m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

21 September 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 21 September 2015 commencing at 6:30pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

 

Council Meeting Procedures

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 


Ordinary Council 21 September 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

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

 

Confidential Items

 

1.      Senior Staff Contracts

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the matter will involve the discussion of personnel matters concerning a particular individual; it further being considered that discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to public interest by reason of the foregoing.

2.      Notice of Motion - General Manager's Performance Review for 2014/15

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the matter will involve the discussion of personnel matters concerning a particular individual; it further being considered that discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to public interest by reason of the foregoing and as the report contains personal information about the performance of a staff member. 

 

public forum

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

3.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 17 AUGUST 2015

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

4.      Save our Councils Coalition

 

5.      Capacity of Sydney Buses

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

6.      Joint Regional Authority Steering Committee

 

7.      Reform of Private Certifiers

 

8.      LG NSW 2015 Finance Summit

 


Officer Reports for Determination

 

9.      Feasibility Analysis of Proposed Redevelopment of Rosenthal Carpark Site

 

10.    Planning Proposal 1 Sirius Rd  - Deferred Report

 

11.    Planning Proposal - Nicholson / Christie Streets, St Leonards - Deferred Report

 

12.    Proposed Review of Ward Boundaries

 

13.    Procedures for Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor and Councillor Representation on Council Committees for 2015-16

 

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

 

15.    Annual Financial Statements for 2014/2015 - Referral for Audit

 

16.    Request for Closure of Rothwell Crescent, Lane Cove

 

17.    August 2015 Traffic Committee

 

18.    NSROC Tender 13/15 for Road Surfacing, Patching and Associated Works

 

19.    Waste Collection & Recycling Contract Extension

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

20.    NSROC Regional Waste Disposal Contract

 

21.    Community Wellbeing Survey 2015

 

22.    Council Snapshot  

 

 

 

 

          


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2015

Save our Councils Coalition

 

 

Subject:          Save our Councils Coalition    

Record No:     SU5558 - 56127/15

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):       Councillor David Brooks-Horn 

 

 

Background

 

Save Our Councils Coalition (SOCC) is a coalition of community groups, residents, councillors and Mayors from across the political spectrum and across the State that was launched on 11 June 2015.

 

SOCC’s aims are:-

•     To keep our local councils local;

•     To ensure that the NSW State Government keeps its promise of “No forced amalgamations”; and

•     To ensure that where a merger is proposed, a valid referendum be held of all electors in each affected local government area.

 

Discussion

 

SOCC is seeking support from NSW Councils in pursuing these aims and would be grateful if Lane Cove Council could consider giving support.

 

Apart from community groups and residents, support is sought from individual councillors, Mayors and councils and others who believe in the above aims.  In addition to Council’s other efforts to prevent amalgamations, I believe Council should support the group.

 

Conclusion

 

SOCC is non-party political. It is however receiving strong support from members of all political parties who share the above beliefs.

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.    Council endorses the Save Our Councils Coalition campaign to:-

a. Keep our local councils local;

b. Ensure that the NSW State Government keeps its promise of “No forced amalgamations”;

c. Ensure that where a merger is proposed, a valid referendum be held of all electors in each affected local government area; and

2.    In light of recent media reports, Council actively pursues a community expression of concern about the threat of forced amalgamations.

 

 

 

 

Councillor David Brooks-Horn

Mayor

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2015

Capacity of Sydney Buses

 

 

Subject:          Capacity of Sydney Buses    

Record No:     SU2483 - 56169/15

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):       Councillor David Brooks-Horn 

 

 

 

I am increasingly concerned about the lack of capacity on Sydney Buses passing through Lane Cove and the inability of these services to transport passengers from Lane Cove, as by this stage of their route many buses are already full and will not stop to collect additional passengers.   

 

Inadequate service capacity results in overcrowding, especially on peak hour services, and excessive wait times for Lane Cove residents. I recommend that Council write to the NSW Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, the Hon. Andrew James Constance MP to request an audit of the capacity of current bus services upon reaching Lane Cove and the investigation of additional services / routes or larger buses that can provide increased capacity and deliver adequate public transportation services to the residents of Lane Cove. 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council write to the NSW Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, the Hon. Andrew James Constance MP to request that:-

1.   An audit of the capacity of current bus services upon reaching Lane Cove be undertaken; and

2.   That the provision of additional services / routes, larger buses that can provide increased capacity and any other options that can result in the delivery of adequate public transportation services to the residents of Lane Cove be investigated.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor David Brooks-Horn

Mayor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

         


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2015

Joint Regional Authority Steering Committee

 

 

Subject:          Joint Regional Authority Steering Committee    

Record No:     SU5558 - 56178/15

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):       Councillor Scott Bennison 

 

 

Executive Summary

                                                              

Councillors would be aware that our Mayor, Councillor David Brooks-Horn in conjunction with the Mayors of Hunters Hill and Ryde, signed a Memorandum of Understanding that outlined their commitment to form a Joint Regional Authority (JRA) as a superior alternative to forced amalgamations.

 

Councillors would also be aware that Lane Cove Council was instrumental in obtaining the services of Professor Percy Allan and Brian Dollery to assist Lane Cove, Hunters Hill and Ryde Councils in critiquing the recommendations of the panel and developing an alternative for our region.

 

Lane Cove Council has had meetings with the Minister for Local Government the Hon. Paul Toole and IPART (in conjunction with delegates from Ryde and Hunters Hill) to present our superior alternative. It is also important to note that our local member the Hon. Anthony Roberts also supports our alternative.

 

In order to enact the intentions of the MOU we need to be active in pushing forward with the reforms agreed to under the MOU. To that end and as recommended by Professor Percy Alan, the councils should form a steering committee to demonstrate that we are committed to the JRA and also to adequately plan for an efficient move into a JRA model.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1)   A JRA Steering Committee be established;

2)   The General Manager develop a terms of reference in consultation with Ryde and Hunters Hill Councils and bring back to Council for final approval that should include but not be limited to:-

   a) promotion and development of the JRA model,

   b) recommendations from IPART and/or the Minister for Local Government;

   c) Recommendations from Upper house Inquiry; and

   d) Other matters that the General Manager deems necessary.

3)   Council invite two Councillor representatives and the General Manager from Ryde and Hunters Hill Councils to be on the steering committee pursuant to the MOU;

4)   Councillors David-Brooks-Horn and Scott Bennison and the General Manager be Lane Cove Council’s representative on the Steering Committee;

5)   The General Manager request the services of Professor Percy Allan to be a member of the Steering Committee and be given delegated authority to determine his remuneration;

6)   The General Manager be given delegated authority to engage other professionals as and when required;

 

7)   The General Manager include in the monthly report any meetings of the Committee, decisions made and any costs for the period,

8)   Until such time that a decision is made by the State government as to the acceptance of the our JRA, that the activities of the Steering Committee be limited to the planning phase; and

9)   Prior to any actions or implementation of the JRA a report come to Council for approval.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Scott Bennison

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2015

Reform of Private Certifiers

 

 

Subject:          Reform of Private Certifiers    

Record No:     SU1787 - 56214/15

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):       Councillor Scott Bennison 

 

 

Executive Summary

                                                              

An employee and a client that is also a resident of Lane Cove recently approached me and advised that his former private certifier provided him with an Interim Occupation Certificate, however this firm has since been deregistered and the new firm will now not provide him with a Final Occupation Certificate, notwithstanding that he former gave him written assurance that the new firm would continue to provide services to him.

 

The problem of Private Certifiers creating ‘Phoenix’ companies is that when they are deregistered, it is not only unethical, but also leaves their former clients in a position where they may not be able to get a final works certified as no other Private Certifier will touch the work of other certifiers particularly if they have been deregistered.

 

Furthermore, Councillors would also be aware a large local development where the developer has gone into administration with the site apparently having in excess of 3,000 defects. The cost of any future works to remedy the defect will no doubt be borne by unit owners via special levies that only increased the asset cost.

 

Council has complained before to the State Government and it these examples are further evidence of the need to change, but thus far the State Government has not be willing to improve the governance in these matters.

 

If the State government wants to roll out its Metropolitan Strategic Master Plan then they seriously need to address these deficiencies with private certifiers.

 

An alternative to the current engagement process for Private Certifiers, would be for the certification responsibility to return to councils, but councils would be required to form panels of private certifiers to deliver the actual certification service. This would be a similar process to Green Slips where prices could be submitted from a variety of certifiers, the certifier is awarded the contract, but Council retains overarching control of the process.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the General Manager request a meeting with the Minister for Planning to seek:-

 

a)   Changes to the method of selection of Private Certifiers, whereby respective councils have a pool of Certifiers that residents can utilise, with council retaining overarching control of the process;

b)   Greater regulatory authority for councils to intervene and issue instructions to certifiers and issue penalties for non compliance; and

c)   Change the legislation to protect against ‘Phoenix’ operators and ensure that former clients of the ‘Phoenix’ operator are required to complete all required certifications and/or works.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Scott Bennison

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2015

LG NSW 2015 Finance Summit

 

 

Subject:          LG NSW 2015 Finance Summit    

Record No:     SU1918 - 56269/15

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):       Councillor Scott Bennison 

 

 

 

The General Manager and I attended the Conference held on 27 and 28 August, however due to illness I was unable to attend all sessions. There were a broad range of speakers, the full program is attached and I am happy to circulate the notes on any particular session if a Councillor request. Below are some key points:-

 

LGNSW has done some research regarding Council Rates between the States. The graph below shows just how far in front NSW already is from an efficiency point of view. With by far the lowest Rates per capita.

 

 

 

LGNZ spoke of the focus they have had on building a partnership with the Central Government, and in particular they highlighted their ten point plan, which includes a call for the removal of rating exemptions such as Government Land, Schools, churches etc. This is seen as farer as it removes cross subsidisation.

 

The idea was floated of sharing revenues uniformly across councils to fix the city v country imbalance in terms of revenue. This issue has been previously raised in terms of city councils giving up the Federal Government Financial Assistance Grants (it equates to about 6% of Lane Cove’s Rates). The modeling presented indicated to fix the imbalance, Rates in the city would need to increase 21%, with the funds distributed to country councils. This would fix the issue without State assistance.

