m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

19 October 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 19 October 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 Deborah Hutchens. 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 19 October 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.      Expressions of Interest - Management of the Lane Cove Art and Design Makers Markets

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret; it further being considered that discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to public interest by reason of the foregoing. 

 

public forum

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

2.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 21 SEPTEMBER 2015

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

3.      Notice of Motion - Resident Advice Out of Hours Work

 

4.      Notice of Motion - Sister City Gunnedah

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

5.      Planning Proposal 21: 1 Sirius Road

 

6.      Finalisation of LEP Amendment - 302-314 Burns Bay Road

 

7.      Draft Sustainability Action Plan

 

8.      Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting Held 29 September 2015  

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

9.      Pecuniary Interest Returns 2015

 

10.    Lane Cove's Festival by the River

 

11.    Council Snapshot  

 

 

 

 

                   


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 October 2015

Notice of Motion - Resident Advice Out of Hours Work

 

 

Subject:          Notice of Motion - Resident Advice Out of Hours Work    

Record No:     SU1761 - 62448/15

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):       Councillor Daniel Strassberg 

 

 

Background

On Sunday 20 September at 3:30am in the middle of a residential area a crane was erected on a building site. For the next 3 hours the neighbourhood was subjected to loud noises of manoeuvre into position, reverse beeping of trucks and machinery, engines of generators and machinery, flood lights, flashing lights of safety trucks and general construction noise. Everything was done with full permission and consent.  An out of hours DA was approved by council, RMS was notified of road closure and large vehicle usage, Energy Australia approved the route to avoid low power lines however no one told the next door neighbours or surrounding residents. 

 

Residents who were woken up by the loud noises called:-

·               Council emergency number

·               Police

·               Rangers

·               Private certifier

·               Councillors

 

Residents understand that works may be carried out, out of hours so as to not impact traffic etc however there is a very large economic and community impact that needs to be taken into account. For example a neighbouring Doctor who was woken at 3:30am onwards had to reschedule patient rounds and airline employee did not have adequate rest to be able to work that day. With proper notification these residents could have made alternative arrangements. 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.    Council make it a condition for any Council approved work outside the approved hours, that all affected residents are notified at a minimum 36 hours prior to the work commencing by way of individual letter box drop;

2.    Staff determine the affected area based on proximity and topography to site; and

3.    An easy to locate button be set up on Council’s website with clear information on out of hours approvals with basic information and details.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Daniel Strassberg

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 October 2015

Notice of Motion - Sister City Gunnedah

 

 

Subject:          Notice of Motion - Sister City Gunnedah    

Record No:     SU2765 - 62453/15

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):       Councillor Pam Palmer 

 

 

Background

 

In November, 2001, Lane Cove adopted Gunnedah, NSW, as its Friendship Town under the “Green Hands” Initiative. This program aimed to link metropolitan and country councils where tree planting and other environmental works were needed.  A group of Lane Cove Councillors and Council staff visited Gunnedah and, following the visit, it was agreed that the two Councils would work together to develop Gunnedah's Wandobah Reserve Wetlands. This “Green Hands” project was developed to the design stage, but unfortunately drought conditions delayed further works.

 

In fact, by late 2002, the Gunnedah region was being severely affected by the worst drought it had experienced in living memory. Lane Cove Council rallied to the cause, and the two Councils joined forces to put on a “Drought Breaker” concert. The drought aid concert was held at St Ignatius College Riverview Hall on Friday, December 6, 2002. It featured performances by about 60 of Gunnedah's finest young talents, including musicians, dancers, singers, whip-crackers and gymnasts. Proceeds from the concert went to the Red Cross Farmhand Drought Relief Appeal.

 

On the night of the concert, the two Mayors announced a formal Sister City relationship. Since then, the two regions have been developing their ties, through reciprocal visits and communications.

 

For example, when Gallery Lane Cove opened in February 2012, the first ever exhibit was titled “Sister Cities” and featured female artists with works held in each Council’s art collection.

 

Last month, Gunnedah locals came to visit their Sister City, this time to enlist Lane Cove’s support to save their farming lands in the Liverpool Plains from the effects of long-wall mining.  The land in the Liverpool Plains is among the best in Australia for broad acre agriculture.  Drained by the Namoi River, soils in the area are distinctly black, have a high fertility rating and store a lot of water.  This soil type is only found on 2% of the earth’s surface and can be productive for thousands of years.

 

The coal mine proposal was given conditional approval by the Federal Government in July but will only be productive for 30 years.

 

The concern is that the mine will disturb the groundwater.  The plains rely on an aquifer 30m below the surface but the mine will be dug down to 300m.

 

Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce, whose New England electorate includes the Liverpool Plains, opposed the mine and has labelled it "ridiculous".

 

In summary, the proposed coal mine threatens farmland and water resources on the Liverpool plains which is one of Australia’s most productive agricultural regions.   It will also destroy over 800 hectares of koala habitat as well as important Aboriginal Heritage sites.

 

Lane Cove has an opportunity to replicate the close links it shared with Gunnedah in those harsh times of drought by once again joining with the farmers and other locals as they try to raise awareness of the threats to their future on the land.


