Agenda
Ordinary Council Meeting
10 October 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.
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 10
October 2016 commencing at 7:00pm. The business
to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.
Yours
faithfully
Craig Wrightson
General
Manager
Council Meeting Procedures
The Council meeting is chaired
by the Mayor, Councillor Deborah Hutchens. Councillors are entitled to one vote
on a matter. If votes are equal, the Chairperson has a second or casting vote.
When a majority of Councillors vote in favour of a Motion it becomes a decision
of the Council. Minutes of Council and Committee meetings are published on
Council’s website www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au by 5pm on the Thursday
following the meeting.
The Meeting is conducted in
accordance with Council's Code of Meeting Practice. The order of business is
listed in the Agenda on the next page. That order will be followed unless
Council resolves to modify the order at the meeting. This may occur for example
where the members of the public in attendance are interested in specific items
on the agenda.
Members of the public may
address the Council Meeting on any issue for a maximum of 3 minutes during the
public forum which is held at the beginning of the meeting. All persons
addressing the Meeting must speak to the Chair. Speakers and Councillors will
not enter into general debate or ask questions.
If you do not understand any
part of the information given above; require assistance to participate in the
meeting due to a disability; or wish to obtain information in relation to
Council, please contact Council’s Manager Governance on 99113525.
Please note meetings held in the Council Chambers are
recorded on tape for the purposes of verifying the accuracy of minutes and the
tapes are not disclosed to any third party under the Government Information
(Public Access) Act 2009, except as allowed under section 18(1) or
section 19(1) of the PPIP Act, or where Council is compelled to do so by court
order, warrant or subpoena or by any other legislation.
Ordinary Council 10 October 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 - 19 SEPTEMBER 2016
Mayoral Minutes
2. Mayoral Minute - Council Merger Proposal Court
Action
Orders Of The Day
Officer Reports
for Determination
3. Results of Court Action Council Merger
Proposal
4. Tender for the Appointment of a Design and
Construct Head Contractor for Rosenthal Avenue Car Park
5. Tender for the Decommission of Substation
S.277 and the Supply and Installation of Two (2) Kiosk Substations at Birdwood
Lane
6. Proposed Redevelopment 25-29 Longueville Road
- Proposed Relocation of Pedestrian Laneway
7. Mechanical Street Sweeping Tender
8. Traffic Committee - September 2016
9. Changes to Joint Regional Planning Panel
Officer Reports
for Information
10. 2016 Festival by the River
11. Pecuniary Interest Returns 2016
Ordinary Council Meeting 10 October 2016
Mayoral
Minute - Council Merger Proposal Court Action
Subject: Mayoral Minute - Council Merger Proposal Court
Action
Record No: SU5558 - 62243/16
Division: Lane Cove Council
Author(s): Councillor
Deborah Hutchens
Councillors as you are aware
Council’s Court case in relation to the process undertaken by the Government
for the merger of Hunter’s Hill, Lane Cove and Ryde councils was
dismissed by Justice Moore.
To date our Council has throughout the
merger proposal sought to achieve a factual examination of the proposal.
Our legal case was comprehensive and sought to highlight the breakdown in
processes, in particular the lack of independence in the KPMG report.
At this stage Woollahra Council has
appealed its initial judgment to the Court of Appeal, who have not yet
delivered their verdict. If the judgment is in Woollahra’s favour,
unless the finding is specific to their situation, the verdict will provide
guidance to our Council’s legal position. For this reason I propose
that our Council seek to lodge a Notice of Intention to Appeal which will
reserve Council’s appeal rights for up to three (3) months. At this
stage the Government has indicated it will not proceed with our merger for
seven (7) days after the judgment, which would allow this Council to consider
its position in light of the Woollahra judgment.
I therefore propose that a briefing from
the lawyers be arranged once the Woollahra decision is handed down to obtain
their views on the prospects of success if an appeal is to be lodged. We
would then hold an Extraordinary Council meeting as necessary to formally
consider Council’s position.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:-
1. Lodge a Notice of Intention to Appeal
against the judgment brought down in the Land and Environment Court against
Council on 20 September 2016; and
2. Conduct a briefing session by the HWL legal team upon the release
of the Woollahra judgment.
|
Councillor Deborah Hutchens
Mayor
ATTACHMENTS:
There are no supporting documents for this
report.
