Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

26 April 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 Rd, Lane Cove  on Tuesday 26 April 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 26 April 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. LITTLE STREET DEVELOPMENT FITOUT

          It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (c) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; it further being considered that discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to public interest by reason of the foregoing.

 

2.       Rosenthal Avenue Development - Second Update on Commercial Terms

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (c) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; 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. 

 

3.       results of the negotiation process for the sale of 314 burns bay road, Lane cove

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (c) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business; it further being considered that discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to public interest by reason of the foregoing.

 

public forum

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

2.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 21 MARCH 2016

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

3.       Fit for the Future - Response and Merger Cost Assumptions

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

4.       Extension of Temporary Alcohol Prohibited Areas & Alcohol Free Zones for New Year's Eve and New Year's Day

 

5.       Swimming Pool Amendments

 

6.       Draft Open Space Plan

 

7.       Amended Head Contractor Procurement Strategy - Proposed Redevelopment of Rosenthal Car Park Site

 

8.       Proposed Partial Road Closure – Rosenthal Car Park Development

 

9.       Control of Leighton Green Trees

 

10.     Report March 2016 Traffic Committee

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

11.     Council Snapshot  

 

 

 

 

                   


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 26 April 2016

Fit for the Future - Response and Merger Cost Assumptions

 

 

Subject:          Fit for the Future - Response and Merger Cost Assumptions    

Record No:    SU5558 - 23371/16

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Scott Bennison 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.   The Hon Peter Primrose MLC Shadow Minister for Local Government be provided copies of all correspondence to the Rev Fred Nile MLA concerning Council's response to the NSW Governments Fit for the Future program including a suggested Private Members Bill for changes to the Local Government Act to reflect the findings of the Legislative Inquiry into Local Government , in particular that no merger of Councils can be proposed by the Minister unless there is demonstrable evidence that the councils are severely unsustainable to the point of insolvency or are otherwise unable to maintain an acceptable level of service provision to their respective local communities; and

2.   The General Manager write to the Auditor General outlining Council's concerns about the accuracy of the KPMG merger cost assumptions relied on by the Minister and the Delegates in developing merger proposals and the lack of transparency by the NSW Government in failing to release the full KPMG reports so that Council's and communities can accurately respond to merger proposals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Scott Bennison

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 26 April 2016

Extension of Temporary Alcohol Prohibited Areas & Alcohol Free Zones for New Year's Eve and New Year's Day

 

 

Subject:          Extension of Temporary Alcohol Prohibited Areas & Alcohol Free Zones for New Year's Eve and New Year's Day    

Record No:    SU3530 - 17278/16

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      David Wilson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At its meeting of the 15 February 2016, Council resolved to undertake a public exhibition of a proposal to renew the existing Temporary Alcohol Prohibited Areas and Alcohol Free Zones for New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day for 4 years until the 1st January 2020.

 

Community consultation has been undertaken in the affected areas in accordance with the Department of Local Government’s Guidelines for Establishing Alcohol Prohibited Areas (APA’s) and Alcohol Free Zones (AFZ’s).

 

It is recommended that Alcohol Prohibited Areas in all parks and reserves and Alcohol Free Zones in the streets surrounding these reserves, as listed in the report, be established from 6.00pm on 31 December to 9.00am on 1 January, and be maintained every New Years Eve and New Years Day for the next four (4) years until 9am on 1 January 2020.

 

Background

 

In 2011 a number of Councils in the vicinity of Sydney Harbour implemented APA and AFZ’s across their Local Government Area’s (LGA) to assist in managing the increasing number of people that were gathering in public areas to participate in the New Year’s Eve celebrations. In recent years the level of alcohol consumption and unruly behaviour lead to a greater number of public areas being declared as APA and AFZ’s.

 

It was observed that, after the 2011 NYE celebrations, that Manns Point had been identified in a local newspaper and on a prominent website, as a park that had a good viewing area for the NYE fireworks as well as a location where alcohol could be consumed. In contrast to other locations Manns Point was not a declared APA.

 

The reason that this and other areas in the Lane Cove LGA had not been declared as APA and AFZ’s, was that this particular location in the past had generally only attracted families and those looking for a quiet, low key location to view the NYE celebrations and therefore didn’t warrant the area being regulated in this manner.

 

Due to the adoption of APA and AFZ’s in adjoining LGA’s, Manns Point became a more attractive location for those looking to consume alcohol. As a result approximately 2000+ people were in attendance, with anecdotal reports that a large number of heavily intoxicated persons were present, some sections of the crowd were unruly and rocks were being thrown from the headland that resulted in a woman being hit in the face and requiring medical assistance. No arrests were made on the evening by the small contingent of police that were required to attend and observe the gathering.