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council declares its support for the people of our sister city in Gunnedah who are working to protect their land, water and environment from the impacts of Shenhua’s Watermark coal mine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Pam Palmer

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 October 2015

Planning Proposal 21: 1 Sirius Road

 

 

Subject:          Planning Proposal 21: 1 Sirius Road    

Record No:     SU5559 - 62499/15

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Terry Tredrea 

 

 

Executive Summary

In December 2014, a planning proposal was submitted to Council to rezone a 3.8ha parcel of industrial land at 1 Sirius Rd from IN2 Light Industrial to B4 Mixed Use, with increases in FSR from 1:1 to 2.5:1 and Height from 5 to 18 storeys, with formal lodgment in February on payment of the rezoning application fee. 

 

Council Has Allowed Additional Time in the Process

The proposal has, at the applicant’s request, been considered by Council on a number of occasions over a total of nine months: on 20 April, 10 August and 21 September (see Background). On the last occasion, Council resolved to allow the applicant time to provide “an amended proposal and/ or further information” in relation to the proposal.

On 29 September 2015, the applicant submitted that information:-

·    Planning Proposal (Addendum Information: Appraisal under the Industrial Lands Checklist) (AT-1); and

·    Design Concept (including Landscape Concept & Environmental Assessment) (AT-2).

 

Section 117 Direction / Employment Lands Loss / Precedent / Strategic Responsibility

 

Section 117 Ministerial Direction 1.1 (Business and Industrial Zones) aims to “protect employment land in business and industrial zones”. To this end, a relevant planning authority should “retain the areas and locations of existing business and industrial zones”.

 

Lane Cove West is identified in the NSW Employment Lands Development Program 2014 as an industrial zoning.

The Metropolitan Strategy’s 2014 Plan (page 49) references the Employment Lands which clearly maps the Area as Industrial Zone. This is also supported by the Inner North Subregional Strategy (Figure 9 – within the Economy & Employment section) in which LCWBP is named and mapped specifically as “Industrial zone – light manufacturing”. LCWBP is also included in the dataset for the State Government’s Employment Land Precincts Development Status.

 

This proposal would significantly reduce Lane Cove’s principal industrial area i.e. by 7% approximately. It would, additionally, set an undesirable precedent for other sites to further erode the employment land stock. Lane Cove’s indicative target is for at least 6,000 new dwellings (12,000 new residents) and that is being met with the St Leonards projects already endorsed by Council. Council’s balanced planning for the LGA needs to ensure employment in proportion to that future population growth.

 

The precedent set, if this application were approved, has potential to further erode this industrial lands supply. There are several other sites subject to the constraints put by the applicant with sloping topography adjacent to bushland, yet developed viably. The industrial land area would be severely reduced if this applicant’s approaches were applied. Additionally the developed sites would be likely to pressure Council for a much-increased scale given the existing development on those sites. The few vacant sites (e.g. 14-16 Orion Road) without those constraints would constitute a very small proportion of the employment land requirements for the future population.

 

IN2 Light Industrial land is valued in Lane Cove West, which is considered part of the Global Economic Corridor. It should be noted that Council did not support the Part 3A approval for mixed use development at 150 Epping Road. 

The issue is not whether a design concept suitable for a development application has been provided, as the process is not at the DA stage. However, if it were, it is not Council’s responsibility to assess a DA but that of the JRPP. 

 

Council does, however, have responsibility for strategic planning to maintain the LEP as representing land use policy for the future of Lane Cove.

 

Local Issues

 

The scale (up to around 18 storeys) proposed in terms of visual impact is inappropriate along the Lane Cove National Park, Lane Cove River and opposite the boundary of another LGA (Ryde).

 

The public benefit of a boating facility and kiosk, crossing Council land and accessed over the site, does not justify a residential zoning as it could also be provided as a requirement of a modern industrial development or potentially with the approval of SC Johnson over that site.

 

The planning proposal as amended, with further information, nevertheless does not adequately address the reasons given in the Deferred Report to the Council Meeting of 21 September 2015 that the proposal is not justified strategically.

 

Summary

It is therefore recommended that Council not support Planning Proposal 21 to rezone 1 Sirius Rd from IN2 Light Industrial to B4 Mixed Use for the reasons given in the Report to Council on 21 September (AT-3), in particular that:-

·    The proposal is inconsistent with State and Council strategic planning documents, and it is important not to pre-empt the imminent Greater Sydney Commission and its future District Plans;

·    It sets a precedent for further applications that would undermine the viability of the Lane Cove West industrial estate;

·    The site is poorly suited for residential location and use for many reasons (lack of alternative exits/ bush fire issues; visual impact; ecological impact; absence of social facilities);

·    The site has been demonstrated by independent consultants to be capable of industrial development in a design concept which allows for truck access and may increase to FSR 1:1 with an additional fifth level;

·    The public benefits proposed could be provided with industrial development as well.

 

Background

In December 2014, a planning proposal was made to Council 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.

 

A report was considered by Council on 20 April 2015. The Report recommended not supporting Planning Proposal 21. Council resolved:-

(ii)  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

(i)   The proponent be invited to address Council.

 

On 10 August, the proponent and supporting consultants attended and addressed a Councillor workshop.

 

A second Report to Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 21 September, 2015 responded to the issues raised in the workshop and again recommended non-support.

 

The Report to Council summarised the reasons for recommending that Council not support Planning Proposal 21 to rezone 1 Sirius Rd from IN2 Light Industrial to B4 Mixed Use in relation to the following Issues:-

(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 land-use 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.

