Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

20 June 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 Monday 20 June 2016 commencing at 7:00pm. 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 20 June 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

public forum

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 16 MAY 2016 AND EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 20 MAY 2016

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

2.       Mayoral Minute - Inaugural Lane Cove Garden Competition

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

3.       Plebiscites - Forced Mergers

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

4.       Fleming Street Road Naming and Addressing

 

5.       River Road / Northwood Road Intersection

 

6.       Construction Program and Progress Update Redevelopment of Rosenthal Car Park Site

 

7.       Little Lane Change of Name

 

8.       Policy on Addressing

 

9.       Traffic Committee - May 2016

 

10.     Sydney Metro EIS - Chatswood to Sydenham

 

11.     Response to Delegates and Boundaries Commission Reports - Hunters Hill, Lane Cove and Ryde Council's Merger Proposal

 

12.     Request for Reimbursment of Travel Expenses - Town Crier

 

13.     Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Determination for Councillor Fees

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

14.     Tender Negotiations for the Renovation of the Greenwich Baths Clubhouse Building

 

15.     Council Snapshot  

 

 

 

 

         


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2016

Mayoral Minute - Inaugural Lane Cove Garden Competition

 

 

Subject:          Mayoral Minute - Inaugural Lane Cove Garden Competition    

Record No:    SU6377 - 36082/16

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Deborah Hutchens 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

                                                              

As Mayor, I believe that it would add to the community spirit of Lane Cove residents if Council could celebrate and highlight the diverse range of gardens in our community by way of an annual garden competition.

 

Lane Cove is well known for its natural bushland and landscapes which reach down to the Lane Cove River.  The inaugural Garden Competition for Lane Cove would be an exciting initiative for all residents who would love to be involved in an opportunity to show their beautiful gardens.

 

The categories should be broad enough to encourage a wide variety of entries from the community. Sponsorship for the prizes could be sought from businesses and from the State Government.  There could also be the possibility of adding the element of having some of the gardens open as part of an open garden scheme.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the General Manager provide a report on the options for Council having an annual Garden Competition, with the report to include:-

1.   Timing of the competition;

2.   Categories that would be covered and suggested prize amounts;

3.   Possible sponsorship opportunities;

4.   Judging criteria;

5.   Promotional opportunities; and

6.   Operation of an open garden scheme.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Deborah Hutchens

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

         


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2016

Plebiscites - Forced Mergers

 

 

Subject:          Plebiscites - Forced Mergers    

Record No:    SU5783 - 36213/16

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Deborah Hutchens; Councillor Scott Bennison; Councillor David Karpin 

 

 

Background

 

In reference to the article in the Daily Telegraph ‘Council Mergers: Bill Shorten Pledges to Block Mike Baird’s ‘Insult to Democracy’ with $20m Plebiscite’, dated Monday 13 June 2016 and to comments made by the former prime minister the Hon. John Howard with respect to proposed mergers in Queensland by the Beattie Government.

 

"The government has decided to allow the Australian Electoral Commission to undertake any plebiscite on the amalgamation of any local government body in any part of Australia," Mr Howard told parliament. "At the expense of the commonwealth, the Australian Electoral Commission will conduct referenda or plebiscite in any of the local government areas about the amalgamation proposals of the Beattie government.

 

We do not intend to remain idle and silent while the wishes of the people in these local government areas are denied," Mr Howard said. "We're not trying to compel a ballot in every shire and every council area. We're saying that if you want to vote, the AEC will conduct it and we will pay for it. "I challenge the premier of Queensland, let the people speak on your amalgamation proposal.”

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

We move :-

1.    Should the Australian Labor Party form Government on 2 July 2016, and subject to funding being made available, that Council write to the Australian Electoral Commission and request a plebiscite on the question, ‘if the residents of the current Lane Cove Area (LGA) want to amalgamate with Hunters Hill and Ryde Council’;

2.    With respect to 1 (above), that the General Manager be delegated authority to determine the question and other necessary administrative requirements;

3.    Write to the Prime Minister the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull and ask him to publically respond prior to the election on 2 July 2016:-

a.  If he supports the views of the former Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard of allowing any Local Government area in Australia to undertake a plebiscite and any plebiscite to be paid by the Federal Government;

b.  To support and/or match the offer by the Australian Labor Party to offer Federally funded plebiscites in all 152 Councils in NSW; and

4.    Council write to the Premier of NSW, the Hon. Mike Baird noting our current legal proceedings with respect of the proposed forced amalgamation of this Council with Hunters Hill and Ryde Councils and our previous attempts by this Council to meet with him to discuss our alternative to mergers, and again request a meeting with the Premier to discuss an alternative to the current amalgamation proposal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Deborah Hutchens

Councillor

 

 

 

Councillor Scott Bennison

Councillor

 

 

 

Councillor David Karpin

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2016

Fleming Street Road Naming and Addressing

 

 

Subject:          Fleming Street Road Naming and Addressing    

Record No:    SU1849 - 27059/16

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Terry Tredrea 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Currently, a row of four houses between 149 and 155 River Road, Northwood do not have direct access off River Road due to topography. Their access is from an unnamed private roadway off Fleming Street at their rear.  At its 21 March meeting, Council resolved to rename this private roadway Nichols Close, and to exhibit the proposed street name for public comment for six (6) weeks. Eight (8) submissions were received. The issues raised were basically:-

1.    Whether to name the private road;

2.    If so, what name to give it;

3.    Where numbering along the road would commence; and

4.    What form would that numbering would take.

 

Background

 

Currently, a row of five (5) houses between 24A Fleming and 149 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 the four houses (149-155), wrongly addressed as they are to River Road. Moreover, it does not comply with current NSW addressing policies. 147 River Road addressed the problem by changing their address to 24A Fleming Street.

 

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting, dated 21 March 2016, Council resolved (AT-1 & AT-2) to:-

1.   “Rename the private roadway Nichols Close;

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

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

 

Discussion

 

Community consultation on the Planning Proposal was undertaken from 30 March 2016 to 11 May 2016 in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Regulation 2000 and Local Government Act 1993.  It included:-

·    Hard-copy public exhibitions at the Council Administration Centre and Libraries;

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

·    A website exhibition;

·    Letters sent to owners of properties along and adjacent to the private roadway; and

·    Public notice in the North Shore Times on 1 April 2016.

 

As a result, eight (8) public submissions were received. Six (6) of the submitters live along the affected roadways; two (2) are from elsewhere in the LGA. The key issues raised were:-

1.   Whether to name the private road;

2.   If so, what name to give it;

3.   Where numbering along the road would commence; and

4.   What form would that numbering would take.

 

Figure 1: Addresses to River Road (149 - 155) and to Fleming Street (18 - 24A)

 

Issue 1:  Whether to Name the Private Road

 

Six (6) of the eight (8) submissions supported naming the private roadway. Three (3) of the four (4) currently inconvenienced by being addressed to River Road (to which they have no access) favoured giving the private roadway a name to which they could be addressed. Two (2) of the five (5) who are currently along the lane but given Fleming Street addresses were happy to remain Fleming Street, though it was suggested that a sign at the top of the lane would help.