 

The following morning (1 January 2012) Council was in receipt of a large number of complaints regarding the amount of waste that was covering the Manns Point Reserve. The waste was comprised of significant amounts of alcohol bottles (wine and beer), general paper litter and camping furniture.

The additional waste bins and additional temporary toilet facilities that were provided at Manns Point were consistent with the resources that were provided in the previous years, but with the increased number of people gathering at this location, these facilities were inadequate to cope with the increase in numbers at this location.

 

Following the adoption of the APA/AFZ’s, for the past 4 years, the NYE celebrations have been held without incident in the Lane Cove LGA .

 

Discussion

 

Following Council’s Ordinary Meeting of the 15th February 2016, the proposal to renew the APA and AFZ’s for a further 4 years was placed on public exhibition for 6 weeks.

 

In total 19 responses were received, with 14 being in support and 5 opposed to the proposal. In summary the following comments were received in support of the proposal;

·    Proposal should be supported.... the last 4 years have been a huge relief and we would not want the ban to be removed.

·    We thoroughly support the permanent extension of the AFZ’s... It is such an improvement on the old drinking and littering which used to happen on New Year’s Eve;

·    Please can Bayview Park, Bay Street, St Lawrence Street, O’Connell Street and Albert Street also be included. (Comment: These streets are included.)

 

5 Responses were received from residents opposing the proposal with the following comments:-

·    The punitive and reactionary laws we seem to favour so much now in Australia, are very unAustralian, and smack of a police state rather than a free multicultural country where everyone can relax and enjoy each other’s company, with a small champagne toast to the world on NYE.

·    Establishing the APZ and APA’s was restrictive and would prevent responsible residents from enjoying a glass of wine in the local park; and

·    Measures will adversely impact on the majority of residents who do the right thing – police should regulate those that drink to excess, not those that do the right thing.

 

Comment : The Police have done an excellent job in ensuring that an appropriate level of discretion has been used in overseeing these restrictions, and this has been supported by the community.

 

As such the following parks and roads in the Lane Cove LGA are proposed to be established as temporary APA’s and AFZ’s for the next four (4) years from 6.00pm on 31 December (New Years Eve) to 9.00am on 1 January (New Years Day) in accordance with Section 632A and Section 644 of the Local Government Act 1993:-

 

Alcohol Free Zones (Streets, Car Parks and Footpaths):-

·    Greenwich- Prospect Street, O’Connell Street, Albert Street, George Street, Victoria Street, O’Connell Street, East Street, Mitchell Street, Chisholm Street, Edwin Street, Vista Street, Upper Serpentine Road, Lower Serpentine Road, Harrison Street, Church Street, Greenwich Road, Bay Street and St Lawrence Street.

·    Longueville - Dunois Street, Wharf Road, Wilson Street, Arabella Street, Nott Lane, Stuart Street, Mary Street, and William Edward Street;

·    Northwood - Northwood Road (to Point Road) and Kelly’s Esplanade; and

·    Riverview - Kallaroo Road and Karingal Road.

 

Alcohol Prohibited Areas (Public Parks and Reserves):-

·    Greenwich - Manns Point Reserve, Greenwich Point Reserve, Shell Park, Holloway Park, Greendale Park and Bayview Park.

·    Longueville - Aquatic Park, Griffith Park, Longueville Park, Wharf Road Reserve, and Kingsford Smith Oval; 

·    Northwood - Woodford Bay – Bicentennial Reserve and Lloyd Rees Park; and

·    Riverview - Tambourine Park.

 

A map of proposed alcohol free zones and alcohol prohibited areas is attached as AT-1

 

Legislation

 

Council is able to establish Alcohol Free Zones (AFZ’s) for roads, footpaths and car parks in accordance with Section 644 (4) of the Local Government Act, 1993 (the Act) that states:-

“(4) The proposed alcohol-free zone may comprise either or both of the following:

(a)   a public road or part of a public road,

(b)   a public place that is a car park or part of a car park.”

 

The primary purpose of this Section is to prohibit the drinking of alcohol on public streets.

 

In addition to regulate the consumption of alcohol in public parks and reserves, Council is able to establish Alcohol Prohibited Areas (APA) in accordance with Section 632A (4) that states:-

“(4) A council may declare any public place (or any part of a public place) in the council’s area to be an "alcohol prohibited area" for the purposes of this section. However, an alcohol prohibited area cannot be established in relation to a public place that is a public road (or part of a public road) or car park.”