 

The remaining presentations highlighted cost control initiatives, KPIs, asset management improvements, developer agreements as a revenue sources, and setting long term financial goals. These are all areas where I believe Lane Cove is already well advanced, evidenced by being one of only 5 councils that already meets the State Government’s Fit for the Future Financial ratios.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Scott Bennison

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Local Government NSW Finance Summit 2015 Program

1 Page

 

 

   


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2015

Feasibility Analysis of Proposed Redevelopment of Rosenthal Carpark Site

 

 

Subject:          Feasibility Analysis of Proposed Redevelopment of Rosenthal Carpark Site    

Record No:     SU4965 - 56145/15

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):       Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the feasibility analysis for the redevelopment of the Rosenthal Carpark site in Lane Cove Village. This report recommends that Council adopt the feasibility analysis for the project and proceed with the project as outlined in the report, including entering into conditional Agreements for Lease (AFL’s) with the preferred retailers and proceed with the delivery of the project as outlined in the report.

 

Background

 

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

1.   Below Grade Retail - approx 5,400m2;

2.   Below Grade Carpark with up to 500 car spaces; and

3.   Above Ground Public Domain – a proposed Park and ‘Town Square’ of approximately 6,750m2 in size; (including a further 1000m2 of ancillary retail i.e. cafes and amenities facilities).

 

Council has adopted the following objectives for the site in its redevelopment:-

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

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

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

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

·    Redevelop the site for community uses;

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

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

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

 

To meet these objectives Council adopted the following design principles, following consultation in 2013:-

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

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

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

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

 

To further develop the public domain component, a design ideas competition was conducted in late 2014 to translate the design principles developed through the consultation process into concepts that the community could consider, which were on display for in excess of 6 months in the Plaza.

 

Council’s consultation on the public domain components of the project have been extensive and Council has a clear indication of the community’s preferences going forward to the detailed design stage. In adopting the design ideas competition outcomes, Council resolved that a consolidated image of the outcomes be developed, and this has now been completed, and is shown below:-

 

 

Feasibility Analysis

 

To assist in assessing the feasibility of the project, quantity Surveyors WT Partnership were engaged to determine the cost of the project based on the endorsed schematic retail and car park designs and the public domain design ideas proposal submitted by Arcadia Landscapes for the public domain. As a result it is estimated that the cost of the project will be in the range of $60m - $75m depending on final design and inclusions, staging, timing and contingencies. The cost is exclusive of finance and internal costs.

 

Funding

 

In terms of funding the project, a funding plan has been formulated based on a combination of equity contribution, leasing, asset sales and debt as follows:-

 

Section 94

Funds committed for public domain component from Council’s S.94 funds

Sale of land at 314 Burns Bay Road

Council property to be sold late 2015, with sales proceeds expected by end of 2016

Little Lane Car Park Redevelopment

Project proceeds, part guaranteed and part linked to overall return to developer, with sales proceeds expected by end of 2016

Parking Rates

Allocation from the special parking rates income levied on commercial properties in the village for parking facilities

Friedlander Place Stratum

Proceeds from the proposed sale of the below ground stratum under the public plaza in St Leonards

Debt

Supported in principle by the Commonwealth Bank – see below for more details

 

To protect Council’s commercial interests in the 314 Burns Bay Road, Little Lane and Friedlander Place projects, the anticipated proceeds from these projects and/or sales will remain confidential, with details provided in the confidential information circulated separately to Councillors.

 

Following the Council decision to progress the feasibility analysis, a final opportunity was provided to retailers to submit financial offers that would enhance the feasibility of the project and minimise financial risks for Council. Retailers were invited to submit fresh commercial terms on the basis of prepayment of significant up front rental payments based on a minimum rental, as well as being provided the option of purchasing upfront the retail stratum whilst providing a buy back option to Council. To create a competitive situation between retailers in the process, both a three (3) tenancy mix and a two (2) tenancy mix were offered to the retailers to bid on.  The outcomes of that process were analysed by CBRE, with details provided in the confidential information circulated separately to Councillors. CBRE concluded that the offers are strong enough to achieve Council’s objectives and recommended that Council accept the offers should it wish to proceed with the project.

 

Debt

 

Council has achieved a debt free status for more than 11 years. In terms of this project debt is essential to fill the funding void, and can be considered ‘good debt’ in that the project itself produces cash flows which will pay off the debt without any burden on Council’s existing budgets, and therefore at no direct cost to the community.

 

In relation to the quantum of debt, up to $31.5 million maybe required, which given the commercial terms offered by the retailers can be paid off within 8 years. Prior to the last commercial terms offers being received, debt repayment was projected at 13 years. It is pointed out that the debt servicing ratio would remain at less than the permitted 20% of operational revenue, the standard set by the Office of Local Government performance measurement ratios.

 

Way Forward

 

As a result, of the significant commercial interest and offers for the retail components as well as the fact the project is de-risked by debt being underwritten by retailers, it is recommended that Council support and adopt the feasibility analysis and progress with the project through initially entering into conditional Agreements for Lease (AFL’s) with the two (2) preferred retailers for the below grade retail space of 5,400m². Conditions of the AFL’s will be subject to respective Board approvals being obtained by the retailers, a Capital Expenditure Review being accepted by the Office of Local Government for Council to proceed and cover issues such as agreement on design, key milestones and terms of the lease. At this stage the identity of the retailers cannot be publicly disclosed for commercial and confidentiality reasons at this stage at their request. Upon Board approvals being obtained a joint statement will be issued by the three parties.

 

Subject to Council agreeing to adopt the feasibility analysis and proceed with the project, the following process and timeframe is proposed for progressing with the delivery of the Project:-

·    Capital Expenditure Review, Office of Local Government - Council is required to submit a Capital Expenditure Review proposal to the Office of Local Government for this project given its significant cost. The purpose of the review is to ensure Council’s evaluation of the project is consistent and rigorous, the merits of the project can be compared and resources are allocated on an informed basis. The business case required with the submission is circulated separately to Councillors on a confidential basis;

·    Engage Project Manager – External project managers will be engaged to assist in defining the deliverables for the design and construction procurement process and ultimately supervise the construction process;

·    Invite Expressions of Interest (EOI) for Design and Construction – The EOI would seek contractors for the design and construction of the development based on the project deliverables;

·    Stage 1 Development Application – an application will be lodged which will address building use , the building shape and volume, height, and entry/exit points for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. The consent authority shall be the JRPP. This will be followed once the design and construction contract is let by a detailed Development Application/s.

·   Relocation of Ausgrid Substation - the existing sub-station located midway on Birdwood Lane must be relocated from the site to allow the development works to proceed. Investigations and negotiations with Ausgrid have commenced;

·   Surrounding Traffic Network Modifications – In 2007 Maunsel AECOM undertook a Traffic and Master Plan for the Lane Cove Town Centre and Business Park Traffic and Parking Strategy Study that highlighted the latent demand for additional parking in the Lane Cove Village. Council has developed responses to these issues, and it is apparent that notwithstanding the proposed improvements to parking, it is necessary to address the traffic issues along the Burns Bay Rd/Rosenthal Ave/Longueville route, which sees through traffic travelling through the village commercial precinct. In tandem with this project, it is proposed to develop a ”Bypass” option for the village, which would involve reconfiguration of the eastern end of Finlayson Street to Cox’s Lane and Cox’s Lane itself, with better connectivity to Epping Road. 

·   Road Boundary Adjustment - Achieving the optimal / preferred layout of retail tenancies within the development whilst maintaining long term flexibility will require minor public road boundary adjustments to the Rosenthal Ave and Birdwood Lane. Included as AT-1 are details of  the extent of these adjustments, broadly described as:-

a.    Dedicate as public road 97 m2 from Lot 28 DP 10155;

b.    Close public road involving 485 m2 approximately 3.6m wide along the Rosenthal Ave frontage.  The remaining road width is approximately 16m; and

c.    Close public road involving 40 m2 triangular in shape at the corner of Rosenthal Lane and Birdwood Lane. As the need for this section of closure is located below natural surface, it will be stratum subdivided to be limited in height to include the retail, similar to the stratum subdivision along Little Lane included in the Little Lane Car Park redevelopment.

Under current procedures, Council under authorisation from the Minister will conduct the administrative components of the process, with final approval determined by Crown Lands. 

On closure, the closed road lots will vest in Council and will then be amalgamated with the other lots constituting the car park development site.

·    Project Timeline – The project timetable allows for the staged development of the project over a 4 year timeframe with works scheduled to commence in January 2017. The project is intended to be constructed in two stages so that some parking will be available throughout the construction process. Half of the existing surface carpark will remain available for use while the basement carpark and building structure closest to Lane Cove Plaza (the south end) is constructed.  Then the first half of the new basement carpark is opened to the public, while the second half of the project is built (north end) .

The project timetable and key milestones are as follows:

 

Dec 2015                    Project Manager appointed

August 2016               Design +Construct Contractor appointed

January 2017              Construction commences

November 2019          Project completion

 

Delivery Procurement Method

 

It is proposed that Council deliver the project by acting as developer for the entire development, start to finish, accepting all commercial risks but mitigating most design and cost risk utilising a Design and Construct Lump Sum Contract (D and C).

 

By acting as developer Council will take responsibility for all outcomes associated with the development, including preliminary design, approvals, cost/ revenue, construction, marketing, leasing and finance. This procurement method allows Council to be 100% in control and responsible for the outcome of the development, conversely, accepting all associated revenue risks but mitigating design risks as appropriate. Council previously when looking to develop this site engaged St Hilliers to act as Developer and Builder, resulting in a loss of control of the project, which ultimately led to Council cancelling the contract. With such a critical site, maintaining full control is important.

 

In terms of procurement there are three common standard types of contract that may utilised by Council. The first mentioned is now rarely used due to its inherent and excessive upfront design costs.

 

·    Traditional Contract;

·    Design and Construct Contract (D and C); and

·    Design and Construct Contract with Guaranteed Maximum Price (D and C GMP).

 

It is recommended that Council adopt the Design and Construct – Guaranteed Maximum Price procurement method as this type of arrangement offers the lowest risk approach to mitigate risk and provide the most cost effective outcome project.

 

GMP is an in essence a modified D and C contract. The purpose of the GMP is to provide the Council and the Contractor the opportunity to work together and explore alternative design and pricing opportunities. The Client receives a Guaranteed Maximum Price and the Contractor is incentivised to reduce cost under the contract via a share of savings arrangement.

 

Governance

 

·    Risk Management Plan

In terms of risk, a procurement risk analysis has been undertaken to identify the recommended procurement method to deliver outcomes desired by Council in the project.