 

The question of whether to name the private roadway (and number dwellings off it) divides between those (on the north) who are addressed to River Road, and those to the south/east who are happy to remain Fleming Street. The two (2) submissions from outside the area support naming the private road.

  

As a compromise, one submission opposed giving the private road a name because “the original suggestion of renaming the River Road properties to Fleming St would be more practical.”

 

Comment

 

As stated in the March report:

 

All five (5) are accessed and have letterboxes along an un-named private road that extends along the southern boundary of the properties. The Geographical Names Board in its NSW Addressing User Manual (AUM) 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 five (5) 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 and should be named.

 

Furthermore, the  AUM states:

 

Where there are private roads within a complex site, the names of those roads shall be used for addressing purposes.

 

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)

 

This is a practice adopted elsewhere by Council, such as at 25 Best Street and Stella Vista Place, both naming private roads/rights of way. 

 

Issue 2: If so, what name to give it?

 

Of the six (6) submissions in favour of naming the laneway, three aren’t concerned with the actual name. Two (2) residents thought “Nichols” might be ambiguous to spell (e.g.: Nickels), and preferred “Pendray” (one of the further names suggested by the Lane Cove Historical Society).

 

One (1) resident, has taken guidance from the AUM:

 

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. (AUM 6.7.5)

 

They suggest local flora:-

1.   Foxglove; and

2.   Greensway.

 

Both submitters prefer “Court” to “Close”.


Comment

 

1.   “Pendray” or “Nichols”:

 

According to the Lane Cove Historical Society:

 

The original name for Northwood was Penry or Pendray Pt after William Pendray who had a 20 acre orchard there. This was closer to the Point however.

 

As the laneway itself is located on land originally granted to Sarah Nichols (1812-1870, for her marriage to Isaac Nichols’ son, Isaac David Nichols), this seems a more appropriate name for this laneway. The name Pendray can also be kept in reserve for future use, in case it were useful in naming some more relevant location within the Point at Northwood.

 

2.   “Court” or “Close”:

 

A “Court” is usually a very short street leading to a court of houses in a compound. A “Close” more accurately reflects this cul-de-sac.

 

3.   Foxglove or Greensway:

 

Foxglove is not local flora, being indigenous to Europe. “Greensway” is not related to any local plant, person or theme.

 

Issue 3: Starting Point of Nichols Close

 

Two residents who are currently located down the unnamed lane and addressed as Fleming Street, submit that they are happy with their address and do not want the lane named. And if it were named. they would prefer to retain their Fleming Street address. That is, if the lane is to be named, start it beyond 24A Fleming Street (from 149 to 155 River Road).

 

This raises the questions:–

·    Where would numbering along the road commence, and

·    What form would that numbering take?

 

Comment

 

According to the AUM, the private road would commence where it leaves Fleming Street. According to the Addressing User Manual on this subject,

 

"A road should start (and the datum point therefore be placed) at the end of the road likely to be accessed on the most frequent basis."

 

"Sequential positive integers commence from the datum point. Odd numbers on the left side of the road (from the datum point) and even on the right side."

 

The above principles should inform any change of addressing.

 

Therefore, 20, 22A, 22B, 24 and 24A Fleming Street would be located on the newly named Nichols Close. This is because the new road cannot “begin” somewhere along the actual road, it should begin where the physical road leaves the road from which it is accessed. The AUM does not allow for:-

a.   A single road to be split into two roads of the same name going in different directions and numbered down each (unless it is a common but unnamed driveway); and

b.   A road to change its name halfway along its length. The fact that this has occurred in the past in Sydney does not authorise it to contradict the AUM when naming a new road.

 

For these reasons, it is considered that the private road needs to be named. As a result, the five land-owners (20, 22A, 22B, 24 and 24A Fleming Street) become addressed to the new roadway

 

As for the numbering system, properties are numbered from the start of the road, beginning with the odd numbers on the left.

 

The new numbers would therefore be:

 

Current Address

Proposed Address

20 Fleming Street

1 Nichols Close

22A Fleming Street

3 Nichols Close

22B Fleming Street

5 Nichols Close

24 Fleming Street

2 Nichols Close

24A Fleming Street

4 Nichols Close

149 River Road

6 Nichols Close

151 River Road

8 Nichols Close

153 River Road

10 Nichols Close

155 River Road

12 Nichols Close

 

It is recognised that five properties are potentially inconvenienced by this change. It is equally recognised that four properties would no longer be wrongly addressed, with all the inconvenience and potential difficulties this has entailed. Ambulance access is a key priority in changing the address.

 

Conclusion

 

This report outlines the eight public submissions received during the public exhibition of a proposal to name the private roadway Nichols Close. Residents to the north, who are wrongly addressed to River Road, generally favour naming the roadway. Those to the south and east are happy to remain addressed to what would remain an unnamed, private accessway off Fleming Street.

 

Because the main access for the five 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, according to the NSW Addressing User Manual (AUM), should be named.

 

Moreover, the AUM does not allow for:-

a.   A single road to be split into two roads of the same name going in different directions and numbered down each (unless it is a common but unnamed driveway); or

b.   A road to change its name halfway along its length. The fact that this has occurred in the past in Sydney does not authorise it to contradict the AUM when naming a new road.

 

Therefore, it is recommended that the private road needs to be named. And as a result, the five land-owners (20, 22A, 22B, 24 and 24A Fleming Street) should be addressed to the new roadway.

As for the numbering system, roads are numbered from the start of the road, beginning with the odd numbers on the left.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Name the private roadway between 18 and 20 Fleming Street to Nichols Close;

2.   Renumber the properties along the roadway to those shown in this report;

3.   Place a sign at the commencement of Nichols Close indicating the road name;

4.   Notify property owners and other submitters of Council’s decision;

5.   Notify the appropriate agencies of the change; and

6.   Publish this decision in the local newspaper as soon as practicable.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

REPORT Fleming Street Naming

8 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Council Resolution - Fleming Street Naming

1 Page

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2016

River Road / Northwood Road Intersection

 

 

Subject:          River Road / Northwood Road Intersection     

Record No:    SU5110 - 35806/16

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Sashika Young 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report sets out the options forwarded to RMS under the blackspot funding application program to improve road safety, outcome of the RMS submission and recommendations going forward at the River Road/Northwood Road intersection, Lane Cove.

 

Discussion

 

Location and Intersection Operation

 

River Road is an east-west regional road in Lane Cove and is the principal collector road for the suburbs of Riverview, Longueville, Northwood and Greenwich. The intersection of River Road with Northwood Road, shown attached at AT-1, provides access to the suburb of Northwood (via Northwood Road) and the suburb of Longueville (via Arabella Street).

 

River Road serves as a key link in the strategic road network, linking Crows Nest and North Sydney with the state road network at Burns Bay Road. This east-west route provides an alternative to the Epping Road/Pacific Highway corridor located to the north. River Road carries on average 21,300 vehicles daily (seven day AADT – 2015). The intersection of River and Northwood Roads is currently an unsignalised T-Junction.