Ordinary Council Meeting 10 October 2016
Results of
Court Action Council Merger Proposal
Subject: Results of Court Action Council Merger Proposal
Record No: SU5558 - 61983/16
Division: General Managers
Unit
Author(s): Craig
Wrightson
Executive Summary
This report outlines the decision in the Land
& Environment Court in relation to Council’s court case questioning
the process undertaken in relation to Council’s merger proposal. The case
was dismissed and therefore Council must now consider its options going
forward.
Background
Justice Moore delivered his
judgement in the Land & Environment Court on Tuesday 20 September 2016
regarding the action taken by Hunter’s Hill, and Lane Cove Councils
regarding the State Government merger proposal.
Justice Moore’s judgment dismissed all grounds as
follows:-
“1. The
proceedings are dismissed; and
Unless a party files a Notice
of Motion proposing an alternative order on the question of costs by the close
of business on Tuesday 4 October 2016, I will, on the day after that date,
order that the Applicant is to pay the First to Fourth Respondents’ costs
as agreed or assessed.”
A full copy of the judgement is available at https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/57df5763e4b0e71e17f54344.
Discussion
Under the Land & Environment Court rules a respondent
has 28 days to appeal, which expires on 18 October, 2016. Originally the
Government had only concurred to not amalgamate the councils involved in the
case for at least seven (7) days after the judgement, therefore interrogatory
relief would ordinarily be required beyond the seven (7) days if an appeal was
proposed.
Hunter’s Hill Council resolved to Lodge a Notice of
Intention to Appeal (NIA) on 23 September, 2016 and sought an agreement from
the Government to extend the existing seven (7) days to at least seven (7) days
after the decision of the Woollahra Council appeal. The Government agreed to
this timeframe and therefore Hunter’s Hill will further consider its
legal options and the basis of any appeal post the Woollahra Judgement. This of
course by default means that Lane Cove has the same postponement of any
merger until seven (7) days after the Woollahra judgment.
Legal Options
Going forward Council has the following options:-
1. Lodge an Appeal Now -
Council has not sought advice as to prospects and a cost estimate of an appeal
as yet. To date Council has spent in excess of $140,000 on the case against an
estimate of $65,000. Any appeal would involve less court time than the original
case and therefore cost less than the original case. As mentioned above Council
has until 18 October, 2016 to lodge an appeal unless an NIA is lodged.
2. Lodge a Notice of Intention to Appeal – Lodging a NIA provides an extension beyond 28 days to three (3)
months, in which Council may lodge an appeal. It is only effective whilst ever
the Court or respondent (Government) are in agreement with the time frame
proposed by Council to respond, due to the need for interrogatory relief. In
Woollahra’s case, the appeal was listed for directions within a week of
the appeal being filed, and the case heard within three (3) weeks. So there will
always be a need for some urgency. The filing fee in the NSW Court of appeal is
$705 plus the costs of the lawyers to prepare and lodge.
3. Take No Action – At
this stage Hunter’s Hill has reserved its rights to appeal the original
judgment by lodging an NIA. Their resolution is as follows:-
“1. That
Council lodges a Notice of an Intention to Lodge an appeal against the
judgement brought down in the L & E Court against Council on 20th September
and seeks agreement from the State Government not to take any further action
prior to the Woollahra appeal determination, or for seven (7) days thereafter.
2. That
Council seeks an injunction, or interlocutory orders, to stay any action should
the State Government not agree to an undertaking as requested in 1 above.
3. That
should the State Government not agree to give an undertaking as requested in 1
above Council considers lodging a formal appeal subject to further advice from
Counsel and consideration by Council at the earliest opportunity....”
Council’s in-house lawyer has
confirmed “there is no legal utility, in and of itself, in our Council
following suit with Hunter’s Hill Council as respects the action it has
taken or proposes to take as respects a possible appeal to the Court of
Appeal.” This is because all appealable matters are open to either
Council to argue in any appeal, and given there can be no new matters argued,
there is no legal ‘value’ in two councils making the same arguments.
Section 23A Guidelines
At the commencement of the merger proposal
process the Minister issued Guidelines for decision making during the merger
proposal period. Of relevance to the issue of an appeal is:-
“During a merger proposal period,
councils and council officials should be mindful of the need to act in the best
interests of their community and for the purposes of meeting the needs of that
community. Councils should not make decisions that needlessly impose avoidable
costs on a new council.
