Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

21 March 2016

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.

 

LC_WebBanner


 

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 March 2016 commencing at 6:30pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Craig - GMYours 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 21 March 2016

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.       Aquisition of Land for a Park at Pinaroo Place, Lane Cove North

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 - 15 FEBRUARY 2016 AND EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING – 22 FEBRUARY 2016

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

3.       Control of Leighton Green Trees

 

4.       Councillor Representation on JRPP  

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

5.       Draft DCP: Lithgow/ Christie/ Pacific Precinct, St Leonards

 

6.       Voluntary Planning Agreement - Winten Site, 75 - 79 Lithgow St and 84 - 90 Christie St, St Leonards

 

7.       Management of Affordable/Key Worker Housing

 

8.       Sale of 314 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove

 

9.       Policy on Addressing

 

10.     Fleming Street Road Naming and Addressing

 

11.     Little Lane Change of Name

 

12.     Tender for River Road Embankment Stabilisation

 

13.     2016/2017 Draft Budget, Fees and Charges and Delivery Program and Operational Plan

 

14.     Nominations for Community Members on Council's  Advisory Committees

 

15.     Greenwich Village Games 2016

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

16.     Dept of Planning View on Lane Cove West Industrial Precinct

 

17.     WasteLocate - Asbestos Waste Tracking System

 

18.     Council Snapshot  

 

 

 

 

                   


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2016

Control of Leighton Green Trees

 

 

Subject:          Control of Leighton Green Trees    

Record No:    SU6120 - 15534/16

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Deborah Hutchens 

 

 

Discussion

                                                              

Leighton Green cypress is planted as a hedging plant for a number of reasons:-

1.   To gain privacy and/or as part of a landscaping plan;

2.   As a ‘spite’ tree (where DA’s are approved despite the objections of neighbours); and

3.   As windbreaks.  These trees are popular in rural parts of Australia.

 

Its popularity has created problems however, both in Australia and elsewhere in the world.  In the UK it has resulted in a law being passed (the High Hedges Act – part of the Anti-social Behaviour Act) allowing victims of excessively high hedges to address their loss of amenity such as sunlight and views.

 

These trees can grow to a height of 40 metres, at a fast growing rate of 1-1.5 metres a year. They are often planted without thought or consideration of immediate neighbours, and it is often the case that the surrounding properties become responsible for the maintenance of the hedge, when it grows up and over the fence and invades a resident’s property.  This can become an unwanted burden financially and aesthetically for neighbours who are forced to bear the responsibility for keeping someone else’s hedge in order.

 

Having regard to the above, I believe Council should investigate and implement ways to regulate their use and impact. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That a report be submitted to Council on the controls and methods available to Council to regulate the use and impact of Leighton Green Cypress trees and the like, including landscaping controls relating to planting along boundaries, minimum clearance from boundary to building, height restrictions, maintenance, view preservation, and minimising overshadowing.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Deborah Hutchens

Mayor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2016

Councillor Representation on JRPP

 

 

Subject:          Councillor Representation on JRPP     

Record No:    SU5761 - 15746/16

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Scott Bennison 

 

 

 

Discussion

 

On two (2) occasions the JRPP have indicated that Councillors who have voted on a VPA for a development have a conflict of interest in considering the relevant development application before the JRPP. This position is at odds with the role of a Councillor to be a representative of the community.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.   Council seek legal advice with respect to whether a Councillor member of the JRPP in performing their duties as a public official, has a conflict of interest where the JRPP is considering a development application which was the subject of a VPA adopted by Council; and

2.   The General Manager submit such advice to the JRPP indicating the legal position and they be requested to update their Code of Conduct and other information to provide clarity on the issue.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Scott Bennison

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2016

Draft DCP: Lithgow/ Christie/ Pacific Precinct, St Leonards

 

 

Subject:          Draft DCP: Lithgow/ Christie/ Pacific Precinct, St Leonards    

Record No:    SU6137 - 13977/16

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A draft Development Control Plan has been prepared for the Lithgow/ Christie/ Pacific Precinct. This comprises 75-79 Lithgow Street/ 84-90 Christie Street and 546-564 Pacific Highway, as shown below.

 

This draft DCP relates to the draft LEP amendment (Planning Proposal 20), approved by Council in April 2015, which proposes to rezone the site for mixed use redevelopment. The draft LEP has received the Department’s Gateway approval for exhibition, subject to additional traffic consultation currently underway with Transport for NSW. A second report to this meeting relates to a Voluntary Planning Agreement for the site. It is proposed that the DCP and VPA, if endorsed by Council, would be exhibited at the same time as the LEP planning proposal.

 

The precinct is in a central and highly visible location within the St Leonards Specialized Centre, which is being redeveloped in accordance with the objectives of the Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney. The precinct comprises two (2) areas:-

·    Site A (southern area) is bounded by Lithgow, St, Christie St, Christie Lane and the boundary with 82 Christie St and 73 Lithgow St to the south; and

·    Site B (northern area) comprises the eight lots bounded by Pacific Hwy, Lithgow St, Christie St and Christie Lane.

 

Site A, the principal site, would be redeveloped with two towers: the western tower of 20-29 storeys, fronting the proposed St Leonards Rail Plaza, and the eastern tower, of forty-four storeys approximately (the same level as 500 Pacific Hwy). The site-specific DCP controls and guides the development outcomes for buildings of this scale.

 

Key components of the draft DCP relate to: façade articulation facing the Rail Plaza, setbacks relating to Christie Lane, other roads and the inner courtyard, retail activation on surrounding streets, promoting pedestrian links through the site and towards Christie Street South Park, appropriate building separation for amenity, floor space ratio and height incentives relating to public benefits in the form of contributions to the public Rail Plaza, a supermarket, a public car park and a fully  commercial redevelopment on the Highway, façade articulation and public domain improvements for Christie Lane. The DCP would be supplemented by generic provisions under DCP 2010 and SEPP 65’s residential guidelines.

 

Council is requested to approve the draft DCP for public exhibition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Lithgow/ Christie/ Pacific Precinct (JBA Planning Proposal)

 

Background

 

On 20 April 2015, Council adopted LEP Planning Proposal 20 to rezone the site from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use and increase height and FSR, in a series of increments relating to public benefits, for submission to the Department of Planning & Environment’s LEP Gateway. The Gateway approved the proposal on 21 October 2015 for exhibition, subject to further consultation with Transport for NSW.

 

The updated traffic study is being undertaken by traffic consultants for Council and is under discussion currently with TfNSW and RMS.

 

Discussion

 

The key provisions proposed in the DCP are discussed below.

 

(i)      Building Setbacks

 

·    Proposed Plaza: There is no setback required on the façade fronting the proposed Rail Plaza, to promote retail activation and a sense of visual interaction of the building and Plaza, with passive surveillance, and to provide pedestrian access via through-site linkages into the retail areas. Balconies and other building elements are to be permissible extending up to 4 metres over the Plaza, i.e. beyond the property boundary, covering up to a maximum of 40% of the western façade.

 

The Rail Plaza is currently at the stage of preliminary design/ costing as a pre-requisite to obtaining formal State Government approval.

 

·    Christie Lane: A 9 metres minimum building separation is to result from the total of the setbacks to the north (commercial) and south (residential) components across Christie Lane. Units are east-west-facing, so non-habitable rooms along the Lane would have 9 m separation from commercial opposite. (Note: building separation is discretionary for Council under the Apartment Design Guide.) Viewing the buildings along the Lane, there would not be a canyon-effect as the lane opens out to an inner courtyard through two pedestrian links. Although building heights would range from 10 to 44 storeys, the length of each tower section on the south side would be about 20 metres. The building and visual form would be broken up and varied as a result.

 

·    Christie Street: A 4 metre setback would permit a building separation of 24 metres at a minimum from existing and future buildings across the 20 metre street. Balconies would be set behind that building line.

 

·    Southern boundary: The southern boundary, adjacent to the B3 Commercial Core Zone, would combine with a new 6 metre road link to provide separation to this facade.

 

·    Pacific Highway: A 4 metre setback for the 10-storey commercial building would open up the streetscape visually on approach to the Rail Plaza.

 

·    Awnings would be provided at varying widths along all pedestrian links.

 

·    The two towers would be separated by 22 metres across the inner courtyard. Apartments would be oriented to the south-east (City and Harbour), minimizing loss of privacy across the courtyard between the taller (eastern) tower and lower (western) tower.

 

(ii)      Pedestrian links: A “seamless” pedestrian flow through Site A would be achieved with east-west and north-south links integrating the pedestrian network between the Rail Plaza, Christie St, Christie Lane and the inner courtyard.

     

      Figure 2: Indicative building form (Bates Smart Design Report)

 

(iii)       Internal heights: The ground-floor retail level height would be 4.8 metres and the non-residential levels above will be 3,6 metres, consistent with the controls adopted for 472-504 Pacific Hwy recently. The aim in particular is to produce spacious and attractive retail/ restaurant areas for the public and so to contribute to the reputation and public amenity of the southern side of St Leonards as a destination for the workforce, residents and visitors.

 

(iv)       Façade articulation: The intent of these provisions is to modulate the façades architecturally to reduce the scale and massing of the building form, adding visual interest and diversity to the overall design, especially fronting the Rail Plaza.

 

(v)       Solar access: The guideline that new developments should achieve 2 hours direct sunlight for at least 70% of apartments is recommended to be considered flexibly in the Specialized Centre, where densities are high and at the same time amenities and services provide a foundation for a livable city environment.

 

(vi)       Wind mitigation: The DCP requires a comprehensive Wind Analysis study of buildings and public spaces to be provided with any development applications.

 

(vii)      Coordination - Mixed Use and Commercial plans: A development application would be required to commit to development of Sties A and B in one single plan i.e. staged development is not to be permitted.

 

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

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to provide the public and key stakeholders with an opportunity to comment on the draft DCP.  Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with plan. The consultation period of 6 weeks exceeds the minimum 28 days required under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Property owners in the precinct

North Sydney and Willoughby Councils*

Royal North Shore Hospital

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and

eNewsletter

 

Notification Letters

Public Exhibition,

Website Exhibition

 

Indicative Timing

6 weeks

6 weeks

6 weeks

 

*North Sydney and Willoughby Councils would be requested to indicate notification areas for Council consideration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

The Development Control Plan has been drafted with a view to amenity, activation of the public domain and minimization of impacts from high density redevelopment in an area of revitalization within the St Leonards Specialised Centre.  It is recommended that Council’s independent consultant review the draft plan following receipt of the exhibition comments.  The draft DCP’s controls are designed to be generally consistent with those of the recent major redevelopments at 472-504 Pacific Highway and 1 Marshall Avenue.  Council is requested to adopt the draft DCP for exhibition, with notification to include the adjacent North Sydney and Willoughby Councils and properties within those areas..