 

RMS Crash Data Analysis

 

There is a history of crashes at the intersection of River Road and Northwood Road, particularly head-on and off path crashes. Over five (5) years from (July 2009 - June 2014), the intersection of Northwood Road and River Road (from McMahons Road to east of Stevenson Street) has had a total of 14 crashes including eight (8) casualty crashes resulting in twelve (12) injuries (Refer to Figure 2).  Two (2) crashes involved motorcyclists with one being a right rear crash turning right from Northwood to River Road and the second being a right rear crash turning right from River to Northwood Road.

 

Options Submitted to RMS under Blackspot Funding Application

 

Option 1:       Traffic Signals at the Existing River Road/Northwood Road Intersection

 

This option included the provision of new traffic signals with signalised pedestrian and cyclists crossing facility on all three (3) legs of the intersection and a right turning lane from River Road into Northwood Road as shown in AT-1. As a part of Option 1, advisory signs, and curve alignment markers on the eastern approach as well as a street lighting upgrade was also proposed.

 

The curve and adverse camber on the eastbound leg of the intersection are a contributing factor to these crashes.  To target these crashes, the installation of a new curve advisory signs installed at least 40 metres from the bend for the eastbound traffic and curve alignment markers at 10m intervals were also proposed.

 

The project estimate was estimated to $800,000 with a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 2.71.

 

Option 2:       Traffic Signals at River Road/Northwood Road Intersection with an Additional Arm for Access to the Golf Course

 

Similar to Option 1, this option included the provision of new traffic signals with a signalised pedestrian and cyclists crossing facility of all approaches with the addition of a new access road into the golf course on the northern side of River Road as shown in AT-1 (Figure 4).

 

The proposal also included an unsignalised slip lane from Northwood Road to River Road (westbound traffic). Property acquisition of 194 River Road, Northwood would be required to construct the northern access road.

 

Introduction of a northern leg at the signalised intersection of River / Northwood Road to provide access to the recreation precinct at the golf course, will allow the current access driveway on River Road to be removed at Stevenson Street and hence reducing the vehicular conflicts and injury crashes currently occurring at this location.

 

The project cost was estimated to $1,500,000 with a BCR of 2.19.

 

RMS Response

 

RMS has advised that Council has not been successful in its application for black spot funding for the Northwood Road/River Road intersections as the BCR is low.  The BCR is calculated by comparing the total benefit to the total cost associated with the life of the project.  The BCR takes into account components such as the total capital cost, annual maintenance costs, road classification, current speed limit and accident history.  It is a measure which changes overtime dependant on accident history.  Typically projects that are funded have a BCR of 7 versus 2.71 + 2.19 for the proposal scheme. 

 

Further, property acquisition cost was not included in the application (for option 2).  RMS have advised that projects over $2 million are not funded under the NSW Safer Roads Program.  The inclusion of property acquisition costs may increase the project cost over $2 million and therefore, the project will not be eligible for funding.

 

Moving forward, RMS has advised that Council to consider cheaper options to upgrade the intersection and resubmit for funding in the next year’s black spot funding application with a higher BCR. The following options, which are considerably cheaper than traffic signals have been investigated, however, were not progressed:-

 

Seagull Arrangement

 

A seagull arrangement at the intersection of River Road and Northwood Road would facilitate the right turning manoeuvre into and out of Northwood Road for vehicles. However, the reduction of the eastbound capacity along River Road from two (2) lanes to one (1) through and one (1) right lane would result in major congestion and delays. For this reason, this option was not progressed.

 

Roundabout

 

A two (2) lane roundabout would be required to cater for the existing volumes along River Road. A roundabout at this location would not fully accommodate pedestrian desire lines and could potentially make crossing at this location difficult for pedestrians. Further, the major property acquisition required, would be expensive, potentially making it the dearest option, and therefore this option was not progressed.

Conclusion

 

Traffic lights are considered the only suitable option to improve pedestrian and traffic safety as there is no likelihood of the BCR changing to a 7 in the short-medium term, it is recommended that Council does not proceed with next year’s Black Spot funding submission which is due July 2016. Instead it is proposed to lobby the Local State Member and Minister for Roads to pursue this matter at State Government levels through an alternate funding scheme as it is imperative to improve traffic safety at this intersection.

 

In view of the above, it is recommended that Council make a formal submission to the Local Member and Minister for Roads for urgent funding for signalisation of River Road/Northwood Road intersection.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council makes a formal submission to the Local Member and Minister for Roads for urgent funding for signalisation of River Road/Northwood Road intersection, Lane Cove.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

River Road and Northwood Road Intersection Diagram

2 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2016

Construction Program and Progress Update Redevelopment of Rosenthal Car Park Site

 

 

Subject:          Construction Program and Progress Update Redevelopment of Rosenthal Car Park Site    

Record No:    SU4965 - 36287/16

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Geoff Douglas 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to provide a general update on the progress of the Rosenthal Avenue Car Park Redevelopment, and to outline a revised approach for constructing the Rosenthal Avenue Car Park in a single stage, as distinct from in two stages as had been foreshadowed in the report to the Ordinary Council Meeting on 21 September 2015.

 

Since being appointed this year, project consultants AECOM (Project Managers) and Rider Levett Bucknall (Quantity Surveyors) have reviewed the delivery strategy and provided their opinion on the approach.  Their advice is that the additional cost to building the project in two stages as originally envisaged would add an additional $5M to the project cost and extend the construction program by 10 months.

 

This report recommends that such a forecast additional cost does not represent good value for the community; that the Rosenthal Car Park Redevelopment project should be tendered and built as a single stage project; and that strategies to minimise the impact on the Community and local businesses of the short term loss of parking should be employed.

 

Background

 

Stage 1 – Development Consent

 

The JRPP approved the Stage 1 Development Application for the project at its meeting of 28 April, 2016. Key issues to be addressed arising from the consent were:-

 

a.   Future landscape design must incorporate planting of a scale sufficient to reduce the massing and perception of the bulk of the building when viewed from Rosenthal Avenue.

b.   A suitable pedestrian access shall be provided along the full length of the Rosenthal Avenue frontage.

c.   Matters raised by NSW Roads and Maritime Services to be addressed included that Coxs Lane (as per LEP) is to be widened prior to the opening of the Rosenthal Avenue Car Park to cater for the increased traffic expected from the proposed development, and other  nearby developments.

 

The first two points will be included in the proposed Design and Construct Tender. Council has previously resolved on 21 September 2015 in relation to the Coxs Lane widening requirement that Council, “Receive a further report for the construction of a ‘bypass’ option for the village, which would involve reconfiguration of the eastern end of Finlayson Street to Cox’s Lane and Cox’s Lane itself, with better connectivity to Epping Road.” Initial planning has begun on this work, and it will be the subject of a separate report to Council in the future.

