m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

15 June 2015

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 June 2015 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 June 2015

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 MAY 2015

 

 

Reports Of Committees

 

2.       Osborne Park and Gore Hill Parking & Traffic Study

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

3.       Proposal to Close Rothwell Crescent

 

4.       Fit for the Future - Joint Response from the Councils of Hunters Hill, Lane Cove and City of Ryde

 

5.       Adoption of the Draft Strategy for an Age-Friendly Lane Cove: 2014-2017

 

6.       Update on Plan for Growing Sydney - NSW Metro Strategy

 

7.       Greater Sydney Commission Representation

 

8.       Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting - May 2015

 

9.       Assignment of Lane Cove Market Square Leases

 

10.     Request for Reimbursment of Travel Expenses - Town Crier

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

11.     Council Snapshot  

 

 

 

 

           


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 June 2015

Osborne Park and Gore Hill Parking & Traffic Study

 

 

Subject:          Osborne Park and Gore Hill Parking & Traffic Study    

Record No:    SU5586 - 31318/15

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Abdulla Uddin 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report summarises the community consultation outcome of Osborne Park and Gore Hill parking and traffic study.

 

The report recommends a combination of three (3) hour residential parking scheme on weekdays and unrestricted parking in an area where parking occupancy is currently over 80%, as well as some parking restrictions to improve the safety and accessibility in Local Roads.

 

Background

 

In 2014 Lane Cove Council received representations from the local residents of Osborne Park and Gore Hill in regards to parking difficulty and road safety issues in the area (Refer to Figure 1). In late 2014, Council commissioned Luxmoore Parking and Safety consultant to undertake a study in the area. The study was completed in late January 2015 and the matter was reported to Council on 16 March 2016 where it was resolved that:-

1.   For the purposes of public exhibition, Council adopt the following recommendations of Luxmoore Parking and Safety as per the final report of the ‘Osborne Park/Gore Hill Parking Study’ of 28 January 2015:-

a)   Install statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ signs on the corners of streets, particularly where vehicles are parking close to the corners, to ensure that the turning path remains clear for buses and waste collection services;

b)   Install a 30m Bus Zone Monday to Saturday until half an hour prior to the first and half an hour after the last bus, at the bus stops along Ronald Avenue to allow a 12.5m bus the length as necessary to stop alongside the kerb without blocking the flow of traffic;

c)   Install a ‘No U-Turn’ sign in Greenwich Road at the intersection of Bellevue Avenue to prevent vehicles undertaking u-turns; and

d)   Regularly prune vegetation in the study area, particularly along the bus route, to a height which allows a heavy vehicle to pass through the street and carry out its function in a safe manner, specifically at the following locations:-

·    Wisdom Road;

·    Kingslangley Road;

·    Osborne Road;

·    Bellevue Avenue;

·    Kimberley Avenue;

·    Cobden Avenue;

·    Angus Avenue;

·    Allison Avenue;

·    Ronald Avenue; and

·    Innes Road.

2.   As part of the public exhibition detailed in 1, Council gauge the community’s acceptance to the adoption of an ongoing policy for parking management in areas of high demand, where road conditions permit, Option 3 – “Time Restricted Parking in High Occupancy Parking Streets.

 

Consultation was subsequently undertaken in line with the Consultation strategy outlined in the report during April and May 2015.

 

This report outlines the outcome of community consultation and makes specification recommendations for Council’s adoption.

 

Figure 1: Study Area

 

Discussion

 

In total approximately 1,000 letters were delivered to local residents, and Council received 288 responses (29% response rate). This report responds to the submissions in two parts, Parking and Traffic.

 

Parking

Council proposed three hour parking in one side and unrestricted parking in streets where peak parking occupancy were found to be over 70-80%. The majority of the affected residents objected to the three hour and unrestricted parking proposal. The respondents’ comments are summarised below:-

·    The proposal will result in potential imbalance in parking in residential streets where unrestricted parking will be fully occupied by the employees in early morning and three hour parking not being utilised. As such, the residents without any off street parking will have to move their vehicles every three hours as no Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) is proposed;

·    Potential frequent driveway encroachment in the unrestricted side of the street;

·    Boats and trailers will continue to park in the unrestricted side for extended period;

·    Residents’ visitors will have to move their vehicles every three hours if they park in the three hour parking zone; and

·    Traffic safety issues where parking restrictions will be required to facilitate buses, emergency vehicles, as well as residents’ vehicles.

 

Striking a balance between the parking needs of local residents and commuters is difficult. On one hand the provision of all day parking out the front of a residence is sought by locals, however, this is the type of parking that is attractive to commuters. Ultimately, as outlined in the previous report, it is not possible to reserve all day spaces exclusively for residents, particularly as RMS Guidelines limit the distribution of permits under Resident Parking Schemes (RPS) where residents have off street parking. Whilst there will be exceptions, the normal pattern on car use is that on street car spaces are used by residents at night and on weekends and commuters during the day on weekdays. If a resident leaves their vehicle at home through the week they can occupy an unrestricted space, so effectively 50% of spaces would be available for all day resident parking. The introduction of 3 hour time limited parking on weekdays will have the affect of ‘reserving’ spaces for residents requiring short term parking, so at least they have access to a car parking space close to their residence during peak commuter parking times. Having regard to the consultation comments, it is recommended the three (3) hour parking also include a Residential Parking Scheme (8am-6pm, Mon-Fri), in the area shown in Figure 2. This will provide additional opportunities for unrestricted parking for residents with limited off-street parking spaces. All existing 2P RPS will be replaced by proposed 3 hour RPS so that area wide parking is consistent for better enforcement (e.g. Innes Road).

 

The reason being:-

·    During the parking study it was found that the average parking occupancy was over 80% in the area shown in Figure 2. As these streets are affected by commuter parking, residential parking restrictions are warranted in these streets;

·    The RPS and unrestricted parking proposal will retain the parking equity between residents and visitors in the area;

·    There will be minimum parking spillover effect into the adjacent streets located to the south due to the distance and steep gradient to the Pacific Highway industrial and commercial precinct. Research shows that people’s desirable walking distance is approximately 800m-1km. More than 1km distance, people give up and look for alternate options;

·    The proposed RPS will assist the residents and their visitors parking in close proximity to their residents. Residents and their visitors will be eligible for parking permits in accordance with Council’s RPS policy; and

·    Local residents having boats and trailers will not be unfairly disadvantaged.

 


Figure 2: Proposed Parking Restrictions in Osborne Park and Gore Hill Areas

 

Each individual street will be assessed and RPS and unrestricted parking side will be determined based on following principles:-

 

·    Traffic safety;

·    Location and number of driveways;

·    Road geometry;

·    Bus stops; and

·    Achievement of maximum number of parking spaces.

 

It is acknowledged that there may be driveway encroachment issues in the unrestricted side. Should there be any situation after implementing the parking restriction; Council will arrange line marking of the affected driveways. However, determination of the driveway line marking will be based on traffic engineering assessment and feedback from Council’s Regulation department. Council retains the right not to line mark any driveway should it deem unnecessary. Therefore, Council encourages its residents initially contacting Council’s Regulation department if there is any frequent driveway encroachment issues.

 

Following implementation of the scheme, Council will continue to monitor its effectiveness and will welcome any community feedback on the scheme. The residents’ feedback will be incorporated and should there be a need for amendment or alteration of the proposed scheme, a further report will be prepared in 12 months time.

 

All regulatory signposting will require Local Traffic Committee’s concurrence.


Traffic Matters

The matters related to traffic and road safety are summarised in Table 1.

Table: Traffic Matters Raised and Council’s Responses

Matter

Comments

Rat running via Osborne Rd – First Ave – Phoenix St/ Dorritt St

The recorded daily traffic volumes (weekday average) in Osborne Rd, First Ave and Phoenix St are 3,813, 3,073 and 4,299 respectively which is slightly above the RMS recommended maximum environmental capacity in local residential streets. Although there may be minor level of rat running along these streets, there are over seven existing traffic calming devices in First Ave and Phoenix St to discourage through traffic. As such, further traffic calming device in these streets is not warranted at this stage.

No Stopping signposting in every corner of Cobden Ave with Joseph St and Haldane Cr

The matter will be considered during installation of the proposed RPS.

Speeding along Osborne St and Innes Rd. Require traffic calming devices.

The recorded 85%ile speed in Osborne St and Innes Rd are 42.7km/h and 45.6km/h respectively which is below the posted speed limit of 50km/h. Therefore, traffic calming device is not warranted at this stage.

Majority of the residents park on-street, although they have off-street parking facilities. Consequently, residents’ parked vehicles contribute traffic safety issues in local residential streets.

Council’s RPS parking permit policy will be reviewed in due course.

Further reduction of speed limit in local residential streets.

The speed limit in residential streets in Osborne and Gore Hill areas are restricted to 40-50km/h. Speed limit reduction is under the jurisdiction of RMS. It is unlikely that RMS will reduce the speed limit in the area without any valid reason.

Allow over the kerb parking.

This proposal is not supported due to significant financial cost for replacement of existing kerb by roll kerbs, relocation of street streets, power poles and other utility services. Further, wider streets may encourage speeding along the streets.

Given the narrow width of Innes Road, existing parking restrictions in the street should be retained.

All existing No Stopping and No Parking zones in the study area will be retained. Faded and damaged signs will be replaced by new signs.

Lack of enforcement.

Council will ensure regular enforcement of the RPS zones once it is implemented.

Due to the narrowness of the streets, parking should be considered only one side of the streets.