A risk matrix which is at AT-2 provides a review of the major risk types utilising the abovementioned preferred type of delivery procurement method. The risk is identified and clarified and mitigating solutions suggested. Whilst the risk matrix does not address all possible risks it focuses on the more common risks encountered.

·    Probity Plan

A Probity Plan has been developed for the project in consultation with HWL Ebsworth Lawyers and Risk Reward Probity Advisors. The Probity Plan which is at AT-3 outlines a transparent and accountable decision making structure for all elements of the project including the EOI for the major retailers and associated negotiations, dealings with Ausgrid obtaining development consent for the redevelopment of the land and the tender and procurement process for the design, construction and delivery of the project.

·    Probity Advisors

It is noted that Mr Bill Rock of Risk Reward has been appointed as the Probity Advisor for the project, with relevant functions outlined in the Probity Plan. To date the Probity Advisor has been present at key meetings with the major retailers and will be actively engaged in the procurement and delivery process.

·    Project Teams

Council in September 2013, appointed the Rosenthal Car Park Working Party with the objective to assist Council in the planning, consultation and design for the redevelopment of the site. At an operational level, a Project Team has been established with relevant Council Officers and appropriate consultants including property and retail legal and design specialists, to oversee the planning and delivery of the project.

·    Reporting to Council

Progress on the delivery of the progress will continue to be reported to Council on a monthly basis with the Snapshot in addition to any individual reports on key issues such as endorsement of designs, commercial arrangements, and consideration of EOIs and tendering.

 

Conclusion

 

Council has reached a significant milestone in the planning and feasibility analysis of one of the most exciting projects in Lane Cove’s history. The development provides an opportunity to not only meet the demand for additional car parking in the Village, it also presents an opportunity for creation of a vibrant urban public domain, enhancement of the retail mix and an integrated public space with links to retail areas to the south and east. Ultimately, the project will provide long term social, community ,economic and sustainability benefits for the Lane Cove community.

 

The independent review by CBRE concludes that the base case feasibility of the project is financially sustainable with project income servicing the debt within a relatively short period i.e. within 8 years, depending on Council’s initial equity investment in the project, if all free cash flow is used to repay principal. Thus the project will also provide a significant long term income source for the community.

 

It is acknowledged that given the core objectives for the project requiring significant community facilities being provided as part of the development, such as approximately 6500m2 of public domain and the amount of car spaces proposed (in addition to the number required by the DCP), the project would not be attractive to the private sector and therefore Council will need to act as Developer. Council’s track record in delivering major infrastructure projects over the last 10 years, combined with the proposed use of specialist Project Managers, means the risks associated with the project can be managed.

 

It is recommended that Council approve progressing with the delivery of the project as outlined in the report and enter into conditional AFL’s with the preferred retailers.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Enter into conditional Agreements for Lease with the preferred retailers as identified in the confidential attachments, with the General Manager to be delegated authority to negotiate and finalise the final form of the AFL’s;

2.   Proceed with further actions to progress the delivery of the project as outlined in the report;

3.   Submit a Capital Expenditure Review to the Office of Local Government incorporating the  confidential Business Plan for the Project;

4.   Make application to the Department of Primary Industries – Lands for the closure of part of Rosenthal Avenue road reserve as outlined in the report and illustrated in AT-1;

5.   Adopt the Risk Management Plan for the Project as at AT-2;

6.   Adopt the Probity Plan for the Project at AT-3 of the Report;

7.   Receive a further report for the construction of a ”Bypass” option for the village, which would involve reconfiguration of the eastern end of Finlayson Street to Cox’s Lane and Cox’s Lane itself, with better connectivity to Epping Road;

8.   Proceed to lodge a Stage 1 Development Application for the project; and

9.   Receive a monthly progress report on the delivery of the project and individual reports on significant issues as required.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Plan Illustrating Proposed Public Road adjustments - Rosenthal Avenue and Birdwood Lane

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Risk Management Plan - Rosenthal Car Park Redevelopment

6 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Rosenthal Redevelopment Project - Probity Plan

66 Pages

Available Electronically

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2015

Planning Proposal 1 Sirius Rd  - Deferred Report

 

 

Subject:          Planning Proposal 1 Sirius Rd  - Deferred Report    

Record No:     SU5559 - 55676/15

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Terry Tredrea 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A report was considered by Council on 20 April 2015 relating to Planning Proposal 21 - 1 Sirius Road, located in the Lane Cove West Industrial Area. The report (AT-1) is available electronically and on Council’s website. The proposal seeks to:-

(i)       Rezone the majority of 1 Sirius from IN2 Light Industrial to B4 Mixed Use, predominantly for residential apartments, with three bushland areas rezoned to RE1 Public Recreation (as distinct from E2 Environmental Conservation);

(ii)      Increase the height from 18 metres to up to 56 metres; and

(iii)     Increase the floor space ratio from FSR 1.1:1 to 2.5:1.

 

Council deferred its determination of the matter, in order to permit the applicant to make a presentation at a Councilor workshop.

 

This report considers the issues discussed at the Workshop. In conclusion, it confirms the recommendation that the planning proposal not be supported, on the grounds stated in the April report, and in particular the importance of retaining industrial lands to meet the needs of the growing residential population.

 

A report was provided for Council be Hansen Yuncken, consultants, with concept designs indicating that the site is feasible for light  industrial development,

 

Furthermore, it is recommended that Council not pre-empt the Department of Planning & Environment’s current regional planning processes, which include investigation of the potential of employment lands in the North Region, the preparation of new District (subregional) Plans and the establishment of the new Greater Sydney Commission, as announced on 8 September.

 

Background

 

Council resolved on 20 April as follows:-

 "1. The matter be referred to a Councillor workshop and further relevant information be provided including environmental impacts such as site contamination, air pollution and bushland impacts; and

  2.  The proponent be invited to address Council".

 

On 10 August, the applicant presented their proposal and supporting information to the Councillor Workshop.

 

Council received a letter on 2 September 2015 from the applicant, Statewide Planning. The letter requested that Council defer determination of the matter to October, to enable updated material to be provided in relation to the Metropolitan Strategy 2014 and other matters. A copy of the letter is attached at AT-2. 

 

A response by Council, dated 9 September 2015, advised that deferral of the report was not supported, as the Department’s 90-day period for determination of a planning proposals had already been exceeded, and the opportunity to comment on the Metropolitan Strategy had been provided at the August workshop. A copy of the response is attached at AT-3.

 

Discussion

 

Regional Planning by the NSW Government

 

The State Government last week announced imminent legislation for the structure of the proposed Greater Sydney Commission and the future publication of new District Plans for Sydney’s subregions. In preparation for these, it is understood that the Department of Planning & Environment has been investigating the potential of employment lands, including the Lane Cove West Industrial Area.

 

It is considered premature to rezone a substantial area within the Lane Cove Industrial Area in the interim pending the Department’s release of plans for the subregion.

 

Councillor Workshop

 

The issues discussed in the applicant’s presentation to the Workshop on 10 August are shown attached at AT-4 (available electronically).  Staff responses, are summarised below.  These issues are dealt with in further detail in the report of 20 April.

 

1.   The site is not strategically important Industrial zoned land.

 

Staff response:  The site is identified by the Department of Planning as a “key industrial Precinct”.  Lane Cove West is to be “protected” as being “of strategic importance”. Council has received no indication from the Department that this will change under the Metropolitan Strategy.

 

2.   The site typography (a steep, north-west-facing saddle) is “unsuitable for industrial development”.

 

Staff response: There is an existing DA approval for an Industrial use of the site. The independent industrial design by Hansen Yuncken (AT-5) shows the site physically suitable for light industrial use. This study, dated 25 May 2015, was undertaken by consultants for Council and provides concept diagrams of a potential industrial design providing:-

 

·           FSR 0.7:1   (below the permissible FSR 1:1)

·           Total floor area: 27,805m2.

·           Height: 3 levels.

 

This study indicates that the proponent’s key submission, that industrial development is not supported, is not the case. Further, as advised by Council’s Traffic Section, vehicles suitable for light industrial uses would be able to access the site (see earlier report).

 

3.   There is low demand for industrial land in the inner north subregion.

 

Staff response:   There is a current undersupply of serviced undeveloped IN2 sites (see AT-1).

 

4.   The saltmarsh community to the north of the site is not endangered.

 

Staff response:  This appears to be contradicted by their consultant’s findings that the coastal saltmarsh to the north of the Site is an endangered community and was observed to be intact.

 

5.   The proposed development provides 277 jobs 

 

Staff response:  The Hansen Yunken IN2 design provides over 340 jobs.

 

6.   The proposal provides “visual... connections to the river”.

 

Staff response:   Apartment blocks of up to 18 storeys would dominate the skyline from most vantage points, including Lane Cove National Park and others in the Ryde area.

 

7.   A second entry/exit is proposed to the south, possibly north.

 

Staff response:   However, the alternative exits are not feasible due to topography, impact on Council owned bushland or being across neighbouring private property.

 

8.   The introduction of residents will improve environmental rehabilitation.

 

Staff response:  Rehabilitation will be required in any future use.

 

9.   Matters of concern from a resident regarding air quality from the adjacent Lane Cove Tunnel stack have been addressed.

 

Staff response:   The proponent has provided a response to resident concerns, from Jacobs consultants, relating to a CAMM Report on the Lane Cove Tunnel Ventilation Stacks. These issues would require independent expert review at a subsequent stage if rezoning proceeded as the conclusions are not consistent with staff’s understaffing of air quality issues arising from the presence of the stack.

 

10. The site is considered suitable for residential development.

 

Staff response:  Notwithstanding the high visual and landscape quality, the site is considered to be of relatively low residential amenity, it is isolated in terms of proximity to community and medical facilities, shops and bus services, and bush fire hazard.

 

Conclusion

 

The application by Statewide Planning to rezone 1 Sirius Road to from IN2 Light Industrial to B4 Mixed Use/ RE1 Public Recreation, and the applicant's request to further defer the matter to October, are not supported for the reasons that:-

 

(i)   The retention of employment lands, comprising approximately 7% of the Lane Cove Industrial Area, is important to balance the substantial residential growth in the subregion and supports the objectives of the Metropolitan Strategy 2014.

 

(ii)     An independent study for Council by consultancy Hansen Yuncken has demonstrated that light industrial development, suitable for high tech uses, is feasible on this site, and the site can accommodate industrial vehicles, so that the statement that the site is topographically unsuited to light industry is rejected.