 

Agreement for Lease – Anchor Retailers Aldi and Coles

 

The Report to the Council Meeting held 26 April 2016, “Rosenthal Avenue Development - Second Update on Commercial Terms – Confidential” set out matters that had to be addressed to remove all remaining conditions potentially preventing the parties from proceeding with the Agreement for Lease.  A Deed of Variation with Coles was executed on 18 May 2016, with the effect that all outstanding conditions were resolved, thereby making the Coles Agreement for Lease formally ‘unconditional’.  This now means that Lane Cove Council, Aldi and Coles all now have unconditional obligations to proceed with the project.

 

Design and Construction Procurement

 

Expressions of Interest to design and construct the Rosenthal Avenue Car Park Redevelopment was called in April 2016 and seven responses were received. The Tender Evaluation Panel met in May 2016 to select four tenderers who will be invited to submit a design and construct tender.  The tender process is scheduled to commence at the end of June and run for ten weeks.

 

Proposed Construction Strategy

 

Council originally envisaged that the project would be constructed in two stages so that some parking will be available throughout the construction process.  Half of the existing surface car park would remain available for use while the basement carpark and building structure closest to Lane Cove Plaza (the south end) is constructed.  Then the first half of the new basement car park would be opened to the public, while the second half of the project is built (north end).

 

Council’s Project Manager, AECOM have raised concerns about this method of delivery as to cost and time impact. During the Expressions of Interest process for the Design and Construct (D&C) builder, further feedback was received from the respondents on the additional time to construct the project in two stages due to the complexity. Responses varied from 8 to 12 months of additional time required.

 

AECOM requested Council’s Quantity Surveyor, RBL, to assess the cost premium associated with the two stage approach, based on the average expected time increase of 10 months. RBL estimated the additional cost to be $5M. It is noted that a key component of the extra cost relates to the additional duration required to build the project in two stages.  Another significant cost is the need to construct, and then (on commencement of stage 2) demolish a retaining structure across the width of the site at the half way point.

 

Whilst the cost premium is significant, the impact on time is perhaps more important as it would extend the build time by approximately 25%. The overall construction timetable would be approaching 4 years and would see the Village have the dust and noise associated with an excavation into rock for more than 1 year.  AECOM were then requested to consider reverting to a single stage option.

 

Parking Amelioration Measures

 

The approach to minimise the inconvenience caused by loss of car parking in a single stage approach focuses on the following:-

·    Structuring the project procurement to achieve an early delivery of some public parking;

·    Investigating amelioration measures such as alternative temporary parking schemes; and

·    Investigate measures such as a community bus route / valet service between the village centre and any alternative parking locations.

 

When analysing the impact it was noted that the biggest impact on parking availability will arise from the loss of the ‘convenience factor’ with the closure of the Rosenthal Car Park.  In terms of parking space numbers, overall parking in the village has been boosted with the 200 space Little Street Car Park coming online.  This would mean there are actually 11 additional spaces available in the Village compared to when the Little Lane Car Park was being constructed.  The Major Projects Plan sequenced the projects to achieve this outcome recognisng the impact of the Rosenthal Car Park.

 

 

Pre Little Street Construction

 Little Street Construction Period

Rosenthal Construction Period

Rosenthal

176

176

0

Little Street

86

0

200

69 Longueville Road (Temp)

0

36

36

Aquatic Centre (Temp on site)

0

25

25

Market Square

300

300

300

Other

275

288

275

Total

837

825

836

 

Council has to date undertaken extensive Community Consultation on this project, and in line with this, it proposed to hold a workshop series to work with Shopkeepers, the Community and other stakeholders to explore amelioration options and report back to Council. Staff have identified a preliminary list (which is not exhaustive) of potential measure as follows:-.

 

(a)  Promotion of alternative car parking in village, in particular Little Street Car Park, and its relatively similar proximity to the Village as the Rosenthal Avenue Car Park.

(b)  Investigate the possibility of a bus run in a loop from Longueville Road with a stop near Lane Cove Plaza, and thence to Central Avenue and Little Lane with a stop at Little Lane Car Park Entrance before returning to Longueville Road via Little Street.

(c)  Investigate the possibility of a temporary car park on the upper level of the disused bowling greens at 266 Longueville Road, possibly providing all day free parking for staff of Lane Cove Village businesses, with a bus run looping to and from the Village in am/pm peaks

(d)  Investigate the possibility of a limited form of valet parking (at cost to user) whereby a person’s car can be left with the valet service, for example, in Longueville Road, and then taken to be parked at another location (e.g. 266 Longueville Road or Little Street Car Park).

 

Procurement Strategy

 

Some consideration was given to whether to defer the decision on a 1 or 2 Stage program until after receipt of Tenders, that is, require Tenderers to design and price both options. Tenderers are being asked to prepare a design as part of the tender submission, with the cost likely to be in the order of $200,000 to $250,000 for each option. For this reason it is not appropriate to ask tenderers to submit alternative designs (1 or 2 Stages) and cost options, simply because this makes the tender process complex and expensive for the tenderers, with the result that they potentially don’t give the tender the focus that it deserves.  This is particularly important given the buoyant construction market in Sydney at present. Based on this, either of the following approaches are considered appropriate, however, Option 2 is recommended:-

 

1.  One Stage Construction with some early Parking Availability

This avoids the Two Stage cost premium and the project is completed sooner.  Tenderers will be required to propose the delivery of an initial quantity of public parking in the shortest possible time as part of their bid. This allows each tenderer to consider and propose an interim early parking solution.

 

2.  One Stage Construction with Accelerated Parking Availability

This option is the same as Option One, but would require tenderers the opportunity to also specify an optional cost premium to further accelerate the provision of an initial quantity of public parking. This may include program acceleration through provision of additional plant, staff and other resources to construct a quantity of public parking sooner.

 

Conclusion

 

The Rosenthal Avenue Redevelopment Project has reached two significant milestones with consent being granted to the Stage 1 – Development Application and the Agreement for Leases with Aldi and Coles becoming unconditional.

 

The next stage is the procurement of the D & C Builder which will be concluded by the end of 2016. The Construction Strategy is now proposed to be undertaken in a single stage, avoiding approximately $5M in additional cost and deliver a 10 month shorter build time. The single stage Construction Strategy with Accelerated Parking Availability is proposed with Tenderers required to provide an initial quantity of public parking in the shortest possible time as part of their bid and also specify an optional cost premium to further accelerate the provision of an initial quantity of public parking. This may include program acceleration through provision of additional plant, staff and other resources to construct a quantity of public parking sooner.

