-Cycles-2013-Final(1)

2 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑5 View

BBP-CaseStudy-PotteryGreen_Final

2 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 September 2014

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot     

Record No:     SU220 - 51769/14

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

58 Pages