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.    Council approve the draft Development Control Plan attached at AT-1 for public exhibition and undertake community consultation for a period of six (6) weeks in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in this report;   

2.    An independent review of the DCP be undertaken for Council during exhibition; and

3.    The exhibition be undertaken at the same time as the LEP Planning Proposal 20 and draft Voluntary Planning Agreement for the site.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Draft DCP Part D - Lithgow/ Christie/ Pacific Locality

11 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2016

Voluntary Planning Agreement - Winten Site, 75 - 79 Lithgow St and 84 - 90 Christie St, St Leonards

 

 

Subject:          Voluntary Planning Agreement - Winten Site, 75 - 79 Lithgow St and 84 - 90 Christie St, St Leonards    

Record No:    SU571 - 14252/16

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

This report outlines a proposed Voluntary planning Agreement (VPA) with the proponents of the Planning Proposal for 75-79 Lithgow St and 84-90 Christie St, St Leonards which is the subject of a planning proposal previously endorsed by Council. The VPA requires the payment of a monetary contribution to fund the St Leonards Rail Plaza and Bus Interchange, construction of the eastern deck of the proposed St Leonards Plaza and park, a Library, and other items in return for the provision of additional storeys on the proposed towers on the site. The report recommends that the proposed VPA be endorsed and placed on public exhibition in conjunction with the LEP and DCP amendments.

 

Background

On 20 April 2015, Council adopted the above LEP Planning Proposal to rezone the site from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use and increased height for submission to the Department of Planning’s LEP Gateway. The Gateway subsequently approved the proposal for exhibition, subject to the traffic study being revised. The proposal involves “2 sites”, Site A is the twin Residential towers with lower retail levels including a full line supermarket and Site B, which comprises a new commercial development fronting the Pacific Highway.

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

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

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

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

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

(i)         St Leonards Rail Plaza and Bus Interchange: a financial contribution will be made towards Council’s vision for this project over the rail corridor, which will provide a significant increase to the amenity of the St Leonards commercial precinct.

 

(ii)        A fitted-out library of at least 1000m2, located in an area with high pedestrian activity;

(iii)       Construction and embellishment of the section of the proposed St Leonards Plaza deck over Lithgow Street (Approx 1708m2), with capacity in the associated supports for the portion of St Leonards Plaza spanning the rail corridor in return for access easements for Site A and Site B under the Plaza;

(iv)       Embellishment of Christie Lane to a maximum value of $388,000;

(v)        Construction and dedication of a public road to the south of Site A;

(vi)       International standard of architecture achieved at the interface with the plaza in exchange for a 4m Articulation zone overhanging the Plaza, (maximum 40% can be used for floor space).

(vii)      Commitment to construction of a 300 space carpark dedicated as a stratum parcel to Council, close to the proposed supermarket which will service the non-residential uses of Site A in return for the 2:1 bonus provided for in the LEP;

 

(viii)     Commitment to the delivery of a 3,000m2 space full−line supermarket; and

(ix)       Commitment to the delivery of a new 10 storey commercial building on the Pacific highway frontage (Site B) at the same time as Site A in return for the 1.6:1 proportional pro-rata bonus provided for in the LEP.

Discussion

Council has applied a consistent formula in the St Leonard’s Precinct to capture the FSR uplift in respect of Planning Proposals, originally developed by Hill PDA.

 

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

Hill PDA have previously established through valuation the $/Rate to be $2,600per sqm of GFA. This rate would be determined at the time of project commencement (Construction Certificate) based on a formula to be incorporated into the Planning Agreement. The cash component would be payable prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

Winten have submitted an offer which accords with the proposed rate and methodology outlined by Hill PDA. Under the Planning Proposal the building envelop above the existing 65 metre height limit has 21,773sqm of GFA. That is approximately 7 levels in Tower 1 and 21 levels in Tower 2.

 

The Planning Proposal LEP Amendment (refer item vii and ix above) includes two FSR bonuses which are not applicable to the VPA, therefore the following adjustments are necessary:-

 Deduct 2:1 (300 space car park) x 3197sqm = 6,394sqm

 Deduct 1.6:1 (Commercial on Site B) x 50% as only half of Site B is purchased x 3197 = 2,557.6

The net GFA liability under the VPA is therefore 12,821.4sqm.

Based on the Hill PDA methodology, the VPA contribution is calculated as follows:-

$2600 x 50% = $1300

$1300 x 12,821.4 = $16.667,820 (approximately)

Of this amount the following provisional sums have been allocated to fund public benefits, (all other benefits are free of cost); a Library Shell and fit-out $6.4m; embellishment of the Lithgow Street section of the Plaza $1.7m; and construction of the new public road $.768m, leaving a cash balance of $7,799,820 as a contribution towards the St Leonards Rail Plaza and Bus Interchange.

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

 

Community Consultation

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to permit public submissions on the proposed VPA for the redevelopment of 75 - 79 Lithgow St and 84 - 90 Christie St, St Leonards. Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated as part of any determination as to whether or not to accept monetary contributions and benefits proposed in the VPA.

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Properties in the vicinity.

Local community associations.

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and

eNewsletter.

 

Notification Letters

Public Exhibition,

Website Exhibition and Online Survey

Indicative Timing

In conjunction with the Planning Proposal

In conjunction with the Planning Proposal

In conjunction with the Planning Proposal

 

Conclusion

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   The report be received and noted;

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2016

Management of Affordable/Key Worker Housing

 

 

Subject:          Management of Affordable/Key Worker Housing    

Record No:    SU6257 - 12534/16

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli; Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

As part of the consent conditions for the residential development at 150 Epping Road, Lane Cove and for future large scale developments throughout St Leonards in particular, the developers will be required to dedicate a portion of units within their developments for Affordable/Key Worker housing to provide more affordable housing options for key workers within the Lane Cove area.

 

This report recommends eligibility criteria for the allocation of Affordable/Key Worker housing and ongoing management of the tenancies..

 

Background

 

The NSW Government in 2009 introduced State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) Affordable Rental Housing, which defines Affordable/Key Worker housing as follows:-

 

“Affordable rental housing is housing for very low, low and moderate income earning households. These are currently households with an annual income of up to about $80,000. This includes people who have no place to live, people on low and moderate incomes and key workers who need to live close to their employment.”

 

The SEPP encourages developers to incorporate Affordable/Key Worker housing into new developments in return for a floor space bonus of up to 0.5:1. To date no developer has taken up the option in Lane Cove and this is the experience of surrounding councils.

 

Many councils particularly those located in areas generally closer to the city where housing affordability is an issue, are developing their own strategies to ensure there are more affordable housing options closer to their place of employment for key workers, such as nurses, retail assistants, police officers, teachers, hospitality workers and the like.

 

To date Council has focused on Voluntary Planning Agreements (VPAs) to secure Affordable/Key Worker housing, the first of these will be the transfer of 15 units at 150 Epping Road, Lane Cove for use by key workers by the end of June 2016. In the future additional units will be provided in the large scale residential developments at St Leonards. The units at 150 Epping Road include a mix of studio, 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms to ensure a wide range of housing options from singles to families. 

 

It should be noted the key difference between Affordable/Key Worker housing and social housing, is that it is open to a broader range of household incomes than social housing. Social housing targets households only on ‘very low’ incomes and/or income support i.e. households earning up to $40,000 PA. Affordable/Key Worker housing is for people who have an income but require assistance with housing, typically because of cost or location. 

 

It is widely acknowledged that key workers are necessary for the normal functioning of a community. Many lower and moderately paid workers cannot afford to live in the Lane Cove and North Shore area, which impacts on supply of workers in essential frontline services such as health care, education, child care, aged care, emergency services, community services, retail and hospitality. The greater the distance of travel to work, the greater the impact on supply of key workers. 

 

Management of Affordable/Key Worker Housing

 

Affordable/Key Worker housing is managed like a private rental property, however a rental subsidy to the market value is provided. The now closed National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) set the subsidy at 20%, which has become the de-facto standard amongst providers. Vacancies are advertised and applications submitted as if they were applying for a property in the private rental market. Applications are assessed by property managers against criteria agreed to by the owner of  housing.

 

Options for the management of the properties are currently being considered with the range of services to be provided including the selection of tenants, collection of rent, checking ongoing eligibility of tenants, coordinating activities with supportive partners and managing the maintenance of the premises. Options include appointing a Community Housing Provider, in-house management or appointing a real estate agent to manage the properties.

 

Principles for Allocation of Properties

 

To ensure there is transparency in the allocation of Affordable/Key Worker housing the following eligibility criteria,  in order of importance, are proposed to be used in assessing applications:-

1.   The applicant/s must have Australian citizenship or permanent residency;

2.   The applicant/s is to have a connection to Lane Cove LGA and or serves/works in Lane Cove LGA (e.g. employees of organisations servicing the Lane Cove LGA such as North Shore Hospital or Chatswood Local Area Command for policing);

3.   The applicant/s does not have assets which they could be reasonably expected to use to solve their housing need; and

4.   The applicant/s income levels are generally consistent with the NRAS income limits.

The following strategies are proposed in relation to the management of the Affordable/Key Worker Housing:-

1.   Occupancy is a privilege not a right;

2.   Leases shall be for a maximum of two (2) years, with a 6 month probation period;

3.   A review of the eligibility of the tenant/s will be conducted every 12 months; and

4.   Vacancies will be direct marketed to local organisations.

 

In terms of income levels, the 2015-2016 NRAS Household Income Eligibility limits are as follows:-

Household Type

Existing Tenant Income Limit

One adult

$59,880

Two adults

$82,785

Three adults

$105,690

Sole parent with 1 child

$82,843

Sole parent with 2 children

$102,704

Sole parent with 3 children

$122,565

Couple with 1 child

$102,647

Couple with 2 children

$122,508

Couple with 3 children

$142,369

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

Affordable/Key Worker housing will address in part the difficulties of attracting key workers to the Lane Cove and North Shore areas as a result of the housing affordability crisis facing low to moderate income workers.  To ensure there is transparency in the allocation of the available Council housing to Affordable/Key Workers and ensure ongoing eligibility is monitored, it is considered appropriate that Council adopt eligibility criteria for the management of the housing facilities, as proposed in this report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Receive and note the information;

2.   The following eligibility criteria be adopted,  in order of importance, to be used in the assessing of applications for Affordable/Key Worker Housing:-

a)   The applicant/s must have Australian citizenship or permanent residency;

b)   The applicant/s is to have a connection to Lane Cove LGA and or serves/works in Lane Cove LGA (e.g. employees of organisations servicing the Lane Cove LGA such as North Shore Hospital or Chatswood LAC for policing);

c)   The applicant/s does not have assets which they could be reasonably expected to use to solve their housing need; and

d)   The applicant/s income levels are generally consistent with the NRAS income limits; and

3.   The following strategies be adopted in relation to the management of Affordable/Key Worker Housing:-

a)   Occupancy is a privilege not a right;

b)   Leases shall be for a maximum of two (2) years, with a 6 month probation period;

c)   A review of the eligibility of the tenant/s will be conducted every 12 months; and

d)   Vacancies will be direct marketed to local organisations.

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson                                                          Craig Dalli

General Manager                                                      Executive Manager – Corporate Services

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2016

Sale of 314 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          Sale of 314 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove    

Record No:    SU6083 - 15293/16

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report outlines the results of the tender for the sale of land at 314 Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove, comprising part of Lots 101 and 102 in DP 1013285 and Lot 31 DP 540796.  A Request for Tender (RFT) was issued to 5 respondents following a publicly advertised Expression of Interest process purchase the land and undertake the design and development in which Council will retain ownership of a 60 place child care centre and a 120 m2 retail shop.  The RFT also set out a number of Council objectives it wished the Developer to comply with in proposing the development.  Following assessment of the tenders received it is recommended that Council reject all tenders and negotiate with the two higher ranked tenderers.