The proposal is not supported as parking is high demand in the area. Further, removing parking from one side of the street may cause potential speeding and its associated traffic safety issues.

No Parking signposting in each individual driveways.

This proposal is not supported due to ongoing costs and environmental grounds. In accordance with Australian Road Rules, it is illegal to park across the driveways. All driveway encroachment issues should be referred to Council’s Regulatory department.

Waste collection difficulty in Crowther Ave.

Consultation will be undertaken with Council’s waste collection officers and appropriate action will be undertaken before implementing the RPS signage.

More frequent buses to/ from the train stations.

The matter will be further investigated and reported to Council.

Recent accident at Burns Bay Road near Grace Street intersection.

The matter will be further investigated and appropriate action will be undertaken in due course.

Parking on both sides of Osborne Road near Pacific Highway causes safety issues.

The proposal is not supported as removal of parking may cause excessive speeding along the street.

Install more safety barricades on the pavement going downhill from First Ave to Phoenix St.

There are already two speed humps in First Ave and Phoenix St which are approximately 125m apart. Therefore, further traffic calming device is not required.

Widen Kingslangley Rd and Cobden Ave.

This proposal is not supported to due the reasons stated above.

Extension of existing No Parking zone in Joseph St.

This matter will be considered during implementation of the proposed RPS.

Turning difficulty from Fourth to First Ave.

This matter will be considered during implementation of the proposed RPS.

Illegal right turn movement from Kingslangley Rd to St Vincents Road.

The matter will be reported to NSW Police for appropriate action.

Faded linemarking in residential streets.

Council will arrange remark all the faded lines in the study area.

Parking on the verge creating sight distance issues.

Council Regulatory department will be advised to undertake appropriate action.

Install a safety mirror on Ronald Ave, opposite to Panorama Rd.

Convex mirror in public road is not supported due to its distorted image, public liability issues and maintenance costs.

 

Conclusion

 

The report recommends installation of ‘3P; 8am-6pm; Mon-Fri; Permit Holders Excepted’ parking restriction on one side and unrestricted parking on other side in Local Streets in Osborne Park and Gore Hill areas as shown in Figure 2. Other traffic safety improvement measures such as No Stopping signs at intersections, line marking, pruning vegetation etc. are also recommended for implementation.

 

 

 

 


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   The following recommendations contained in the Luxmoore Report be adopted:

 

a)    Install statutory 10m ‘No Stopping’ signs on the corners of streets, particularly where vehicles are parking close to the corners, to ensure that the turning path remains clear for buses and waste collection services;

b)    Install a 30m Bus Zone Monday to Saturday until half an hour prior to the first and half an hour after the last bus, at the bus stops along Ronald Avenue to allow a 12.5m bus the length as necessary to stop alongside the kerb without blocking the flow of traffic;

c)    Install a ‘No U-Turn’ sign in Greenwich Road at the intersection of Bellevue Avenue to prevent vehicles undertaking u-turns; and

d)    Regularly prune vegetation in the study area, particularly along the bus route, to a height which allows a heavy vehicle to pass through the street and carry out its function in a safe manner, specifically at the following locations:-

 

•         Wisdom Road;

•         Kingslangley Road;

•         Osborne Road;

•         Bellevue Avenue;

•         Kimberley Avenue;

•         Cobden Avenue;

•         Angus Avenue;

•         Allison Avenue;

•         Ronald Avenue; and

•         Innes Road.

2.   Subject to Traffic Committee approval, Council install ‘3P; 8am-6pm; Mon-Fri; Permit Holders Excepted’ parking restriction on one side and unrestricted parking on other side in Local Streets in Osborne Park and Gore Hill areas as shown in Figure 2; and

3.   The Traffic issues raised in the consultation and addressed in the report be further investigated and implemented.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Terescenko

Acting Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

          


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 June 2015

Proposal to Close Rothwell Crescent

 

 

Subject:          Proposal to Close Rothwell Crescent    

Record No:    SU1666 - 31887/15

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Abdullah Uddin 

 

 

Executive Summary

                                                              

This report outlines the outcome of the traffic study undertaken in response to the petition for the proposed closure of Rothwell Crescent, Lane Cove. No further action is recommended at this stage and further surveys be undertaken should the development at 27-43 Little Street proceed.

 

Background

 

Council received a petition requesting the closure of Rothwell Crescent at Little Street intersection, Lane Cove. The matter was reported to Council on 15 March 2015 where it was resolved to undertake a traffic study to determine the feasibility of the road closure.

 

Discussion

 

A tube traffic count was undertaken in Rothwell Crescent for seven day period (between 17 and 23 February 2015, non school holiday period). Further, intersection count data have been analysed at Little Street/ Rothwell Crescent & Dorritt Street/ Rothwell intersections as part of the assessment of 27-43 Little Street development. The key findings are as follows:-

·    The bidirectional traffic in Rothwell Crescent was recorded as 192 vehicles/ day which is well below the RMS Environmental goal of 2,000 vehicle/ day in local residential streets;

·    The 85th percentile speed was recorded 32.4km/h which are well below the posted speed limit of 50km/h;

·    There were only 23 vehicular movements at Little Street/ Rothwell Crescent intersection in both the am and pm peak traffic hours respectively, which is not a high level of activity; and

·    There is no RMS recorded crash in Rothwell Crescent between the periods July 2009 – June 2014.

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the above information, closure of Rothwell Crescent cannot be justified at the present stage. However, should the development at 27-43 Little Street proceed (which consists of 94 residential units), there is likely to be an increase in traffic volume and/or speed, and further traffic surveys can be undertaken to determine any appropriate action within 6 months of the building being occupied.


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   The traffic operation in Rothwell Crescent, Lane Cove to remain unchanged;

 

2.   Should the development at 27-43 Little Street proceed, further traffic surveys be undertaken to determine any appropriate action, within 6 months of the building being occupied; and

 

3.   The head petitioner be advised of the Council’s decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wayne Rylands

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 June 2015

Fit for the Future - Joint Response from the Councils of Hunters Hill, Lane Cove and City of Ryde

 

 

Subject:          Fit for the Future - Joint Response from the Councils of Hunters Hill, Lane Cove and City of Ryde    

Record No:    SU5558 - 31797/15

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

In response to the release of the NSW Government’s Fit for the Future Program in October 2014, Council has engaged the community through extensive consultation including workshops and information evenings, surveys, newsletters, emails, letters from the Mayor and use of the website to inform consideration of its response to the Government’s reforms.

As a result, the overwhelming sentiment of the community is to oppose the amalgamation of Council as proposed by the Independent Local Government Review Panel. However, to address the State Governments scale and capacity this report will detail and recommend a superior option for Lane Cove Council being to stand alone and jointly form with the City of Ryde and Hunters Hill Councils as a Joint Regional Authority (JRA).

This report details Council’s response to the Fit for the Future (FFTF) program following the announcement by the Minister for Local Government, the Hon Paul Toole in October 2014.  This report rejects the recommendations of the Independent Local Government Review Panel (ILGRP) in proposing to merge the Councils of Hunter’s Hill, Lane Cove, Mosman, North Sydney, Willoughby and the eastern two thirds of the City of Ryde, based on the evidence and research undertaken that proves that a merger is not the superior option. 

The report details that the superior option for the Councils of the City of Ryde, Hunter’s Hill and Lane Cove is for them to stand alone and to also jointly form a Joint Regional Authority (JRA) that would further address the State Government’s scale and capacity criteria in addition to providing the one point of contact for the State Government in addressing strategic subregional planning matters for the northern Sydney region. 

The process undertaken by the three Councils has been extensive, with discussions with other northern Sydney Councils, including members of NSROC and SHOROC since October 2014.  As a result of these discussions, a Northern Sydney ‘Fit for the Future’ Symposium was held at Willoughby Council on 5 February 2015. 

From this meeting, each Council then considered their response to the Fit for the Future program and as a result, Lane Cove Council resolved at its meeting of 16 February 2015 to work with other Councils in the Northern Sydney Region to respond to the FFTF program including investigating the option of a regional Joint Organisation (JO).

Following this decision and subsequent discussions, both Hunter’s Hill and the City of Ryde Councils agreed to join Lane Cove, in exploring the option of a JO. 

The report details that following extensive evidence, advice and research from the Councils’ expert advisors (Professor Brian Dollery - University of New England, Percy Allan and Associates, SGS Economics and Morrison Low), the findings demonstrate that the superior option for the three Councils is to stand alone and form the JRA.  This would allow each Council to maintain its local identity, local representation and continue delivering those services best delivered at a local level whilst delegating all subregional planning functions to the JRA to address strategic subregional planning matters in the region.  

Whilst the JRA can take on many functions, the core functions that it must be allocated to make this option viable include the following:-

•        Subregional land use and infrastructure planning that includes:-

-           Single approach to subregional plan priorities and policy;

-           Agreed centres hierarchy;

-           Single endorsed set of State/Major local infrastructure priorities; and

-           Subregional Section 94 Plan.

•        Single point of contact for State and Federal Government on subregional matters;

•        Subregional advocacy;

•        Subregional procurement; and

•        Introduce a shared services centre to deliver services that demonstrate benefits through economies of scale.

In support of these functions, the JRA would require the powers to support the above functions which are understood to be part of the proposed changes to the Local Government Act in 2015/2016. 