 

Having made this decision it is appropriate Council undertake further consultation with shop keepers and other key stakeholders to determine appropriate amelioration measure for further consideration by Council.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.   The report be received and noted; and

2.   Council authorise the General Manager to:-

a.   Call tenders for the development of the Rosenthal Car Park utilising a One Stage Construction Strategy with Accelerated Parking Availability, with tenderers required to provide an initial quantity of public parking in the shortest possible time as part of their bid and also specify an optional cost premium to further accelerate the provision of an initial quantity of public parking; and

b.   Commence a further round of community engagement with shop keepers and other key stakeholders to determine appropriate amelioration measures for further consideration by Council.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2016

Little Lane Change of Name

 

 

Subject:          Little Lane Change of Name     

Record No:    SU1849 - 27060/16

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Terry Tredrea 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At Council’s Meeting of 21 March 2016, it was proposed to rename Little Lane, Lane Cove to Pottery Lane. Community consultation on the proposal was undertaken from 30 March 2016 to 11 May 2016. In response, five (5) public submissions were received with one (1) supporting the proposed name change.

 

The issues raised where:-

1.   Why change the name of Little Lane at all?

2.   A change might create more confusion.

3.   Which roadway should be changed (Little Lane or Little Street)?

4.   If a new name, what should it be (e.g. Longueville Lane)?

 

It is considered that Little Lane is so similar to Little Street that the introduction of 58 apartments at 1 Little Lane has the potential to create confusion for emergency services seeking quick pedestrian entry into the apartments. Therefore it is recommended that Council rename Little Lane to Pottery Lane.

 

Background

 

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting, dated 21 March 2016, Council resolved to:-

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.”

 

Discussion

 

Community consultation on the proposal was undertaken from 30 March 2016 to 11 May 2016 in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Regulation 2000 and Local Government Act 1993.  It included:-

·    Hard-copy public exhibitions at the Council Administration Centre and Libraries;

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

·    A website exhibition;

·    Letters sent to owners of properties adjacent to the Lane Cove Aquatic Centre lessee(s) and those whose frontage is onto Longueville Road; and

·    Public notice in the North Shore Times on 1 April 2016.

 

In response, five (5) public submissions were received. One (1) supported the proposed name change, and another recognised that a requirement for compliance with the Geographical Names Board might over-rule the views of local residents.

 

The issues raised were:-

1.   Why change the name of Little Lane at all;

2.   Which roadway should be changed (Little Lane or Little Street); and

3.   If a new name, what should it be (e.g. Longueville Lane)?

 

A list of the names of five (5) people with a long association with the two (2) potteries in the immediate vicinity of Little Lane, shown attached at AT-1, was included as an attachment to the March report. This served to suggest historically significant road names. The potteries had operated from the mid 1880s to the early 1920s.

 

Issue 1:  Is there a need to change the name of Little Lane?

 

The public submissions received raise three general concerns regarding the need to rename Little Lane:

1.   The reasons have not been explained.

2.   “Little Lane has never caused any confusion.” “…the street has existed comfortably with that name for many years”.

3.   The change may actually cause confusion.

 

Comments

 

1.   No reason given: The report to Council’s 21 March meeting notes that:

 

“…58 new apartments will have a Little Lane address. This provides an impetus to rename Little Lane.”

 

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.”

 

According to the AUM:

 

“ Sometimes there might be separate vehicular and pedestrian access to a site. The primary address should be allocated to the pedestrian access point.” (p67)

 

Therefore, the imminent arrival of residences to be addressed to Little Lane as their primary address has created an opportunity to reconsider this roadway name, given that it is not compliant with the AUM.  That “the street has existed comfortably with that name for many years” does not mean it will necessarily continue to do so once residences are addressed to the Lane.

 

Note: the Mowbray precinct redevelopment did not lead to the renaming of streets in that area because there is no confusing duplication of road names in that area.  

 

2.   No confusion:  As stated by one submission:

 

“[there is] no confusion, as 1-5 Little Street (the Little Lane development) could simply be called 1 Little Lane or 1 Little Street. Residents, visitors, the mail person and couriers will go to exactly the same corner location.”  

 

Comment

 

The most important guide to assessing confusion of addresses is the need to simplify directions for emergency services such as ambulances. The primary entrances to 1 Little Lane for both public tenants and residents is to be off Little Lane, despite its parking entrance being off Little Street. Emergency services and quick deliveries will most likely access the building at street level via Little Lane. They will come either south down Little Street off Longueville Road or north along Little Lane (Google Maps). Southbound vehicles need to be directed right at the fork of Little Street and Little Lane. Northbound vehicles need to be directed up Central Avenue then right into Little Lane. For this reason, any potential confusion with Little Street should be avoided. Street signage may help here.

 

3.   The change may actually cause confusion:

 

It is submitted that there may be extra confusion for “businesses, residents and tenants [of the new building] having to explain to customers [and] to delivery persons that parking is via Little Street for a proposed Pottery Lane address.”  However, this may also arise if the building retains its Little Lane address. Furthermore:

 

“Visitors to Pottery Green and Pottery Gardens may be inconvenienced by searching along a newly named Pottery Lane. They are all on Little Street, as is the new development.”

 

Comment

 

The new development is on the laneway, this being its primary access point.

 

Conclusions

 

It is considered that Little Lane is so similar to Little Street that the introduction of apartments into Little Lane (at 1 Little Lane) has the potential to create confusion for emergency services seeking quick entry into the primary (pedestrian) access. Little Street, despite being the main vehicular entry for the building, is a secondary entry that would be difficult to find off Little Street. Therefore it is recommended that one of the similar names be changed.

 

It is possible that the name Pottery Lane could cause similar confusion for visitors to the nearby Pottery Gardens. However, visitors can be advised to go to the southern end of Pottery Lane to locate the Gardens.

 

Issue 2: Which roadway should be changed (Little Lane or Street)?

 

1.   It is suggested that Little Street should be changed to Pottery Street. This “would make more sense, as Little Street is adjacent to Pottery Green”, and would solve the confusion between Little Street and Little Lane.

2.   Secondly, a Little Lane address “…does not seem to cause problems for the Longueville Rd businesses that have a Little Lane delivery address.”

 

Comment

 

1.   While it is true that Little Street is adjacent to Pottery Green, and would therefore more logically be named Pottery Street, this name change would create much more inconvenience for the residents of 7 to 51 Little Street.

2.   Loading and delivery areas at the rear of Longueville Road businesses are clearly accessed by a laneway behind Longueville Road. This is not a problem being addressed.

 

Conclusion

 

Little Lane is the roadway name requiring change, should change be recommended.

 

Issue 3: If a new name for Little Lane, what should it be (e.g. Longueville Lane)?

 

1.   "Pottery Lane" does not seem appropriate as the road does not run adjacent to Pottery Green. We think this is more confusing.’

 

2.   “If you need to change the name of Little Lane, why not change it to Longueville Lane as the function of the lane is to service mostly the Longueville Road properties”.

 

Comment

 

1.   It need not be assumed that Pottery Lane, in close proximity to Pottery Green, might run beside it, because Pottery Lane is the only laneway in the vicinity.

 

2.   As explained in the March 21 report to Council, “road types shall not be used to distinguish different roads of the same name”. Also, given the length of Longueville Road, at 1.5km, the name “Longueville” gives small help in locating the lane.