 

Background

 

Although disposal of Council owned land is not subject to the Tendering provisions of the Local Government Act, the inclusion of assets to be retained by Council justified a more formal tendering process.

 

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council dated 17 November 2014 Council resolved inter alia to:-

 

“Approve the selective tender process for the redevelopment of the Waterview Drive development site commencing with calling for Expressions of Interest based on a preferred Project Delivery Agreement to secure delivery of Council’s retained assets prior to release of the residential stratum.”

 

An Expression of Interest process was conducted in October 2015 and five (5) companies were assessed to be capable of undertaking the development and delivering the Council Retained Assets within the development (including associated parking).

 

A  RFT was subsequently issued in December 2015 which set out the Council objectives and requirements and required Tenderers to structure their Tender to purchase the land to address  the following assessment criteria:- Price 40%: Concept Design Plans 30%; Timetable 10%; Quality of security for performance 10; and Experience, Capability and Financial Strength 10%.

 

Discussion

 

The RFT was issued to the following firms:-

•      Piety PHP P/L;

•      Desane;

•      EDG Capital Group;

•      Built; and

•      Hyecorp

 

During the Tender period, Piety PHP P/L, developers of the adjacent Tuta Site (Bay Pavilions), advised that they would not be submitting a tender.

 

Tenders were received from the other 4 firms.  A separate confidential memo has been issued to Councillors detailing the commercial in confidence components of the Tenders.

 

The concept design proposals provided by each of the remaining Tenders all had merit, despite a number of refinements that would need addressing during final design development.

 

Post tender interviews were conducted with 3 of the 4 proponents. One Tenderer did not comply with all the information requirements to allow their tender to be further assessed.  A number of issues evident in the concept designs were raised during the interviews. At this stage not all of these issues have been satisfactorily resolved within the parameters of Local Government Tendering requirements. 

 

In addition, some concerns have been raised that in a softening real estate market, which has occurred since the EOI process commenced, Council’s objectives and security requirements may impact the successful tenderers ability to obtain bank finance for the development.

 

Having regard to the above it is recommended that no tender be accepted, and direct negotiations be undertaken with the top two tenderers in terms of price.

 

Conclusion

 

Having regard to the above it is recommended that no tender be accepted, and direct negotiations be undertaken with the two (2) highest tenderers in terms of price.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.               Council reject all tenders and as Council has called tenders and identified suitable organisations in the development market capable of undertaking the project, rather that call fresh tenders, enter into direct negotiations with the two (2) highest tenderers to improve the financial return, financial security, retained assets and design outcomes;

2.   The General Manager be authorised to conduct such negotiations; and

3.   A further report be submitted to Council outlining the results of the negotiations.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2016

Policy on Addressing

 

 

Subject:          Policy on Addressing    

Record No:    SU1849 - 7287/16

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Terry Tredrea 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Developers of multi-level residential flat buildings are required to submit their schedule of addresses to Council for approval prior to registration of the strata plan. Many developers are numbering their apartment blocks and individual apartments in a manner inconsistent with Australian Standards & NSW policy guidelines.

 

Without a clear policy, Council officers either require the developer to renumber their buildings and/or all of their apartments, and documentation including draft sales contracts, or permit non-conforming addresses to be registered.

 

Furthermore, addressing problems occasionally occur with other forms of building, such as houses sharing common access, commercial buildings, etc. It is therefore recommended that Council adopt and support a draft Building Addressing Policy (AT-1). In particular, this would ensure the early numbering of apartments consistent with the Australian Standards and NSW policy guidelines. It would also control other types of building, as they arise. A Council policy is recommended in order to enforce compliance of building addressing with the NSW policy guidelines, as street addressing is formally the responsibility of Council under the Local Government Act.

 

Background

 

According to the NSW Office of Local Government:

 

Incorrect, ambiguous and missing address information is delaying mail, deliveries and other services, including assistance during emergencies. The NSW State Coroner has also recognised that this is a public safety issue.

(Circular to Councils, 26 June 2014)

 

It is therefore important that logical, accurate and consistent addresses are used. This becomes particularly important in the case of several blocks of multi-level apartment buildings, where the opportunities for confusion are compounded.

 

The NSW Addressing User Manual (AUM) was approved in March 2015. Its purpose was to establish a clear concise addressing system, which would be logical and easy to follow for everyone ranging from pedestrians to government agencies. Councils, as one of the authorities responsible for street addressing, are currently required, when considering street addressing, to be consistent with the AUM. The Policy will clarify and summarise the AUM. It also draws attention to issues the AUM may be silent on, such as cultural attitudes to certain numbers.

 


 

Discussion

 

Primary Addressing of buildings

 

Based on recent applications, there appears to be some confusion about the numbering and the addressing of apartment blocks. The approved process is outlined in Chapter 6 of the NSW Addressing User Manual.

 

In terms of what determines an address, Section 6.1.1 of the AUM states that:

 

“The main access, or where access is most likely to occur for a visitor, from a road to an address site (e.g. front door) determines the primary address” (NSW AUM, pg 67).

 

In short, the location of the main pedestrian access determines both the street number and which road it corresponds to.

 

Secondly, most lots for apartment buildings in Lane Cove are created by the amalgamation of several single housing lots (e.g. 1-5 Centennial Avenue; 316-332 Burns Bay Rd). The resultant apartment building is often given a range of numbers (e.g.1-5) as its street address. This is not consistent with principle 6.2.1(e) of the AUM which states that street numbers must be:

 

 “Singular, i.e. no number ranging shall be used” (NSW AUM, pg 70).

 

Therefore, individual buildings should be individually numbered (e.g.: three apartment buildings at 8-12 Brown Drive could be numbered 8, 10 and 12 Brown Drive). This is regardless of whether a single strata plan applies to all the buildings.

 

Sub-addressing

 

It is also appropriate in the case of apartment blocks to allow for both a primary address and a sub-address:

 

“Sub-address numbering shall be used for address sites that are contained within a primary address site e.g. an apartment building, block of flats or marina” (NSW AUM, pg 68).

 

So apartment numbering is considered as ‘sub-address numbering’ and must therefore be consistent with the AUM principles (detailed in Section 6.5). Again, these are not always complied with.

 

·    Numbering Format

 

Section 6.5 of AUM confirms the structure of a sub-address number:

 

“The address number for a sub-address site shall consist of the sub-address number followed by the number of the primary address site” (NSW AUM, pg 83).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Figure taken from NSW AUM, pg 83)

 

While the primary number is determined by the location of the property’s main access, the sub-address number determines the location of the apartment within the building itself. This is also applied to multi-level buildings.

 

Based on a series of recent applications, it is this type of sub-addressing that appears to be causing the greatest level of confusion amongst developers. The adopted approach is clearly detailed in Section 6.5 of the AUM.

 

·    Multi-Level Sub-Addressing

 

In the case of a multi-level (apartment) building, an apartment number is determined by its level within the building. Section 6.5.5 of the AUM states that when determining the apartment number (sub-address):

 

“The first part shall be one or more alphanumeric characters which represent the level and room”. (NSW AUM, pg 86).

 

This approach is clearly illustrated in the diagram below:


(Figure taken from NSW AUM, pg 87)

 

The floor level of a multi-level apartment should appear in the apartment address. Levels are either assigned a level code (Basement = B, Ground = G, Mezzanine = M etc) or numerical (Level 1, 2, etc).

 

Some developers are creating level codes, such as “C” for Courtyard level. Such unorthodox numbering can create confusion as they don’t locate the level of the unit within the building. As a result, they mean nothing to agencies like Australia Post and other government agencies. Nor does giving the east and west wings of a single building an alphabetical code (e.g. unit A401 versus unit B401 on the same level 4).

 

The level type codes (as shown below) correspond to their floor level, i.e. Ground floor = G; Basement = B.

 

 (Figure taken from NSW AUM, pg 88)

 

 

The appropriate level type shall be selected from those provided in the Table of Level Types and Codes” (NSW AUM, pg 89).

 

Therefore, the alphabetical code for an entire level must be taken from Level Types and Codes of the AUM (pg 89). For example, Lower Ground = LG; Basement = B; Ground floor = G. No other types of level codes are considered acceptable.

 

Cultural Attitudes to Numbering

 

Council often receives requests for addressing and sub-addressing that are inconsistent with the AUM for cultural reasons. For example, some apartments attempt to leave the number four out of the sequence of apartment floors and numbering of apartments due to the cultural sensitivities of certain cultures to this number. This is recognised as inconsistent with the basic principle of the AUM to require a continuous sequence of positive integers. Such changes should therefore not be supported by Council, as the aim is to provide consistent and equitable treatment of numbering across the LGA.

 


 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to determine public opinion of a proposed Council policy requiring that addresses submitted with a development application are in accordance with the NSW Addressing User Manual. Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with Council adopting the policy

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Key Message givers e.g. Developers of residential flat buildings in Lane Cove who currently have development consent and have yet to submit their strata plans for registration.

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and

eNewsletter

Notification Letters

Public Exhibition,

Website Exhibition

Indicative Timing

6 weeks

6 weeks

6 weeks

 

Conclusion

 

Some apartment addressing systems provided to Council for approval have been inconsistent with the NSW Addressing User Manual (AUM).  It is recommended that Council:-

1.   Adopt a policy requiring compliance with the Australian Standards and supporting Manual;

2.   Amend the D.A. Checklist to require that addresses submitted with a proposal at the D.A. stage is in accordance with the AUM. This ensures that developers correctly number their individual apartments correctly as early in the design process as possible; and

3.   Introduce a standard condition of development consent requiring compliance with the approved numbering, which is compliant with the policy.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1.   Approve the  attached draft Policy on Addressing for the purpose of public exhibition and exhibit the proposed Policy on Addressing for a period of six (6) weeks in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in this report;

2.   Insert into the Development Application Checklist a requirement that addresses submitted with a proposal at the D.A. stage are in accordance with the AUM; and

3.   Approve a standard Condition of Consent referencing compliance with the approved numbering system, compliant with NSW Addressing Users Manual.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Draft Policy - L01001 Addressing

2 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Standard Condition of Consent

1 Page

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2016

Fleming Street Road Naming and Addressing

 

 

Subject:          Fleming Street Road Naming and Addressing    

Record No:    SU1849 - 7290/16

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Stephanie Bashford 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Currently, a row of five (5) houses between 147 and 155 River Road, Northwood do not have direct access off River Road due to the steep, rocky terrain along their frontage.  As a result, their main access is via a private right-of-way from the south, which curves around from an entry point between 18 and 20 Fleming Street.  No.155 uses both north and south access.

 

The current addressing is confusing for deliverers, visitors and emergency services to find the un-named accessway to these five houses, addressed as they are to River Road. Moreover, it does not comply with current NSW Addressing policies.  The NSW Addressing User Manual, recommends naming a private roadway and numbering houses accessed via such a roadway be logical, accurate and consistent.

 

It is therefore recommended that Council approve for public exhibition the naming of the private road shown in Figure 2 as Nichols Close.

 

Background

 

An application to renumber 153 River Road to 18A Fleming Street was received on 1st December, 2015.