In particular, councils and council
officials should not make decisions during a merger proposal period for the
following purposes:
• to
prevent or disrupt the consideration of merger proposals by the Chief Executive
of the Office of Local Government or his delegate, the Boundaries Commission or
the Minister for Local Government other than through the legitimate exercise of
legal rights of review or appeal.”
It is clear that in all Council
decision-making to date that it has been consistent with Council following its “…legitimate
exercise of legal rights of review and appeal.” This matter must
continue to be considered by Council in any future consideration of lodging an
appeal.
Cost Considerations
Incorporated in the judgment Justice Moore
indicated unless a party files a Notice of Motion proposing an alternative
order on the question of costs he would order that Council pay costs as agreed
or assessed.
Council sought advice as to Council’s
prospects of seeking each party pay its own costs. On the basis of the advice
no Notice of Motion was lodged.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That:-
1. The report be received and noted; and
2. Council determine its proposed course of
action in relation to any appeal against the court’s decision on
Council’s proposed merger.
|
Craig Wrightson
General Manager
General Managers Unit
ATTACHMENTS:
There are no supporting documents for this
report.
Ordinary Council Meeting 10 October 2016
Tender for
the Appointment of a Design and Construct Head Contractor for Rosenthal Avenue
Car Park
Subject: Tender for the Appointment of a Design and Construct Head Contractor
for Rosenthal Avenue Car Park
Record No: SU6236 - 61995/16
Division: General Managers
Unit
Author(s): Geoff
Douglas; Craig Wrightson
Executive Summary
Council conducted a Selective Tender
process in accordance with its Tender and Quotations Procedures, for the
appointment of a Design and Construct Contractor for the Rosenthal Avenue Car
Park. Council received submissions from four (4) shortlisted tenderers.
This report provides details on the tender
process conducted and recommends that Council decline to accept any tender
received and the General Manager be authorised to enter into negotiations with
the two (2) highest ranked contractors in terms of the selection criteria,
being ADCO Constructions and Richard Crookes Constructions. The aim of the
negotiation process will be to eliminate all inconsistencies, exclusions,
omissions, and required design amendments so that both submissions can be
assessed against the prescribed evaluation criteria.
Background
Council’s adopted Major Projects
Strategic Management Plan 2007-2016 includes the redevelopment of the Rosenthal
car park site. Council committed to proceed with the project at its meeting of
21st September 2015. The project delivery timetable allows for the staged
development of the project over a four (4) year timeframe with construction
works scheduled to commence in 2017.
A broad overview of the redevelopment can
be summarised as:-
·
Site area of approximately 6,700m2;
· Four (4) basement car parking levels with a total of 500 car spaces;
· A retail level inclusive of Coles as the anchor tenant + ALDI as a
secondary retailer;
· Loading dock;
· State of the art public open space on top of the development
supported by 925m2 of specialty retail areas; and
· Pedestrian bridge creating throughway over Rosenthal Avenue.
Tender Process
Council conducted a Selective ender process
which commenced with an open Expression of Interest (EOI) process in accordance
with its Tender and Quotations Procedures. A total of seven (7)
submissions were received for the EOI. A Tender Review Panel (TRP) was
formed and evaluated EOI submissions on the categories of experience,
personnel, financial strength, and methodology. The conclusion of the EOI
was to shortlist ADCO, Ganellen, Infinity, and Richard Crookes Constructions to
proceed to the Request for Tender (RFT) stage of the project.
The Request for Tender (RFT) documentation
outlined the tender conditions and the scope of works to be priced. The RFT
documentation was prepared by Council’s Project Management consultant
AECOM. Tender documentation was issued to the shortlisted four (4) Contractors
from the EOI stage on the 27 June 2016 and tenders closed on the 6 Septembers
2016 following a ten (10) week tender period. Contractors were required to
prepare preliminary designs based on a prescribed list of requirements as well
as price the submitted designs and detail the delivery methodology.
This report provides details on the tender
process conducted and recommends that the General Manager be authorised to
reject all tenders and enter into negotiations with the preferred two (2)
shortlisted tenders, being ADCO and Richard Crookes Constructions. The aim of
the negotiation process will be to eliminate all inconsistencies, exclusions,
omissions, and required design amendments so that both submissions can be
assessed against the prescribed evaluation criteria.