Council resolved:-

“that the matter be deferred to the Ordinary Council Meeting of 19 October 2015 to allow the applicant time to provide an amended proposal and / or further information in relation to the proposal.”

 

On 29 September, 2015, the applicant submitted the following attachments:

 

Attachment AT-1:

 

1.   Planning Proposal (Addendum Information) Appraisal of the site under the Industrial Lands Checklist (ddc urban planning, September 2015); and

 

Attachment AT-2:

 

1.   Design Concept Report (stanisic architects) – changed from original Report;

2.   Landscape Concept (Sturt Noble Associates) – changed from original Report; and

3.   Flora and environmental assessments (Anne Clements + Associates; Sept 23, 2015) – minor amendments to October 2, 2014 Report.

 

The Design Concept Report states, “This Report summarises the design concept presented to Councillors [at the August 2015 workshop for Councillors]”.

 

Discussion

 

This report assesses the applicant’s amended proposal and/or further information of 29 September 2015, where they address the staff report’s 13 reasons above for recommending non-support.

 

This report discusses as one whole set:-

A.   The new material presented on 29 September, 2015; and

B.   The previous material raised and addressed in staff comments in the earlier reports.

 

Issue (i)     The Proposal is Inconsistent with State and Council Strategic Planning Documents

 

A.  New material presented on 29 September, 2015

 

Applicant’s Response No.1 –Status of the Industrial Zone

 

No reference to or status of the site (staff interpret this to mean land use status) is given to Lane Cove West Business Park (LCWBP) in A Plan for Growing Sydney, 2014.

 

Council Assessment No.1

 

Disagree: The Metropolitan Strategy’s 2014 Plan (page 49) references the Employment Lands which clearly maps the Area as Industrial Zone. This is also supported by the Inner North Subregional Strategy (Figure 9 – within the Economy & Employment section) in which LCWBP is named and mapped specifically as “Industrial zone – light manufacturing”. LCWBP is also included in the dataset for the State Government’s Employment Land Precincts Development Status.

 

Applicant’s Response No.2 – Industrial Cluster

 

LCWBP is not “a significant industrial cluster”, being “largely unconnected activity”.

 

Council Assessment No.2

 

Disagree. “Cluster” refers to similar land uses. Council land use studies in the past decade have indicated a significant proportion of medical related manufacturing, for example.

 

Applicant’s Response No.3 – Sub-Optimal

 

“…the subject site is outside the core area of the industrial precinct.” This is evidenced by the irregular shape of the block, and the fact that Apollo Place did not extend west adjacent to the subject site. It is “sub-optimal industrial land”.

 

Council Assessment No.3 

 

Not proven. This is assumed to mean providing a reduced yield by comparison with nearby similar lots, presumably a response to constraints, described as “characterised by urban bushland, riparian zones and sloping land”.  The possible suitability of the site for any light industrial use is addressed below in Issue (v), particularly regarding the Hansen Yuncken design. Other sites in the Area are viable with slopes, bushland fringes and irregular shapes. The site is on one of the Area’s main roads i.e. Sirius Rd (rather than the smaller street, Apollo Place).

 

Applicant’s Response No.4 – Alternative IN2

 

High-tech/medical precincts are “earmarked” for a) Macquarie Park; b) Northern Beaches Hospital;

c) Brookvale/Dee-Why.

 

Council Assessment No.4   

 

Disagree.  Light industry is not exclusively focused on medical uses. However, a) Macquarie Park is a Business precinct, as addressed above under Response No.2.  b) Recent anecdotal evidence/ inquiries have linked Macquarie University medical research to LCWBP, where cheaper light industrial land is available. c)  Brookvale / Dee-Why has been confirmed in the Metropolitan Strategy as a Major Centre, which would logically support the planned Frenches Forest Health Precinct, being closer. However, it is zoned General Industry IN1, is surrounded by a commercial precinct of high amenity and may therefore be more expensive land.

 

B.  Previous material raised and addressed in staff comments in earlier reports

 

Applicant’s Response No.5 - Macquarie Park

 

The Plan focuses on Macquarie Park (a strategic centre) “to support new high-tech industrial precinct/medical technologies” in the region. LCWBP is not feasible to develop in the same way as Macquarie Park.

 

Council Assessment No.5

 

Agree, however. Macquarie Park is zoned entirely for business/commercial, not industrial, and is therefore not a direct competitor. Moreover, the only undeveloped/serviced land in Macquarie Park is 10.9ha at Wicks Road, again under business not industrial zoning. Recent State Govt intentions are “to enhance the area’s existing role as a major commercial centre.”

 

Applicant’s Response No.6 – Rail Connection

 

The LCWBP lacks a heavy rail connection.

 

Council Assessment No.6

 

Irrelevant. Figure 41 of the Employment Lands Development Program 2015 Report shows that much of Sydney’s employment land is not located on a rail line.

 

Applicant’s Response No.7 – Demand

 

There is a “lack of investment within the Inner North industrial market.”

 

Council Assessment No.7 

 

Disagree. As stated previously, a survey of development applications  in Lane Cove West Business Park for the period 2012-2014, shows 21 approvals, including 8 warehouses (mostly small-lot), 3 small factories, 2 laboratories, 2 shops, a child care centre, a depot and various renovations. This complements a trend identified in Council’s study of the area in 2002, showing almost 50% of its firms to be high-tech.