 

As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the row of five (5) houses from 147 to 155 River Road, Northwood currently do not have direct access off River Road due to the steep, rocky terrain.  Whilst, one (1) property at No.155  has inserted a garage into the rock face, so it is accessed from both north and south, this is an exception.  All five (5) are accessed and have letterboxes along an un-named private road that extends along the southern boundary of the properties. The private road comes off Fleming Street, between 18 and 20 Fleming Street. However, most of the houses along the north side of this private road have kept their River Road street address.

 

The Geographical Names Board states that a property’s primary address is the “main access”. That is:

 

“… where access is most likely to occur for a visitor, from a road to an address site (e.g. front door) determines the primary address. Sometimes there might be separate vehicular and pedestrian access to a site. The primary address should be allocated to the pedestrian access point; the alternative address should be allocated to the vehicular access point.”

 

Therefore, because the main access for the houses along the north side of the private road is from that private road, that is where they should be addressed from. However, that private road is currently un-named.

 


 

The Site

 

As  shown in Figures 1 and 2, the site is a group of houses surrounding an un-named private road curving northward and downhill from a place between 18 and 20 Fleming Street, Northwood. As shown in Figure 3, most houses along the northern (lower) side of the private road are addressed to River Road, though their access is from the private road. This is because 24A Fleming and 149-153 cannot be accessed by the steep frontage on River Rd. 155 River Rd has access from both roadways.

 

                                                                                           

Figure 1: Site Location

 

Fig2.jpg

Figure 2: Ariel View

 

 


Figure 3 – Cadastral of nine (9) properties sharing private right of way.

 

 

Discussion

 

A letter was sent to nearby residents in December, 2015, asking their opinion on two (2) matters:-

1.         The proposed change of address  of 153 River Road to 18A Fleming Street; and

2.         Possible similar changes to nearby properties.

 

Two replies were received, one in broad support of re-numbering the northern residents, and one suggesting a system whereby these houses were numbered from No.24 (i.e. 24A to 24E). That is, in both cases, numbered off Fleming Street.

 

During December, the Geographical Names Board (GNB) was contacted seeking their views. They agreed that numbering should be from the un-named road, being the main access rather than River Road. Moreover, they recommended that the private road be named. This is supported by the GNB’s NSW Addressing User Manual. It states:-

 

“The delivery of emergency and other services are often impeded for residents and businesses when private road names are not officially recorded. In order to minimise confusion, to standardise address assignment and support emergency services, all road naming principles, procedures and processes shall be applied to private roads in NSW.”

(AUM, Section 6.7.3)


 

and

Shared access could be through common property or easements (except where the common property or easement is a private road, in which case it should be named).

(AUM, Section 6.2.3)

 

It is important that logical, accurate and consistent addresses are used. It is therefore recommended that, for the purpose of correct and legible addressing of properties along the private road, the road should be named.

 

Name of the Road.

 

According to the GNB’s NSW Addressing User Manual, (consistent with Australian Standard AS/NZS 4819:2011) under Principles of Road naming:

 

“Names of early settlers, war servicemen and women and other persons who have contributed to the heritage of an area, local history themes, flora, fauna, ships etc. are usually most suitable for applying to roads.”                                    

(Section 6.7)

 

Consistent with this section, Council’s Local History Librarian has suggested names. Added to this are names from the Lane Cove Historical Society. As detailed in AT-1 (Suggestions for Private Road Names off Fleming Street), they are:

1.         Sarah Nichols - first land holder for this area.

2.         Nichols - after family of Isaac, the Colony’s first postmaster and later Superintendent of Convicts.

3.         Marguerite Moloney - Well regarded local artist and ceramicist.

4.         Robert (Bob) Woodward - One of Australia’s pre-eminent water sculptors and fountain designers.

5.         William Pendray - Who had a 20 acre orchard there (original name for Northwood was Penry or Pendray Pt).

6.         Jane Davy or Edmund Blackett -  Northwood House was built in c1877/78 by Mrs Jane Davy, designed by Edmund Blackett.

7.         Wade (or Wahid or Wadi) - In 1903 Northwood House purchased by Abdul Wade (possibly Wahid or Wadi), a famous Broken Hill cameleer.

8.         William Pidgeon - Lived in Northwood Rd, a three (3) time Archibald Prize winner.

 

In keeping with requirements for road names, these:

·    Are unique within 10 kilometres of the road,

·    Do not exceed three words (including the road type) or 25 characters; and

·    Are consistent with Section 6.7.2 Language.

 

The AUM states that, “the public and Local Government [are permitted carriage of] the process for developing, checking, submitting, approving and registering a road name.” Council may therefore suggest a name, or names, seek submissions from the public and prescribed authorities on these or further names, before submitting a chosen name to the Geographical Names Board for approval.

 

It is recommended that Nichols be the name of the road because of Sarah Nichols’s early association with the location.

 

Type of Road

 

The AUM provides a list of the types of road to follow the name of the road. Of the list, four are possible descriptors. Again, this is a matter of choice by local government:-

·    Way = a bendy roadway.

·    Lane = a narrow roadway.

·    Close or Court = a short, enclosed roadway.

 

It is recommended that Council name the road Nichols Close as it best reflects the nature of the road, then exhibit it for public comment for six (6) weeks. Relevant properties and government agencies, and the Lane Cove Historical society, would be notified in writing. A further report to Council will address the public submissions on this issue.

 

Signage

 

Council should prepare appropriate signage on Fleming Street for the new road name. Residents would have responsibility for updating the signage on their properties. Similar precedents have occurred at 25 Best Street and Stella Vista Place, both naming private roads/rights of way.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to determine public opinion of the naming of the private roadway.  Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with the naming.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Owners of properties along and adjacent to the private roadway.

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and

eNewsletter

Notification Letters

Indicative Timing

6 weeks

6 weeks

 

Conclusion

 

In conclusion, according to the NSW Office of Local Government:

 

“Incorrect, ambiguous and missing address information is delaying mail, deliveries and other services, including assistance during emergencies. The NSW State Coroner has also recognised that this is a public safety issue.”

(Circular to Councils, 26 June 2014)

 

It is therefore important that logical, accurate and consistent addresses are used. The current addressing appears confusing for deliverers, visitors and emergency services to find the un-named access way to these five houses. Moreover, it does not comply with current NSW Addressing policies.  It is therefore recommended that Council: decide in favour of naming the private road between 18 and 20 Fleming Street to Nichols Close.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1.       Resolve to rename the private roadway Nichols Close;

4.       Exhibit the proposed street name for public comment for six (6) weeks as per the consultation strategy outlined in the report; and

5.       Consider a report on the outcome of the public exhibition.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Suggestions for Private Road Names off Fleming Street

3 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2016

Little Lane Change of Name

 

 

Subject:          Little Lane Change of Name    

Record No:    SU1849 - 12536/16

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Terry Tredrea 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the possible renaming of Little Lane. As two roads in such close proximity share the same name, the potential for confusion is evident and if proposed today would not be approved under the Geographical Names Board guidelines.

 

With the redevelopment of the Little Lane Car Park there will soon be 58 new apartments which will have a Little Lane address. This provides an impetus to rename Little Lane. Several historical names are proposed, most of historical figures associated with the old pottery works.  It is considered that rather than focus on one person out of six, the name Pottery Lane summarises the endeavors of all historical figures in the area. A “lane” is a narrow street, which best describes the roadway.

 

It is therefore recommended that Council consider changing the name of Little Lane to Pottery Lane. It is also recommended that the new car park be referred to as Little Street (not Little Lane) Car Park in all documents and signage.

 

Background

 

The site runs from Little Street at the northern end opposite the entrance to the Lane Cove Aquatic and Leisure Centre, south to its intersection with Central Avenue. Along its eastern boundary are the rear entrances to 7, 11 and 15 Little Street and the soon-to-be-completed 1 Little Lane at the northern end. Along the western boundary run the rear entrances/loading zones for commercial premises from 80 to 158 Longueville Road.

Discussion

 

With the addition of 58 new dwellings in Little Lane, it is an appropriate time to address the name of the road. The NSW Addressing User Manual (AUM), produced by the Geographical Names Board (GNB) states:

 

“Road types shall not be used to distinguish different roads of the same name or similarly sounding or spelt names. For example, the roads Lambert Street, Lambert Close and Lambert Lane are considered to be duplicates, which are not acceptable under Principle 6.7.4 - Uniqueness, Duplication.”  (p.99)

 

“Uniqueness is the most essential quality to be sought in proposing a new road name.” (Principle 6.7.4).  By this Principle, Little Lane and Little Street are not sufficiently different, and were they to be proposed today would not have received GNB endorsement. As two roads in such close proximity that several properties share Little Street and Little Lane frontages, the potential for confusion is evident.

 

In considering a replacement name for Little Lane, attached at AT-2 is a description of possible historical options for renaming Little Lane. Also find attached at AT-1 an electronic copy of an article on the Lane Cove Potteries, as it appeared in the Village Observer in October last year.

 

The following options have historical relevance. None of the options have been used anywhere within the Local Government Area:-

 

1.         Pottery Lane;

2.         Holford Lane;

3.         Samper Lane;

4.         Lacey Lane;

5.         Leiper Lane;

6.         Wilkes Lane ;

7.         Ikin Lane; and

8.         Tramway Lane

 

The area in the immediate vicinity of Little Lane has a long association with the potteries, which operated from the mid 1880s to the early 1920s. The ownership of the potteries was complex, and they went through name changes quite regularly with some of the owners owning both sites at the same time, or at different times. It is therefore considered that rather than focus on one person out of six, by naming the road Pottery Lane or Street the name summarises the endeavors of all historical figures associated with the area.

 

A “Lane” is defined by the AUM as a “narrow way between walls, buildings or a narrow country or city roadway”. This accurately describes the road, which is approximately eight metres wide. It has been known as a lane continuously to date.

 

It is recommended that consideration be given to Little Lane being renamed as Pottery Lane.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to determine public opinion on the renaming of Little Lane, in particular to Pottery Lane.  Any comments received will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with the renaming.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Key Message givers eg. owners of properties adjacent to the Lane Cove Aquatic Centre lessee(s)

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and

eNewsletter

 

Notification Letters

Public Exhibition,

Website Exhibition

 

Indicative Timing

6 weeks

6 weeks

6 weeks

 


 

Conclusion

 

Pottery Lane, as a replacement name for the road currently known as Little Lane, summarises the endeavors of many historical figures associated with the area. It accurately describes the dominant historical use of the site. The narrowness of the road is appropriate to a “lane”, and has always been known as such.  It is therefore recommended that Council rename Little Lane to Pottery Lane.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Propose renaming Little Lane to Pottery Lane;

2.   Place the proposed road renaming on public exhibition in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the report for a period of 6 weeks; and

3.   Consider a further report on the outcome of the public exhibition.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

The Village Observer Article - Pottery Green Article - October 2015

1 Page

 

AT‑2View

Little Lane - Possible Street Names

1 Page

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2016

Tender for River Road Embankment Stabilisation

 

 

Subject:          Tender for River Road Embankment Stabilisation    

Record No:    SU6109 - 13975/16

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Martin Terescenko 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The embankment supporting River Road west of Standish Street was showing indications of instability in the form of cracks and scouring. Council subsequently engaged Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Ltd to do a preliminary investigation to establish the stability of the embankment and provide recommendations for its stabilisation. From this process it was established that the most efficient and economical way to stabilise the embankment is to install a series of soil nails.