Tender Evaluation Criteria
The tender evaluation criterion was agreed
by the Tender Evaluation Panel (TRP). The tenders were evaluated against the
following weighted criteria:
|
RFT - Evaluation
Criteria
|
Weighting
|
|
Design of:
a) Birdwood
and Rosenthal Avenue façade
b) Rosenthal
Avenue pedestrian bridge / lift
c) Birdwood
/ Rosenthal Avenue elevated walkway
|
10%
|
|
How the design achieves activation of Birdwood Lane and Rosenthal Lane
|
10%
|
|
Overall design of the
public open space.
|
15%
|
|
Retail entry from
Park, and the Retail Level
|
5%
|
|
Carpark and Loading
Dock Design
|
5%
|
|
Contractors submitted
lump-sum price and contract compliance
|
35%
|
|
Contractors submitted
program and proposed delivery methodology
|
15%
|
|
Contractors proposed
delivery methodology of the requirements of the major tenants
|
5%
|
|
Total
|
100%
|
Assessment by Tender Evaluation Panel
The Tender Evaluation Panel (TRP) consisted
of:-
1. Craig
Dalli - Executive Manager Corporate Services;
2. Geoffrey
Douglas – Director of Major Projects;
3. Martin
Terescenko – Manager Assets; and
4. Jason
Richards – AECOM consultant project manager.
The TRP were advised by the following
independent advisors:-
1. Mark
Curzon of Fender Katsalidis Mirams as the independent architect to assess the
merits of the design submissions received.
2. Rider
Levett Bucknall Pty Ltd as the Quantity Surveyor to assess costs.
3. WSP
Parsons Brinckerhoff as the services engineers to asses service design
submissions.
4. Colin
Biggers & Paisley as the lawyer to assess exclusions on the contract (if
any).
5. Bill
Rock & Mike Ryan of Risk Reward as probity advisors.
Tenderers were required to lodge their
submissions in two (2) parts:-
a) Non-Commercial
submissions including the design, methodology, program, and proposed personnel;
and
b) Commercial
portion of the tender submission including price & contract exclusions (if
any).
The Tender Evaluation Panel assessed the
non-commercial portion of the submissions first without knowing prices, so as
to not inflict bias on the assessment of the submitted designs. Once design
scores were finalised, the commercial portion of the tender submissions were
brought into the evaluation matrix finalising the weighted scores.
A copy of the Confidential Tender
Evaluation Panel report has been circulated separately to Councillors.
Following detailed consideration of the submissions the Tender Evaluation Panel
considered that the tender submissions from ADCO Constructions and Richard
Crookes Constructions are the preferred contractors. The comments from the
Tender Evaluation Panel can be summarised as follows:-
· The tenderers who scored the least favourable on the design criteria
were also the most expensive. These two tenderers ultimately were the lowest
ranked tenderers and the panel is of the view that they should not be further
considered.
· The successfully appointed Contractor will have a further 6 month
design development process.
· The panel recommends Council reject all tenders and negotiate with
the two highest ranked tenderers, being ADCO and Richard Crookes Constructions
as there are too many variables in the design, price, and delivery methodology
which require clarification and finalisation in an open negotiation process.
No further release of comparatives is
appropriate at this stage as the tender process is not being finalised. The
further release of information would, if disclosed, confer a commercial
advantage on a person with whom the council is proposing to conduct business.
Conclusion
The Tender Evaluation Panel recommends that
Council:-
1. Decline to accept any tender;
2. Not call fresh tenders as the tender process
has identified a suitable field of Contractors who can complete the project but
require further clarification to eliminate all inconsistencies, exclusions and
omissions so that both tenders can be assessed on a like-for-like basis;
3. Authorise the General Manager to enter into
negotiations with ADCO and Richard Crookes Constructions at this stage as they
were the two highest ranked tenderers in terms of the selection criteria; and
4. Receive a further report on the outcomes of the
negotiations.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:-
1. Decline to accept any tender;
2. Not call fresh tenders as the tender process
has identified a suitable field of Contractors who can complete the project
but require further clarification to eliminate all inconsistencies,
exclusions and omissions so that both tenders can be assessed on a
like-for-like basis;
3. Authorise the General Manager to enter into
negotiations with ADCO and Richard Crookes Constructions at this stage as
they were the two highest ranked tenderers in terms of the selection
criteria; and
4. Receive a further report on the outcomes of
the negotiations.
|
Craig Wrightson
General Manager
General Managers Unit
ATTACHMENTS:
There are no supporting documents for this
report.