 

Applicant’s Response No.8 – Nearby Vacant Land

 

LCWBP contains “several vacant lots more conducive for industrial use”.

 

Council Assessment No.8    

 

Disagree.  There is no vacant site of comparable size demonstrated to have industrial potential.

 

Applicant’s Response No.9 – Employment

 

Employment forecasting is for reduced manufacturing in the Inner North subregion. Employment targets can be met outside LCWBP.

 

Council Assessment No.9 

 

Disagree. The Employment Lands Development Program (ELDP) 2014 Update Report concludes that while the demand for warehouse space is predicted to grow over the next 10 years, the demand for manufacture space is predicted to remain flat, though this is a broad generalisation. Previous reports have shown that high-tech employment is highest within the Inner North subregion population of Sydney. As stated earlier, within the subregion, LCWBP provides one of the largest zoned and serviced land opportunities for the future industrial workforce.

 

Issue (ii)    Rezoning to Permit Predominantly Residential Land Uses Would Pre-empt the NSW Department of Planning & Environment's Release of Sub Regional / District Plans, and the Results of its Recent Investigations into the Potential of Employment Lands Regionally

 

A.    New material presented on 29 September, 2015

 

Applicant’s Response

It is argued elsewhere that the site is unsuitable for IN2 use, and Mixed Use has “little potential for land use conflict” with an IN2 precinct. Therefore, there is no need to await a study on the LCWBP precinct as a whole.

 

Council Assessment

 

Disagree. Any physical/visual isolation of the site does not imply that a residential use will not conflict within an IN2 zone. It is argued in earlier reports that it will conflict, particularly the physical and social impact of industrial land uses on residential land uses nearby.

 

Issue (iii)   The Site is a Valuable Local Contribution to the Global Economic Corridor and a Residential Use Would Reduce “Employment Land” in the Area

 

B.  Previous material raised and addressed in staff comments in earlier reports

 

Applicant’s Response

 

“…retaining the site as industrial would likely result in a vacant, unused site adding no value economically” (economic assessment).

 

Council Assessment

 

Disagree:  See above and below. Furthermore, Council’s aim of retaining employment land for long-term needs of the future population anticipates future viability of the site.

 

Issue (iv)   Rezoning to Permit Residential Use Would Compromise Future IN2 Uses in the Precinct, With Likely Land-Use Conflicts With Industrial Neighbours

 

See Issue (ii).

 

Issue (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

 

A.  New material presented on 29 September, 2015

 

Applicant’s Response No.1 -  Access

 

The 3-level Hansen Yuncken design limits tenants requiring ground level access only.

 

Council Assessment

 

Disagree: All 14 tenancies have ground level access to manufacture/storage space, plus office overhead. However (as below), tenancies at levels above ground occur in this industrial area and others such as North Ryde, etc.

 

Applicant’s Response No.2 -  FSR

 

The Hansen Yuncken design provides FSR of only 0.7:1, below  the 1:1 permitted. “It cannot even be developed to its capacity.”

 

Council Assessment

 

Disagree: The yield of 0.7:1 could be increased to around 1:1 by adding a fifth level. The Hansen Yuncken indicative concept was obtained to demonstrate that truck access is available to the site.

 

The economic argument has not been proven that this is the reason the site could not be developed.

 

Applicant’s Response No.3 – Likely Take-Up

 

The design does not address likely take-up (as a DA design would).

 

Council Assessment

 

Not relevant: The intention of the concept design is to show that the site is physically capable of light industrial use.

 

Applicant’s Response No.4 -  Hub

 

The site is too small and isolated to generate a culture and energy attractive to typical high-tech style users.

 

Council Assessment

 

Unproven:  that a 2.78ha sub-precinct of 14 tenancies cannot generate this style of hub.

 

Issue (vi) Residential Development is Not Needed to Meet Council’s Housing Targets

 

B.  Previous material raised and addressed in staff comments in earlier reports

 

Applicant’s Response:  No.1 – Housing Potential (in previous submission)

 

The site has valuable potential for housing and commercial uses  The proposal would “consolidate a mixed use precinct at the northern edge of the estate with the site at 150 Epping Road currently under development.”

 

Council Assessment No.1

 

Disagree. The additional housing has been demonstrated to be unnecessary to meet Council’s (State) housing targets. Moreover, the 150 Epping Road development Part 3A was not supported by Council. However, unlike 1 Sirius Road, it is located on a major highway with nearby convenient public transport, and it is separated from the industrial estate by a deep valley of natural bushland and waterway.

 

Applicant’s Response No.2 (in previous submission)

 

A Plan for Growing Sydney emphasises the need for more housing and increased employment opportunities across Sydney to cater for the growth in population.

 

Council Assessment No.2

 

Not relevant. This does not address the strategically appropriate zoning for this site.

 

Issue (vii)     It is Not Near a Commercial / Retail Centre or Community Facilities

 

Not addressed.

 

Issue (viii)    The Site is Not Near Public Transport (900m Walk Through Industrial Precinct)

 

Not addressed.

 

Issue (ix)      Only One Entry/Egress is Possible, Which is a Risk to Emergency Vehicles, Under Rural Fire Service Policies

 

Not addressed.