 

(iii)    Rezoning to permit predominantly residential land uses would pre-empt the NSW Department of Planning & Environment's release of subregional/ district plans, and the results of its recent investigations into the potential of employment lands regionally, following the imminent establishment of the Greater Sydney Commission announced in early September.

 

(iv)  Proposed public benefits of rezoning bushland pockets and foreshore access across the site, such as for a boating facility/ café or other uses, could potentially be provided with an industrial redevelopment with incentives in scale. Such a proposal, to be located on Council/ Crown land, would require detailed investigation, and so it should not be assumed that it would follow a rezoning.

 

The applicant’s request to defer the matter to enable further assessment against Metropolitan Strategy 2014 cannot be supported in view of:  the review of information provided, the current state of flux regarding the regional strategic planning and the requirement for Council to determine proposals within 90 days, and that the extension given from April to August was adequate for such considerations.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.         Council not support Planning Proposal 21 to rezone 1 Sirius Rd from IN2 Light Industrial to B4 Mixed Usefor the following reasons:-

(i)      The proposal is inconsistent with State and Council strategic planning documents;

(ii)     Rezoning to permit predominantly residential land uses would pre-empt the NSW Department of Planning & Environment's release of subregional/ district plans, and the results of its recent investigations into the potential of employment lands regionally

(iii)     The site is a valuable local contribution to the Global Economic Corridor and a residential use would reduce “employment land” in the area;

(iv)    Rezoning to permit residential use would compromise future IN2 uses in the precinct, with likely landuse conflicts with industrial neighbours;

(v)     An independent study for Council by consultancy Hansen Yuncken has demonstrated that light industrial development, suitable for high tech uses, is feasible on this site, and the site can accommodate industrial vehicles;

(vi)    Residential development is not needed to meet Council’s housing targets;

(vii)    It is not near a commercial/retail centre or community facilities;

(viii)   The site is not near public transport  (900m walk through industrial precinct);

(ix)    Only one entry/egress is possible, which is a risk to emergency vehicles, under Rural Fire Service policies;

(x)     Commercial (B4) use of the site would not provide more employment than IN2;

(xi)    The impact on air quality from the adjacent Lane Cove Tunnel stack;

(xii)    Environmental conflicts exist between remnant bushland and proposed work; and

(xiii)   The proposed residential buildings would be visually intrusive and out of scale with surrounding development.

2.         The applicant be advised of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Council Report of 20 April 2015

9 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Letter from Statewide - Requesting Deferral to October - Received 2 September 2015

1 Page

 

AT‑3 View

Response to Statewide - Request for Deferral Received 2 September

1 Page

 

AT‑4 View

Statewide Presetntation to Councillor Workshop 10 August 2015

85 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑5 View

Hansen Yuncken 4 - Level Industrial Concept Design - 1 Sirius Road

3 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2015

Planning Proposal - Nicholson / Christie Streets, St Leonards - Deferred Report

 

 

Subject:          Planning Proposal - Nicholson / Christie Streets, St Leonards - Deferred Report    

Record No:     SU5839 - 55707/15

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A report was considered by Council on 21 August 2015 relating to Planning Proposal 23:  46-50 Nicholson St/ 59-67 Christie St, St Leonards (attached at AT-1).  The proposal seeks to:-

(i)   Rezone the site from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use;

(ii)  Increase the height from 25 metres to 187 metres (57 storeys over underground parking); and

(iii) Increase the floor space ratio from 4.5:1 to 17:1 (the concept plan provides FSR 17.2).

 

Council deferred its determination of the matter, in order to provide the applicant with an opportunity to meet with Council to discuss the proposal.

 

There has, however, been no new information from the proponent and although arrangements were undertaken on more than one occasion no meeting was held.

 

A letter was received on 31 August 2015 requesting Council to defer determination of the matter again, to enable the applicant to make changes to the proposal, including:-

·    Increasing the commercial floor space to the currently permissible “GFA of 4.5:1”, up from 2.3:1 in the proposal (no net loss of commercial floor space);

·    “Anticipating” a reduction in height (to an unspecified level);

·    Increasing the parking supply to be consistent with RMS rates;

·    Removing parking from the above-ground podium levels to basement level; and

·    That they anticipated that “finalisation of an amended proposal would take approximately four weeks”.

 

Council responded by letter of 9 September advising that:-

·    The item was not deferred by Council to accommodate the proponent to make changes to the scheme, which could be considered a new Proposal; and

·    Council was required to determine proposals within a 90-day timeframe, and the report would consequently be put to the September meeting.

 

It is recommended that Council not pre-empt the Department of Planning and Environment’s current regional planning processes, which include investigation of the potential of retail / commercial uses in the North Region, the preparation of new District (subregional) Plans and the establishment of the new Greater Sydney Commission, as announced on 8 September 2015.

 

This report confirms the recommendation that the planning proposal not be supported.

 

Background

 

Council resolved on 17 August 2015 “That the matter be deferred, at the request of the applicant, to the Ordinary Council Meeting of 21 September 2015”.

 

Discussion

 

Councillors are directed to the Report of 17 August 2015 (attached at AT-1) which provides the assessment of the proposal, and correspondence between Council and Jemalong (attached at AT-2 to AT-4).

 

Conclusion

 

Consideration of Planning Proposal 23 was deferred to enable the proponent to discuss the matter with Council. However, no meeting has been held despite attempts by staff to arrange a meeting. A request was subsequently received to allow a significantly amended design to be submitted, which is considered to be a new proposal.

 

Consequently, there is no change to the recommendation made in the report to Council of 17 August 2015 that the proposal should not be supported, on the grounds that it would be out of scale with surrounding development, would significantly alter the balance between employment and residential floor space without providing any public benefit of substance, and may thus pre-empt the State planning processes currently underway under the Greater Sydney Commission and imminent subregional plans.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.    Council not support Planning Proposal 23 to rezone 46-50 Nicholson St/ 59-67 Christie St, St Leonards from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use for the following reasons:-

(i)   The planning proposal does not form part of Council’s mixed use targeted economic stimulus program endorsed by the State Government;

(ii)  It is inconsistent with the Department’s objectives in the Metropolitan Strategy for employment growth in the St Leonards Strategic Centre;

(iii) The built form would constitute an overdevelopment of the site, be out of scale with surrounding and proposed developments, including recent planning proposals providing significant public benefits; extend shadowing to beyond River Road and provide only half of the parking spaces required under the DCP and SEPP 65; and

(iv) The site received FSR and height uplifts in the 2010 LEP from FSR 2:1 to 4.5:1 and from the current 2-4 storeys up to 25 metres i.e. around double the current scale. It is noted that the site was purchased since the introduction of those controls. The application proposes to provide only 5,288m2 commercial floor space (FSR 2.3:1) rather than the 10,250m2 of capacity under the current controls, but without substantive public benefits in return for this under-supply of commercial floor space;  and

2.    The applicant be advised of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

REPORT Planning Proposal 23: Nicholson / Christie Streets - 17 August 2015

10 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Responses to Jemalong Letters of 17 & 31 August -  Dated 24 August & 9 September 2015

5 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Jemalong Letter to Lane Cove Council 31 August 2015

2 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

Jemalong Letter to Lane Cove Council 17 August 2015

3 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2015

Proposed Review of Ward Boundaries

 

 

Subject:          Proposed Review of Ward Boundaries    

Record No:     SU821 - 54791/15

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):       Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The NSW Electoral Commission (NSWEC) have advised Councils that any proposals to alter ward boundaries and/or change ward boundary names must be finalised and submitted to the NSWEC by 14 December 2015. As there currently is a variation of more than 10% of electors in West Ward over Central Ward and the variation is expected to grow with the anticipated increase in residents and electors between now and the September 2016 Elections as a result of the significant number of units due for completion, Council is required to review its ward boundaries. This report provides options for Council’s consideration with it noted that the community must be consulted on any proposed changes to ward boundaries, prior to Council determining its new ward boundaries.

 

Discussion

 

In preparation for the 2016 Local Government Elections scheduled for Saturday, 10 September 2016 the NSWEC has reminded Council to consider the need to review ward boundaries and/or change ward boundary names.

 

Under Section 211 of the Local Government Act 1993 (“The Act”), councils are required to review their wards and alter them if the number of electors in one ward in its area differs by more than 10% from the number of electors in any other ward in its area”. Council last considered this matter in March 2006 and altered its ward boundaries to ensure the variation in wards was less than 10%.

 

Information supplied by the NSWEC shows the enrolments in respect of the Lane Cove Council wards have gradually increased as a result of the significant development activity in the area, with the number of electors in West Ward as at 27 August 2015 now exceeding the number of Electors in Central Ward by 10.53% as illustrated in the following table:-

 

 

Ward

Number of Electors

Variation

West

8,225

Highest

Central

7,359

10.53%

East

7,717

6.18%

TOTAL

23,301

 

 

Council is therefore required to review its ward boundaries to overcome the 10% variance in the number of electors between wards. In reviewing the ward boundaries consideration also needs to be given to anticipated growth in population/number of electors between now and the closing of the rolls forty (40) days prior to the Elections. In view of the fact that approximately 1200 units are due for completion between now and the end of July 2016, the variation will increase even further given the majority of development activity is located in West Ward i.e. 150 Epping Road 367 units, 316-322 Burns Bay Road 268 units and the recently completed 214 units at 7-15 Centennial Ave and 92-96 Gordon Crescent. It is therefore projected that as at 31 July 2016, enrolments will be as follows based on existing ward boundaries:-

 

Ward

Number of Electors

Variation

West

9,359

Highest

Central

7,630

18.47%

East

7,753

17.16%

TOTAL

24,742

 

 

In developing options for the review of ward boundaries, a three (3) ward option, as at AT-1, has been developed which has minimal changes to the existing boundaries witht hte new and existing units in the Burns Bay Precinct being moved from West Ward to Central Ward and all of the Village area being contained within East Ward.  A further option consisting of nine (9) wards is also presented for Council’s consideration as at AT-2.  In developing this option a focus was placed on communities of interest being located within individual wards where practicable.  Alternatively, Council may wish to consider abolishing all Wards in which case a constitutional referendum and subsequent Ministers approval will be required.  The anticipated number of electors per ward for each of the two (2) options is illustrated in the following table:

 

Option 1

Option 2

Ward

Number of Electors

Max

Variation

Ward

Number of Electors

Max Variation

West

8,138

5.44%

1

2,881

9.34%

Central

8,070

2

2,795

East

8,534

3

2,612

TOTAL

24,742

4

2,732

 

 

 

5

2,767

 

 

 

6

2,668

 

 

 

7

2,758

 

 

 

8

2,751

 

 

 

9

2,778

 

 

 

TOTAL

24,742

 

Community Consultation

 

Prior to adopting revised ward boundaries, Council is required to place the preferred option(s) on exhibition for 28 days allowing 42 days for public submissions. The Australian Statistician and NSWEC must also be consulted to ensure consistency with the new Statistical Areas Level 1 (SA1s) which have replaced Census Collection Districts (CCD’s). Additionally, the NSWEC requests councils align where possible ward boundaries with State and Federal Electoral boundaries and SA1s.