 

Council called for tenders in accordance with Council’s Tender and Quotation Procedure for the stabilisation of the River Road embankment.  This report provides details on the tender process conducted and recommends that the tender from Specialised Geo Pty Ltd be accepted.

 

Background

 

River Road is classified as a Regional road which has a traffic volume of around 20,000 vehicles per day. The embankment in question is on the southern side of River Road and supports a section of roadway west of Standish Street and opposite property no’s. 146 to 150 River Road. In this area River Road has three traffic lanes, with two lanes eastbound and one lane westbound.

 

Council staff noticed signs of instability in the embankment in the form of cracks and scouring. Council subsequently engaged J & K Group (Geotechnical Engineers) and Northwood Pty Ltd (Structural Engineers) to do a preliminary investigation to provide recommendations for its stabilisation.

 

From this process it was established that the most efficient and economical way to stabilise the embankment is to install a series of soil nails. J & K Group provided a design and technical specification for the tender.

 

Discussion

 

Tender Specification

 

A tender specification was prepared detailing the schedule of work, hours of work, safety requirements and reporting requirements for the works in all three packages.  The specification outlined that the tender submissions would be assessed based on the following weighted criteria:-

 

Price 20%:- Based on the Tender Price and schedule of rates provided in the mandatory schedules.

 

The bids were scored based on a pro rata difference in prices submitted, with the lowest price receiving 50 points. 

 

Capability and Capacity 40%:- Capability, Capacity & Timing. Assessment refers to the experience of the tenderer and its personnel, including management and supervision, the experience of any sub-contractors to be used, the capability of the tenderer to work within relevant policy frameworks and applicable legislation, and any initiatives for change and improvement. 

 

Timeliness refers to the tailoring of the sequence of activities to ensure the desired project outcomes and the company’s timeliness in being able to complete the project in the specified time.

 

To achieve the maximum score the tenderer is to have relevant experience, capability to provide the goods and perform the services required, positive reference checks, provide full details of personnel and equipment to carry out the work, management structure of the company and contingency plans to cover downtime and other unforseen circumstances. 

 

Experience 30%:- This criteria refers the relevant experience of the Tenderer, key personnel and the extent of skills/qualifications of the people who will be engaged to carry out the contractor's obligations under the Contract.

 

To achieve the maximum score the tenderer is to have provided details of key personnel, previous projects and had to have experience undertaking works for local government.

 

Work, Health & Safety 5%:- Work, Health and Safety refers to the tenderer’s commitment to and compliance with the Work, Health & Safety Act 2000 and Work, Health & Safety Regulation 2001.

 

To achieve the maximum score the tenderer is to provide details in their submission that they have an WHS Management Plan and work method statements.

 

Environment and Sustainability 5%:- Environment and Sustainability Assessment refers to the manner in which environmental issues are to be appropriately addressed, including commitment to due diligence and the principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD) in regard to environmental legislation and documentation outlining past performance in regard to environment protection and enhancement initiatives.

 

To achieve the maximum score the tenderer was to provide details of an environmental policy and answer yes to all applicable questions in the Environmental Survey included in the tender specification. 

 

Advertisement

 

Council advertised the tender in the Sydney Morning Herald on 17 November 2015 and the Tender Link Website.  Tenders closed at 2:00pm on 17 December 2015 and Council received 6 conforming submissions. 

 

The tender evaluation panel consisted of Council’s Manager Assets, Design Engineer and Drainage Engineer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation

 

Each tender was assessed based on the above weighted criteria and ranked accordingly:-

 

Company

Price (20%)

Capability, Capacity & Timing (40%)

Experience (30%)

Work, Health & Safety (5%)

Environment (5%)

Total

Earthtec

 

 

 

Equally Preferred

Equally Preferred

 

Elite Retaining Systems

 

 

 

Equally Preferred

Equally Preferred

 

GEO Stabilise Pty Ltd

 

 

 

Equally Preferred

Equally Preferred

 

Geovert Ltd

Preferred

 

 

Equally Preferred

Equally Preferred

 

Pan Civil

 

Equally Preferred

Preferred

Equally Preferred

Equally Preferred

Preferred

Specialised Geo Pty Ltd

 

Equally Preferred

 

Equally Preferred

Equally Preferred

 

 

Budget

 

The stabilisation works are a major capital upgrade of the road embankment and will be paid for out of Council’s Infrastructure Levy. Works will be spread over the 2015/16 and 2016/17 financial years and an appropriate budget has been provided for in the budget.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

Having recorded the highest score across the weighted criteria and positive reference checks were received about the quality and reliability of their work, the Tender Panel recommends that the tender from Specialised GEO Pty Ltd be accepted for River the Road Embankment Stabilisation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.    Council accept the tender from Specialised Geo Pty Ltd for the River Road Embankment Stabilisation for an amount of $846,700; and

2.    The General Manager be authorised to enter into contracts with Specialised Geo Pty Ltd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Patterson

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2016

2016/2017 Draft Budget, Fees and Charges and Delivery Program and Operational Plan

 

 

Subject:          2016/2017 Draft Budget, Fees and Charges and Delivery Program and Operational Plan    

Record No:    SU5595 - 12098/16

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Introduction

 

The 2016/17 Budget has been formulated in the context of continuing to maintain service delivery levels for existing and new residents and initiating the redevelopment of Rosenthal Car Park within an ongoing tight economic environment.  This combined with ongoing cost increases in utilities, the pressure local government generally is under from a variety of sources, has once again made the development of this budget difficult. Major pressures include:-

·    Continued rate pegging from the State Government has seen revenue lag behind actual costs, with only a 1.8% increase in Rates approved for 2016/17;

·    Lower interest rates and a lower portfolio, due to unprecedented level of Capital Works, resulting in lower returns on income from investments; and

·    Employee costs generally are anticipated to increase by approximately 2.8% for 2016/17. Continuation of additional superannuation costs due to past decline in financial returns requires an additional $128,000 for those staff in the defined benefits scheme.

 

Draft Budget for 2016/17

 

Budget Summary

 

The 2016/2017 Draft Budget as shown attached as (AT-1) was prepared using Council's normal format and arranged in program areas that reflect Council’s activities. The document contains explanatory notes that describe the activities covered by each of the programs.

 

The 2016/2017 Budget has been formulated on the basis of applying the principle of seeking a balanced budget in cash terms without reliance on debt. Despite the significant program of works and services, on an Accrual Accounting basis, Council’s budget shows a small surplus which is required to cover non cash revenues; the revaluation of Market Square, Profit on Sale of Assets and estimated increase in Joint Ventures such as MetroPool,  that are excluded in the most important Operating Surplus Ratio.

 

To achieve this, the 2016/2017 Draft Budget was formulated based on materials and contracts being pegged at previous year levels. Any changes beyond this were made in an environment of contestability which required individual Divisional Managers to critically evaluate and justify program expenditures, matching each against their respective funding source thus leading to the containment of costs.   The draft budget as presented will continue to facilitate the achievement of Council’s objectives in the coming 12 months.

 

 

 


Fit for the Future Ratios

 

It is important in preparing the 2016/17 budget that financial sustainability ratios remain in a strong position and meet industry benchmarks.  The following comments are made in relation to the published Fit for the Future industry ratios:-

·    The balanced budget (small surplus) continues to ensure that the Operating Performance Ratio will remain above breakeven into the future;

·    Council’s own source revenue remains in a strong position, however is affected by the high level of Section 94 contributions that are expected to be received as Capital Contributions are excluded for own source revenue;

·    The Building and Infrastructure Asset Renewal Ratio also remains in a strong position and will continue to do so while Council experiences high levels of capital expenditure on new and existing projects;

·    The Infrastructure Backlog Ratio and Asset Maintenance Ratios, while unaudited, are both exceeding industry standards; and

·    Council remains debt free and is experiencing decreasing trends in the Real Operating Expenditure per capita.

 

 

Criteria

Benchmarks

Year – 2016/17

Sustainability

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

1.56%

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

71.08%

Building and Infrastructure Asset Renewal Ratio (greater than 100%)

average over 3 years

300.92%

Effective Infrastructure Management

Infrastructure Backlog Ratio (less than 2%)  

1.64%

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

148%

Debt Service Ratio (greater than 0 and less than or equal to 20% average over 3 years)

0%

Efficiency

Real Operating Expenditure per capita (decreasing over time)

0.90%

 

Budget Highlights

 

As noted in the Introduction and Budget Summary, Council is continuing with a period of significant investment in infrastructure, providing long term cultural, social and economic benefits to the Lane Cove Community and visitors to the area. Projects include:-

 

Rosenthal Car Park Redevelopment - $15,000,000 has been provided for the commencement of redevelopment of Rosenthal Car Park. Development has been staged over three years with additional funding of $30,000,000 provided for 2017/18 and 2018/19 respectively.

 

Mowbray Precinct – Open Space - $1,500,000 has been provided for the construction of new open space and an active recreation facilities in the Mowbray Precinct to cater for the additional population growth that is occurring in this area.

 

Aquatic Centre Grandstand - $675,000 has been provided for the upgrade of the Aquatic Centre Grandstand. The upgrade will finalise work at the Aquatic Centre and improve accessibility.

 

Aquatic Centre Toilets – funding has been allocated from the infrastructure levy to upgrade the pool level toilets.

 

Traffic Signals - $730,000 has been allocated for the construction of Traffic signals at the corner of Centennial Ave and Elizabeth Pde including an estimate for Land Acquisition.

 

Cultural Services – A total of $170,000 has been provided for cultural services program including Sunset in the Village, Plaza decorations, Art Exhibition, Lane Cove Festival and Autumn Harmony Festival.

 

Lane Cove Community Centre – A total of $325,000 has been provided for an upgrade of Lane Cove Community Centre to meet the needs of centrehouse. The upgrades will include a Vergola Louvre roof system over the front patio.

 

Corporate Services

 

Administration 1.1

 

Council will need to continue to contribute an additional $128,000 for staff who are in the Defined Benefits super fund in 2016/17. Superannuation estimates in individual accounts will vary throughout the budget depending on the number of staff in the scheme.

 

$55,000 is provided for Council’s Internal Audit program, which is a shared resource with other NSROC Councils, the program is now at full capacity with 2.5 auditors. External audit services provided under the current agreement with PricewaterhouseCoopers cost a further $37,500.

 

The NSROC contribution has increased by an incremental amount to $40,000. NSROC continues to play a vital regional advocacy role particularly in response to the State Government’s Fit for the Future program. Current NSROC projects include the regional waste strategy; regional ageing strategy; renewal energy project; and ongoing investigation of resource sharing opportunities such as shared learning and implementation of the NSROC sportsground strategy.

 

eNotices

 

In 2016/17 Council will be offering the opportunity to ratepayers to receive their rate notices via email through Bpay View and the ability to pay using Bpay or any of the other current payment options.

 

This is an opportunity to provide an e-presentment service for ratepayers without additional cost and with the benefits of reduced postage costs.

 

It will be marketed with the last quarterly installment of 2015/16.

 

 


 

Organisation Development - Administration (Program 3.1)

 

Council has been able to save money in Property Protection Insurance through a marketing exercise.

 

Environmental Services

 

Overall the Environmental Services Division is seeking to continue existing program initiatives for the 2016/17 budget year.