 

Issue (x)       Commercial (B4) Use of the Site Would Not Provide More Employment Than IN2

 

A.  New material presented on 29 September, 2015

 

Applicant’s Response No.1

 

“…the loss of a relatively small vacant disconnected site will have no impact on the current employment potential of the precinct or its ability to continue to provide local employment.”

 

Council Assessment No.1

 

Disagree. The site has the potential to provide 277 jobs (current proposal) or 340 jobs (Hansen Yuncken IN2 design). However, the nature of those jobs (commercial versus “employment”) would be affected. ‘Employment” is defined as IN2 uses.

 

Applicant’s Response No.2

 

“The focus for jobs in the region is towards major centers within the Global Economic Corridor. These centers have heavy rail transport (Macquarie Park) or new commitments for rapid transit corridors (Brookvale – Dee Why)”.

 

Council Assessment No.2

 

Disagree. One Direction in the Metro Strategy, is to “grow strategic centres”, in part to provide employment on transport corridors. This does not imply that other employment areas within the Global Economic Corridor are expendable. Moreover, Macquarie Park and Brookvale are commercial/general industrial centres, not specifically Light Industrial IN2. It is noted that Brookvale’s industrial area has functioned in the absence of connection to a route such as the M2.

 

Issue (xi)      The Impact on Air Quality from the Adjacent Lane Cove Tunnel Stack

 

B.  Previous material raised and addressed in staff comments in earlier reports

 

Applicant’s Response (previously addressed)

 

As stated in the 21 September Report, matters of concern raised by a resident regarding air quality from the adjacent Lane Cove Tunnel stack have been addressed.

 

Council Assessment

 

Pending: As stated in the 21 September Report, 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.

 

Issue (xii)     Environmental Conflicts Exist Between Remnant Bushland and Proposed Work

 

A.  New material presented on 29 September, 2015

 

Applicant’s Response No.1

 

The amended Flora and Environmental Assessments introduces newly articulated environmental benefits arising from residential in preference to industrial development:

a.   Soil remediation is of a higher standard for residential than for industrial use;

b.   “ former infrastructure such as the industrial wharf and adjoining estuarine environment be considered as part of the proposal”;

c.   Consider the bicycle/pedestrian access along the waterfront;

d.   Avoid adversely overshadowing onsite of retained bushland;

e.   Water sensitive urban design (WSUD) to protect the receiving waters;

f.    Landscaping should reflect the micro-climates.

 

Council Assessment No.1

 

Partly Agree: The amended Assessment does not address the conflict created by any encroachment into the Coastal Saltmarsh ecologically endangered community. Nor does the Assessment come to new conclusions. However, in response to the new benefits listed above:

a.   Agree. However, if the land use remains industrial, there is no need for greater remediation. Nevertheless, this is an environmental benefit of the proposal;

b.   No rationale is given for this;

c.   No rationale is given for this;

d.   This appears difficult to attain under the proposal;

e.   Partly agree: WSUD measures would benefit, although these are likely to be conditional on any development immediately adjacent to Lane Cove River.

f.    Partly agree. However, the previous species list of locally indigenous plants (Table 5) is replaced by less specific “opportunities” for wet sclerophyll and rainforest species to the south of the building.

 

Applicant’s Response No.2

 

Ideally the site needs significant rehabilitation and the formalization of public access around the water. This required work is costly and further constricts the viability of the site.

 

Council Assessment No.2

 

Disagree:  Council’s own extensive system of walking tracks, established over many years, supports access to the bushland, including adjacent to this site. See Bushwalks Around Lane Cove (Ed. 7; first edition 1982), Walk No.14 Blackman Park to Epping Road.

 

Applicant’s Response No.3

 

The development of this site for industrial buildings… “fails to introduce a population into the locality who would utilise the walkways and public lands”.

 

Council Assessment No.3

 

Disagree:  Council’s system of walking trails encourages public access to the waterfront environment. A previous report stated that a residential population adjacent to protected bushland often introduces weeds (as private garden plants), pets (as threats to native fauna) and trampling (where residents take short-cuts).

 

Issue (xiii)    The Proposed Residential Buildings Would be Visually Intrusive and Out of Scale With Surrounding Development

 

A.  New material presented on 29 September, 2015

 

Applicant’s Response No.1

 

The new architectural and landscape designs are an improvement on the original designs.

 

Council Assessment No.1

 

Agree: However, the greater articulation of buildings, the ‘green fingers’, the attention to ‘public and community facilities’ and the green roofs, while illustrative of greater resolution of design detail, nevertheless maintain the bulk and scale of the original proposal, one of the original concerns.

 

Applicant’s Response No.2

 

“The development of this site for industrial buildings is not the most attractive outcome for the site.”

 

Council Assessment No.2

 

Unproven: The generalized implication that a series of residential flat buildings up to 19 storeys is a more attractive visual impact than a series of 4-storey light industrial buildings is unproven.

 

Conclusion

 

Council has been fair in providing adequate opportunity for the applicant to present the proposal. The planning proposal has been deferred twice by Council, at the applicant’s request, to enable further information to be submitted. The planning proposal as amended, with further information, nevertheless does not adequately address the reasons given in the Deferred Report to the Council Meeting of 21 September 2015 that the proposal is not justified strategically. In particular:-

·    The proposal is inconsistent with State and Council strategic planning documents, and it is important not to pre-empt the imminent Greater Sydney Commission and its future District Plans;

·    It sets a precedent for further applications that would undermine the viability of the Lane Cove West industrial estate;

·    The site is poorly suited to residential location and use for many reasons (lack of alternative exits; visual impact; ecological impact; absence of community facilities);

·    The public benefits proposed could be provided with industrial use as well;

·    The estate presents an industrial alternative to the Macquarie Park “commercial centre”;

·    The site is capable of industrial development.