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to seek the community views on Council’s proposed changes to the Ward Boundaries, and will take place for a period 6 weeks.  Comments received will be considered on the suitability of the proposed boundaries, having regard to the Council’s obligation to have Wards, in terms of the number of electors, within a 10% range of each other as required by the Local Government Act. 

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community

Key Message givers e.g. Residents Associations

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and

eNewsletter

Notification Letters

Public Exhibition,

Website Exhibition

Indicative Timing

September to November 2015

September to November 2015

September to November 2015

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.   The information be noted;

2.   Council place on public exhibition the options for new Ward Boundaries in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the report; and

3.   Following the consultation period, the outcomes be reported back to Council for determination of new Ward Boundaries.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Ward Boundaries - Option 1

1 Page

 

AT‑2 View

Ward Boundaries - Option 2

1 Page

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2015

Procedures for Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor and Councillor Representation on Council Committees for 2015-16

 

 

Subject:          Procedures for Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor and Councillor Representation on Council Committees for 2015-16    

Record No:     SU868 - 52387/15

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):       Kirsty Beram 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

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

 

Discussion

 

Election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor

 

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

Councillor Representation on Committees

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Aboriginal Advisory Committee

 

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

 

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


Age Friendly Advisory Committee

 

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

 

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

 

Bushland Management Advisory Committee

 

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

 

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

 

Cameraygal Festival Committee

 

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

 

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

 

Carisbrook Advisory Committee

 

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

 

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

 

Centrehouse Management Committee

 

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

 

Current Representation: Councillors Brent and Gold.

 

Council Selection Committee

 

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

 

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

 

Internal Audit Committee

 

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

 

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

 

Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP)

 

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

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

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

council related;

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

private infrastructure and community facilities; or

eco-tourist facilities.

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

·    Certain coastal subdivisions;

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Kindy Cove Management Advisory Committee

 

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

 

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

 

Lane Cove Access Committee

 

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

 

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

 

Lane Cove and North Side Community Services Board of Directors

 

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

 

Current Representation: Councillors Brooks-Horn and Hutchens.

 

Lane Cove Bicycle Advisory Committee

 

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

 

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

 

Lane Cove Cultural Advisory Committee

 

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

 

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

 

Lane Cove Historical Society

 

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

 

Current Representation:  Councillor Palmer.

 

Lane Cove Occasional Child Care Centre

 

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

 

Current Representation: Councillor Brent.

 

Lane Cove Public Art Advisory Committee

 

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

 

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

 

Lane Cove Recreation Precinct Liaison Advisory Committee

 

With the proposed development of the site progressing, the Committee discusses issues with the current tenants and other stakeholders that will affect them during the time of development and assist with the design of the new club house. This Committee meets quarterly on a Tuesday at 6pm. The role of the Committee is to provide advice and recommendations on the proposed development.

 

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

 

Lane Cove Retirement Units Association Ltd Board

 

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

 

Current Representation: Councillors Hutchens and Karpin.

 

Marjorie Propsting Memorial Library Consultative Forum

 

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

 

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

 

Metro Pool/United Independent Pools Boards

 

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

 

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

 

Mowbray Precinct Working Party

 

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

 

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

 

Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils - (NSROC)

 

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

 

Current Representation: Councillor Brooks-Horn (Mayor) and Councillor Bennison with Councillors Hutchens, Cheong and Karpin as alternates.

 

NSW Metropolitan Public Libraries Association (Inc.)

 

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

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

 

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

 

Publications Editorial Task Force

 

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

 

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

 

Rosenthal Car Park Working Party

 

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

 

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

 

Shell Consultative Committee

 

Established in 1993 to provide a forum to discuss environmental and community issues, this Committee was convened by Shell Australia to provide advice on the operation of the Refinery at Gore Bay.  The Gore Bay Terminal has been acquired by Viva Energy who now operate the facility.  Although they continue to hold ‘Community Information Evenings’ twice per year, a formal consultative Committee no longer exists.  

 

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

 

Shorelink Committee

 

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

 

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

 

Sustainability Advisory Committee

 

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

 

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

 

Traffic Committee

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

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

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

3.    Council determine Councillor representation on Advisory and External Committees for  2015-16, with it being noted that the Mayor is an ex-officio on all Council Advisory Committees;

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 There are no supporting documents for this report.


Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2015

Review of Community Representatives on Council's Advisory Committees

 

 

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

Record No:     SU827 - 52385/15

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):       Kirsty Beram 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

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

 

Discussion

 

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

 

Lane Cove Bicycle Advisory Committee

 

This Committee’s charter allows for seven (7) community representatives.  The community representatives on the Committee are:-

 

Susan Loane, Russell Webber, Don Murchinson, Maggie Burke, Gavin Imhof, Josh Blake and Peter Mayall.

 

Vacancies - Nil

 

Bushland Management Advisory Committee

 

This Committee’s charter allows for four (4) community representatives.  The community representatives on the Committee are:-

 

Ruth Neuman, Lynne McLoughlin, Gaye White and Frances Vissel.

 

Vacancies - Nil

 

In addition to the four (4) community representatives appointed by Council from public nominations, the Charter also allows for three (3) members of the Lane Cove Bushland & Conservation Society appointed by a formal resolution of that Society.

 

It is recommended that the Charter be amended as outlined in AT-1 to allow for one (1) additional member, being a Bushcare Representative from a Lane Cove Bushcare group.  Bushcare groups are very active in Lane Cove and a representative can offer an additional perspective and valuable specialised Bushcare insight. 

 

Cameraygal Festival Committee

 

This Committee’s charter allows for up to 12 community representatives and the Committee currently has 9.  The community representatives on the Committee are:-

 

Sarah Balzer, Marie James, Shideh Modabber, James Shevlin, Natalie Ahmat, Shirin Kanji, Pat Madson, Paul McGregor and Lyndall McNally.

 

Vacancies – Three (3)

 

Lane Cove Cultural Advisory Committee

 

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

 

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

 

Vacancies – Three (3)

 

Sustainability Advisory Committee

 

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

 

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

 

Vacancies – Nil

 

Lane Cove Access Committee

 

This committee’s charter allows for up to five (5) community representatives. The four (4) current community representatives on the committee are:-

 

Anthony Melinz, Kay Freedman, John Baxter and Peter Tiffin.

 

Vacancies – one (1)

 

Lane Cove Public Art Advisory Committee

 

This Committee’s charter allows for seven (7) community representatives and the committee currently has four (4). The community representatives on the Committee are:-

 

Bridget Kennedy, Melissa McElhone, Jayne Whitford and Rhonda Pryor.

 

Vacancies – Three (3)

 

It is noted that since its establishment in 2012 this committee has not yet met.

 

Mowbray Precinct Working Party

 

There are currently seven (7) community representatives on the working party being:-

 

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

 

Council, when forming the Working Party, acknowledged that once the unit developments started to be occupied it would be appropriate to include representation from people living in the units.  It is recommended that Council call for new expressions of interest from the public for membership to the Mowbray Precinct Working Party. 

 

Lane Cove Recreation Precinct Liaison Advisory Committee

 

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

 

Ted Merewether and Andrew Zbik.

 

Vacancies – Two (2)

 

It is noted that since its establishment in 2012, this Committee has not yet met s the project has be deferred pending further progress on the 266 Longueville Road project.

 

Aboriginal Advisory Committee

 

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

 

Margret Campbell, Natalie Ahmat, Michelle Dickson and Kaleb Taylor.

 

Vacancies – Three (3)

 

Attendance at Committee Meetings

The review of community representation on Council’s Advisory Committees revealed that some community representatives have missed several meetings since September 2014.  Council’s Code of Meeting Practice states that members of a committee cease to become a member where they miss three (3) consecutive meetings without giving acceptable reasons.  On 16 September 2013, Council resolved to also include an attendance provision for all Advisory Committees that allows for the removal of community representatives who do not attend at least 50% of the total number of meetings during a Council year (from September to August), without giving acceptable reasons. 

 

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

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

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

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

4.   Adopt the amended Bushland Management Advisory Committee Charter which allows for an additional Bushcare Representative Committee Member; and 

5.   Thank the representative of the Mowbray Precinct Working Party for their contribution and call for new expressions of interest from the public for membership to the Mowbray Precinct Working Party

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Bushland Management Advisory Committee Charter Amended September 2015

3 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2015

Annual Financial Statements for 2014/2015 - Referral for Audit

 

 

Subject:          Annual Financial Statements for 2014/2015 - Referral for Audit    

Record No:     SU740 - 54925/15

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):       Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

Council's Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2015 are presented for referral to external Audit.  A statement is required in respect of the accounts from Council and Management in relation to the accuracy of the accounts.  It is recommended that Council sign the statement and refer the accounts for Audit.

Discussion

Council's Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2015 have been prepared and are ready to proceed for external Audit. The general purpose financial statements, special purpose financial statements and special schedules are required to be audited by 31 October 2015 following the financial year end.  In accordance with Section 413(2)(c) of the Local Government Act, Council is required to include with the Annual Financial Statements a "Statement by Councillors and Management" signed under resolution of Council, by the Mayor, one other Councillor, the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer, which will allow Council's external Auditor to complete the Audit.  A similar "Statement by Councillors and Management" is also required for the Special Purpose Financial Statements.

Following the Audit, the Annual Financial Reports will then be presented to Council in November, with the Auditors Report. In order for Council's Annual Financial Statements for 2014/2015 to go forward for Audit the following resolution of Council is now required and the Statements to be signed by Councillors and Management are attached.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

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

GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2015

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

The attached General Purpose Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2015, have been drawn up in accordance with the:-

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

·     Australian Accounting Standards and professional pronouncements; and

·     Local Government Code of Accounting Practice and Financial Reporting.  