 

The primary purpose of this Section is for police to have the power to seize, confiscate and dispose of alcohol where persons are found to be consuming alcohol in a public park.

 

In regards to both Sections of the Act, extensive public consultation is required and approval from the Police Local Area Command prior to adoption by Council.

 

Conclusion

 

Whilst the number of responses to the public consultation has not been significant (19 responses in total), 74% of responses were in support of Council’s proposal to re-establish AFZ’s and APA’s in and around the Harbour foreshore for NYE celebrations.  Based on the experience of the local police and the incidents of the last New Year’s Eve celebrations, and the use of APZ and APA’s in surrounding LGA’s, it s considered reasonable that the community as a whole support Council’s position.  Where excess alcohol is consumed and large gatherings of people occur, as was the experience at Manns Point, the combination of the two can result in unruly behaviour that may adversely impact on the enjoyment of the community who wish to view the New Years Eve fireworks from a public park.  As the general response from the community has been an endorsement of the proposal, with minimal objections, the establishment of APA’s & AFZ’s in the Lane Cove LGA for NYE  is recommended.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the following Temporary Alcohol Prohibited Areas and Alcohol Free Zones be established from 6.00pm on 31 December 2016 to 9.00am on 1 January 2017 in accordance with Section 632A and Section 644 of the Local Government Act 1993 and the arrangements be maintained each New Years Eve and New Years Day for the next 4 years until 9.00 am on 1 January 2020:-

 

Alcohol Free Zones (Streets, Car Parks and Footpaths):-

·    Greenwich- Prospect Street, O’Connell Street, Albert Street, George Street, Victoria Street, O’Connell Street, East Street, Mitchell Street, Chisholm Street, Edwin Street, Vista Street, Upper Serpentine Road, Lower Serpentine Road, Harrison Street, Church Street, and Greenwich Road; Bay Street and St Lawrence Street.

·    Longueville - Dunois Street, Wharf Road, Wilson Street, Arabella Street, Nott Lane, Stuart Street, Mary Street, and William Edward Street;

·    Northwood - Northwood Road (to Point Road) and Kelly’s Esplanade; and

·    Riverview - Kallaroo Road and Karingal Road.

 

Alcohol Prohibited Areas (Public Parks and Reserves):-

·    Greenwich - Manns Point Reserve, Greenwich Point Reserve, Shell Park, Holloway Park, Bayview Park and Greendale Park;

·    Longueville - Aquatic Park, Griffith Park, Longueville Park, Wharf Road Reserve, and Kingsford Smith Oval; 

·    Northwood - Woodford Bay – Bicentennial Reserve and Lloyd Rees Park; and

·    Riverview - Tambourine Park.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Proposed Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas for 2016 to 2020

1 Page

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 26 April 2016

Swimming Pool Amendments

 

 

Subject:          Swimming Pool Amendments    

Record No:    SU3936 - 17027/16

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Matthew Woodgate 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The NSW Office of Local Government as part of the Lambert Review of the Swimming Pool Regulations has now amended the legislation regarding the requirements for swimming pool barrier compliance certificates and which properties are affected.  Swimming pool barriers should comply with the swimming pool legislation and Australian Standards from the when first constructed and should be maintained throughout the life of the pool. Previously, the legislation proposed ensured that pool owners had a certificate of compliance for their pools prior to the property being sold. This is no longer the case with the enacted legislation.  Pool owners can, from the 29 April 2016 apply for a certificate on non compliance that lasts for 12 months leaving the rectification of the pool barrier to the new owner. This means that for Council, the incentive to rectify pool barriers has been lost and other forms achieving compliance need to be implemented to deliver complying pool barriers in the community in a timely manner.

 

Background

 

The Office of Local Government has provided amendments to the Swimming Pool Act and Swimming Pool Legislation that it has been attempting to implement for the last three (3) years.

The amendments can be summarised as thus:-

·    A swimming pool barrier compliance certificate is required prior to the sale of a property or leasing a property for those properties that have a swimming pool installed.

·    Delegated Council officers or private certifiers are the only persons who can issue the pool compliance certificates.

 

The forthcoming legislation has been amended from the above in that:-

·     It allows pool owners who intend to sell their property to obtain a certificate of non compliance for the pool barrier. The certificate of non compliance lasts for 12 months until they sell the property.

·     It allows an owner who has a certificate of non compliance to pass the defects list onto the new owner. The new owner will have 90 days from the date of exchange to rectify the pool barrier otherwise fines can be issued.