The reasons why this option is considered superior to the merger option are:-

1.       It addresses the critical functions associated with the strategic subregional planning for the region, where there are clear advantages in planning and delivering on a subregional basis in partnership with the State Government;

2.       Provides one point of contact for the State and Federal Government on subregional matters;

3.       The JRA is a customised option that enhances scale and capacity for each of the three Councils and addresses the critical subregional planning objectives of the State Government;

4.       It avoids the high cost and disruptions of amalgamations that the empirical evidence has demonstrated; and

 

5.       It retains each Council’s local identity, proper representation and continues to deliver those services best delivered at a local level.

 

The findings from the Councils’ expert advisors are supported by the results of the joint community consultation and surveys undertaken, that clearly demonstrate across all three communities, that the community strongly supports each Council either to stand alone or explore the option of the JRA.  Details of the survey results are provided in the report, however the community in every survey has clearly demonstrated their strong opposition to being merged as recommended by the ILGRP.  In Lane Cove’s case, the community has strongly rejected being amalgamated, with more than 75% of community responding to a deliberate poll being supportive of Council standing alone.  Additionally, as detailed in this report, there is strong support from the communities of Lane Cove, Hunter’s Hill and, the City of Ryde for each Council to stand alone and form a JRA, with over 80% support at the time of writing this report.  The Joint Council submission is shown at AT-1.


It is therefore recommended that Council endorse the recommendations as detailed in this report that cover the following areas:-

1.       Note the extensive analysis, research, evidence and community consultation that has been undertaken in exploring all options;

2.       Again reject the proposed merger as recommended by the ILGRP;

3.       Endorse the joint submission for Lane Cove, Hunter’s Hill and the City of Ryde Councils to be lodged in response to the Fit for the Future program, that in essence proposes for each Council to stand alone and form a JRA;

4.       Endorse the option for a pilot of the JRA for a period of twelve months, with the Office of Local Government (OLG) to be invited as an observer on the Board;

5.       Endorse entering into an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Hunter’s Hill and City of Ryde Councils to demonstrate its commitment to becoming a member of the JRA;

6.       Endorse undertaking a future advocacy campaign if necessary, on an equal and shared basis up to an agreed capped amount;

7.       Delegate to the Mayor and General Manager the authority to make a submission and appear and present at the Parliamentary Inquiry into the State Government’s Fit for the Future reform agenda; and

8.       That Council endorse copies of its submission being publicly available in all Council libraries, customer service centre and on Council’s website in addition to forwarding copies to Minister for Local Government, the Chief Executive Officer of the Office of Local Government (OLG), all Local State and Federal members, Unions and any other key stakeholders.

Background

Council at its meeting of 16 February 2015 in considering a Mayoral Minute on the Fit for the Future Forum for Northern Sydney Councils held at Chatswood on 5 February 2015, resolved that:-

1.           Council agree to work with other councils in the Northern Sydney Region to respond to the Fit for the Future Program on the following key issues:-

a.    Producing a Business Case (cost / benefit analysis) of the proposed groupings of councils;

b.    Investigating options for some type of Joint Organisation being formed by Northern Sydney Councils to meet the requirement for greater scale and capacity;

c.    Undertaking a shared community engagement strategy; and

d.    Undertaking a shared communications strategy that is implemented both before and after the March State election that opposes forced amalgamations.

2.           North Sydney, Hunters Hill, Willoughby, Mosman, Ryde and Ku-ring-gai Councils be advised of Council’s decision;

3.           Council write to all sitting State Members of Parliament within the council areas that participated in the forum and the members of the Legislative Council representing the councils and ask if they support forced amalgamations.


Council also resolved at the same meeting to make representations to the Premier in terms of the following:-

1.       That the Mayor writes to the Premier the Hon Mike Baird requesting a meeting to discuss with Council and representatives of other councils in the area who are considering an alternative to the ‘Fit for Future’ package to outline the concept.

2.       The letter specifically note the following:-

a.    All the Lane Cove Councillors including the six (6) endorsed Liberals do not agree or support amalgamations forced or otherwise and the recommendations made by the Panel;

b.    The majority of Councillors from Lane Cove, Hunters Hill, Ryde, North Sydney, Mosman and Ku-ring-gai Councils do not agree or support forced amalgamations and the recommendations made by the panel;

c.    Forced amalgamations have failed to deliver the perceived benefits in Tasmania, South Australia, Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales;

d.    Forced amalgamations have been abandoned in Western Australia;

e.    The cost of forced amalgamations in Queensland exceeded $370 million;

f.     There is no evidence to support the assertion that councils are losing $1 million per day, in fact our research show that the metropolitan councils are making a combined surplus;

g.    Of the 10 largest councils in the Metropolitan area (excluding City of Sydney), seven (7) are running deficits and despite being a small/medium council, Lane Cove Council meets all the criteria;

h.    Professors Percy Allan and Brian Dollery do not support forced amalgamations and in fact do not support the panel’s recommendations; and

i.      There is an alternative to forced amalgamations that will meet the objectives of the State Government, whilst retaining local democracy and services for the community.

 

As a result of Council’s resolutions, the General Manager in conjunction with the other General Managers from the City of Ryde and Hunter’s Hill Councils, have advanced and completed the preparation of the Councils’ Draft Joint Submission in the form of Template 2 – Council Improvement Proposal.

 

On 28 May 2015, a joint briefing of Councillors from Hunter’s Hill, Lane Cove and City of Ryde Councils was held at Hunter’s Hill Council, with Councillors receiving an update and a general overview of the Joint Submission, which also included the outcomes from the recent discussions with IPART. 

 

In the Joint Submission shown as AT-1, Lane Cove proves it has sufficient scale and capacity to deliver our community’s vision and demonstrate that the Council is able to balance competing local and State interests, grow sustainably, engage effectively with its neighbouring Councils and partner with State Government to significantly contribute to the NSW Government’s vision for Sydney.

 


In respect of Council’s performance against FFTF Benchmarks, Lane Cove Council meets all financial benchmarks (except it has no debt) and will continue to strengthen its position over the next 10 years. Council’s outstanding financial position is illustrated by the following table:-

 

Performance against the Fit for the Future benchmarks

Sustainability

 

Measure/ benchmark

2013/2014 Performance

Achieves FFTF Benchmark

Forecast

2016/2017

Performance

Achieves FFTF Benchmark

Operating Performance Ratio (Greater than or equal to break- even average over 3 years)

0.016%

Yes

0.0115%

Yes

Own Source Revenue Ratio (Greater than 60% average over 3 years)

77.0%

Yes

72.44%

Yes

Building and Infrastructure

Asset Renewal

Ratio (Greater than 100%

average over 3 years)

181.3%

Yes

354.92%

Yes

 

 

 

Infrastructure & Service Management

Measure/ benchmark

2013/2014 Performance

Achieves FFTF Benchmark

Forecast

2016/2017

Performance

Achieves FFTF Benchmark?

Infrastructure Backlog Ratio (Less than 2%)

1.79%

Yes

1.62%

Yes

Asset Maintenance Ratio (Greater than 100% average over 3 years)

126.3%

Yes

131.3%

Yes

Debt Service Ratio (Greater than 0 and less than 20% average over 3 years)

0

N/A

0

N/A

 


 

Efficiency

Measure/ benchmark

2014/2015 Performance

Achieves FFTF Benchmark?

2015/16

Forecast

2016/2017

Performance

Achieves FFTF Benchmark?

Real Operating Expenditure per capita (A decrease in Real Operating Expenditure per capita over time)

0.93

Yes

0.88

Yes

 

 

In relation to the investigation of a regional Joint Organisation by Hunter’s Hill, Lane Cove and City of Ryde Councils, the three Councils engaged the following consultants to assist in completing the required business case:-

 

SGS Economics                       -          Coordinating the business case with a particular focus on modelling the benefits of a regional strategic planning approach; (AT-2)

 

Percy Allan and Associates  -              Shared Service Centre Migration Plan; (AT-3)

         

Percy Allan and Associates  -              Advice on shared services and legal framework of a Joint Organisation; (AT-4)

                                                             

 

Professor Brian Dollery          -             Professor from University New England, Armidale. Providing a research paper titled, ‘Compulsion Versus a Collaborative Regional Approach’ – An Empirical Analysis of Forced Amalgamation versus a Regional and Shared Services Approach (AT-5); and

 

Morrison Low                         -             Review the ILGRP’s recommendation for the proposed merger of Hunter’s Hill, Lane Cove, Mosman, North Sydney, Willoughby and eastern two thirds City of Ryde (AT-6).

                                              

 

Since their engagement in March 2015, extensive work has been undertaken by all three councils and their expert advisors.

 

Key Findings from Research: Professor Brian Dollery, Percy Allan and Associates, SGS Economics and Planning and Morrison Low

In brief, the findings from the consultancies indicate the following:-

 

Both Percy Allan and Associates and Brian Dollery in their research, have indicated that a Joint Regional Organisation will be able to achieve:-

1.       The State Government’s key objectives for regional collaboration and planning;

2.       Added value to each Council’s operations;

3.       An environment for shared service delivery and centres of excellence; and

4.       A more cost effective outcome, when compared with mergers.

 

In his research paper titled ‘Compulsion vs Collaborative Regional Approach’, Brian Dollery provided the following evidence and findings:-

 

- The total number of local authorities in Australia has decreased from 1067 to 556 (a 48% reduction) between 1910 and 2012 (Page 28);

-        Relative to other OECD nations, Australia has the fourth largest Councils with an average of 40,118 persons per Council (Page 31);

-        Compulsory merger programs have not only failed as a ‘silver bullet’ for solving systemic financial and other problems in Australian local government but have also not provided a coordinated regional dimension to local service provisions (Page 34);

-        Structural reform through amalgamations is necessary in some instances with each potential amalgamation needing to be assessed carefully to avoid the risk of simply creating large inefficient Councils (Page 43); and

-        In its formal recommendations, PWC (2006 P149) held that ‘efficiency, effectiveness and scale’ could be enhanced by means of regional service provision, shared service arrangements, outsourcing, state-wide purchasing initiatives and similar initiatives rather than through compulsory Council amalgamations (Page 43).