 

Having regard to the above factors, most particularly the importance of consistency with the State Government’s imminent plans, Council is requested to resolve that the Planning Proposal for 1 Sirius Rd not be supported.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

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

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

(v)     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

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

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

(viii)   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;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

AT‑1 View

Planning Proposal - Addendum Information - 1 Sirius Road, 29 September 2015

11 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Design Concept Report – Mixed Use Development - 1 Sirius Road, 29 September 2015

112 Pages

(32MB)

Available Electronically

AT‑3 View

Deferred Report - Planning Proposal 21 - 20 April 2015

9 Pages

 

 

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 October 2015

Finalisation of LEP Amendment - 302-314 Burns Bay Road

 

 

Subject:          Finalisation of LEP Amendment - 302-314 Burns Bay Road    

Record No:     SU5445 - 61748/15

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Terry Tredrea 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

As part of Council’s redevelopment of the 302-314 Burns Bay Rd Precinct, it was necessary to modify the zoning and land classification boundaries between the RE1 Public Recreation Zone and R4 High Density Residential Zone to align with the new road boundary.

 

A Planning Proposal was submitted to the Department of Planning & Environment on 14 April 2015 for Gateway approval. As part of the reclassification process, Council engaged Krason Planning Pty Limited to conduct the Public Hearing required by the Department for reclassifications. The Hearing was held on 9 September 2015 at Council Chambers.  The Report on the Public Hearing is attached at AT-1.

 

Council undertook community consultation in relation to the proposal from 22 July 2014 to 1 September 2015.  One (1) public submission was received which opposed residential flat buildings in Lane Cove in general and one (1) Council submission was lodged (AT-2), which updated the survey of the area containing the road closure on Lot 101 DP1013285 and justified the reclassification of the public road/community centre from community to operational land.

 

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the relevant issues raised in the exhibition, address these issues, and recommend LEP Draft Amendment 19 – 302-314 Burns Bay Road for adoption without change.

 

Background

 

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting, dated 19 May 2014, Council resolved to:-

 

1.   Adopt the Planning Proposal for submission to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for Gateway approval to modify the zoning boundary between the RE1 Recreation Zone and R4 High Density Residential to align with the new road boundary over 304-314 Burns Bay Road (Lot 102 DP 1013285), with no other change to the LEP controls.

 

2.   Commence the process to reclassify as Operational Land that portion of 304-314 Burns Bay Road Lane Cove affected by road and consequential changes to land classification relating to land changed to R4 in (1) above, under the Local Government Act 1993 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

3.   In the event that the reclassification referred to in (2) above is successful, proceed with a subdivision to create a public road, a lot zoned R4 to the west of the new road, a lot zoned RE1 to the east of the road and a stratum lot containing the community centre below the new road.

 

4.   Note that the area of R4 zoned land to be added to the park shown as Area 5 in AT-3 will be rezoned RE1 and classified as Community Land.

 

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

 

6.   Note that arrangements will be made for the Mayor and Councillors to formally open the new road on Saturday 30th August 2014.

 

On 13 October 2014, Council resolved to apply to the Minister to gazette the road closure on 302 Burns Bay Road, and to classify the land as operational. The portion of 302 which will form part of Waterview Drive is proposed in this Amendment 19 to be rezoned R4 to RE1, as shown below:-

 

 

 

On 21 November 2014, Council acquired 296 Burns Bay Road under the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991. The land defaults to operational classification, and remains zoned R4.

 

During this time, construction of Waterview Drive proceeded. On 14 April 2015, following a final survey of Waterview Drive, the Planning Proposal was submitted to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for Gateway Determination. Determination was issued by the Department on 20 May 2015.

 

Discussion

 

Community consultation on the Planning Proposal was undertaken from 22 July 2014 to 1 September 2015 in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Regulation 2000 and Local Government Act 1993.  It included:-

·    Static public exhibitions at the Council Administration Centre and Libraries;

·    An email to all registered members of the community interested in any matter Council consults on;

·    A website exhibition; and

·    Public notice in the North Shore Times on 22 July 2015

 

As a result, one public submission and one submission from Council was received.

 

The Issues: Residential Flat Buildings (RFBs) in Lane Cove

 

The public submission received raises two general concerns about RFBs in Lane Cove, regarding the proposal to adjust the boundary of the R4 area at the site:-

1.   RFB’s contain “tiny rooms”, considered too small for human comfort; and

2.   RFB’s in Lane Cove are increasing parking problems “at the shopping centre” (presumably Lane Cove Village).

 

Comment

1.   All RFBs in NSW are designed to comply with the Apartment Design Guide under the State Environmental Planning Policy 65. This controls design criteria for apartment size and layout.

2.   The zone boundary adjustment that is the subject of this amendment will result in a net decrease of 240m2 of R4 land rezoned to RE1. The land on 296 and 302 Burns Bay Road is currently zoned R4 and will remain so. Consequently parking demand in Lane Cove will not be altered.