·     It doesn’t apply to residential flat buildings that come under Council’s mandatory swimming pool inspection program.

·     Properties for lease are not subject to a certificate of non compliance and still require a compliance certificate prior to sale

 

Discussion

 

The existing swimming pool legislation requires the pool owner to obtain a certificate of compliance prior to exchanging contracts with the new owners. This forces the existing owner to bring the pool barrier into compliance in a timely manner which reduces the risks of child drownings. The owners have the incentive to rectify barriers so as to not jeopardize the sale of the property.

 

The new amendments will mean this incentive will be lost as owners pass the responsibility to rectify the barrier to the new owner. After 90 days has passed and the new owner has not completed the defects, Penalty Infringement Notices (PIN) can be issued. The PIN’s range from $110.00 to $550.00 for each offence under the Swimming Pools Act and Regulations. The PIN’s can be issued following the 90 days if rectification has not taken place. Further PIN’S can be issued if no attempt is made at rectification.

 

The existing situation is that most pool owners take 50 to 70 days to rectify their barriers depending on their personnel circumstances and the amount of work required to be performed on the pool barrier.  This includes Council serving an Emergency Order to rectify the barrier. Strata Schemes tend to take double that amount of time due to the prerequisite strata meetings required before decisions are made. There are a few pool owners who have taken over 18 months to rectify the barriers and this risk is unacceptable to Council.

 

Conclusion

 

The amending legislation makes it harder for Council’s to get pool owners to rectify barriers leaving Council at and children at risk. The implementation of Penalty Infringement Notices will go some way in giving the pool owners incentive to rectify the pool barriers.  The process however, will be more resource intensive for council, with the only offset being if fines are issued, which is ordinarily a last resort.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That in light of recent legislative changes Council adopt the following procedures in relation swimming pool certification:-

1.   An  Emergency Order is served on the existing owner if the pool barrier is found to be defective;

2.   Penalty Infringement Notices are issued after the 90 day period if the pool barrier remains unsatisfactory; and

3.   Further legal action be taken as necessary to enforce compliance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Media Release - Pools

1 Page

 

AT‑2View

Sale and Lease Provisions - Pools

2 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 26 April 2016

Draft Open Space Plan

 

 

Subject:          Draft Open Space Plan    

Record No:    SU1270-02 - 22094/16

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Kirsten Mawby 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A Draft Open Space Plan has been prepared, integrating the open space components of existing and future plans of management for community lands, open space and recreation strategies. The draft plan reflects results of community surveys and Council observations relating to the look, feel and usability of Open Space in Lane Cove. It is recommended that the draft plan be placed on public exhibition.

 

Background

 

On 6 November 2006 Council resolved that:-

 

“The General Manager be requested to report back to Council with an Open Space and Recreation Plan integrating the Bushland Plan of Management, Estuary Management Plan, Golf Course Plan of Management, Playground Strategy, and to establish overriding principles for a Sport and Recreation Plan and Plan of Management for Blackman Park.”

 

An Open Space Plan was subsequently prepared and was adopted on 5 November 2007. This plan expired in 2012.

 

In September 2014 extensive surveys were undertaken to renew a number of open space plans, identifying community needs and assessing requirements in terms of changing demographics and expected population growth over the next 10 years. The Open Space Plan was then developed incorporating the feedback given by the community and sporting clubs, whilst also addressing issues raised through site inspections and feedback from internal Council Departments, Partnership Organisations and Advisory Committees including NSROC, the Aboriginal Heritage Office (AHO), the Bushland Management Advisory Committee (BMAC) and the Mowbray Precinct Working Party.

 

Discussion

 

The Draft Open Space Plan is attached at AT-1.  It is a draft 10 year overarching plan which will filter down into new and renewed plans for the various aspects of open space in Lane Cove. It has been prepared to align with other strategic plans that Council has in place. The draft plan includes key themes to reinforce the main direction for the planning and management of Open Space and to guide existing and future strategies and actions.

 

The Open Space Plan will cascade down to form the review of the Recreation Plan and Playground Strategy in the 2016-18 financial years, also forming the foundation for community land management strategies.

 


Consultation Strategy

 

Consultation Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to determine whether the values, key themes, goals and actions within the Draft Open Space Plan are appropriate. Comments received will be utilised to refine the plan’s content.

 

The proposed consultation will be the second of a two (2) phase consultation process.  The first phase of consultation was carried out to gain relevant information from the community and internal staff that fed into the new plans for open space, recreation, playgrounds and bushland management to facilitate the development of the draft Plan.  This second phase of consultation aims to gauge the level of community support for the content included within the draft Plan before adoption by Council.