 

Professor Dollery makes the following conclusions, on Pages 267-270 in his paper:-

 

(a)     The weight of empirical evidence on municipal mergers in the scholarly literature and the Australian national and state public inquiries into local government falls overwhelmingly against forced amalgamation. This body of evidence holds that shared services and other forms of council collaboration provide a superior method of securing the advantages of greater scale.

 

(a)     Comprehensive empirical analysis of the 2000/2004 NSW compulsory council consolidation program in the Report demonstrated that there is no statistical difference in the performance of merged and unmerged councils under the Fit for the Future criteria. Similarly, a detailed investigation of the outcomes of the 2008 Queensland forced amalgamation program demonstrated that a majority of amalgamated councils now operated with diseconomies of scale. These two analyses thus provide a convincing empirical case against proceeding with a further round of municipal mergers in NSW in 2015.

 

(c)     Detailed critical assessment of the Fit for the Future process found it severely flawed in numerous respects, not least its arbitrary use of financial sustainability ratios (FSRs) and associated benchmark values, significant problems with its ‘scale and capacity’ approach, problems with unreliable data employed in sustainability assessments, and an incorrect measure employed to assess the operational efficiency of councils. This provides a powerful argument for the NSW Office of Local Government to halt the Fit for the Future process and deal with these problems before proceeding.

 

(d)     IPART’s (2015) Methodology for Assessment of Council Fit for the Future Proposals – only released on 27 April 2015 – add a further twist to a convoluted reform process. IPART will replace the Panel of Experts promised in Fit for the Future as the assessor of council submissions and its new assessment methodology introduces significant changes to the process. In particular, ‘non-rural’, ‘rural’ and ‘merged’ councils in IPART (2015) replace the ‘one size fits all’ approach in Fit for the Future. Performance benchmarks also now diverge widely between IPART (2015) and Fit for the Future. However, the Report demonstrates that the IPART approach is badly flawed and does not correct the problems identified in Fit for the Future.

 

(e)     By ‘changing the rules of the game’ IPART has rendered much hard work already done by local councils obsolete. Thus Hunters Hill, Lane Cove and Ryde, which have cooperated fully with the Fit for the Future process, undergone self-assessment using the requisite OLG (2014) templates, and engaged in extensive and bona fide community consultation, now find that much of this effort was in vain.

 

(f)      A comprehensive empirical investigation on the proposed Hunters Hill, Lane Cove, Mosman, North Sydney, Ryde and Willoughby council mergers found numerous problems, including the challenges posed by significant current disparities in rates, fees and charges, and capacities to pay across the six councils, problems determining democratic representation  post-merger, the burden of the total liabilities inherited by a newly merged council, complications derived from the dismemberment of the City of Ryde, Commonwealth financial assistance grants post-merger, a lack of full information disclosure to local residents, and the critical fact that almost all of the North Shore group of councils would be less financially sustainable under the Fit for the Future criteria than they had been pre-merger. This underlines the foolishness of proceeding with the proposed merger.

 

(g)     The Report conducted two modelling exercises to investigate the outcomes of the proposed mergers. The results of the multiple regression analysis showed that the Panel’s (2013) claims about scale economies proved false. The DEA analysis also demonstrated that the vast majority of proposed amalgamations would yield over-scaled councils too large to efficiently provide local services. Taken together, these empirical analyses show conclusively that there is no empirical justification for the proposed merger of the Hunters Hill, Lane Cove, Mosman, North Sydney, Ryde and Willoughby councils.

 

(h)     The Report presented a detailed analysis of the socio-economic characteristics of the Hunters Hill, Lane Cove, Mosman, North Sydney, Ryde and Willoughby councils. This demonstrated stark differences between some of these local authorities thereby proving that no common ‘community of interest’ existed.

 

(i)         A detailed review of the literature on shared services in local           government was undertaken in the Report which found strong evidence that shared services      could yield significant benefits. However, not all local services are amenable to regional provision through shared service arrangements.

         

(a)     The Report found that shared services represent a superior alternative to forced amalgamation to improve the performance of the Hunters Hill, Lane Cove, Mosman, North Sydney, Ryde and Willoughby Councils. It investigated the best methods of delivering shared services and established that the Hunter Councils model represented an optimal approach. The draft Northern Sydney Council Collaboration Model - drawn up by the NSROC and SHOROC groups of councils - was based on the Hunter Councils model and it provided a sound institutional basis for council collaboration amongst the North Shore group. The Report presented an instrument which the Board of the proposed Northern Sydney Council Collaboration Model could use to determine which local services to provide collaboratively and which to retain ‘in-house’.

 

(k)     The Report thoroughly examined the community engagement programs conducted by Hunters Hill, Lane Cove and Ryde and found that they easily met the community engagement assessment criteria stipulated by IPART (2015) in its Methodology for Assessment of Council Fit for the Future Proposals.

 

SGS Economics in its analysis of the feasibility of a Joint Organisation (JO) concludes:-

 

-      A Joint Organisation is both viable and advantageous for three (3) Councils and six (6) Councils;

-      The benefits considerably outweigh the costs noting the JO is stronger if it consists of the six (6) Councils;

-      There would be significant improvements to strategic capacity including the  capacity to deal with cross boundary issues (eg transport infrastructure); and

-      Allows each Council to focus on issues/services best delivered locally and to preserve local identity.

 

In respect of key fundamental threshold questions on the viability of the JO, SGS concludes:-

-      The viability of the JO increases with more Councils participating;

-      For the JO to be effective, participating Councils should not be able to ‘opt out’ of key sub regional decisions; and

-      The JO will improve the performance of each Council to deal with local issues and boost their capacity to tackle subregional priorities.

 

SGS’ business case has been based on the following assumptions:-

-      Councils will have to delegate subregional strategic and infrastructure planning functions to avoid duplication;

-      All Councils have to support and buy-in to a balanced urban development settlement pattern; and

-      Councils have to support the adopted policies (planning proposals) of the JO through their local decisions on development applications.

 

Morrison Low in its draft report of May 2015, (which is still currently under review),  in undertaking its review of the ILGRP’s recommendations for the proposed merger of the six Councils found in respect of the new merged Council the following;

 

Negative operating results: running a deficit for four years as high as -8.8%, showing an improvement in 2021 and 2022 reaching 2.6% before starting to decline;

 

Insufficient funds to address infrastructure backlog: backlog increases from 3% towards 5.3% over the 10 year period;

 

A funding gap in its infrastructure maintenance: maintenance funding staying around 80 - 85% of required level, over the 10 year period;

 

Little or no financial benefit: whilst the merged entity could realise an estimated $50 million benefit in savings over the 10 year period (based on reduced number of staff, reduced number of councillors and a NSW government grant), when the projected surpluses were allocated to asset renewal and maintenance, the modelling concluded the merged entity did not meet the Asset Maintenance Infrastructure Backlog or Asset Renewal Ratios. In essence, the new entity was no more sustainable than the current Councils.

 

In summary, Morrison Low’s assessment found that after allocating the projected surpluses to asset expenditure, the merged entity still fails to meet all seven financial benchmarks over the 10 years.

 

Following the incorporation of the recently approved Special Rate Variations (SRV) for the City of Ryde, Mosman and Willoughby Councils, Morrison Low has provided an updated report dated 3 June 2015.  The modelling in this draft report, projects a financial benefit by 2023 of $59 million, noting that the merged entity still does not meet the Asset Maintenance Ratio benchmark.  However, when the surpluses are applied to funding asset renewals, the forecast shows all seven indicators being met, noting that the Operating Performance Ratio is not met between the years 2016 – 2019.  It is noted that the cost of capital (interest on debt) is not currently factored into the report which would impact on the financial performance of the merged entity.

 

Proposed Joint Regional Authority (JRA) - Proposed Core Functions and Powers

In respect of the core functions for the JRA to be viable, it requires the following functions at a minimum, from the commencement of operations:-

 

1.    Regional land use and infrastructure planning including; single approach to subregional plan priorities and policy; agreed centres hierarchy; single endorsed set of State/Major local infrastructure priorities; and a subregional Section 94 Plan;

 

2.    Single point of contact for State and Federal Government on subregional matters; and

 

3.    Subregional advocacy.

 

In respect of the decision making powers for the JO, it will be constituted to make joint decisions on strategic planning and infrastructure priorities for the region with no Council having the ability to opt out (this reflects the current draft JO legislation).

 

The JRA will need the following powers:-

•      To plan for subregional land use and infrastructure;

•      To develop a single subregional Section 94 plan;

•      To represent all Councils in negotiations for subregional planning and infrastructure matters;

•      To undertake subregional advocacy;

•      To procure subregional services and enter in subregional contracts; and

•      To apply for subregional grants.

 

It is noted that the Government proposes to address the legislative requirements for JOs, following the results of the current pilots occurring in regional New South Wales.

 

Shared Services

The analysis and research undertaken by Percy Allan and Associates has estimated that there are potential cost savings of between 10% - 20% and an enhanced capacity can flow from a well designed and carefully implemented shared services arrangement.