 

Conclusion

 

This report outlines the five public submissions received during the public exhibition of Little Lane Renaming. The key concern is that a change of name is unnecessary and might create more confusion, especially if Little Lane is renamed “Pottery Lane”. However, the two roadways are sufficiently similar to warrant one of them changing. It would create much more inconvenience to change Little Street. Therefore, this report concludes that:-

·    A change of name is necessary to comply with NSW guidelines, given that for the 58 new apartments, primary entry will be off the lane;

·    Pottery Lane will be recognisable as a roadway, and may in fact help guide visitors to Pottery Green (to the east of Pottery Lane), and Pottery Gardens (near the south end of Pottery Lane); and

·    “Pottery” is an evocative name, reflecting the various pottery firms which as a group contributed significantly to Lane Cove centre’s development.

 

It is recommended therefore that Council rename Little Lane as Pottery Lane.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Rename Little Lane to Pottery Lane;

2.   Notify the authors of all submissions and adjacent properties of Council’s decision;

3.   Advertise the change of name in a local newspaper as soon as practicable; and

4.   Notify agencies of the change of name.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Possible Street Names for Little Lane

1 Page

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2016

Policy on Addressing

 

 

Subject:          Policy on Addressing    

Record No:    SU1849 - 27058/16

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Terry Tredrea 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At Council’s Meeting of 21 March 2016, Council resolved to exhibit the proposed Policy on Addressing for a period of six weeks. Two public submissions were received generally in support of the policy. The public submissions were in support of the proposed Policy.

 

It is recommended that Council adopt the Policy, and insert into the Development Application Checklist a requirement that proposed addresses are to be submitted at the Development Application stage in accordance with Council’s Addressing Policy and consistent with the NSW Addressing Users Manual (AUM). Council will also include a standard Condition of Development Consent referencing compliance with the approved numbering system that is compliant with Council’s Addressing Policy and consistent with the AUM.

 

Background

 

At Council’s Ordinary Meeting, dated 21 March 2016, Council resolved to:-

“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 DA 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.”

 

Discussion

 

Community consultation on the Planning Proposal was undertaken from 30 March 2016 to 11 May 2016 in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Regulation 2000 and Local Government Act 1993.  It included:-

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

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

·    A website exhibition;

·    Letters sent to developers of residential flat buildings in Lane Cove who currently have development consent and have yet to submit their strata plans for registration; and

·    Public notice in the North Shore Times on 1 April 2016.

 

As a result, two public submissions were received. The public submissions were in support of the proposed Policy. One raised questions that were directly answered by Council officers.

 


 

The elements supported were:-

 

1.   No number “ranges” (i.e.; a single number for an apartment building located on amalgamated lots). E.g.: 3 rather than 3-7 Centennial Avenue.

 

2.   Recognition of cultural attitudes to “unlucky” numbers (e.g.: 4 and 13) should not prevail over “a continuous sequence of positive integers in the numbering of floor levels” and apartments.

 

Conclusion

 

This report outlines the general support of the two submissions in response to the proposed Policy on Addressing.  It is recommended that Council adopt the Policy.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Adopt the attached Policy on Addressing;

2.   Insert into the Development Application Checklist a requirement that addresses be submitted at the Development Application stage that are in accordance with Council’s Addressing Policy;

3.   Include a standard Condition of Consent referencing compliance with the approved numbering system, compliant with Council’s Addressing;

4.   Notify the authors of submissions of Council’s decision; and

5.   Advertise the adoption of the Policy in a local newspaper as soon as practical.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

POLICY- Addressing

2 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2016

Traffic Committee - May 2016

 

 

Subject:          Traffic Committee - May 2016    

Record No:    SU1326 - 35062/16

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Sashika Young 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday, 24 May 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, 24 May 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Agenda - Traffic Committee - May 24 2016

31 Pages

AT‑2View

Minutes - Traffic Committee - May 24 2016

32 Pages

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2016

Sydney Metro EIS - Chatswood to Sydenham

 

 

Subject:          Sydney Metro EIS - Chatswood to Sydenham    

Record No:    SU5891 - 36554/16

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Abdullah Uddin; Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report outlines Council’s proposed response to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Chatswood to Sydenham section of Sydney Metro, which includes new metro stations at Crows Nest.  The EIS has two (2) main impacts on Lane Cove, the proposed reconfiguration of the Pacific Highway and Mowbray Road West intersection and the new Crows Nest Station opposite Council’s St Leonards Commercial Precinct.  The impacts primarily relate to traffic and the need to better integrate with Council’s planning in St Leonards. It is recommended Council make a submission on the EIS in terms of the report.

 

Background

 

The overall aim of the Sydney Metro is to provide additional capacity along the “global economic corridor”.  The next stage of Sydney Metro City & Southwest is underway with the community asked to provide input to the Chatswood to Sydenham Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) http://sydneymetro.info/chatswood-to-sydenham.

 

The Environmental Impact Statement specifically addresses the Chatswood to Sydenham section of Sydney Metro, which includes new metro stations at Crows Nest, Victoria Cross in North Sydney, Barangaroo, Martin Place, Pitt Street, Central and Waterloo. The planning approvals process for the upgrade of the existing railway line to Bankstown will start later this year.

 

Project features include:-

››About 15.5 kilometres of twin rail tunnels (that is, two tunnels located side-by-side) between the northern dive structure and Bedwin Road, Marrickville (the Marrickville dive structure);

•     New metro stations at Crows Nest, Victoria Cross, Barangaroo, Martin Place, Pitt Street and Waterloo, as well as new underground platforms at Central Station;

•     Realignment of T1 North Shore Line surface track within the existing rail corridor between Chatswood Station and Brand Street, Artarmon, including a new bridge for a section of the ‘down’ (northbound) track to pass over the proposed Chatswood dive structure;

•     About 250 metres of new aboveground metro tracks between Chatswood Station and the Chatswood dive structure;

•     A northern dive structure (about 400 metres in length) and tunnel portal just north of Mowbray Road, Chatswood;

•     A substation (for traction power supply) at Artarmon;

•     A southern dive structure (about 400 metres in length) and tunnel portal north of Sydenham Station and south of Bedwin Road, Marrickville; and

•     A services facility (for traction power supply and an operational water treatment plant) adjacent to the southern dive structure.

 

Discussion

 

The EIS has two main impacts on Lane Cove, the proposed reconfiguration of the Pacific Highway and Mowbray Road West intersection and the proposed Crows Nest Station opposite Council’s St Leonards Commercial Precinct.

 

Reconfiguration of Pacific Highway and Mowbray Road West

 

Nelson Street, Chatswood is currently used as part of a G Turn to access Mowbray Road west of the Pacific Highway.  The EIS models the option of providing twin right turn southbound bays from the Pacific Highway westbound into Mowbray Road to replace the G Turn manoeuvre for southbound traffic into Mowbray Road via Nelson Street. 