 

Strategic Planning (Programme 2.1)

 

The ongoing series of LEP and DCP amendments will continue, and a number of ad hoc special projects arise each year, including in liaison with the New Greater Sydney Council Mission and Progressing St Leonards Planning Proposal and Development Control Plan related actions.

 

Development Control (Programme 6.2)

 

Major development applications for Multi Unit Developments continue to work through the assessment system. With some ongoing legal matters drawing to a close, the legal budget is expected to reduce over time as the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) determines applications for major Council and contentious development applications.

 

Environmental Health (Programme 6.3.1)

 

Council continues to undertake inspections for food shops, cooling towers, skin penetration and beautician services to ensure public health standards are maintained in the locality.

 

Regulatory Services (Programme 6.4)

 

An additional parking officer will be employed to assist in the enforcement of 40 additional regulated parking areas introduced over the past three years. Council will also focus on minimising graffiti, waste dumping and vandalism. Additionally, surveillance of major construction sites and adherence to conditions of consent will be a priority during 2016/17.

 

Household Garbage Collection (Programme 9.2)

 

Council will continue to implement its waste strategy and educational programs, which seeks to increase diversion rates above 50%. The partnership with NSROC to develop a Regional Waste Disposal Strategy with the objective of a more efficient and cost effective solution to the disposal of waste in the region commenced in December 2015. Council will be cofounding with surrounding councils for a dedicated ‘problem waste’ collection centre in Artarmon.

 

Sustainability Levy (Programme 13)

 

Over 50 projects are likely to be funded during the 2016/17 budget year that will contribute to the economic, social environmental sustainability of the Lane Cove community.

 


 

Human Services

 

Major projects that will be undertaken in the next twelve months include the upgrade of the grandstand at the Lane Cove Aquatic Centre and the planning for and refurbishment of the Community Centre to allow for the relocation of Centrehouse.

 

Funds have been made available to continue to implement the Age Friendly Strategy, Social and Disability Discrimination Action Plans and the newly updated Cultural Plan. Programs across the Division have been assessed against the Plans listed above and the Sustainability Plan. Funds have also been included to formulate a Discrimination Inclusion Plan in accordance with recent legislation.

 

Kindy Cove Child Care Centre   (Program 4.3.2)

 

Kindy Cove Child Care Centre is run as a business unit of Council.  The budget is developed in close cooperation with the Management Advisory Committee. 

The Management Advisory Committee discussed and agreed to the 2016/7 fees at its February meeting.

 

The fees have been increased by an amount of $1.00 per day for all age groups from July 1, 2016.

 

Community Services   (Programs 4.3.1, 4.3.3, 4.3.4, 4.3.5, and 5.5)

 

These programs include provision for services to youth, the aged and people with a disability, and community groups generally.

 

The Youth Services Program continues to provide high quality services to our residents including initiatives such as the school holiday program, continuing the Primary School Open days and the Youth Centre operating as a five day a week drop in service from Tuesday to Saturday. Some additional funding has been included in the 2016/7 budget reflecting a rise in the number of youth regularly attending the Centre and the need for more materials, including food to meet the need.

 

Shorefest, which is a regional youth music festival will continue in 2016/7 and funds have been included in the budget to cover this event.

 

Funds have been included in the budget to continue a growing range of seniors programs such as Seniors Week; Seniors Concerts, regular seminars, Write to Wellness program, Community choir, HEART programme (Healthy Eating and Recreation Time for Seniors); the BOOMers program; cooking for men and falls prevention programs. Council continues to receive funding from the NSW Dept. Human Services – Ageing, Disability and Home Care for a part-time Community Development Officer – Aged and Disability and funds for the implementation of new programs. (Program 4.3.5)  Council continues to support the Different Degrees Theatre Ensemble.

 

Funds have also been included to implement Actions arising out of the Age-Friendly Lane Cove Strategy.

 

Council’s Community Services Branch will also organise workshops for community groups to strengthen and sustain them.

 


 

Communications and Cultural Events

 

Increases have been allocated to a range of cultural activities outlined in the newly adopted Cultural Plan.  For the 2016/2017 budget, additional funds have been allocated to assist in celebrating 25 years of the Cameraygal Festival. Funds have again been allocated for signature events that appeal to the broadest cross section of our community.

 

Council’s Love Where You Live Program will continue to be rolled out across Lane Cove in the next twelve months.

 

Library and Information Services (Program 5.1)

 

The Library continues to add a number of new programmes, including Movies@Lane Cove; and the author talk program. A new service, ‘Library to the door will be introduced allowing Lane Cove residents to reserve their books online and have them delivered to their home for a small fee. This service will contribute to increased circulation and revenue.

 

Facilities (Programs 4, 5 & 9)

 

Activities of the Facilities Branch are shown in programs where Council facilities appear.

The Facilities Branch works closely with the Environmental Services Division in implementing actions arising out of the Sustainability Levy.

 

The 2016/7 budget reflects the reduction in electricity usage both at the Civic Centre and at the Library. The Civic Centre has experienced a reduction of approximately 20% due to the installation of a new air conditioning system and the upgrading of the lighting to more highly controlled and sensitive LED lighting. The installation of additional solar on the Library building and the recalibration of the Building Management System have combined to reduce the electricity usage.

 

Funds have also been included to refurbish the Aquatic Centre grandstand and to plan for and refurbish the Lane Cove Community Centre in preparation for Centrehouse to relocate into this space.

 

Income and Expenditure codes have been included in this budget for the new facilities at Blackman Park; Waterview Drive and in the Little Lane development.

 

Open Space and Urban Services

 

Open Space   (Programs 5.7.1 – 5.7.6)

 

During 2016/2017 a number of maintenance and capital improvements are planned for Council’s Open Space areas including parks, sporting grounds and water recreation.

 

Significant funds have been carried over to plan for, and construct a new active recreation area in the Mowbray Precinct, likely to involve properties in Pinaroo Place. Funds have also been provided to further upgrade the landscaping and walking tracks around Lane Cove.

 

With the completion of the creek and path, additional funding has been allocated to Blackman Park to construct an additional fitness station adjacent to the creek and some associated works.

 

Funds have been provided as match funding for upgrades to the toilets, storage area, view deck and amenities at Tantallon Oval as part of the Community Building Partnerships program in conjunction with the Lane Cove Tigers and the Lane Cove Junior Rugby Union.

 

A further budget of 250k is allocated as matching funding for the proposed grandstand upgrade works at Tantallon Oval. The allocation of these funds is subject to Council approval of the staging plan, with Stage 1 to include the toilets, storage admin, Canteen/BBQ area and viewing deck.

 

Funding has also been provided for the heritage study on Kingsford Smith Oval grandstand.

 

Funding has been provided for the survey and repair or replacement of the bridge at the golf course which is used by both golfers and members of the public walking the grounds after hours.

 

Following audits of play equipment, benches and picnic tables in 2015-16, funding has been dedicated to arrange for the repair of a number of items identified.

Within the Bushland budget, funds have been allocated for the Volunteer Bushcare program as well as for the regular Bushland Management Program.  The Bushland Program also has a number of continuing works that are funded by Grant allocations.

 

Engineering and Support Services (Program 8.1)

 

Further work will be undertaken on the strategic traffic and transport studies for St Leonards as required due to new significant development. Other works planned include Epping Road/ Coxs Lane signalisation as conditioned by RMS with regards to the Rosenthal car park development.

 

Roads (Program 8.2)

 

The Roads program funding is in line with Council’s Asset Management System Works Program.

 

The Federal Roads to Recovery Program has been extended by the Federal Government and will also be utilised for improvements to the condition of sub-standard roads identified in Council’s Asset Management System.

 

Council has received some RMS funding for the Regional Roads Rehabilitation Program.

 

Ancillary Works (Program 8.3)

 

Income from reinstatements/restorations has been maintained to reflect an expected continuance of a similar amount of work by the Council works staff. 

 

Funding for street lighting expenditure has been based on the latest AER indication that Energy Australia is seeking a new fee structure. Energy costs will remain at current street lighting levels under Council’s agreement with AGL.

 

Funds have been allocated to upgrade traffic signals at Mowbray Road West and Centennial Avenue intersection ($750,000 including land acquisition cost).

 

Council’s bicycle funding has increased by $50,000 to allow continued implementation of Council’s Bicycle Plan.

 

Funds have been allocated for the completion of retaining walls on River Road near Standish Street.

 

Planning and design work for Council’s St Leonards Bus Rail Interchange and Plaza will be ramped up, subject to support from Transport for NSW. Further work will be undertaken on the Seniors Living proposal at 266 Longueville Road.

 


 

Footpaths (Program 8.4)

 

Funding has been maintained in an endeavour to maintain the general footpath condition.  Provision has been made for continuing upgrade works including the provision of pram ramps at numerous key locations. Asset renewal in the footpaths program also matches Council’s commitment to increase asset renewal rates to the equivalent of depreciation.

 

Parking Areas (Program 8.5)

 

Funding has been provided to commence detailed design based on the public domain analysis that has been undertaken on the Rosenthal Car Park site.

 

Council currently has eight (8) on street car share spaces with estimated total revenue of $4,600 for 16/17 financial year.

 

Bus Shelters (Program 8.6)

 

The bus shelter contract with Adshel will expire early next year and Council will tender for a new contract in due course.

 

Water Transport (Program 8.7)

 

Cleaning maintenance will be carried out as part of an ongoing agreement with Maritime NSW, who have taken over responsibility for general maintenance and upgrades/major repairs to the ferry wharves within the Lane Cove LGA (and other Council areas adjoining the harbour).

 

Street Sweeping (Program 9.3)

 

Funding has been maintained for hand sweeping to maintain Council’s current level of service

 

Other Garbage Expenses (Program 9.4)

 

The contract for servicing of litter bins has been included with the contract for domestic waste collection.  The allocation makes allowance for increased tipping fees.

 

Urban Stormwater (Program 9.5)

 

Funding for maintenance of stormwater has been maintained at existing levels to allow work to be undertaken and maintain Council’s system at an acceptable level of service.  A program of pit upgrading is expected to reduce the frequency of blockages and this program will continue into the future as required.

 

Other Community Facilities (Program 9.7)

 

Provision has been made for increased maintenance to appropriately maintain the newly renovated plaza.

 

Sustainability Levy

 

This year Council continues to fastrack Sustainability initiatives utilising the 6% Sustainability Levy. Projects for 2016/17 include:-

·     Environmental Education;

·     Longueville Ferry Shelter Studies;

·     Every Child, a Bushland experience;

·     Bush Friends;

·     Warraroon Track Upgrade;

·     Red Spider Mite Eradication Program.

·     Guinea Grass Control Program

·     Volunteer Bushcare

 

Budget Revenues

 

Rates Levy

 

The Minister for Local Government has announced the general rate peg increase as 1.8 % for 2016/17.

 

General Purpose (Ordinary) Rates

 

It is proposed to levy two (2) Ordinary Rates in 2016/17 in accordance with S.492 and S.497(a) of the Local Government Act.

 

i.  An Ordinary Residential Rate of  0.178798 cents in the dollar, on the Land Value of all Rateable Land categorised as Residential in accordance with S.516 of the Local Government Act, (with the exception of heritage properties which are rated on their heritage value), with a Minimum Rate of $716, to yield $17,142,518.