 


On page 2 of the Executive Summary, Percy Allan states:-

 

A successful Shared Services Centre (SSC) for North Shore Councils should improve the quality, timeliness and responsiveness of most back-office services and achieve unit cost savings of 10% initially rising to possibly 20% after transitioning from an exclusive franchise to open market contestability.

 

Initial cost savings (rising to $2m per annum by year 4) would be used to defray capital and operating establishment costs (including staff redundancies and new hires). Once these sunk costs were met, potential ongoing savings of $2m to $4m a year could be returned to member councils as price rebates on services purchased from the SSC. Cost savings are expressed in 2014/15 prices.”

 

His report outlines the critical factors and the critical steps to be taken in achieving a successful SSC based on lessons from the public and private sectors learned over the past 10-20 years.

 

However, his advice is to undertake extensive planning in selecting the services to be shared and to undertake one service at a time before proceeding to implement another service.  He has highlighted that in any determination of selecting a shared service, a full business case will be required, noting that there are significant establishment costs, especially IT costs, that will delay the break-even point being realised.

 

On page 4 of his Executive Summary, he states:

 

Amalgamation is an extreme form of shared services where every activity of a group of councils is centralised in a new administrative body reporting to a single new council.

 

There is no compelling evidence that centralising all local council activities in a single mega-council produces cost efficiencies. That’s because with scale some activities obtain economies while others develop diseconomies.

 

Hence the most efficient path for local government is to share those activities that benefit from size while keeping in-house those activities done best on a small scale.

 

Activities most suited for sharing are (a) high volume repetitive transactions with standardised inputs, outputs and work processes and (b) activities that require strategic analysis and advice at a regional rather than local level.

 

Private and public sector services that have been most receptive to sharing are routine generic activities in finance, personnel, procurement, systems and other forms of corporate support.

 

Prime examples in each category are listed below.

•      Finance: Accounts Receivable, Accounts Payable, General Ledger, Billing and Rates Collections, Travel and Expense Reimbursement and Treasury Management

•      Personnel: Payroll, Employee Benefits, Workers Compensation Insurance, Training and Education, Time and Leave Administration and OHS Compliance.

•      Procurement: Requisitions Management, Receiving, Sourcing and Vendor Management, Stationery and Stores, Asset Registers, Property and Fleet Management, Leasing, Property Insurances, Cleaning, Utilities and Telecommunications.

•      Systems: Desktop Support, Telecommunications, Data Centre Operations, Hardware/Software Acquisitions and Disaster Recovery.

•      Corporate: Legal, Security, Printing, Records and Archives, Call Centre and Library Services.

•      Planning: Local and regional urban planning and development application processing when shared, capture economies of scope (i.e. benefit from planners working and brainstorming collectively rather than disparately and considering regional and local impacts together).”

 

Whilst any shared service undertaken by the JRA in the future, still needs to be assessed and determined, it is clear from this advice that any future shared services will provide additional benefits to the benefits identified by SGS in its business case assessment of a regional strategic approach. 

 

Overview of the State Government’s Pilot Projects

The State Government is currently undertaking five JO pilots in the following areas:-

•      Illawarra (4 Councils)

•      Hunter (10 Councils)

•      Namoi (7 Councils)

•      Central West (13 Councils)

•      Riverina (14 Councils)

 

The pilots are due to be evaluated by December 2015, with the confirmed JO model to be completed in early 2016.  The JOs will then be due to be implemented by September 2016.

 

An overview of common features of the Pilots are provided below:-

 

·      Core Functions:-

-    Regional strategic planning;

-    Intergovernmental collaboration; and

-    Regional leadership and advocacy.

 

·      Optional functions:-

-    Create regional strategic capacity; and

-    Regional services.

 

·      Tasks during pilot:-

-    Action Plan: define how JO will address its core functions and eventual governance; and

-    Regional Statement of Priority: define a priority list in consultation with relevant Government agencies and based on Council strategic plans and relevant government plans.

 

·      Membership:-

-    Membership based on boundaries of member Councils;

-    Membership/boundary cannot change without strong justification;

-    JO can have associate members; and

-    JO meetings to be attended by relevant NSW Government agency staff.

 

·      Governing Body:-

-    The entity will be enabled through the Local Government Act;

-    Minimum governance standards will be maintained, including regular meetings; and

-    At a minimum, one elected member will represent each council with one vote each (usually the Mayor).

 

·      Decision Making:-

-    Authority to make binding decisions.

 

·      Next Steps:-

-    The Pilot JOs will continue to review and refine the JO Model and aim to complete their evaluation of the Pilots in December 2015; and

-    By December 2015, it is planned to finalise the JO Model to enable the JOs to be activated and commence operating from September 2016.

 

Joint Regional Authority - Proposed Governance Framework

In formulating the proposed governance framework for the JRA, an analysis has been undertaken of how the current JO Pilots are operating.  In addition, this information has been compared to NSROC’s current governance framework and the framework that was endorsed by NSROC member Councils in adopting the MOU for the proposed NSROC/SHOROC merger.  This comparison has been summarized in AT-7.

 

Based on the research undertaken, the following governance framework is proposed for the Hunter’s Hill, Lane Cove and City of Ryde JRA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Proposed Joint Regional Authority (based on State Governments Rural JO Pilots)

Structure

•        The entity will be legally recognised though Local Government Act.

•        Representatives will be authorised to make decisions that are final

•        Board consisting of 2 elected representatives from each Council one Vote per representative

•        Elected representatives are bound by their respective Council’s decisions

•        JRA Board decisions will be made by unanimous voting agreement of its members

•        General Managers Advisory Committee

Funding and

Resourcing

•        Equal Membership fee

•        Administration including an Executive Director and associated staffing (to be transferred from member Councils as required)

Accountability

•        Accountable to Member Councils

•        Council Representatives to the Board will be nominated after each Local Government Election

 

Joint Regional Authority (JRA) - Pilot Proposal

In proposing a JRA, as Councils’ superior option, it is recommended that each member Council endorse the JRA being proposed as a Metropolitan Pilot.

 

This proposal would be very similar to the arrangements that have occurred in regional NSW and would allow the State Government to observe the JRA’s performance and ability to achieve outcomes and specific KPIs. The Pilot option will allow member Councils to demonstrate the benefits of this proposal on the basis of working closely with the OLG. The Pilot is proposed to operate on the following basis:-

·      12 Month pilot term - This is seen to be a timeframe that would be acceptable to the State Government and allow the JRA to achieve some key outcomes;

·      OLG oversight, that would allow the OLG to monitor progress in addition to receiving reports against KPIs;

·      It is proposed for the OLG to fulfil either a Board position or an observer role. This report recommends the OLG be offered an observer role throughout  the period of the Pilot; and

·      The option of a Pilot may provide access to State Government funding in the establishment of the JRA.

Joint Regional Authority (JRA) - Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

As detailed in the briefing to Councillors at the joint Councillor briefing at Hunter’s Hill Council on Thursday 28 May 2015, member Councils signing an MOU, as part of any resolution supporting the submission would clearly demonstrate:-

·      That each member Council has serious intent and is committed to collaborate in forming a JRA;

·      A commitment by each Council to address scale, combined size, geography and capacity; and

·      Committed to the JRA with a ‘no opt-out’ provision.

If supported, the signed MOU would be attached to the Joint Submission and the draft MOU is at AT-8.

Proposed Joint Advocacy Campaign

At the joint meeting of Councillors at Hunter’s Hill on the 28 May 2015, the issue of Councils sharing the cost of a proactive advocacy campaign was raised. While there was no detailed discussion on this matter, this is raised in this report for the consideration of Councils.

 

It is anticipated that this would be a positive campaign, where we would be promoting a ‘Yes to Regional Collaboration’ campaign for our community and seeking local Members of Parliament and other key stakeholders to support our proposed JRA. This would also include active engagement with both the local and metropolitan press in promoting and stating our case.

 

It is anticipated that the campaign would commence in July and cease no later than November 2015 at an estimated capped contribution of $30,000 from each Council.

 

IPART- Appointment as Expert Panel

As Council would be aware, IPART was appointed by the Minister for Local Government as the Expert Panel on 27 April 2015, to assess Fit for the Future Proposals.

 

On the same day, IPART issued its Proposed Assessment Methodology for public comment, with submissions closing on 25 May 2015. In accordance with our joint approach, the three Councils lodged a joint submission on 25 May 2015 at AT-9.

 

Following the consultation, IPART on 5 June 2015 released its methodology to assess FFTF Proposals, with only minor changes to the draft Assessment Methodology included in the final version.

 

Parliamentary Inquiry on Fit for the Future Reform Agenda

On 27 May 2015, the Legislative Council announced an Inquiry into Local Government in NSW, in particular, the Fit for the Future reform agenda.

 

The Terms of Reference for the Inquiry are shown at AT-10, to this report, noting that the call for submissions closes on 5 July 2015. This means that the Inquiry will be occurring concurrently with IPART’s assessments of the Fit for the Future Proposals. The final report from the Inquiry is due on 17 August 2015.

 

The General Managers raised this matter at the Hunter’s Hill joint meeting and raised the possibility of a joint appearance and presentation at the Inquiry. This matter has been addressed in the recommendations in this report in providing the delegated authority to each Mayor and General Manager to make a submission and to appear at the Inquiry, if necessary. 

 

Joint Meeting of Councillors - Hunter’s Hill Council 28 May 2015

A joint meeting of Councillors was held at Hunter’s Hill Council on Thursday, 28 May 2015.

The three General Managers provided an update and review of the proposed submission, an update on the recent meeting with IPART and the recent results from the community engagements and surveys.