 

Council Submission to the Public Hearing 9 September

 

1.   The reclassification of Waterview Drive (proposed Lot 10) and the community facility (substratum lot 14) from community to operational land is justified by:-

a.    Allowing Council the power to grant a right-of-carriageway easement on this land in favour of the residential site to the south (subject of previous Deed of Agreement); and

b.    Allowing Council to enable operational matters including leasing of the new community facility to be handled outside a Plan of Management. It is proposed that the stratum below the road be also operational land.

 

2.   The closure of Lot 101 as public road was supported by a separate Council resolution, and is unrelated to the public hearing and the rezoning boundary as proposed (end of AT-3).

 

Comment

1.   Currently, classification as community land requires a hearing in the NSW Supreme Court for the Court to grant an easement pursuant to Section 88K of the Conveyancing Act. Council therefore supports the proposed reclassification of the road and substratum for community facility from Community to Operational Land to facilitate its dedication as public road.

2.   The Lot 101 road closure is a separate matter to this Planning Proposal. The amended proposed lot boundaries do not impact on the changed zoning boundaries, nor the classification boundaries.

 

 

Section 117 Ministerial Directions

 

There are three Ministerial Directions under Section 117 of the EP&A Act providing guidance in the assessment of Planning Proposals and the making LEP’s that pertain to the land and / or type of development contemplated on the subject sites:-

·      Direction 3.1 (Residential Zones) aims to broaden the choice of building types and locations for housing and make more efficient use of existing infrastructure, particularly by provision of high density housing. The proposal will result in a net loss of 240m2 of R4 (High Density Residential) land to RE1 (Public Recreation). This translates to a loss of 4.8% of residential land. However, this 240m2 is not considered a significant loss, especially as the consequent gain in RE1 land will directly improve the amenity of future adjacent, high-density residential developments.

·      Direction 3.4 (Integrating Land Use and Transport) aims in part to improve access to housing by public transport. 314 Burns Bay Road is serviced by reasonably frequent bus public transport. Furthermore, consistent with the objectives and principles of the Department of Planning’s Improving Transport Choice – Guidelines for Planning and Development, the new road is designed to link development on the site with that further south (316-332 Burns Bay Road). This will “promote an integrated transport approach by managing road traffic flow” (Department Guideline).

·      Direction 6.2 (Reserving Land for Public Purposes) aims to facilitate the provision and supply of public services and facilities. 1260.3m2 of community land (effectively the new road) is proposed to be reclassified as operational land. The land remains public land as a community facility, and the road is a public purpose.

 

 

Conclusion

 

This report outlines the single public submission and single Council submission received during the public exhibition of LEP Draft Amendment – 302-314 Burns Bay Road. The concern in general for apartment sizes and impacts on Lane Cove Village parking are not considered relevant to this LEP Amendment.  As concluded in the Public Hearing Report, the Commissioner supports the proposed reclassification of the road and substratum for a community facility to Operational Land to facilitate its dedication as public road and lease as a community facility.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Adopt Local Environmental Plan Draft Amendment No 19 in relation to 302-314 Burns Bay Road for finalisation, as exhibited, to:-

a)    Modify the zoning boundary between the RE1 Public Recreation Zone and R4 High Density Residential Zone to align with the new road boundary over 302-314 Burns Bay Road (Lot 102 DP 1013285); and

b)    Reclassify as Operational Land the portion of 304-314 Burns Bay Road Lane Cove located to the west of the eastern boundary of Waterview Drive, as described in Planning Proposal 19; and

2.   Publish on Council’s website the Commissioner’s Report within four (4) days of the above resolution, as required under Section 47G(3) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Public Hearing Report dated 9 October

9 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Council Submission 2015 to Public Hearing 314 Burns Bay Road - 9 September 2015

8 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 October 2015

Draft Sustainability Action Plan

 

 

Subject:          Draft Sustainability Action Plan    

Record No:     SU5323 - 61549/15

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Katy Christian 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The original Sustainability Action Plan Think Global Act Local (SAP) 2005-2015, was endorsed by Council in 2005 and was the strategy behind the community adoption of the Sustainability Levy in 2007.The Levy was introduced with 79% support of the community to fast track actions identified within the SAP.

 

Many of the sustainability focussed projects and programs have been directly funded by the Levy and may not have been undertaken if it wasn’t for the introduction of the SAP. These projects and community engagement have highlighted Council’s long term commitment and have lead the way for many of our larger neighbouring Councils.

 

Consistently through various surveys, the community has shown a strong ongoing interest in maintaining a sustainable Lane Cove, and the many forms as to what sustainability means to them; be it, supporting local businesses by shopping locally, living and working locally, to community engagement and participation, bushland restoration and environmental improvement programs, to art and culture.

 

As the current SAP expired at the end of 2014, a review of the SAP has been undertaken through face to face community meetings, staff and local expert forums and an online survey. Through this process extensive feedback has been provided on what our community view a sustainable Lane Cove could look like in the next 5 years, and how this should be achieved. 

The Draft SAP outlines three (3) Key Themes - Liveability, Community and Environment and 12 Goals, each of which have up to 10 Strategic Actions per Goal.

The Draft SAP 2016-2021 is proposed to be placed on public exhibition for the next five (5) weeks and upon conclusion of this period, a Report presented to Council.