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

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

·     accords with Council’s accounting and other records.

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

The General Purpose Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2015 are shown at AT-2, and will be available electronically from Friday 18 September 2015.

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

SPECIAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS  FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2015

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

The attached Special Purpose Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2015, have been drawn up in accordance with:-

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

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

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

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

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

·     accord with Council’s Accounting and other records.

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

3.    Council's Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2015 be referred for audit by Council’s external Auditors.

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Statement by Councillors and Management

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

General Purpose Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2015

Available Electronically from Friday 18 September 2015

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2015

Request for Closure of Rothwell Crescent, Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          Request for Closure of Rothwell Crescent, Lane Cove    

Record No:     SU1666 - 53289/15

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):       Abdullah Uddin 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report outlines the outcome of the traffic survey undertaken in response to Council’s resolution of 15 June 2015. Based on the traffic data, closure of Rothwell Crescent is not recommended at this stage however Council will investigate various traffic and pedestrian safety issues along Rothwell Crescent, especially at Little Street intersection, and refer this to Local Traffic Committee for consideration.

 

Background

 

The subject matter was last considered at Council’s Ordinary meeting dated 15 June 2015 where it was resolved, in part, that:-

 

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

2.   Should the development application at 27-43 Little Street be approved, the matter be referred back to Council to reconsider the resident petition.

 

On 21 August 2015, Sydney East Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) approved the development at 27-43 Little Street which comprises demolition of existing 10 residential dwellings and construction of 94 residential units with154 car parking spaces. Subsequently, Council arranged tube and intersection counts in Rothwell Crescent. This report compares the traffic count data undertaken in February and September 2015.

 

Discussion

 

In February 2015, a tube traffic count was undertaken outside 15 Rothwell Crescent. Further traffic counts were undertaken in September 2015 (non-school holiday period) outside numbers 3 and 19 Rothwell Crescent. A comparison of the traffic count data is illustrated in Figure 1.

 

Figure 1: Comparison of traffic count data in Rothwell Crescent

 

The key findings are as follows:-

·    In February, the bidirectional Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) in Rothwell Crescent were recorded 191 vehicles where in September counts the traffic volumes were recorded 180 and 184 vehicles respectively. These volumes are well below the RMS Environmental goal (2,000 vehicle/ day typically) in local residential streets. Therefore, the street has significant spare capacity to accommodate additional traffic;

·    There is no noticeable change of speed between February and September counts. The recorded 85th percentile speed were well below the posted speed limit of 50km/h; and

·    Heavy vehicles were generally below 5% of the daily traffic which is acceptable for a local residential street.

 

In addition to tube count, intersection counts were undertaken at Rothwell Crescent and Little & Dorritt Street intersections on Tuesday, 18 August 2015. The count data are illustrated in the following figures.

Figure 2: Dorritt St/ Rothwell Cr Intersection Count

Figure 3: Little St/ Rothwell Cr Intersection Count

The above figures show that:-

·    At Dorritt Street / Rothwell Crescent intersection, there were only 23 and 20 turning vehicular movements during the am and pm peak periods respectively;

·    At Little Street / Rothwell Crescent intersection, there were only 24 and 23 turning vehicular movements during the am and pm peak periods respectively.

 

The above traffic volumes are very low and do not warrant the closure of Rothwell Crescent. Further, no crash has been recorded in Rothwell Crescent in the RMS crash data base between the periods July 2009 – June 2014.

 

It should be noted that although Rothwell Crescent is a Council controlled Local Road, for any partial or full road closure, a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) will need to be submitted to RMS for approval.  Based on the above analysis, as there is no justification to close Rothwell Crescent, the proposal is unlikely to be supported by RMS. Therefore, it is recommended to retain the status quo of Rothwell Crescent. If necessary, further counts can be undertaken in the future following the full operation of 27-43 Little Street development.

 

Community Consultation

 

Council representatives met with the local residents on 11 September 2015 where various traffic and pedestrian safety issues were discussed. In the meeting it was acknowledged that full or partial closure of Rothwell Crescent at Little Street intersection would not proceed at present time, however, Council will investigate various traffic and pedestrian safety issues along Rothwell Crescent, especially at Little Street intersection.

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the existing traffic data, any full or partial closure of Rothwell Crescent is not supported at the present stage. However, further traffic surveys can be undertaken should it deem necessary in the future where necessary.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.   The traffic operation in Rothwell Crescent, Lane Cove to remain unchanged at the present time;

2.   Council investigate traffic safety issues in Rothwell Crescent outlined by residents; and

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

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Terescenko

Manager Assets

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2015

August 2015 Traffic Committee

 

 

Subject:          August 2015 Traffic Committee    

Record No:     SU1326 - 55444/15

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):       Sashika Young 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday, 18 August 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 18 August 2015.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

AGENDA - Traffic Committee - August 2015

23 Pages

AT‑2 View

MINUTES - Traffic Committee - August 2015

12 Pages

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2015

NSROC Tender 13/15 for Road Surfacing, Patching and Associated Works

 

 

Subject:          NSROC Tender 13/15 for Road Surfacing, Patching and Associated Works    

Record No:     SU3311 - 55376/15

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):       Martin Terescenko 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Tenders were invited by NSROC on behalf of member councils for Road Surfacing, Patching and Associated Works. This report recommends accepting the tenders from A & J Paving, Boral Asphalt, Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd, J & M Schembri Pty Ltd, Roadworx Surfacing Pty Ltd and Stateline Asphalt Pty Ltd who have satisfied the selection criteria and have the most cost effective pricing structures.

 

Background

 

NSROC tender 13/15 was issued to the market in May 2015. The contract is for the supply of asphaltic concrete surfacing and associated works to the NSROC Member Councils for a 2 year period. To enable a thorough and detailed investigation on market conditions for asphalt contractors, the tender document requests prices for supply; supply and delivery; supply, delivery and laying of various grades and quantities of asphaltic concrete.

 

Discussion

 

As part of the selection and evaluation process the tenders were evaluated on the following criteria:-

 

·           Compliance with the contractual and technical conditions of the Tender

·           Compliance with relevant Government Policies

·           Compliance with Australian Standards

·           Performance standards eg. Delivery, quality

·           Competitive pricing structure

·           Capacity to supply the specific requirements of each Council

·           Service Levels

·           Suitability of Quality Systems

·           Ability to invoice on a Project Basis at the end of the month during which the project is completed

 

Thirteen tenders were received by the participating council’s and all met the selection criteria. The tenderers submitted a variety of rates for a large number of asphaltic concrete products and services.

 

Mill and Re-Sheet

 

Over the last tender period Council has been mainly using Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd for the Mill and Re-sheet program as they have been the most cost effective. However, due to increased competition in the market this year Council is proposing to choose two tenderers for Mill and Re-sheet works. Both tenderers have competitive rates and should the main contractor be unavailable or unable to carry out asphalt works when required Council has the option of a backup. The following table shows the ranking of prices to mill and re-sheet typical sections of roadway.

Tenderer

Cost to Mill & Re-sheet 1000m2 of 40mm thick AC10

Cost to Mill & Re-sheet 1000m2 of 100mm thick AC10 and AC20

Avijohn Contracting Pty Ltd

 

 

Bernipave Pty Ltd (not working)

 

 

Bitupave Ltd t/as NSW Boral Asphalt

Equally Preferred

Equally Preferred

CW  Concrete Pty Ltd

 

 

D & M Excavations

 

 

Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd

Equally Preferred

Equally Preferred

J & M Schembri Pty Ltd

 

 

Kizan Pty Ltd t/as A & J Paving

 

 

Ozpave Aust Pty Ltd (blank)

 

 

Roadworx Surfacing Pty Ltd

 

 

SRS Road Services Pty Ltd

 

 

State Asphalt Services Pty Ltd

 

 

Stateline Asphalt Pty Ltd

 

 

 

It is recommended that the tenders from Boral Asphalt and Downer EDI Works be accepted.

 

Heavy Patching

 

Heavy patching is generally undertaken on small patches of roadway where there are localised failures or for restoration of an area damaged by a Utility Authority.  The table below shows the ranking of prices to undertake heavy patching in two common scenarios.

 

Tenderer

20m2 of 50mm Deep Heavy Patch

100m2 of 100mm Deep Heavy Patch at Night

Avijohn Contracting Pty Ltd

 

 

Bernipave Pty Ltd (not working)

 

 

Bitupave Ltd t/as NSW Boral Asphalt

 

 

CW  Concrete Pty Ltd

 

 

D & M Excavations

 

 

Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd

 

 

J & M Schembri Pty Ltd

Equally Preferred

 

Kizan Pty Ltd t/as A & J Paving

 

Equally Preferred

Ozpave Aust Pty Ltd (blank)

 

 

Roadworx Surfacing Pty Ltd

 

Equally Preferred

SRS Road Services Pty Ltd

 

 

State Asphalt Services Pty Ltd

 

 

Stateline Asphalt Pty Ltd

Equally Preferred

 

 

It is recommended that the tenders from A & J Paving, J & M Schembri Pty Ltd, Roadworx Surfacing Pty Ltd and Stateline Asphalt Pty Ltd be accepted.

 

Contractor Safety Management System

 

Council uses BNG Conserve for our contractor safety management to ensure that all our contractors are up to date with their insurance policies, licences and Work, Health and Safety (WHS) requirements. Therefore, the conditions of contract will require these contractors to have their policies, licences and WHS requirements assessed and approved by BNG Conserve.

 

Request for Changes to General Conditions of Contract

 

Boral Asphalt has requested that an amendment be made to the General Conditions of Contract (AS2124-1992) issued with the tender. Council has sought legal advice from its panel solicitor Schmidt-Liermann Pty Ltd which has been provided separately to Councillors. The legal advice recommends that Council not agree to this amendment.

 

Conclusion

 

This report recommends Council accept the tenders from the following companies as they met the selection criteria and had the most cost effective pricing structure; A & J Paving, Boral Asphalt, Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd, J & M Schembri Pty Ltd, Roadworx Surfacing Pty Ltd and Stateline Asphalt Pty Ltd.

 

A confidential memorandum has been circulated separately to Councillors detailing the prices submitted by each tenderer, details of the reference checks undertaken of the recommended tenderers and providing the legal advice on the requested change to the conditions of contract.  