 

Included in this discussion was the option of making the JRA a 12 month pilot, the signing of an MOU to reinforce each member Council’s commitment to the JRA and the option of a further joint advocacy campaign. All of these matters have been addressed separately in this report and are included in the report’s recommendations.

 

 Shared Community Engagement

Lane Cove Council in formulating its response to the ILGRP’s preferred option for Ryde placed a high value on the community’s views. Since early 2013, when the Panel first released its draft report the Council has comprehensively informed and consulted the community.

 

The City’s comprehensive awareness and engagement program over a 24 month period (2013 - 2015), resulted in feedback from over 1,000 residents on the proposed merger. Consequently, Lane Cove community has a very clear understanding of the community’s position on this issue.

 

Consultation with residents throughout the last 2 years has identified a strong opposition to any form of forced amalgamation. The engagement program found that overall the community demonstrated a high level of pride and attachment to their community, placed a high level of importance on local representation, decision makers’ knowledge of local needs and issues, and Council being accessible and accountable. 

 

This sentiment was particularly clear in the 2015 engagement results; whilst our residents continued to be against forced amalgamations, they expressed openness to regional collaboration and to exploring a Joint Regional Authority with Hunter’s Hill and Lane Cove Councils. In fact, over 80 percent of residents indicated that they were supportive of this alternative option.

 

As a result of Lane Cove and Hunter’s Hill joining Ryde to investigate the JO proposal, a number of joint initiatives were taken as part of a joint community engagement strategy.

 

Actions taken include:-

-           Letters to the community by the Mayors with a supporting brochure;

-           Publicity campaign on forced amalgamation;

-           Community Meetings – facilitated by Urbis;

-           Joint community survey that commenced on 18 May 2015; and

-           On-line survey (closes 23 June 2015).

 

In addition to the above, the Mayors of each Council were interviewed by the Northern District Times, followed by articles and press releases in the Northern District Times relating to key components of the Fit for the Future program.

 

A summary of the community engagement results are detailed below:-

 

Live polling that occurred recently in each of the Councils’ community meetings held between 5 -7 May 2015, resulted in between 82%-86% of attendees being supportive of each Council standing alone and exploring the option of JRA. 

 

In the follow up independent survey, undertaken later in May, the results have been very consistent with between 81% - 82% across the three Council areas being supportive of exploring an alternative option to the government’s merger proposal, with 89% of participants supporting a Joint Regional Authority as their first or second preference. The chart below indicates the overall preferences of participants.

 

Each Council is also undertaking an on-line survey which again shows strong support for Councils standing alone and exploring a JRA, with the results being between 66%-77%. It being noted that the time of writing approximately 960 responses have been received for the survey.

 

Details of survey results are in AT-11, which include the combined community engagement results with Hunter’s Hill and City of Ryde Councils.

 

It should also be noted that all Local Government authorities were required to undertake extensive consultation with their adjoining Councils and their communities in exploring all options in preparing their FFTF response to IPART and the State Government.  The Minister for Local Government’s FFTF templates place a strong emphasis on community consultation and this has been reinforced in the recent publication of IPART’s proposed methodology.  

 


Options

 

1.         Council could make no submission (and by default be declared unfit by IPART).

This option is not recommended.

2.         Council could complete just Template 2 with no Joint Organisation Option. 

This is not considered to be Council’s best option (as it would not be seen to be achieving the New South Wales Government’s objectives for the reform of Local Government).

Therefore this option is not recommended.

3.         Council completes Template 2 and a proposal to form a JRA with City of Ryde and Hunter’s Hill Councils, that will enhance Lane Cove’s scale and capacity.   

This is Council officers’ preferred option and was also generally supported at the briefing of all Councillors from the three Councils at Hunter’s Hill on 28 May 2015. 

This is the recommended option.

 

Conclusion

 

It is clearly evident that the communities of Lane Cove, Ryde and Hunters Hill have demonstrated a high level of pride in their respective communities and are concerned about the potential loss of local democracy, access to representation and a reduction in the quality and reliability of service delivery in the event of a large scale merger. The superior option of the three Council’s remaining as stand alone with regional capacity and strategic co-ordination provided through a robust Regional Joint Authority, is clearly the best option for the Lane Cove community in responding to the FFTF reforms.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.       Council note the extensive analysis, research, evidence and community consultation that has been undertaken as required by the Minister for Local Government’s Fit for the Future program, in exploring all options and in preparing Council’s response to the Fit for the Future program;

2.       Following the extensive research and analysis, Council rejects the proposed merger of Hunter’s Hill, Lane Cove, Willoughby, Mosman, North Sydney and the eastern two thirds of the City of Ryde Councils, as recommended by the Independent Local Government Review Panel, as it is not the superior option for the reasons as detailed in this report;

3.       Council endorse lodging the Joint Submission, shown at AT-1 in response to the Fit for the Future program, with both the City of Ryde and Hunter’s Hill Councils,  that details Council’s Template 2 submission (Council Improvement Proposal) and the unique Joint Regional Authority proposal (Council’s preferred option) and delegate to the General Manager, the authority to complete and lodge Council’s submission, making any necessary adjustments in finalising Council’s submission in response to the final IPART methodology and community surveys;

4.       Council endorse including in the Joint Submission, as an incentive for the proposed Joint Regional Authority (JRA), the option to pilot the JRA for a period of 12 months, with the Office of Local Government to be invited to provide a representative as an observer on the JRA board;

5.       Council in demonstrating its commitment to being a member of the Joint Regional Authority (JRA), and as a further incentive for Government, delegate to the Mayor and the General Manager the authority to sign the Joint Regional Authority - Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Council’s behalf;

6.       Council endorse undertaking a future advocacy campaign with both the City of Ryde and Hunter’s Hill Councils, between July and November 2015, on an equal basis in sharing costs to a maximum of $30,000 as detailed in the report and delegates to the Mayor and the General Manager the authority to undertake this action post 30 June 2015;

7.       Council note the Terms of Reference for the Parliamentary Inquiry into the State Government’s Fit for the Future reform agenda, (announced on 27 May 2015), and delegate to the Mayor and General Manager the authority to lodge a submission and appear, if necessary, at the Parliamentary Inquiry; and

8.       Council endorse copies of Council’s submission being available in all Council Libraries, Customer Service Centres and on Council’s website in addition to being forwarded to the Minister for Local Government, the Chief Executive Officer of the Office of Local Government all relevant State and Federal Members of Parliament, all Unions and other key stakeholders as determined by the Mayor and General Manager.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

FFTF Joint Response from the Councils of LC, HH & COR

226 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑2 View

SGS Economics Report dated - 11 May 2015

35 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑3 View

Percy Allan Shared Service Centre Migration Plan - 12 May 2015

13 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑4 View

Percy Allan - A Joint Regional Structure - 7 May 2015

12 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑5 View

Brian Dollery's Report - 22 May 2015

280 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑6 View

Morrison Lows Report - 12 May 2015

113 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑7 View

Governance Framework Comparison

2 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑8 View

MOU Joint Regional Organisation with HH and COR

9 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑9 View

Letter to IPART with Proposed Methodology for Assessment FFTF

16 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑10 View

Legislative Council - Inquiry - Terms of Reference

2 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑11 View

Joint Councils - FFTF Community Engagement Results

26 Pages

Circulated Separately

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 June 2015

Adoption of the Draft Strategy for an Age-Friendly Lane Cove: 2014-2017

 

 

Subject:          Adoption of the Draft Strategy for an Age-Friendly Lane Cove: 2014-2017    

Record No:    SU5300 - 30531/15

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Carol Sinclair 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report outlines the results of the consultation process for Council’s Draft Strategy for an Age-Friendly Lane Cove: 2014-2017 which is recommended for adoption.

 

Background

 

Council at its meeting of 16 March, 2015 considered a report on the Draft Strategy for an Age-Friendly Lane Cove: 2014-2017 and resolved:-

1.   Council adopt the Draft Strategy for an Age-Friendly Lane Cove: 2014-2017 for the purpose of public consultation;

2.   The Draft document be put on public exhibition for a period of 6 weeks in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the report; and

3.   A further report be prepared for Council following the consultation period.

 

Discussion

 

In accordance with Council Policy, Community Consultation was undertaken for a period of six (6) weeks, closing on 13 May 2015, as per the consultation strategy outlined in the previous report. It included:-

·    Static public exhibitions at the Civic Centre and Library;

·    An email to all registered members of the community interested Council consultations;

·    A website exhibition; and

·    Public notice in the North Shore Times.

 

Council reviewed eight submissions. One submission commended Council for undertaking the WHO Global Network of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities Program and three submissions found the Draft Action Plan to be comprehensive and thorough.  There were no comments indicating that the Action Plan should not be adopted.

 

All submissions made comments about specific aspects of Lane Cove that they would like to see improved and were very similar to the types of comments received in the initial consultations.  Some comments made about bicycle paths and facilities for cyclists have been passed on to the Traffic Section for consideration when they update the Bike Plan. One submission outlined the difficulty using the new pedestrian crossing in Little Street and this has also been passed onto the Traffic team for review.  All other comments were closely related to actions already appearing in the Draft Action Plan.


The table below highlights the comments made in the submissions.