 

The Traffic report and EIS is silent on traffic volumes or the impact of additional traffic on Mowbray Road west of Pacific Highway from either one or two right turn lanes being proposed. The expected impact of opening up Mowbray Road westbound to even more traffic is considered unacceptable given the existing levels of congestion. Mowbray Road is already at capacity as it carries over 14,000 vehicle per day. Its intersection with Centennial Avenue already needs additional capacity, it is proposed as a regional bike route, and is generally only two lane two way for much of its length incorporating periodic traffic calming installed as part of the Lane Cove Tunnel project. Facilitating additional westbound traffic onto Mowbray Road would also be contrary to the Government’s commitments on the Lane Cove Tunnel as it would encourage traffic to use it and bypass the tunnel.  As such, the additional twin right turn lanes are not supported.

 

If there is to be any reconfiguration of the intersection, a right turn bay from Mowbray Road to Pacific Highway (eastbound to southbound) should be provided. Council has been seeking this for many years, but has to date has been declined by the RMS. This change is recommended for the following reasons:-

 

a.   Currently in the am peak hours, city bound traffic turn left at Centennial or Parklands Avenue to proceed east. As Epping Road is already at capacity due to limited number of trafficable lane, there are long traffic queues in Centennial and Parklands Avenues waiting to feed into Epping Road. The proposal will provide an alternate option to the Lane Cove north residents avoiding Epping Road and taking an alternate route to city such as Mowbray Road West – Pacific Highway – Freeway. This will significantly improve the traffic congestions in the area.

 

b.   Due to traffic congestion at Epping Road/ Centennial Avenue intersection, currently Lane Cove north residents suffers from ‘rat running’ issues such as Karilla Ave – Kurri St – Kyong St – Landers Rd – Parklands Ave. As such, the proposal would ease the existing ‘rat running’ issues and improve residential amenities to the Lane Cove north precinct.

 

c.   There are in excess of 1,000 residential units being constructed at the Lane Cove north precinct. Therefore, an alternate travel route is required for the future residents as the existing road network is already at capacity in the area.

 

For the above reasons, Council should request the inclusion of a right turn movement from Mowbray Road West to Pacific Highway as part of any change to the traffic lights.

 

Crows Nest Station

 

One of the aims of the EIS is to “Drive productivity through integrated transport and land use planning”, however the EIS doesn’t adequately address Council’s recent planning for:

·    St Leonards South precinct,

·    Development approvals for properties either side of Friedlander Place;

·    Development approvals / proposals for either side of St Leonards Station; and

·    The improvements to the south side of St Leonards Station (other than incorrectly saying that the Government rejected an unsolicited proposal)

 

By not addressing these important land use planning matters in the EIS, it has failed to take a holistic approach to the Crows Nest / St Leonards precinct and properly consider:-

a)    Traffic impacts at the Pacific Highway / Oxley Street intersection west of the Pacific Highway for which no assessment has been reported.  These impacts are both construction and operational post developments.

b)    Cumulative construction impacts, noting that excavation for the developments either side of Friedlander Place is likely in the same timeframe as excavation for the Crows Nest Station

c)    Pedestrian linkages proposed between St Leonards Station and Oxley Street (West Side). In Council’s Planning in the Friedlander Precinct it has strived to provide a pedestrian pathway linking the proposed park and plaza over the rail corridor, with the proposed retail between Lithgow and Christie Street and south to Friedlander Place and Oxley Street. There needs to be consideration given to extending this pedestrian connectivity to the new station.

 

Conclusion

 

The expansion of the Sydney Metro has two (2) main impacts on Lane Cove, the proposed reconfiguration of the Pacific Highway and Mowbray Road West intersection and the new Crows Nest Station opposite Council’s St Leonards Commercial Precinct. The traffic impacts identified in the EIS are of concern as they have not had regard to the flow on effects to the Lane Cove LGA. In addition there is an opportunity to better integrate the new Crows Nest station with Council’s planning for St Leonards. It is recommended Council make a submission on the EIS in terms of the report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.   The report be received and noted; and

2.   Council make a submission on the EIS in terms of the report, in particular in relation to  the traffic impacts identified, as the EIS has not had regard to the flow on effects to the Lane Cove LGA and the need to better integrate the new Crows Nest station with Council’s planning for St Leonards.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2016

Response to Delegates and Boundaries Commission Reports - Hunters Hill, Lane Cove and Ryde Council's Merger Proposal

 

 

Subject:          Response to Delegates and Boundaries Commission Reports - Hunters Hill, Lane Cove and Ryde Council's Merger Proposal    

Record No:    SU5558 - 35527/16

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

In response to the initiation of legal action by Council on the principle of procedural fairness in the examination of the Hunter’s Hill, Lane Cove and Ryde Council’s merger proposal, the Minister for Local Government has invited Council to make a submission in response to the Delegates Report and the Local Government Boundaries Commission comments in relation to that report.

 

This report will recommend endorsement of the submission at (AT-1) which has been submitted to the Minister by the closing time of 5pm, Monday 20 June 2016.

 

Background

 

In December 2015, the Minister for Local Government, despite the strong financial sustainability of Lane Cove Council both now and projected into the future, overwhelming community opposition as well as the compelling case for a Joint Regional Authority (JRA), referred a merger proposal for examination in relation to the Council of the Municipality of Hunter’s Hill, Lane Cove Municipal Council and Council of the City of Ryde, to the Delegate Dr Robert Lang for examination and report.

 

The examination process required the Delegate, amongst other things to hold a public inquiry and invite submissions from the Councils and the community on the proposal. Additionally, in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 (the Act), the Delegate was required to examine and report on the amalgamation proposal with regard to a number of specific factors or criteria, listed under section 263(3) of the Act including:-

·    Financial advantages or disadvantages (including the economies or diseconomies of scale) of the proposal;

·    The community of interest and geographic cohesion;

·    Existing historical and traditional values;

·    Attitude of the residents and ratepayers;

·    Proposed elected representation for residents and ratepayers at the local level;

·    Provision of adequate, equitable and appropriate services and facilities;

·    Impact on the employment of staff;

·    Desirability (or otherwise) of dividing the resulting area or areas into wards; and

·    Such other factors as it considers relevant to the provision of efficient and effective local government in the existing and proposed new areas.

 

In turn, the Boundaries Commission was invited to provide to the Minister, its comments in the respect of the Delegates Report.

 

The submission at AT-1 addresses deficiencies identified in the process, Delegates Report and review and provision of comments by the Boundaries Commission. The deficiencies are largely consistent with Council’s pleadings and arguments presented in the Land and Environment Court proceedings including:-

·    Denial of procedural fairness in not providing the full KPMG Report to Council for it to consider and comment on the report in responding to the merger proposal;

·    The lack of independence in the KPMG report, despite the claim that it was Independent Financial Analysis;

·    The Delegate’s failure to give reasonable public notice of the inquiry that was held at Hunter’s Hill Sailing Club on 2 February 2016;

·    The proposed amalgamation of the three (3) councils will not constitute a single area of contiguous land as required by s 204 and s 218A of the Act;

·    The non disclosure of other relevant material referred to by the Delegate; and

·    Deficiencies in the examination of the proposal by the Delegate and review of the Report by the Boundaries Commission in respect of certain specific factors listed above under  S263(3) of the Act such as:-

Financial advantages and disadvantages including the economies and diseconomies of scale;

Understated customer satisfaction levels;

Failure to address latest financial analysis undertaken by Morrison Low; and

Attitudes of residents and ratepayers.