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Accept the tenders from A & J Paving, Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd, J & M Schembri Pty Ltd, Roadworx Surfacing Pty Ltd and Stateline Asphalt Pty Ltd for Road Surfacing, Patching and Associated Works for two (2) years subject to these contractors having their policies, licences and WHS requirements assessed and approved with BNG Conserve.

2.   Accept the tender from Boral Asphalt for Road Surfacing, Patching and Associated Works for two (2) years subject to them having their policies, licences and WHS requirements assessed and approved with BNG Conserve and Boral Asphalt accepting that Council will only enter into an agreement with the original conditions of contract.

3.   Authorise the General Manager to enter into contracts with these companies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Terescenko

Acting Executive Manager – Open Space and Urban Services

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2015

Waste Collection & Recycling Contract Extension

 

 

Subject:          Waste Collection & Recycling Contract Extension   

Record No:     SU1986 - 54763/15

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       David Wilson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council’s Waste Collection and Recycling Contract (from here on referred to as the Contract) with United Resource Management Pty Ltd (URM) concludes on 1 October 2015, the purpose of this report is to seek Council’s resolution for an extension of the current contract under the special circumstances reasons of the Tendering Provisions pursuant to Section 55 of the Local Government Act, 1993.

The contract that concludes on 1 October 2015, has a provision for a three (3) year extension and this was activated in 2012 when Council resolved to extend the term of the contract to allow for the NSROC Regional Waste Disposal Tender to be investigated.

Since 2012, significant changes have occurred in the waste management area, with the NSROC Disposal Contract negotiations and in particular the NSW Government’s Fit for the Future review, has resulted in Council actively considering regional collaborations of its major contracts and services, to demonstrate effectiveness and efficiency. As such it is considered that the prudent course of action for council would be to enter into a 12 month contract extension with URM to continue with the current waste collection and recycling service options.

Council is currently exploring a regional waste collection service with Ryde and Hunters Hill Councils as part of its Joint Regional Authority proposal, the contract extension would allow Council to continue to provide waste collection services without disruption to our community, whilst also investigating longer term regional waste service options.

Council has consulted with URM regarding a 12 month extension, and they have confirmed that these arrangements are acceptable, subject to pricing being at tendered rates plus Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases and any legislative changes.

This report seeks Council approval for the extension of the existing contract, for a period of one (1) year (with a three (3) month exit notice clause) to allow for Council to investigate the transition to a regional waste collection and recycling service with Ryde City and Hunters Hill Councils.

Background

The provision of domestic waste services is a basic function of Local Government and is critical to the general health and amenity of our residents.

The Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007 (WARR Act) requires Council to meet a target of 70% diversion of waste from landfill by 2022.

The four (4) key waste avoidance and resource recovery goals and targets are:-

1.   Preventing and avoiding waste;

2.   Increasing recovery and use of secondary materials;

3.   Reducing toxicity in products and materials; and

4.   Reducing litter and illegal dumping.

Currently, Council is diverting up to 50% of waste collected away from landfill, which is comparable with NSROC Councils and better than the majority of Sydney Metropolitan Councils.

To enable Council to meet the State Government target of 70%, Council is continually investigating ways to reduce the amount and type of waste being directed to landfill.  This, in part, has been achieved by the introduction of the green organics bins in 2014, and as a result of the NSROC Waste Disposal Contract that was signed in August 2015, will see long term investment in new technology and waste management infrastructure, to allow Council to achieve the 70% target.

The ten (10) plus five (5) year contract was awarded to Veolia Environmental Services Pty Ltd.  The contract will enable Council to maximise diversion rates, minimise environmental footprints and investigate economically viable regional solutions through engaging a large specialised organisation to develop an end to end process plant for the regions’ waste.

Due to the extended negotiations with the NSROC Regional Waste Disposal Tender, this has impacted on the timing for this stage of the review of waste collection and recycling services, and has resulted in minimal time being available to enter into a detailed review of the services available, and to prepare a tender for waste collection and disposal services.

A summary of the services provided in our current contract includes the following:-

·      Collection of 80L red domestic waste bin from single residential premises;

·      Collection of 120L yellow domestic mixed containers recycling bin;

·      Collection of 120L blue domestic paper recycling bin;

·      Collection of 240L  garden organics bin

·      Collection of 240L waste , recycling  and organics bins from Multi Unit Dwellings;

·      Collection and Disposal of Council Domestic Household Cleanup;

·      Collection and disposal of 240L park , street, special event  and Plaza - waste bins;

·      Collection and disposal of 240L commercial recycling/ waste bins#;

·      Provide runner service for households with infirmed persons;

·      Transport of domestic waste collected to SITA Artarmon Transfer Station;

·      Transport of garden organic waste collected to SITA Ryde Transfer Station;

·      Transport of paper/ mixed containers collected to Visy at Smithfield;

·      Transport of household-clean up waste collected to SITA Artarmon Transfer Station.

# Service provided by URM and paid for as a commercial service by the business/land owner.

To enable Council to proceed with this process and be in an informed position in a period where a number of unknown factors are currently present, Council would benefit from remaining with our existing collection contractor (URM) until a detailed cost benefit analysis on a JRA waste collection and recycling service can be completed.  Hunters Hill Council have advised Council of its interest in exploring a joint collection contract with the Lane Cove and Ryde council’s pursuant to the JRA. 

 

Legal Position

 

As Council’s Waste Collection and Recycling Contract has no provision for extension to the contract beyond the current 3 year extension. Legal advice was sought in relation to the question of whether Council was compelled to advertise an open tender for the provision of these services or was there an opportunity to extend the existing contract as a result of the proposed JRA waste collection service and the provisions of Section 55 of the Local Government Act 1993 that apply to exceptional circumstances, such as those that are currently part of the State Government’s review of Local Government in NSW.

 

Council has previously been advised  in regard to the extension of our waste contracts of the following  provisions of the Local Government Act ,1993 that allows for the extension of contracts, where special circumstances exist:-

 

Section 55(3) of the Local Government Act exempts certain contracts from the requirement of tendering imposed by section 55(1).  Where relevant, section 55(3) provides:

55(3)    This section does not apply to the following contracts:

(i)   a contract where, because of extenuating circumstances, remoteness of locality or the unavailability of competitive or reliable tenders, a council decides by resolution (which states the reasons for the decision) that a satisfactory result would not be achieved by inviting tenders.

Clearly the extenuating circumstances exemption would apply to Council’s current contract situation with URM, and allow for this extension of the current contract to proceed without the need for a Tender.

 

Financial Implications

The one (1) year extension of the contract would continue at the current rates subject to CPI annual increases. This is the basis on which Council’s 2015/16 Budget was prepared.

 

Overall, the extension of the contract would have no adverse financial impact on Council, as the proposal from URM confirms for 1 year, the rates received by Council in 2012 and by doing so, provides Council with price and service security rather than having a scenario where price fluctuations could adversely impact on Council’s budgetary position.

 

Context

 

If Council resolves that an extension not be granted, Council would need to go to tender without delay to ensure that a waste disposal contract is in place by April 2016.

 

If a 12 month extension of the current contract is not supported and URM decide not to continue with their services to council, an interim contract would need to be arranged with an alternate contractor. Given the nature of the waste industry, it is likely that the contract charges would be at a significantly higher rate, due to the potential short term nature of the arrangement.

 

Taking into account collection and recycling rates for a short term contract would most likely be higher, Council would be required to revisit the approved 2015/16 Budget to address any waste disposal rate increases that may result from new contractual arrangements with a new service provider.

Waste Collection and Recycling Contract Options;

The two (2) options available to Council in the current environment are:-

1.   A contract extension for one (1) year, with a three (3) month exit clause, would allow Council to explore regional collection options, undertake a measured transmission to a new provider and further coordination with the commencement of the NSROC Regional Disposal Contract.

2.   Disregard the potential for a regional waste collection and recycling initiative and proceed to tender for a two (2) or five (5) year time frame for the Waste Collection and Recycling Services. This option would mean Council would miss out on the potential cost benefits of a combined contract with Ryde and Hunters Hill, and likely economies of scale associated with a larger regional service.

Discussion

Considering current timing, the feedback from previous community consultation, NSROC strategy and the financial implications, an extension to the current contract for one (1) year would enable Council to thoroughly investigate regional and shared service provisions for waste collection and recycling services.

URM has been responsive and performed well over the last 10 years of the contract and have fulfilled their contract obligations and demonstrated their ability to be responsive in meeting the needs of our community and to work with Council in improving our waste and recycling services.

Council’s annual customer service survey shows that the community rate our waste services very highly. As such, a measured approach is recommended at this time of change, as the proposed one (1) year contract extension would enable a well thought through assessment of the waste collection and recycling services that are available in the market.

 

Conclusion

 

A one (1) year extension on the current contract would align Council with the commencement of the NSROC Regional Disposal Contract that commences on 1 December 2015, and allow for transitional changes resulting from a possible change to the disposal location to be evaluated.

 

Note: Waste is currently tipped at Artarmon Transfer Station before being transported to Eastern Creek for land filling. Veolia will receive our waste at Clyde from 1 December 2015 and this will be transported to Woodlawn by train for processing.

 

It is recommended that a contract extension for the URM Waste Collection and Recycling Contract for one (1) year (with a three (3) month notice of termination clause) be endorsed for the following reasons:-

 

1.                Due to the limited time frames to prepare a tender and the circumstances surrounding the recently approved NSROC Waste Disposal Contract, the review of local government in NSW (Fit for the Future) a 12 month extension of the URM contract is considered the most cost effective and practical solution to meet the waste collection and recycling needs of the community, pursuant to the provisions of Section 55(3) of the Local Government Act, 1993.

 

2.    In consideration of Council’s service obligations and the need to provide a proficient and responsive waste disposal service that is in keeping with Council’s budget forecasts and the knowledge that URM are an ongoing concern and can fulfil their contract obligations.

 

3.    URM have been responsive and has performed well over the last 19 years of the contract and have fulfilled their obligations of the contract and demonstrated their ability to meet the needs of both Council and our community in collecting of waste and recyclable materials.