 

Comment

Current Status

More seating and improvement in the design

Part of Action Plan

Seats needed at the lifts and escalators in Market Square

Part of Action Plan

Pedestrian crossing at Longueville Rd and Little Street is not accessible for all people with a disability

Referred to Traffic Team for review

Prioritise footpath irregularities and find a way for people to report them

Part of Action Plan

An Uber type transport system to be developed

Part of Action Plan (currently an illegal program)

Request for a shelter at the newly installed bus stop on Mowbray Road near the Library

Referred to Traffic Team for review

Extend bus route 261 to go to Chatswood

Referred to Traffic Team for review

Cycleways separated from vehicular traffic

Referred to Traffic Team for review

Link new cycling paths to existing Northern Sydney cycle path networks

Referred to Traffic Team for review

Showers and lockers provided at accessible locations, eg bus interchange, entries to main buildings (for cyclists)

Referred to Traffic Team for review

Access to share car schemes

Part of Action Plan

 

Conclusion

 

It is considered that the minimal response during the public exhibition period reflects the extensive initial consultation process and general community support for the Draft Strategy for an Age-Friendly Lane Cove: 2014-2017, included as AT-1. It is therefore recommended that Council adopt the document as proposed.

 

Council is in the first phase of the Age-Friendly Global Network of Cities and Communities Program and will complete a second consultation to measure against the Baseline Assessment after the three year cycle of this Action Plan.  Following the second consultation a five year Action Plan will be developed.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Draft Strategy for an Age-Friendly Lane Cove 2014-2017 Action Plan included as AT-1 be adopted.

 

 

 

Jennifer Bice

Manager - Library

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

DRAFT Action Plan for an Age-Friendly Lane Cove

66 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 June 2015

Update on Plan for Growing Sydney - NSW Metro Strategy

 

 

Subject:          Update on Plan for Growing Sydney - NSW Metro Strategy    

Record No:    SU2871 - 31912/15

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Stephanie Bashford; Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report provides an update on a “Plan for Growing Sydney” the new Sydney Metropolitan Plan and the North Subregion Strategy drafting process which has commenced. It provides information on the main points of the North Subregion in the Plan (i.e. what is says about the region) and explains the process of subregional planning.

 

Background

 

The new Sydney Metropolitan Plan -“A Plan for Growing Sydney” (the Plan) was released by the State Government in December 2014. The Strategy is a broad guide for land use planning decisions for the next 20 years in the Sydney Metropolitan Area.

 

The plan sets out the following main goals:-

•      A competitive economy with world-class services and transport;

•      A city of housing choice with homes that meet our needs and lifestyles;

•      A great place to live with communities that are strong, healthy and well connected; and

•      A sustainable and resilient city that protects the natural environmental and has a balanced approach to the use of land and resources.

 

These goals have been set in order to achieve the vision for Sydney to be “a strong global city, a great place to live.”

 

The Plan sets out actions that are intended to deliver these goals for Sydney.  It is intended that the Strategy will be implemented through subregional plans (see below), local environmental plans and infrastructure improvements.

 

Discussion

 

The proposed Greater Sydney Commission will be a new independent body, with the responsibility to drive the implementation of the Plan. The Commission will work with councils and state agencies to “ensure that growth is aligned with infrastructure and delivered in the right places at the right time…”

 

It is intended that the Commission will work councils, state agencies, the community and stakeholders and will take on a coordination role to:-

•      Identify places for housing and jobs which are close to transport and services;

•      Identify new and improved services, such as public transport, that will be essential as communities grow;

•      Improve local environments and open spaces; and

•      Help create well-designed neighbourhoods and suburbs.

 

The Commission will be located within the NSW Planning and Environment cluster (of government bodies and departments) and will have a Board with independent, state agency and local government representatives. The Chair of the Board will report directly to the Minister for Planning. It is intended that legislation to introduce the Commission will be finalised in mid 2015. The initial priority of the Commission will be to lead the development of the subregional plans (discussed below).

 

Six Local Government Advisory Committees will be set up to assist the Commission in developing and delivering the subregional plans. These committees will:-

•      Provide technical input to the evidence base and subregional plans;

•      Review and provide comment on material and policy frameworks;

•      Identify strategic planning issues across the subregion;

•      Make recommendations to the Commission for resolving these issues;

•      Advocate a subregional approach to planning outcomes;

•      Make recommendations on strategic land use and infrastructure priorities;

•      Provide advice on the process for community and stakeholder engagement in the subregion; and

•      Consider planning issues as requested by the Commission or Secretary of the Department of Planning an Environment.

 

A separate report is included in the Business Paper on the proposed representation model for the Advisory Committees.

 

The Plan divides the Metropolitan Area’s 41 local government areas into 6 subregions. Willoughby is part of the North subregion, along with Hornsby, Hunter’s Hill, Ku-Ring-Gai, Lane Cove, Manly, Mosman, North Sydney, Pittwater, Ryde and Warringah (i.e. the NSROC and SHOROC Councils).

 

The Plan does not specify numerical targets for dwellings and employment in the subregions or individual local government areas. The subregional plans will (among other things) define objectives and set goals for housing supply and choice and employment growth in each subregion and the infrastructure required to support growth in the subregion. Consistent with earlier Metropolitan Strategies, St Leonards is identified as a Strategic Centre in the Plan where job growth, mixed development and services will be focused. Further detail on the North Subregion Priorities and Fact Sheet is included as AT-1.

 

The Subregional Plans are currently being prepared by the Department of Planning and Environment.

 

As part of the evidence gathering, the Department has provided initial population projections for each of the councils of the Subregion which are included in Attachment AT-2. The main figures for Lane Cove include:-

•     The projected population for the Lane Cove local government area to increase by 12,000 residents representing a 36.1% increase; and

•     The dwelling projection for the Lane Cove local government area to increase by 4950 representing a 35.6% increase. This was based on an assumed household size of 2.4 persons per dwelling. It is noted, however, that based on previous targets average household size in Lane Cove has been calculated at 1.9 persons. If the population number is accurate this would equate instead to 6315 dwellings. Furthermore, during subregional planning technical meetings the Department has indicated that higher dwelling numbers are likely to be required. (The previous Sydney Metropolitan Strategy through the Draft Inner North Subregional Strategy required 3,900 new dwellings from 2004 – 2031, Council’s LEP currently provides for approximately 4100 dwellings).

 

The following outlines the projections for the Region.

 

 

Hornsby

Hunters Hill

Ku­ring­gai

Lane Cove

Manly

Mosman

North Sydney

Pittwater

Ryde

Warringah

Willoughby

Population Absolute Growth (2011-2031)

38,000

3,600

36,500

12,000

10,800

6,000

19,000

17,150

44,300,

31,150

19,150

Population % Increase (2011-2031)

23.20%

2.80%

31.90%

36.10%

25.20%

20.40%

28.40%

28.30%

40.80%

21.00%

26.90%

Total Additional Population Distribution

16%

2%

15%

5%

5%

3%

8%

7%

18%

13%

8%

Dwelling Projections (2011-2031)

17,050

1,800

13,600

4,950

4,750

3,150

10,850

8,100

18,900

13,400

8,650

Dwelling % increase (2011-2031)

28.70%

33.30%

31.10%

35.60%

24.30%

22.90%

29.30%

32.20%

42.90%

22.70%

29.80%

Dwelling Projection Distribution

16%

2%

13%

5%

4%

3%

10%

8%

18%

13%

8%

 

According to the Department’s webpage, these housing figures represent projections, not targets. No figures have been provided in relation to jobs.

 

To assist with the preparation of the North Subregion Plan, a technical working group of officers from each council and state government organisations including health, emergency services, transport and education has been established to provide advice and feedback to the Department of Planning during preparation of the plans. The process is currently at the evidence base stage, collecting data on the existing government services and facilities and issues of concern to councils in the subregion.

 

Common local government concerns include:-

1.    The future of jobs – maintaining the importance of jobs and economic development potential for the future and not having residential development replacing industrial and commercial land;

2.    Impacts of future housing development on local infrastructure (e.g. inability to achieve more open space of substantial size, pressure on existing facilities and services and inability to raise sufficient funds through developer contributions);

3.    Existing and future pressure on state infrastructure and services such as roads, public transport and schools; and

4.    The current Planning Proposal process, which can pre-empt and subvert the subregional planning process by allowing a review by the Minister’s delegate of proposals rejected by councils.

 

In response to the councils’ concerns regarding the future of employment land, the Department have advised that they will engage consultants to examine barriers to economic growth in the Strategic Centres and review industrial land across all subregions.

 

The current work being undertaken by Council in St Leonards will form the basis of a new Council housing strategy which the Metropolitan Plan requires of each council. In relation to infrastructure capacity, relevant agencies are assessing existing capacity and subregional plans will identify the scale of infrastructure and services required to support growth, where and when this should be delivered by agencies.  The Government Architect’s Office is undertaking an audit of all state / local open space resources.

 

Despite recently completing Standard Instrument LEPs which reviewed planning zones and controls across the local government area, many councils in the subregion are experiencing an increase in planning proposals for changes to zoning or to permit additional land uses. This is particularly impacting business zoned land where residential is not permitted and industrial land and can undermine the strategic planning intentions recently adopted by councils in response to both state and local needs. Hence it is considered appropriate that during the preparation of the Subregional Plans for Metropolitan Sydney, the Minister suspend the review process of planning proposals refused (or deemed to be so) by councils. To this end, it would be appropriate to involve NSROC/SHOROC in advocating for such a moratorium.

 

Conclusion

 

Council officers along with those of the North Subregion councils and state government agencies will continue to work with the Department during 2015 on the development of the draft North Subregion Plan. A further report will be brought back to Council once the draft Plan is released by the Department of Planning & Environment for public consultation.