Background

 

Council’s original SAP Think Global, Act Local was adopted in 2005 and expired in December 2014.  A review of the actions implemented was undertaken and through a community engagement process a brief for the review and renewal of the SAP for 2016-2021 was developed. Council appointed Ramboll Environ Consulting to undertake facilitated workshops with Council staff, a community expert panel made up of Council Committee Members and an open community forum.

 

In addition an open community survey was also conducted and received 166 responses. This engagement process generated a large number of themes and ideas as well as new local initiatives. The evaluation of results used a statistical analysis which compared individual themes against one another and then weighted individual actions according to their level of impact and importance.

 

This process allowed themes and priorities to be discussed at the later consultative forums with a broader audience and greater understanding of what the community saw as important, and where Council had the ability to directly implement change and actions.

 

Discussion

 

The Draft SAP 2016-2021 attached at AT-1 seeks to guide the implementation of programs and projects to meet Lane Cove’s sustainability objectives for the next 5 years. Implementation of the Draft SAP will be supported by the Sustainability Levy, from which funding has been used to fast track many of these projects in the past. This approach will continue for the next 5 years. The Draft SAP has been prepared to be consistent with other strategic plans that Council has in place, and will interact directly with Council’s Delivery Plan and Community Plan.

 

Community Consultation

 

Consultation Statement of Intent

 

Consultation on the Draft Plan was planned to take part in two (2) phases.  The first community engagement phase was carried out to gain relevant information from staff and the community that fed into the draft plan.  The Draft Plan has now been developed and is ready for Public Exhibition and comment.

 

The second phase of the consultation has been designed to determine the whether the themes, goals and actions now included within the Draft Sustainability Action Plan are appropriate and supported by the community.  Comments received will be used to refine themes, goals and actions within the plan before the new strategies go to Council for final approval.

 

Methods of Consultation

 

The methods of consultation proposed are outlined in the following Table. Initial engagement has already taken place as an information gather process. The final stage will be public exhibition of the draft plan.

Level of Participation

Involve

Consult

Form of Participation

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and eNewsletter

Public Exhibition & Website Exhibition

Indicative Timing

October to November 2015

October to November 2015

 

Conclusion

 

The Draft SAP 2016 - 2021 provides a framework for Council to move towards a more sustainable Lane Cove that builds upon the significant economic, community and environmental achievements of the past 10 years. 

 

It is proposed that the Draft SAP 2016-2021 be placed on public exhibition for five(5) weeks to allow for public comment, before reporting back to Council in December 2015.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.    The Draft Sustainability Action Plan 2016-2021 be placed on public exhibition for five (5) weeks in accordance with the Consultation Strategy outlined in the report; and

2.    A Report be submitted to Council following the public exhibition period.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Draft Sustainability Action Plan 2016-2021

33 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 October 2015

Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting Held 29 September 2015

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting Held 29 September 2015     

Record No:     SU1326 - 61727/15

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):       Sashika Young 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday, 29 September 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, 29 September 2015.

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

AGENDA - Traffic Committee - September 2015

27 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

MINUTES - Traffic Committee - September 2015

22 Pages

 

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 October 2015

Pecuniary Interest Returns 2015

 

 

Subject:          Pecuniary Interest Returns 2015    

Record No:     SU2095 - 61468/15

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):       Kirsty Beram 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to table the Pecuniary Interest Returns of Designated Staff and Councillors as required by the Local Government Act 1993.  This report recommends that Council notes the tabling of these returns.

 

Discussion.

 

Section 449(3) of the Local Government Act 1993 (“LG Act”) requires Designated Staff and Councillors holding these positions as of 30 June 2015 to lodge a “Disclosures by Councillors and Designated Persons Return” to the General Manager by 30 September 2015.

 

Conclusion

 

All returns for Designated Staff and Councillors in office as at 30 June 2015 have been submitted.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council note the tabling of Pecuniary Interest Returns of Designated Staff and Councillors for the return period 1 July 2014 till 30 June 2015.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 October 2015

Lane Cove's Festival by the River

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove's Festival by the River    

Record No:     SU5903 - 61481/15

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):       Corinne Dickinson 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report provides information on the establishment of an inaugural Festival by the River to take place during the first two weeks of November 2015.

 

Background

 

Over the past two years Council has consolidated the length and timing of its Sunset in the Village and Autumn Harmony programs which previously have run back to back from October to August.

 

As a result Sunset in the Village now runs during January and February with Autumn Harmony for the month of March only. This has assisted with refining the promotion and marketing of these Festivals and reduced the oversaturation of community Festivals in Lane Cove which had previously run all year around.

 

In 2014 Council requested that an annual festival or similar event be held to celebrate life on the Lane Cove and Parramatta Rivers.

 

The refined timing of the other Council Festivals has provided a suitable timeframe during early November to showcase the upcoming season of river activities.

 

Discussion

 

Council has developed a Festival by the River program which runs from 1 November – 15 November.

 

The Festival includes activities by local clubs based on the river foreshores as well as new events organised by Council including a dragon boat event, fishing day, art en plein air workshop, spotlight bushwalk, river cruise and a finale Picnic by the River event which will coincide with the opening of a new picnic deck at Tambourine Bay.

 

Conclusion

 

This inaugural year of Lane Cove’s Festival by the River will provide an opportunity to showcase life on the rivers in Lane Cove across the first two weeks of November.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 October 2015

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot    

Record No:     SU220 - 61656/15

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 - October 2015

50 Pages