 

ii. An Ordinary Business Rate of $0.770688 cents in the dollar, on the Land Value of all Rateable Land categorised as Business in accordance with S.516 of the Local Government Act, with a Minimum Rate of $853 to yield $5,438,414.

 

Car Parking Special Rate

 

It is proposed to levy a Car Parking Special Rate on Business premises in Lane Cove of 0.203407 cents in dollar with a minimum rate of $2 per assessment, to raise $158,462.

 

Domestic Waste Management (DWM) Charges

 

Domestic Waste Management Services are rendered by Council to all residential properties (including flats and strata’s) in the Lane Cove Municipality. DWM does not include waste services rendered to business rated properties. As provided for in the Local Government Act, the “reasonable” cost of DWM is fully recoverable and is reflected in the recommended charge for Domestic Waste Management in the Management Plan.

 

The Draft Budget provides for the levying of a Domestic Waste Management Charge (under S.496 of the Act) of $425.00 for each 80 litre MGB and recycling service on all rateable and non-rateable residential properties. Additional DWM services to Owner Occupied Single Residential Dwellings are available at $6.25 per week. Charges for DWM services rendered to residential units above business premises, or extra DWM services rendered to other premises, are set out in the Schedule of Fees and Charges for 2016/2017.

 


 

Interest Charges

Interest is to be charged on overdue Rates and DWM Charges in accordance with S.566(3) of the Act. The maximum rate of interest payable has not yet been announced by the Minister for 2016/2017.

 

Valuation Base

 

Rates for 2016/2017 will be levied on the 1 July 2013 Base Date Valuations as issued by the Valuer General.

 

Fees & Charges

 

The Reserve Bank of Australia inflation forecast for the ensuing year is 2.25 to 3.25% whilst wages and salaries are anticipated to grow by 2.8% over the coming year. These have been used as a reference for any recommended increases in the Schedule of Fees and Charges for 2016/2017 (AT-2) for those charges which are set by Council.

 

S.611 Charges – Infrastructure Charges

 

Council is proposing to levy under S611 of the Local Government Act, on persons for the time being in possession, occupation or enjoyment of a rail, pipe, wire, pole, cable, tunnel or structure laid, erected, suspended, constructed or placed on, under or over a public place. The charges are based on the nature and extent of the benefit enjoyed by the person concerned. Council will levy a charge on AGL in respect of gas pipes occupying Council land.

 

Loan Borrowing


It is not proposed to raise any new loans. There are no renewal loans requiring refinancing during this period.

 

Salaries and Wages

 

Salaries and Wages include provision for staff progression through Council's revised Salary System and a 2.8% award increase from 1 July 2016. All other provisions are as per the Local Government (State) Award. Sick leave has been based on 50% of leave entitlement and on sick leave history.

 

Depreciation Charges

 

In accordance with the requirements of Australian Accounting Standard AAS27, the Draft Budget incorporates depreciation of fixed assets. Depreciation theoretically is the consumption of these   assets over their useful life. Amounts are provided each year to reflect this consumption and do not involve the movement of cash.

 

Community Strategic Plan, Lane Cove 2025 and Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2016-2017

 

All NSW councils are required to have in place the following planning processes:-

•          A community strategic plan;

•          A community engagement strategy that sets out how each council will engage its community when developing its community strategic plan;

•          A resourcing strategy that includes a long term financial plan, a workforce management strategy and an asset management policy, strategy and plans;

•          A delivery program; and

•          An Operational Plan, including a statement of revenue policy, and a detailed annual budget.


In accordance with legislative framework, Council reviewed its Community Strategic Plan and adopted a 4 Year Delivery Program and Operational Plan by 30 June 2013. The Delivery Program and Operational Plan contains actions to be undertaken during the current term of Council. These actions are linked to the strategies from the Community Strategic Plan.

 

Community Strategic Plan, Lane Cove 2025

The Community Strategic Plan, Lane Cove 2025 was adopted in 2011 and outlines the vision for the local community and Council. Lane Cove 2025 was produced after an extensive two year community consultation process. As per Section 402 of the Local Government 1993, Council also reviewed its Community Strategic Plan by 30 June 2013 i.e. within 12 months of the Council Election.

 

The 2016-17 Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan, shown attached as AT-3, outlines the actions to be implemented over the coming 3 years in order to achieve the goals, objectives and strategies of the Community Strategic Plan. New actions suggested by Councillors at the 2016 Corporate Planning Weekend for inclusion in the Delivery Program and Operation Plan are shown in blue.

 

Community Consultation

 

It is a statutory requirement that the Draft Budget 2016-2017, Delivery Program (Incorporating Operational Plan) 2016-2017 and Fees and Charges 2016-2017, following Council’s initial consideration, be placed on public exhibition for a period of not less than twenty eight (28) days. Following this, Council must consider any public comments submitted before the Plan can be adopted.

 

It is proposed to exhibit these documents for six (6) weeks from March to May 2016. A report will be prepared for Council’s consideration at the 16 May 2016 Ordinary Council Meeting advising of the results of the community consultation and recommending final adoption. Until the Delivery Program is adopted, Council is unable to levy rates and charges for the fiscal year for which the plan is prepared.

 

Consultation Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to provide the community with the opportunity to comment on the proposed initiatives and actions over the next 3 years.  The methods of consultation proposed are outlined below. The proposed exhibition will be at both the Civic Centre and the Library to final confirmation. 

 

Methods

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Open

Target Audience

Whole Community

Whole Community

Proposed Medium

Exhibition / Advertising / eNewsletter

Survey

Indicative Timing

March – May 2016

March – May 2016

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.   Council adopt for the purpose of public exhibition, the 2016-2017 Draft Budget, Draft Fees and Charges and Draft Delivery Program (Incorporating Operational Plan);

2.   Council undertake community consultation for a period of six (6) weeks as per the consultation strategy outlined in the report; and

3.   Following public exhibition, the Draft Budget, Draft Fees and Charges and Draft Delivery Program (Incorporating Operational Plan) together with any submissions received, be considered at the Council meeting to be held 16 May 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

2016-17 Draft Budget

179 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑2View

2016-17 Draft Fees and Charges

27 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑3View

2016-17 Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan

89 Pages

Circulated Separately

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2016

Nominations for Community Members on Council's  Advisory Committees

 

 

Subject:          Nominations for Community Members on Council's  Advisory Committees    

Record No:    SU827 - 12950/16

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Kirsty Beram 

 

 

Executive Summary

At its Ordinary Council Meeting of 21 September 2015, Council reviewed the current representation on its Advisory Committees and determined to advertise the vacant community representative positions on various committees.   Completed nominations were received for the Lane Cove North Advisory Committee, Recreation Precinct Liaison Advisory Committee, Cameraygal Festival Committee, Lane Cove Cultural Advisory Committee and Aboriginal Advisory Committee.  This report will recommends the appointment of representatives to the committees.

Background

Council is committed to ensuring the community is informed and encourages community participation in decision making by operating a variety of Advisory Committees to engage the community. 

A recent review of the current representation on its Advisory Committees identified vacancies on the following Committees:

·    Aboriginal Advisory Committee (3 vacancies);

·    Cameraygal Festival Committee (3 vacancies);

·    Lane Cove Access Committee (1 vacancy);

·    Lane Cove Cultural Advisory Committee (3 vacancies);

·    Lane Cove Public Art Advisory Committee (3 vacancies); and

·    Recreation Precinct Liaison Advisory Committee (2 vacancies).

 

At its Ordinary Council Meeting of 21 September 2015, Council determined to advertise for nominations to fill current vacancies.  Council also resolved to “dissolve the Mowbray Precinct Working Party and call for new expressions of interest from the public for membership to the new Lane Cove North Advisory Committee.”

 

A draft charter has been developed for this committee which allows for the following representation:

“a)   Eight (8) Community Members as appointed by Council;

b)    Two (2) Representatives from each of the Residents associations in the precinct (Stringybark Creek Residents Association and Lane Cove North Residents Association).

c)    All West Ward Councillors;

d)    The General Manager or his representative; and

e)    Staff appointed by the General Manager including but not limited to those from Traffic and from Planning or Strategic Planning.”

 

Discussion

Nominations were sought to fill these vacancies and the community representative positions on the newly formed Lane Cove North Advisory Committee.  Nominations opened on Wednesday, 2 December 2015 and were advertised in the North Shore Times and on Council’s website.  Additionally, an eNewsletter was distributed to Council’s database of over 7000 residents. 

Seven (7) nominations and one (1) late nomination were received for the Lane Cove North Advisory Committee, three (3) nominations were received for both the Recreation Precinct Liaison Advisory Committee and Cameraygal Festival Committee, and two (2) nominations were received for the Lane Cove Cultural Advisory Committee. 

In addition, one (1) nomination was received for the Aboriginal Advisory Committee, however the nominee did not meet the eligibility criteria for the committee. No completed nominations were received for the Lane Cove Access Committee or the Lane Cove Public Art Advisory Committee.

 

It is recommended that the following nominations be endorsed by Council for appointment to the respective committees:

·    Cameraygal Festival Committee

Deborah Hill – currently on the P&C executive committee for the Lane Cove West Public School, and has just finished three (3) years as Fundraising Coordinator for the school.  She is currently the president of the Lane Cove Chamber of Commerce and would like to get the chamber more involved in the festival. Deborah believes she could bring some good ideas and assistance to the committee.

Ajaya Jayarao – Program Manager for a major international Company, Ajaya has extensive organisation & management skills that will be helpful for the planning and management of the activities. Additionally, Ajaya has experience in dealing with multiple countries and cultures that will also be a good skill to possess to support the Cameraygal Committee.

Geraldine Levett – A social worker at Sydney Hospital and Paddington Women's Hospital, has a Bachelor of Social Studies and is a teacher in Community Services at TAFE in Ultimo. She is active member of the Boy Scout Association and an active participant in Sydney Theatre and Australian Ballet, volunteers for the Crow's Nest Centre, Asylum Seeker Centre and Northern Beaches Tibetan Mentor Scheme, Riverview Committee, undertakes art courses at Willoughby Workshop and Centrehouse and works part-time in a Nursing Home implementing programs and teaching communications skills including public speaking, course development, networking and community awareness.

·    Lane Cove Cultural Advisory Committee

Margaret Frances Edwards – Recent experience in a voluntary capacity as secretary for 7 years of the Australian Decorative and Fine Arts Society (ADFAS) (Ku-ring-gai). She was employed as a full time Executive Assistant for 11 years and has considerable experience participating in meetings and minute taking.

Geraldine Levett – Geraldine is a trained social worker and teacher, Early Childhood lecturer and tutor with experience teaching English for 4 years in Lane Cove in addition she has 20 years teaching experience with TAFE in Community services.  Geraldine has been a resident of Lane Cove 35 years and is an active member of Lane Cove Public School and Lane Cove Soccer and Boy Scout Association, in addition to the relevant experience listed above in her nomination for the Cameraygal Committee.


 

·    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 two (2) having an interest in town planning, urban design and/or architecture. The Committee currently has two (2) representatives with an interest in sport however, based on the nominations received, it is recommended that Council amend the charter to allow a third community representative with an interest in sports to be appointed.

Gregg Dwyer (interest in sport) – Has been identified as possessing a variety of sports interests which tie in with the needs of the golf precinct.  He is an experienced Real Estate Valuer and Childcare Centre Operator with  30 years experience in sports administration, currently coaching Lane Cove Soccer and Ryde Hunter's Hill Hockey club.