In the meantime it is recommended that Council seek the support of NSROC/SHOROC to request the Minister for Planning and Environment to suspend the review process for Planning Proposals that have been refused (or deemed to be so) by local councils until the completion and adoption of the new Subregion Plans.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1          Notes the information provided in this report on the new Sydney Metropolitan Strategy “A Plan for Growing Sydney” and the North Subregion planning process; and

2          Seek the support of NSROC and SHOROC to request the Minister for Planning and Environment to suspend the review process for Planning Proposals that have been refused (or deemed to be so) by local councils until the completion and adoption of the new Subregion Plans.

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

A Plan For Growing Sydney - FAQ

6 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 June 2015

Greater Sydney Commission Representation

 

 

Subject:          Greater Sydney Commission Representation    

Record No:    SU2871 - 30686/15

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The new Metro Strategy ‘A Plan for Growing Sydney’ includes 6 Regions, with Lane Cove being included in the Northern Region with 10 other Councils from NSROC and SHOROC.  The implementation of the Metro Strategy will be overseen by the new Greater Sydney Commission which will include 6 local government representatives. The State Government is currently consulting with local government on the selection process for selection of local government representatives.

 

The NSROC Board has resolved to recommend to member councils that meetings involving the combined Mayors/GMs from all NSROC/SHOROC councils would be the appropriate forum to develop the sub-region’s response during this consultation phase.  As such, the combined meeting with representatives of SHOROC/NSROC Councils would essentially become the ‘Local Government Advisory Committee’ for the north sub-region and the group would be given the authority to commence selection of the northern subregion representative on the Greater Sydney Commission.

 

Discussion

 

In preparation for the introduction of the Local Government Advisory Committee and the Greater Sydney Commission, there have been two meetings of the Mayors/GMs of the combined councils of NSROC and SHOROC:-

 

·    On February 12th at a meeting of the Mayors/GMs of the combined councils of NSROC and SHOROC presentations from the Department of Planning & Environment on the Greater Sydney Commission and Department’s proposed process for sub-regional planning were made; and

 

·    On March 19th  2015 a meeting to consider and finalise the response to the consultation on the form and function of the Greater Sydney Commission, and the process of subregional planning was held.  Councillor Keith Rhoades attended the meeting on behalf of Local Government NSW.

 

It is important to note that the final form and function of the Greater Sydney Commission and the subregional Local Government Advisory Committee is uncertain. Whilst the combined Councils of the NSROC/SHOROC subregion have provided a submission to the Department on a preferred model, the Department is yet to formalise the Commission or the model of engagement with subregions.

 

In order to clarify the position of the Department and the likely form of the Greater Sydney Commission a letter was sent to the (then) Minister for Planning The Hon. Pru Goward MP (dated March 2nd 2015) requesting a copy of any draft exposure bill. To date no reply has been received.

 

The NSROC Executive Director has continued to press the Department on the likely timeframe for the establishment of the Greater Sydney Commission noting that councils would be concerned if the Commission was announced in such a way that local government had to make hasty decisions about engagement and representation.  The Department has indicated that such a hurried announcement was unlikely, and that establishment of the Commission would more than likely not be until later in the year. The Deputy Secretary has offered to keep the NSROC Board informed of any progress on the matter.

 

As yet, it is not clear precisely how the Greater Sydney Commission membership will be made up – nor whether the Department will set in place some mechanism (or criteria) for selecting a subregional representative.

 

There are a number of potential processes for selecting a delegate:-

 

·    The endorsed Northern Councils’ submission to the Department of Planning & Environment suggested that the Local Government Advisory Committee should select their own delegate;

·    One member of the Subregional Local Government Advisory Committee may be selected as the subregional representative;

·    A senior officer from within local government (with appropriate skills and experience) may be selected as a representative;

·    An independent professional person may be selected against appropriate criteria (through either a call for expressions of interest or nominations process); or

·    There is a chance that the Department may mandate the mechanism or criteria as to how the delegate is selected for each subregion.

 

To avoid unnecessary delay once the Department’s position is known, the NSROC Board has recommended to each of the Councils that the selection of the subregional representative of the Greater Sydney Commission be delegated to the Local Government Advisory Committee. This appears to be the approach preferred by the Department at this stage.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.   Adopts a position that the meeting of Mayors and GMs from the Northern Sydney Councils (the combined NSROC/SHOROC regions) is the appropriate forum for engagement in the subregional planning process. As such, the combined meeting with representatives of SHOROC/NSROC Councils be endorsed as the ‘Local Government Advisory Committee’ for the north subregion; and

2.   Delegate the selection of the subregional representative of the Greater Sydney Commission to the Local Government Advisory Committee.

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 June 2015

Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting - May 2015

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting - May 2015    

Record No:    SU1326 - 31368/15

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Sashika Young 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday, 17 March 2015.  The Agenda is included as AT-1.  The Traffic Committee recommendations are shown in the Minutes of the Meeting, included as AT-2.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the recommendations of the Lane Cove Traffic Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 19 May 2015.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Terescenko

Acting Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

AGENDA - Traffic Committee - May 2015

13 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

MINUTES - Traffic Committee - May 2015

7 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 June 2015

Assignment of Lane Cove Market Square Leases

 

 

Subject:          Assignment of Lane Cove Market Square Leases    

Record No:    SU1460 - 29594/15

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has received a request from Shopping Centres Australasia Property Group RE Limited (established by Woolworths) to reassign its leases at Lane Cove Market Square from its custodian, The Trust Company Australia Limited (TCAL), back to Shopping Centres Australasia Property Group RE Limited (SCA). It is recommended that Council agree to the assignment and execute the documents.

 

Background

 

Shopping Centres Australasia Property Group RE Limited (established by Woolworths), by letter dated 15 May 2015, has written to Council proposing the assignment of its leases at Lane Cove Market Square, currently held by The Trust Company Australia Limited (TCAL), to Shopping Centres Australasia Property Group RE Limited (SCA).  The letter indicates that Woolworths will continue to guarantee the obligations under the lease and confirm that SCA will pay Council’s reasonable costs associated with review and execution of the deeds.

 

Discussion

 

There are two (2) leases between Council and The Trust Company Australia Limited (TCAL) in relation to the Market Square property.  Both leases are for an initial period of 50 years with an option to renew on each lease for a further 49 years. The first lease relates to the supermarket, retail space and arcade and the second lease is for the Gymnasium.

 

Legal advice has previously been obtained from TressCox Lawyers (Christopher Conolly, Partner, Accredited Specialist Property Law) who acted on behalf of Council in relation to the original leases, and a second independent advice from Matthews Folbigg Lawyers (John Boland, Local Government Director, Accredited Specialist in Property Law, Accredited Specialist in Business Law), which has been circulated separately to Councillors on a confidential basis. The following is based on the advices which are in agreement in relation to the matters.

 

The assignment of leases in the commercial world is a regular occurrence and in that regard the leases contemplated such a situation and contain particular clauses to deal with such an eventuality.

 

In terms of the risk to Council of this transaction, there is no change in risk as Woolworths Limited will continue to be bound to perform the obligations under the lease.

 

Conclusion

 

The two (2) leases between Council and The Trust Company Australia Limited (TCAL) in relation to the Market Square property provide for their assignment. Woolworths Limited will continue to provide a guarantee that they will continue to be bound to perform all obligations under the lease, despite the assignment, meaning the risk to Council is unchanged. It is recommended that Council execute the assignment deed.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.         Council agree to the assignment of the two (2) leases (Registered Leases AH191337 and AH191338) between Council and The Trust Company Australia Limited (TCAL) in relation to the Market Square property to Shopping Centres Australasia Property Group RE Limited (SCA),  subject to Woolworths Limited guaranteeing 'not to be released from its obligations under the leases' and meeting Council’s costs relating to the transaction.

 

3.         The Mayor and General Manager be authorised to execute the documents and affix the Common Seal of Council, if required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 June 2015

Request for Reimbursment of Travel Expenses - Town Crier

 

 

Subject:          Request for Reimbursment of Travel Expenses - Town Crier    

Record No:    SU16 - 31347/15

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement for the payment of accommodation expenses for Lane Cove’s Town Crier, Mr. Bill Wallace to attend the 2015 National Town Crier Championships. The report recommends that Council approve Mr. Wallace’s request for $483 inc. GST and give public notice of Council’s intention to grant this funding.

 

Discussion

Mr. Bill Wallace has been representing Lane Cove Council at the National Town Crier Championships for more than 12 years. The 2015 National Championships were held in Parkes and Mr. Wallace has written to Council requesting that Council pay $483 inc. GST towards his accommodation expenses to attend the event. Council has previously contributed towards Mr. Wallace’s costs in attending the National Championships.

 

Mr. Wallace regularly attends Council events such as the Cameraygal Festival, Australia Day and all Citizenship Ceremonies in his role as Town Crier, at no cost to Council.

 

Conclusion

Mr. Wallace has been Lane Coves Town Crier for many years and regularly attends Council’s events at no cost to Council. It is recommended that Council approve Mr. Wallace’s request for a contribution of $483 inc. GST towards travel expenses to attend the 2015 National Town Crier Championships and give public notice of its intention to grant this funding.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Give Public Notice under Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993 of its intention to grant Mr. Bill Wallace $483 inc. GST to assist in travel expenses to attend the 2015 National Town Crier Championships to represent Lane Cove; and

2.   Subject to no objections being received, provide a grant to Mr. Bill Wallace of $483.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 June 2015

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot    

Record No:    SU220 - 31696/15

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

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 June 2015

47 Pages