 

Methods of Consultation

 

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. BMAC, Sporting Groups, AHO

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and

eNewsletter

Notification Letters

Public Exhibition and

Website Exhibition.

Indicative Timing

May to June

May to June

May to June

 

Conclusion

 

The Draft Open Space Plan, which was developed after extensive community consultation, sets out guiding principles and key themes for the planning and management of Lane Cove’s Open Space. It is recommended that the draft Plan be placed on Public exhibition allowing the community the opportunity to comment of on the content.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.     Council adopt the Draft Open Space Plan dated June 2015 for the purpose of public exhibition;

2.     The Draft Open Space Plan is placed on public exhibition for six (6) weeks and consultation take place in accordance with the Consultation Strategy outlined in the report; and

3.     A further report be submitted to Council following the exhibition period, to consider the final Draft Open Space Plan for adoption.

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Patterson

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Open Space Community Land Management Plan for April Meeting 2016

57 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 26 April 2016

Amended Head Contractor Procurement Strategy - Proposed Redevelopment of Rosenthal Car Park Site

 

 

Subject:          Amended Head Contractor Procurement Strategy - Proposed Redevelopment of Rosenthal Car Park Site    

Record No:    SU4965 - 23226/16

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Geoff Douglas 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to outline a recommended minor amendment to the procurement approach for engaging the Head Contract for the Proposed Redevelopment of Rosenthal Car Park Site.  Council previously endorsed a procurement approach known as ‘Design and Construct – Guaranteed Maximum Price’ (D+C/GMP) based on specialist advice at that time.  This report now recommends a ‘Design and Construct’ (D+C) only approach, based on further advice that this method is likely to result in a better value outcome in the tender process.

 

Background

 

At Ordinary Council Meeting 21 September 2015 Council considered a report “Feasibility Analysis of Proposed Redevelopment of Rosenthal Avenue Car Park Site”.  That report recommended a procurement approach known and ‘Design and Construct – Guaranteed Maximum Price’ (D+C/GMP), based on an analysis of three alternate procurement approaches undertaken by MKA Consulting, a specialist project delivery specialist. 

 

An extract of that report follows:

 

Delivery Procurement Method

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·    Traditional Contract;

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

The above approach was reflected in the project Risk Management Plan attached to the minute.

 

Revised Approach

 

At Ordinary Council Meeting held 15 February 2016, Council endorsed the acceptance of a tender from AECOM Australia Pty Ltd as external Project Management consultant for the Rosenthal Ave Car Park Redevelopment Project.  AECOM have undertaken a review of the project and have recommended that the Design and Construct procurement approach is likely to result in a better tender outcome than a Design and Construct / GMP approach.

 

As part of AECOM’s due diligence, they proposed that the views of John Ferrarin (Ferrarin Consulting) be sought.  John Ferrarin was up until his recent retirement a director of the Tier 1 construction cost consultant firm WT Partnership, who prepared the Budget Cost Plan for the project.  Ferrarin Consulting were engaged to review the previously prepared Procurement Risk Analysis prepared by MKA Consulting.  Their report is Attachment AT-1.

 

Key extracts of the Ferrarin Consulting report are as follows:

 

“It is generally possible to provide for the same risk issues in the D&C contract as there are in the GMP D&C approach without:

 

·    the extent of pre-contract administration in the GMP scenario;

·    the GMP specific contract administration;

·    the additional complexities and cost of administering the share of savings mechanism;

·    the addition of risk contingencies to the extent of the Contract GMP conditions.”

 

and;

 

“In our view the use of a GMP, D&C approach is best suited to a negotiated situation (rather than a tender situation) with a Contractor. 

We understand from our discussion that in this situation the Council will be required to seek competitive tenders.”

 

and;

 

“Our recommendation would be that a typical Design and Construct Lump Sum Contract Approach would allow appropriate competitive market testing and would allow the Client to   control contingency allowances with the advantage of not requiring all the administration requirements of a GMP/Share of Savings approach.”

 

One of the key advantages that AECOM and Ferrarin Consulting put forward is that with a D+C/GMP approach, the contingency allowance is shared 50:50 with the head contractor, yet they argue that it is better that Council retain full control of the contingency sum, to expend only as reasonably required. 