 

Robert David Forsyth Hunter (interest in town planning, urban design and/or architecture ) – Greenwich resident, an architect now retired, spent the majority of his career (35 years) with Leighton Contractors involved in many building and civil construction projects.

 

David Geoffrey Astridge (interest in town planning, urban design and/or architecture) – An architect who works on humanitarian projects and covers areas such as master planning, building and infrastructure design and agricultural advice. He also acted as an advisor to one of Australia's largest commercial architecture offices and has worked on many major local and international sports facilities.  David has been a resident of Greenwich for over 10 years, and on behalf of the Greenwich Sports Club, is currently working with Lane Cove Council on a proposal for the upgrade to the facilities at Bob Campbell Oval.

·    Lane Cove North Advisory Committee 

Gareth Edward Bourne - Community Representative - Employed in a team that manages problem property assets for a bank and has experience in liaising with numerous stake holders to manage development projects which has provided him with experience with developments in not only Sydney but parts of Melbourne and various areas in Queensland.

Robert Cartwright - Community Representative - Member of: Past President and member of the Lane Cove Rotary Club, Lane Cove branch of the RSL and past board member of the Lane Cove Bowling Club. Robert is also a member of the Stringybark Creek Residents Association. 

Dr Ruth Neumann - Lane Cove North Residents’ Association Representative - Experience and involvement with community groups in the Lane Cove area including the Lane Cove North Residents' Association, Lane Cove Bushland & Conservation Society and observer on the Mowbray Precinct Working Party.  Has more than three decades experience with policy analysis, policy research and policy advice to Australian and overseas governments. Extensive committee experience through her work, as well as report writing and presentation skills, and, long experience liaising with politicians and government advisers

Guy Rupert Hallowes - Stringy Bark Creek Residents Association Representative - President of the Stringy Bark Creek Residents Association, has lived in the Lane Cove North area for almost 30 years and has an extensive knowledge of the area.

Andrew Lee - Stringy Bark Creek Residents Association Representative - A committee member of the Stringybark Creek Residents Association and a local resident that is interested to provide the Committee with insight and suggestions on improving the living standards in the Lane Cove North area.

Toby Wetherill - Community Representative - Architect/Master Planner with experience across many project typologies both nationally and internationally. Toby is a business owner, committed to environmentally sustainable development and possesses strong communication skills.

Erica Wallace - Community Representative - Former teacher of geography and history with an awareness of urban problems.  Possesses information technology skills and team experience.

Mark Joyner - Community Representative - Previously a member of the Mowbray Precinct Working Party and believes it is important to have a resident of the E4 zoned area of Kullah Parade be on the Lane Cove North Advisory committee.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.   Council endorse Deborah Hill, Ajaya Jayarao and Geraldine Levett for appointment to the Cammeraygal Advisory Committee;

2.   Council endorse Margaret Frances Edwards and Geraldine Levett for appointment to the Lane Cove Cultural Advisory Committee;

3.   The charter for the Recreation Precinct Liaison Advisory Committee be amended to allow the appointment of three (3) community representatives with an interest in sport to be accommodated at the facility;

4.   Council endorse Gregg Dwyer, Robert David Forsyth Hunter and David Geoffrey Astridge for appointment to the Recreation Precinct Liaison Advisory Committee;

5.   Council endorse Gareth Edward Bourne, Robert Cartwright, Dr Ruth Neumann, Guy Rupert Hallowes, Andrew Lee, Toby Wetherill, Erica Wallace and Mark Joyner for appointment to the Lane Cove North Advisory Committee; and

6.   The nominees be advised of Councils’ decision.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2016

Greenwich Village Games 2016

 

 

Subject:          Greenwich Village Games 2016    

Record No:    SU2741 - 12328/16

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Greenwich Village Games are conducted every four (4) years by the Greenwich Village Games Organising Committee on behalf of Council.  It is recommended that the 2016 Games be conducted by the Committee, consisting of nominated community representatives and the three (3) East Ward Councillors..

 

Background

 

The Greenwich Village Games are conducted by a Council Committee, the Greenwich Village Games Organising Committee, which was constituted as an official Council Committee for the last three (3) games in 2004, 2008 and 2012 respectively.  The Games are a community run event with some 21 events held over a three (3) day weekend, which are conducted on a cost neutral basis.

 

Discussion

 

The next Greenwich Village Games are scheduled to be held from Friday 2 December to Sunday 4 December 2016. Events will largely be centered around Bob Campbell Oval with Lane Cove Golf Course, the Aquatic Centre and River Road Tennis Centre also utilised. Council normally provides assistance to the Committee via the booking of facilities and various logistical support with the preparation and use of the Council maintained venues such as Bob Campbell Oval and with the payment of expenses incurred by the Committee on the basis of the full recovery of costs through participation fees.

 

The constitution of the Committee (AT-1) requires Council to make the appointments to the Committee. It is therefore proposed to update the membership of the Committee as new members of the community have been nominated since the last games.  Council is represented on the organising committee by the three (3) East Ward Councillors and it is proposed to appoint the following community representatives to the Committee:-

 

2016 organising committee

Chairman

Sandy Calder

Deputy Chairman

Michael Armati

Secretary

Lynne Spencer

Treasurer

Craig Stafford

 

Other committee members

 

·   Regan Bull

·   Anna-Lise Sewell

·   Mark Merrick

·   Jon Stormont

·   Anne-Marie Sirca

·   Stephen Sheperd

·   Ben Wilson

·   Kirsty Oliver

·   Jane Marquard

·   Jon Tindall

·   Peter Walton

·   Richard Hawkins

·   Maddison Bates-Willis

·   Fiona Ell

 

 

Team captains

 

·   Dennis Karp

·   Fiona Ell

·   Ben Wilson

·   Tony King

·   Ray Karslake

·   Briony Black

·   Penny Williams

·   Chris Rossiter

·   Michael Ryland

·   Jon Tindall

·   Midi Stormont

·   Leanne Keene

·   Nick Tindall

·   Chris Scougall

·   Bede Thompson

·   James Burton

·   Dennise Terry

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

The Greenwich Village Games are a prime example of an inclusive community run event which demonstrates the uniqueness of Lane Cove and our strong sense of community and participation. The Games are reflective of the ideals of Council’s Love Where You Live approach to developing civic pride in Lane Cove and its village identity, and in particular the Love Where You Play component.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Receive and note the information;

2.   Support the 2016 Greenwich Village Games being conducted by the Greenwich Village Games Organising Committee; and

3.   Appoint the following representatives to the 2016 Organising Committee the three (3) East Ward Councillors, Sandy Calder (Chairman,) Michael Armati (Deputy Chairman), Lynne Spencer (Secretary) and Craig Stafford (Treasurer). Other committee members to include Regan Bull, Jon Stormont, Ben Wilson, Jon Tindall, Maddison Bates-Willis, Anna-Lise Sewell, Anne-Marie Sirca, Kirsty Oliver, Peter Walton, Fiona Ell, Mark Merrick, Stephen Sheperd, Jane Marquard and Richard Hawkins. Team captains including Dennis Karp, Tony King, Penny Williams, Jon Tindall, Nick Tindall, James Burton, Fiona Ell, Ray Karslake, Chris Rossiter, Midi Stormont, Chris Scougall, Dennise Terry, Ben Wilson, Briony Black, Michael Ryland, Leanne Keene and Bede Thompson.

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Charter of the Greenwich Village Games Organising Committee

3 Pages

 

 

  


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2016

Dept of Planning View on Lane Cove West Industrial Precinct

 

 

Subject:          Dept of Planning View on Lane Cove West Industrial Precinct    

Record No:    SU5496 - 7291/16

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Terry Tredrea 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

In response to a letter from Council seeking the Department of Planning’s views on retention of the Lane Cove West light industrial area, the Department has responded indicating that it

recognises the precinct’s “important contribution” to employment and services in the area. Any proposals to rezone would need to be based on strategic planning principles, the environmental sensitivity of the site and surrounds, and demonstrate how employment opportunities could be retained. It is recommended the report be received and noted.

 

Background

 

Further to Council rejecting a planning proposal to rezone 1 Sirius Road, Lane Cove  West from Light Industrial (IN2) to Mixed Use (B4) at its Ordinary Meeting on 19 October, 2015, Council resolved in part that:-

 

“Having regard to the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, Council write to the Department of Planning and confirm if the Department of Planning has any interest in Council rezoning the area.”

 

Discussion

 

Council wrote to the Dept of Planning & Environment, seeking the Department’s views on retention of the industrial area. The Department has replied (AT-1) and in summary it states:-

·     “The precinct makes an important contribution to employment and the provision of services for the district.”

·     “the Greater Sydney Commission… will develop a framework for managing industrial precincts across Sydney as part of the district planning process.”

·     “any proposal to rezone land within the area would need to consider the broader context of the site including the impact on the remainder of the industrial area, accessibility, and the environmental sensitivity of the site and surrounds.”

·     It would need to be based on “sound strategic planning… and demonstrate how employment opportunities can be retained.”

 

Conclusion

 

In conclusion, the Department of Planning recognises the value of the Lane Cove West light industrial precinct, and considers it important to retain the employment opportunities it provides. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

AT-1 Response - Position on retention of Lane Cove West light industrial precinct

2 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2016

WasteLocate - Asbestos Waste Tracking System

 

 

Subject:          WasteLocate - Asbestos Waste Tracking System    

Record No:    SU683 - 13985/16

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      David Wilson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) recently wrote to all NSW Council’s requesting their assistance to include information about the WasteLocate system with Council approvals.  For all waste generators and owners of waste, the recording of waste transfer and disposal is a legal requirement under s143 of the Protection of the Environment operations Act, 1997.  The EPA have recently mandated that all asbestos waste of 10 m2 or 100 kg’s is to be recorded via the online WasteLocate system, as this will ensure the accurate reporting and tracking of asbestos, and that such is being disposed of, only at EPA approved sites.  The EPA’s request of Council is for a copy of their advisory letter (AT-1) to be included with our approvals (Development Consents and Construction Certificates). This request has been attended to, and will be incorporated into our consents and certificates approvals from here on.

 

Discussion

 

The management of asbestos waste is a significant issue for urban areas of Sydney and surrounding regions. Historically asbestos was used in construction dating back to the early 1920’s, many people are unaware that approximately one third of all homes built in Australia contain asbestos products.

 

As a general rule, if your house was built before the mid-1980s, it is likely that it would have some asbestos containing materials. If your house was built between the mid-1980s and 1990, it is also likely that it would have asbestos containing materials.  As such the correct management of waste asbestos is an important public health issue for the community and it is vital that there is a legal obligation to ensure that such waste is correctly tracked and accounted for.

 

WasteLocate is a system that ensures the tracking of waste asbestos is undertaken by developers, contractors and waste disposal companies, and any assistance that this Council can provide in ensuring those involved in demolition and construction works are aware of their obligations is a positive step.

 

Conclusion

 

To assist in the tracking of asbestos waste, Council will include information about WasteLocate in the package of materials that is issued with all Development Consents and Construction Certificates from here on.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

WasteLocate

2 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 21 March 2016

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot    

Record No:    SU220 - 14793/16

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Nikki Arnold 

 

 

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‑1View

Council Snapshot - March 2016

47 Pages