 

In relation to the issue of attitudes of residents and ratepayers, it is considered that the Delegate has not considered information provided which highlights the high (94%) customer satisfaction levels Council enjoys.  The delegate incorrectly referred to Council’s Customer Satisfaction Index as being the satisfaction rating out of 100.

 

Conclusion

 

It is clear that there were a number of deficiencies in the examination of the merger proposal particularly in terms of procedural fairness and notice provisions. Also, there are concerns the delegate has not adequately addressed financial issues and attitudes of residents and ratepayers. Therefore, in light of the irregularities identified and overwhelming community opposition to the merger proposal, the submission in response calls on the NSW Government to undertake a binding plebiscite on the proposal before the matter is determined.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Receive and note the Report; and

2.   Endorse the submission to the Minister for Local Government in respect of the Delegates Report and comments by the Boundaries Commission for the Municipality of Hunter’s Hills, Lane Cove Municipal Council and City of Ryde Merger Proposal.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Hunter’s Hill, Lane Cove and City of Ryde Councils - Merger Proposal Report

16 Pages

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2016

Request for Reimbursment of Travel Expenses - Town Crier

 

 

Subject:          Request for Reimbursment of Travel Expenses - Town Crier    

Record No:    SU16 - 34389/16

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement for the payment of travel and accommodation expenses for Lane Cove’s Town Crier, Mr. Bill Wallace to attend the 2016 National Town Crier Championships. The report recommends that Council approve a contribution of up to $700.00 (inc. GST) towards travel expenses for Mr. Wallace to attend the 2016 National Town Crier Championships and give public notice of its intention to grant this funding.

 

Discussion

Mr. Bill Wallace has been representing Lane Cove Council at the National Town Crier Championships for more than 13 years. He regularly attends Council events such as the Cameraygal Festival, Australia Day and all Citizenship Ceremonies in his role as Town Crier, at no cost to Council.

 

The 2016 National Championships are to be held in Redland City, Queensland in September 2016 and Mr. Wallace has been endorsed for entry into the competition by the Mayor.   Council has previously contributed towards Mr. Wallace’s costs in attending the National Championships. 

 

Conclusion

Mr. Wallace has been Lane Cove’s Town Crier for many years and regularly attends Council’s events at no cost to Council.  It is recommended that Council approve the contribution of up to $700.00 (inc. GST) towards travel and accommodation expenses for Mr. Wallace to attend the 2016 National Town Crier Championships and give public notice of its intention to grant this funding.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Give Public Notice under Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993 of its intention to grant Mr. Bill Wallace $700.00 (inc. GST) to assist in travel and accommodation expenses to attend the 2016 National Town Crier Championships to represent Lane Cove; and

2.   Subject to no objections being received, provide a grant to Mr. Bill Wallace of $700.00 (inc. GST).

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2016

Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Determination for Councillor Fees

 

 

Subject:          Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Determination for Councillor Fees    

Record No:    SU839 - 35097/16

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Kirsty Beram 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report details the recent determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal for Councillors Fees.

 

Discussion

 

The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal is responsible for categorising councils and determining the maximum amount of fees to be paid to Mayors and Councillors in each category.  The Tribunal handed down a determination on 29 March 2016 under Sections 239 and 241 of the Local Government Act on the level of fees to be paid to Councillors and Mayors from 1 July 2016.

 

The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal has increased all minimum and maximum fees for Mayors and Councillors by 2.5%.  The table below shows the current annual fees paid to Lane Cove Councillors and the new minimum and maximum annual fees as determined by the Tribunal:-

 

 

Current Annual Fee

New Minimum Annual Fee

New Maximum Annual Fee

Mayor (in addition to the Councillor Fee)

$40,090

$18,180.00

$41,090

Councillors

$18,380

$8,540.00

$18,840

 

 

The program in Council’s Budget for 2016/17 provides for a 2.5% increase.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council determine the appropriate fee to be paid to the Mayor and Councillors for 2016/2017.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

  


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2016

Tender Negotiations for the Renovation of the Greenwich Baths Clubhouse Building

 

 

Subject:          Tender Negotiations for the Renovation of the Greenwich Baths Clubhouse Building    

Record No:    SU6317 - 35856/16

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Jane Gornall 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council called tenders for alterations and renovations to the Greenwich Baths Clubhouse Building. Tenders closed on 11 May 2016. Council at the meeting of the 16 May 2016 received a report on the submitted tenders and resolved the following:-

“1.  Council reject all tenders and as Council has called tenders and identified suitable builders capable of undertaking the project, rather than call fresh tenders, enter into direct negotiations with the two (2) tenderers to further assess their suitability and to confirm a price;

2.   The General Manager be authorised to conduct such negotiations in line with the quantity surveyors estimate and if negotiations are successful to enter into a contract with the preferred contractor; and

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

 

This Report brings back the results of the negotiations and recommends the appointment of a builder for the works.

 

Background

 

The proposal involves alteration and addition to the Clubhouse building in Greenwich Baths and includes:-

·    Restoration of the upper level including reinstatement of windows to its original configuration, installation of larger windows to resemble the original balcony configuration and repainting of all facades to the original cement grey with the original “BATHS” sign;

·    Restoration of bath access stairs and addition of extra metal handrails and anti-slip nosing; and

·    Demolition of the lower level infill and construction of new male, female and accessible public toilets and change rooms.

 

The DA has been discussed with both Crown Lands and the Roads and Maritime Service (RMS) from whom Council lease the site.  The Development Application was approved by IHAP on 1 March 2016.

 

Discussion

 

The negotiations were conducted with the tenderer closest to the Quantity surveyors estimate of works.  A meeting was held between the tenderer and members on the tender panel to discuss the submission in writing and to elicit more information about the tenderer.

 

The tender evaluation panel consisted of Council’s Executive Manager – Human Services, Council’s Infrastructure Planner and the Acting Manager – Facilities.

The lowest priced tenderer is a newly formed company and Council has needed to inform itself that the newly created entity will be able to perform the works. Council’s standard guarantees, including bank or insurance bonds, will be applied as part of our standard procedures. As part of the discussions a project plan and cash flow for the project has been submitted.

 

References have also been checked for the company based on the previous work of the Directors.

 

The total amount for the works at Greenwich Baths is $558,401 excluding gst.  The funds are available from a combination of Infrastructure Levy and Council operational budget. The works are due to be completed in time for the 100th Anniversary of Greenwich Baths.

 

Conclusion

 

On the basis of all of the information submitted above the intention is that the General Manager continue discussions and sign a contract with the preferred contractor – Construction Management Unit Trust trading as Calibre CM.  The contract to be for the sum of $558,401 exclusive of gst.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 June 2016

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot    

Record No:    SU220 - 35843/16

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 - June 2016

44 Pages