 

Conclusion

 

Advice initially received from MKA Consulting has been reviewed by AECOM Australia and Ferrarin Consulting.  It is argued that the procurement approach initially recommended by MKA, whilst capable of being applied, is less suited to this particular project since there is more level design completed than would normally be the case in a D+C/GMP procurement approach, and because the cost contingency would otherwise be shared 50:50 when it would be better to be held by Council and expended on an as required basis. 

 

The Rosenthal Avenue Car Park Redevelopment Risk Management Plan adopted by Council on 21 September 2015 currently reflect the D+C/GMP approach.  It would now be necessary to update that plan to reflect the revised D+C approach.

 

It is recommended that Council resolve to accept a change in the Head Contractor Procurement method and authorise the General Manager to update the Rosenthal Avenue Car Park Redevelopment Risk Management Plan to reflect this alternate approach.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Endorse the proposal that the Rosenthal Ave Car Park Redevelopment Head Contractor procurement approach be modified from D+C/GMP to D+C only; and

2.   Authorise the General Manager to update the Rosenthal Avenue Car Park Redevelopment Risk Management Plan to reflect a D+C Head Contractor Procurement Method

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

John Ferrarin - Advice re Rosenthal Ave Car Park Redevelopment - PROCUREMENT STRATEGY

5 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 26 April 2016

Proposed Partial Road Closure – Rosenthal Car Park Development

 

 

Subject:          Proposed Partial Road Closure – Rosenthal Car Park Development    

Record No:    SU6222 - 21915/16

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Geoff Douglas 

 

 

Executive Summary

This report sets out the results of the public notification to close parts of Rosenthal Ave and Birdwood Lane as public road as illustrated in AT-1 and recommends that Council make the formal application to the Department of Primary Industries – Lands.  The partial road closures are required to facilitate the redevelopment of the Rosenthal Ave Car Park for which a development application has been lodged.

 

Background

When considering a report to the Ordinary Meeting on 21 September 2015 providing an overview of the feasibility analysis for the redevelopment of the Rosenthal Car Park site in the Lane Cove Village, Council resolved inter alia to:

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

 

The Department is responsible for approving such applications and has recently standardised its processes for Public Road Closure applications by a Council.

 

Public Notification

 

The proposed road closure was advertised in the North Shore Times on 18 July 2016 allowing for a period of 28 days for submissions.

 

AT-2 is typical of the correspondence provided to the following public authorities:-

·    Transgrid;

·    Ausgrid;

·    APA Group;

·    Jemena Asset Management;

·    Sydney Water;

·    Roads and Maritime Services;

·    Office of Environment and Heritage;

·    NSW Planning and Environment;

·    NSW Forestry Corporation;

·    NSW Rural Fire Service;

·    NSW Department of Industry, Resources & Energy;

·    NSW Fishing and Aquaculture;

·    Department of Primary Industries – Crown Lands; and

·    Telstra Corporation Ltd.

 

Letters were also sent to surrounding residents likely to have an interest in the proposal.

 

Responses

 

A.  PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

1.   DPI Fisheries

Response

 

By email dated 26 November 2015, DPI Fisheries advised that “they had no concerns with the proposal”

 

2.   Transgrid

Response

 

By email dated 23 November 2015, Transgrid advised that “their infrastructure isn’t affected [by the proposed road closure]”.

 

3.   RMS

NOTE

 

RMS have not provided a direct response, however they provided comment on the proposed development and did not raise any issues relating to the proposed partial road closures.

 

4.   Ausgrid

NOTE

 

Ausgrid have not provided a direct response, however they are in active consultation with Council to relocate their substation out of the Rosenthal Avenue Car Park site including new kiosk(s).  All existing infrastructure will be relocated out of the proposed partial road closures as part an early works package currently being designed by an Ausgrid approved level 3 designer.

 

5.   Sydney Water

NOTE

 

Sydney Water have not provided a direct response, however a limited extent of adjustments to their existing services will be required to divert the sewer main along a section of Rosenthal Ave around the proposed partial road closure.  Similarly a water main, not listed on Dial Before You Dig Maps along the northern side of Rosenthal Lane will also be diverted into the public road.  The diversion works will be negotiated with Sydney Water as part of the early works package. 


 

 

6.   All other services

NOTE

 

A detailed utility survey of all services in the area of the development has been undertaken by Durkin Construction P/L, from which it has been concluded that no other services are affected by the proposed partial road closure.

 

Discussion – Public Utilities

Whilst services are currently within sections of the proposed partial road closures, Council will undertake to relocate the affected services in conjunction with the relevant public authority.  Should the services not be relocated prior to the gazettal of these closures, suitable easements for services in favor of the relevant authority(s) would be included on title until such time they are no longer required.