 

4    The past community survey provided residents with the opportunity to provide direct feedback on our waste services. 82% of respondents ranked their overall satisfaction level as being satisfied or very satisfied, with this result being a reflection of the combined work of Council and URM.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.    Council exercises its power under Section 55(3) of the Local Government Act not to call for a new waste tender given the extenuating circumstances identified in the report;

2.    The General Manager be delegated the authority to negotiate and sign contract extension agreements with United Resource Management (URM) Pty Ltd, in accordance with the current Waste Collection and Recycling Contract for one (1) year until 1 October 2016, with an exit clause included that allows Council to terminate the contract extension, subject to three (3) months notice being given to the contractor;

3.    United Resource Management (URM) Pty Ltd be notified of Council’s decision in this matter; and

4.    Authority be granted to the Mayor and General Manager to execute the contract documentation under Council’s Common Seal.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2015

NSROC Regional Waste Disposal Contract

 

 

Subject:          NSROC Regional Waste Disposal Contract    

Record No:     SU4277 - 54166/15

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       David Wilson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The NSROC Regional Waste Disposal Tender that has been developed negotiated and evaluated over the past 4 years.  After an extensive and thorough review of the three tenders received, Veolia Environmental Services have been awarded the contract for the disposal of putrescible (red bin) waste and kerbside bulky waste from December 2015.

 

Background

 

Waste disposal is a very important issue facing all Councils as they plan for future population growth and the decreasing availability of disposal sites in and around Metropolitan Sydney.

 

In 2011 NSROC member Councils agreed to investigate the opportunities for a regional waste disposal strategy. During this period of review, all NSROC member Councils were invited to participate and be involved, but in recent times Hornsby and North Sydney Councils resolved to withdraw their participation in the regional project. The robustness of the tender system and the contractual arrangements entered into, does allow for additional Councils to join or rejoin in the contract.

 

Lane Cove Council has consistently supported the regional approach to waste management as it seeks to provide the most efficient and effective solutions to regional waste issues.

 

Discussion

 

Lane Cove, Ryde, Willoughby, Ku-ring-gai and Hunters Hill Councils have joined forces in response to this challenge and negotiated a ten-year regional waste disposal contract that will deliver annual savings of up to $2 million and result in over 280,000 tonnes of waste being diverted from landfill and converted into compost and fuel, using the latest mechanical biological treatment (MBT) technology.

 

The regional contract will be managed under an agreement between the five participating Councils and waste provider Veolia Environmental Services (Veolia) . The joint agreement demonstrated the power of Councils working together for the benefit of the region and sets a benchmark for other Councils to follow in terms of cooperation and innovative outcomes

 

This new contract represents a big win for the community and environment as it will deliver substantial annual savings over the course of the ten-year contract and the community will receive better value for every tonne of material processed, and by removing duplication of administration costs.

 

The new waste contract will be phased in over the NSROC region from December 2015 and will deliver a raft of benefits, including:-

·   Annual savings up to $2 million through efficiencies;

·   Better value for every tonne of material recycled;

·   Reduced procurement costs of each member Council;

·    Cuts to ‘red tape’ through a single point of management between member Councils and the company;

·    Securing the Councils’ NSW EPA 2022 target of 70% of total municipal waste diverted from landfill;

·    Driving investment in new technology that converts ‘red bin’ and clean up waste into a compost-like substance used in mine site rehabilitation and refuse-derived fuel products used in cement manufacturing; and

·    Facilitating construction of two new waste processing facilities by Veolia securing waste resource   recovery for up to 15 years.

 

The development of the contract was the result of a rigorous strategic planning and a complex tender process that was reviewed by NSROC’s legal counsel and procurement administrator. The main objective of this process was to ultimately achieve better waste outcomes for the region, through expanded waste processing, better value for money and cost effective waste disposal services for the 360,000 residents that reside in the five participating Local Government Areas.

 

Overall the new contract is a strategic approach to waste management, not just locally, but regionally and secures a cost effective solution to residents of Lane Cove for the next decade. In addition the new technologies employed by Veolia look to a sustainable future with a potential of over 80% recovery from Council collected waste when fully operational in 10-15 years time.

 

Veolia have confirmed that the NSROC Regional Waste Disposal Contract worth $200 million contract signalled an investment in new technology and jobs. Veolia has approvals in place for immediate investment in mechanical biological treatment and energy from waste product with the construction of new waste facilities at their Woodlawn waste treatment facility (former gold / copper mine) in the Southern Tablelands of NSW.

 

The new waste facilities will process 33,000 tonnes of waste from ‘red bin’ and similar sources each year from mid-2017 and around 9,000 tonnes of clean up waste per annum from 2018.When fully operational both facilities will deliver over 80% resource recovery from waste, in years 3 (MSW) and 4 (Clean Up) of the contract term.

 

Conclusion

 

At a time when it is being suggested that Councils cannot work together, NSROC estimates that the contract will deliver in the order of $2 million dollars per annum in savings on current market prices for the comparable services, once the contract is fully operational and providing both disposal and processing services, for the five communities involved.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2015

Community Wellbeing Survey 2015

 

 

Subject:          Community Wellbeing Survey 2015    

Record No:     SU5061 - 54397/15

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):       Carol Sinclair 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At the meeting of 21 July 2014 Council considered a Report regarding the development of a Community Wellbeing Survey to increase Council’s knowledge and awareness of current trends and issues in the area and to track changes in attitudes over time.  The Report discussed the requirements under the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework for Council to develop ways of measuring and understanding community wellbeing; reporting against community visions or aspirations and; the requirement for Councils to consider community concerns that may not directly relate to Councils’ responsibilities or be under its controls or influence.  The first Community Wellbeing Survey was conducted in June 2015 and this Report provides feedback to Council on the results of the Survey. It is intended that the Survey be conducted again in two (2) years. 

 

Background

 

Council employed the consultancy services of the University of Technology: Centre for Local Government (UTS:CLG) to work with staff to develop a set of indicators and measures of community wellbeing informed by the social issues aligned to Council’s Strategic Plan (CSG).

 

The consultancy also developed the Wellbeing Survey, consisting of 33 questions (many with additional questions within them) and 10 demographic questions.  Answers were often on a scale, for example from Often, Sometimes, Infrequently and Never or, Very Important, Somewhat Important, Neither Important or Unimportant, Somewhat Unimportant and Very Unimportant. Respondents were also asked to tick boxes or circle the answers that best fitted their opinions. In some cases they were asked open ended questions and provided with the space to record their answer.

 

Method

 

The Survey, an invitation letter from the Mayor and a reply paid envelope were sent to 3,000 randomly selected rate paying households in the Lane Cove LGA and an on-line survey was used to reach younger residents and people who are renting.  Responses were received from 763 residents, which is considered to be a large sample, Council typically surveys 300 people for deliberative polls.

 

Discussion

 

A feedback report has been prepared by UTS:CLG and is attached at AT-1.  It shows the findings of the survey.  It is intended that the initial survey be the baseline for all future surveys. It is not intended to always ask as many questions as the initial survey, but the initial survey results will allow for ongoing comparisons.

 

Council continues to liaise with the consultant to prepare a supplementary report showing a comparison of the findings from other Councils who have conducted similar surveys.  This will be provided at the December Council meeting. The Report in December will also breakdown the survey into clear indicators such as community connectedness; quality of life; civic engagement, community diversity, personal health and wellbeing and community safety. The December Report will also include info graphics to promote the results both on the website and in Council’s newsletters.

 

Some general findings are listed below:-

 

Community Connectedness

·     58.2% of people were satisfied or very satisfied with the opportunities for community interaction through participation in clubs, groups or organisations in the local area with just over half of residents participating often in a least one community activity.

·     97.2 % of respondents said they would help if a neighbour calls for assistance and 92.5% said feel they can call on their neighbours for help or assistance.

·     Over half of respondents (54.7%) volunteered in the last 12 months

 

Quality of Life

·     The majority of respondents (54.3%) think that the quality of life in Lane Cove has remained steady over the past few years. However, the remainder are equally split between those who think quality of life has been declining (22.6%) and those who think it has been improving (23.0%).

·     Proximity to the city (72.1%) and access to public transport (62.8%) were given as the top two reasons for living in Lane Cove.

·     Just over half of respondents agree (40.8%) or strongly agree (11.9%) that there are enough opportunities to attend arts and related cultural activities.

·     Half of respondents (50%) believe that new development fits extremely poorly or poorly with the character of Lane Cove. Only 24.6% of respondents are positive, answering ‘well’ or ‘extremely well’.

·     59.2% of respondents have lived in the area for 15 years or more and almost half of the survey respondents (47.7%) have been living at their current address for 15 years or more.

·     Three-quarters of respondents (76.1%) are concerned or very concerned about environmental sustainability.

 

Civic Engagement

·     Just over half of respondents (56.0%) reported having been engaged in at least one civic activity over the past year.

·     Just over half of respondents strongly agree (9.2%) or agree (48.6%) that residents have opportunities to participate in planning and having a say about Lane Cove.

 

Community Diversity

·     In terms of being suitable for a diverse population mix, respondents think that Lane Cove is much more suitable for young children, families and seniors than for teenagers and singles

 

Personal Health and Wellbeing

·     People were satisfied with the opportunities in Lane Cove to engage in sport and recreation and three-quarters of respondents had participated in sport and recreation over the last 12 months

·     With regard to healthy behaviours only 3.25% of people said they smoked and 94.6% said they ate healthily the day before the survey was taken

·     While a quarter of respondents are regular users of Lane Cove’s bushland tracks, bushland tracks are considered very important (54.7%) or somewhat important (26.9%) to a majority of respondents.

·     The most common relationship to Lane Cove’s waterways is to look at them (40.9%) closely followed by walking along them (36.3%).  Waterways are regarded as very important (56.5%) or important (24.8%) to the majority of respondents.

 

Community Safety

·     Respondents’ perceptions of their personal safety is very high during the day, 96.9% and 64.9% of respondents reported they felt safe walking around the area at night.

 

The survey also captured information about the respondents views on the social and welfare services they are unable to access locally, the areas where people feel less safe and where it is difficult to walk around and the roads or intersections where there are safety concerns. Interesting demographic data including ages of respondents and ethnicity was also collected. Council staff and the consultants are working through this data. 

 

Conclusion

 

The Community Wellbeing Survey Report has provided Council with a baseline assessment of a number of variables that combine to give an overall assessment of the level of well-being in the community.  It provides some guidance for areas that Council can work on to try and improve the feeling of wellbeing for its residents and forms the basis for comparison when the second survey is conducted in two (2) years time.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Report on the Lane Cove Community Wellbeing Survey 2015

62 Pages

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2015

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot    

Record No:     SU220 - 54971/15

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 the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Council Snapshot - September 2015

51 Pages