 

PRIVATE SUBMISSIONS

 

1.  J& S Bykerk Investments P/L

 

Response

 

Advised by letter dated 3/12/15 that they were in favour of the proposed partial road closure, “subject to delivery access to the rear of property not being affected”

 

Comment

The partial road closure in the vicinity of property accesses will be a below road stratum lot and does not affect existing at grade property accesses.

 

2.  Macken Strategic Planning Solutions

Response

Submission made on behalf of property owners 123-125 Longueville Road and 29 Burns Bay Road.

Advised by letter dated 14/12/15 that they were considered that it “was premature to consider any road closure until the future of the development [proposed redevelopment of the Rosenthal Ave Car park] is determined.”

The main reason given is that “his clients currently use Birdwood Lane to service their businesses and any reduction in access would have a significant impact on the viability of their business.”

Comment

The partial road closure in the vicinity of relevant properties will be a below road stratum lot and does not affect existing at grade property accesses.

 

Discussion – Private Submissions

In noting that both submissions query disruption to at grade property access, the partial road closure in the vicinity of relevant properties near the intersection of Birdwood and Rosenthal Lanes will be only closed as a below road stratum lot and therefore does not affect existing at grade property accesses.  In planning for the Rosenthal Development initial design parameters contemplated at some future time closing Birdwood Lane to traffic during the day to improve pedestrian safety to the site from the arcades in Longueville Road and access routes from the Plaza.  No formal consultation has occurred with adjacent property owners, but further investigations suggest this will not be possible.  A small number of the existing properties include limited shop top residential, however the existing zoning allows all sites to redevelop in this form.  It would simply not be practical to restrict access to residential parking to certain times of the day.  Therefore it will be necessary to maintain 24 hour vehicle access to the laneway with a design that focuses on pedestrian safety and amenity.

 

In respect of the section of road proposed to be closed along Rosenthal Avenue, it is noted that:

a)         The road pavement width (kerb to kerb) is not reduced;

b)         A disabled compliant footpath around the building commencing at Birdwood Lane will link with a pedestrian overbridge over Rosenthal Avenue and extend through the public domain eliminating the need to have an at grade footpath along the eastern side of Rosenthal Avenue.  Importantly this also eliminates pedestrian conflict points along the proposed loading dock and car park entry at Finlayson Street intersection.

 

Conclusion

 

As no objection has been received from relevant authorities, noting that in any event, public authority services will be relocated into the remaining parts of public road, and no valid objection has been otherwise received there is no reason why the proposal should not proceed.  The process going forward requires a resolution of Council to lodge with the Department of Primary Industries – Lands an application along with the relevant fee to formally close the relevant parts along Rosenthal Avenue and Birdwood Lane.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.         Note that following public notification in the North Shore Times and by letters to relevant stakeholders, no valid objections were received to the proposed partial closure of relevant parts along Rosenthal Avenue and Birdwood Lane;

2.         Apply to the Department of Primary Industries – Lands to formally close as public road those parts along Rosenthal Avenue and Birdwood Lane as shown in AT 1; and

3.         Note that the design parameters for the Rosenthal Development maintain 24 hour vehicle access to Birdwood Lane.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Rosenthal Public Road Adjustments

3 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 26 April 2016

Control of Leighton Green Trees

 

 

Subject:          Control of Leighton Green Trees    

Record No:    SU6120 - 18786/16

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Kirsten Mawby 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report outlines measures Council can take to control Leighton Green Cypress trees on private property. It is recommended that the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 be used as the principal mechanism to control the use of Leighton Greens and other high hedges within the Lane Cove Local Government Area (LGA) and Council expand its website to inform the community.

 

Background

 

On 21 March 2016 Council resolved:-

 

“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.”

 

The cultivation of hedge type vegetation, including Leighton Green trees and the like can cause tensions between neighbours where views or light are blocked. Plants such as the Leighton Green can form a ‘solid wall’ that can quickly reach in excess of 5 meters and up to 40 meters in height. The result is that sunlight to adjoining properties can be blocked to and views severely restricted from adjoining properties. This creates both amenity and health issues for adjoining neighbours of properties that cultivate this type of vegetation.

 

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.

 

In NSW and the UK problems with these hedges have resulted in laws being passed to allow victims of excessively high hedges to address their loss of amenity such as sunlight and views.

 

Discussion

 

In 2007 when Council considered this same topic, legislation was not in place to assist with policy development on high hedges. The legal advice at the time was that “that the best course of action with respect to controlling the use of hedging vegetation would be to amend the LEP”. The recommendation in 2007 was to insert a part of the Dividing Fences Act into the LEP. This was not permitted under the standard template implemented by the State Government for Councils 2009 LEP.

 

In 2010 the legislation was changed, with the insertion of Part 2A into the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006. Part 2A allows court orders to be issued to remove, reduce or maintain high hedges that obstruct sunlight or views.

 

 

Specifically it states:

 

14A Application of Part

(1) This Part applies only to groups of 2 or more trees that:

(a) are planted (whether in the ground or otherwise) so as to form a hedge, and

(b) rise to a height of at least 2.5 metres (above existing ground level).

(2) Despite section 4, this Part does not apply to trees situated on Crown land.

 

14B Application to Court by affected land owner

An owner of land may apply to the Court for an order to remedy, restrain or prevent a severe obstruction of:

(a) sunlight to a window of a dwelling situated on the land, or

(b) any view from a dwelling situated on the land,

 

if the obstruction occurs as a consequence of trees to which this Part applies being situated on adjoining land.”

 

In addition Section 149 certificates, which are part of a real estate contract i.e. upon sale, are required to state any orders over the property:-

“EPA Regulation Schedule 4 (13)   Orders under Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006

Whether an order has been made under the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 to carry out work in relation to a tree on the land (but only if the council has been notified of the order).”

Therefore should the neighbours not be able to resolve disputes relating to hedges the most effective way and the only legally enforceable way is that residents affected by the planting of high hedges should be encouraged to resolve the matter or to apply to the Land and Environment Court for assistance under the Act. Similarly residents concerned with property damage or injury as a result of the trees or shrubs should approach the Land and Environment Court under the Part 2 Section 7 of the same Act. To ensure there is greater community awareness of this process Councils website will be amended with information and links to relevant documents provided by the Land and Environment Court.

 

In terms of measures Council can take, Council has already taken steps similar to other councils to reduce the use of Leighton Greens in the landscape.

 

1)   Genetic crosses of Cupressocyparis leylandii (Leighton Green & associated cultivars) are exempted from Council’s Tree Preservation Orders, allowing them to be removed or reduced in Lane Cove regardless of height.

 

2)   Planning applications for medium or high density dwellings that require the landscape component of the application to be approved by Council are monitored by the Landscape Architect. Part J of the DCP states that “All substantial trees and that part of the landscaping scheme visible from the public domain shall comprise indigenous plants”; that landscaping “will not significantly obstruct desirable views and “will be easily maintained””; and that “Any landscaping plan should include consideration of planning, planting and future maintenance and effect on adjoining properties.”

 

Under these clauses the Landscape Architect is able to control landscaping occurring on larger development sites. However not all development requires an application to be submitted to Council and hedges can be planted at any time without DA consent. Council is unable to control the landscaping on these particular sites. Under the DCP residents on single-dwelling private property are encouraged but not required to plant native vegetation instead of introduced species.

 

3)   If the Land and Environment Court makes an order under Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006, Council will assist with control of the tree but only if the applicant for the order concerned has asked that Council take action under Section 17 of the Act. Council must abide by the procedures under Section 17 of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 (see attached).

 

Conclusion

 

Part 2A of the Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 is the most effective and legally enforceable method to control the prevalence of Leighton Green and other problem high hedges. Council’s Development Control aimed activities discourage their use and Council can further assist the community to manage existing hedges by providing information on the options available on Council’s website.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.    The report be received and noted.

2.    The Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006 be used as the principal mechanism to control the use of Leighton Greens and other high hedges within the Lane Cove Local Government Area and Council’s website be expanded to include options available to address problem hedges.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Patterson

Executive Manager

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Trees (Disputes Between Neighbours) Act 2006

11 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 26 April 2016

Report March 2016 Traffic Committee

 

 

Subject:          Report March 2016 Traffic Committee    

Record No:    SU1326 - 22641/16

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Sashika Young 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday, 29 March 2016.  The Agenda is included as AT-1.  The Traffic Committee recommendations are shown in the Minutes of the Meeting, included as AT-2.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the recommendations of the Lane Cove Traffic Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 29 March 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

FINAL - AGENDA - Traffic Committee - March 2016

51 Pages

 

AT‑2View

FINAL - MINUTES - Traffic Committee - March 2016

25 Pages

 

 

  


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 26 April 2016

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot    

Record No:    SU220 - 21635/16

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Attached for the information of Councillors is a review of Council’s recent activities, entitled Council Snapshot.  This report provides a summary of the operations of each Division.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Council Snapshot - April 2016

43 Pages