Ordinary Council Meeting 10 October 2016
Tender for
the Decommission of Substation S.277 and the Supply and Installation of Two (2)
Kiosk Substations at Birdwood Lane
Subject: Tender for the Decommission of Substation S.277 and the Supply and
Installation of Two (2) Kiosk Substations at Birdwood Lane
Record No: SU6480 - 62139/16
Division: General Managers
Unit
Author(s): Craig
Wrightson; Geoff Douglas
Executive Summary
Council conducted an open Tender in
accordance with its Tender and Quotations Procedures, for the appointment of a
Grade A Level 1 Accredited Electrical Contractor for the decommission of
substation S.277 and the supply and installation of 2 kiosk substations at
Birdwood Lane.
Council received Tenders from four (4)
interested parties. Council at its 19 September 2016 meeting resolved to not
accept any tender and enter into negotiations with the preferred two
shortlisted tenders (TOBCO + Stowe) and a further report be submitted to
Council. This report summaries the negotiation outcomes and recommends that
subject to Council obtaining ownership of the sub-station site from Ausgrid,
Council enter into contract with Australian High Voltage (TOBCO) for the works.
Background
Council’s adopted Major Projects
Strategic Management Plan 2007-2016 includes the redevelopment of the Rosenthal
car park site. Council committed to proceed with the project at its meeting of
21 September 2015. The project delivery timetable allows for the staged
development of the project over a four (4) year timeframe with construction
works scheduled to commence in 2017.
In order to facilitate the redevelopment of
the Rosenthal Ave car park, the existing substation S.277 needs to be decommissioned
as part of an early works package to enable the 11 lots that comprise the site
to be amalgamated and make way for the development. Council are seeking to
engage a Grade A Level 1 Accredited Electrical Contractor to decommission
sub-station S.277 and establish two (2) new kiosk substations at Birdwood
Avenue.
Council at its meeting of 19 September
resolved that “Council enter into negotiations with the preferred two
shortlisted tenders (TOBCO + Stowe) with an aim to eliminate all inconsistencies,
exclusions and omissions so that both tenders can be assessed on a
like-for-like basis and a further report be submitted to Council following the
outcome.” This report summaries the negotiation and clarification
process that followed the rejection of all tender submissions.
Discussion
The preferred shortlisted tenderers of
Australian High Voltage (TOBCO) + Stowe Australia were given one (1) week to
clarify required discrepancies, exclusions and omissions during the negotiation
period. In particular the schedule of work to be undertaken as day works and
night works was clarified, as was the overall program
The revised
scores after the tender clarification requests were considered are listed
below:
|
Tenderer
|
Price
|
Program
|
Methodology
|
Local Gov’t Experience
|
Previous Experience
|
|
30%
|
15%
|
30%
|
10%
|
15%
|
|
Australian High Voltage / TOBCO
|
Preferred
|
Preferred
|
Preferred
|
Equal
Preferred
|
|
|
Stowe Australia
|
|
|
|
Equal
Preferred
|
Preferred
|
A confidential memorandum has been
circulated separately to Councilors detailing the prices submitted by each
Tenderer and how each of the weighted criteria was assessed.
In relation to acquiring the sub-station
site from Ausgrid, Council has made an offer to purchase and is awaiting
Ausgrid’s agreement to the price. The transaction is expected to be
completed in the coming months.
It is therefore recommended that Council
authorise the General Manager to enter into contract the TOBCO after receiving
the highest total score when all factors of: price, program, methodology, and
exclusions on the contract were considered.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That:-
1. The report be received and noted;
2. Subject to Council
obtaining ownership of the sub-station site from Ausgrid, Council enter into
a contract with Australian High Voltage (TOBCO) for the works; and
3. Authority be granted to the General Manager to enter into a contract with Australian
High Voltage (TOBCO).
|
Craig Wrightson
General Manager
General Managers Unit
ATTACHMENTS:
There are no supporting documents for this
report.
Ordinary Council Meeting 10 October 2016
Proposed
Redevelopment 25-29 Longueville Road - Proposed Relocation of Pedestrian
Laneway
Subject: Proposed Redevelopment 25-29 Longueville Road - Proposed Relocation
of Pedestrian Laneway
Record No: SU5583 - 61595/16
Division: Corporate Services
Division
Author(s): Craig
Dalli
Executive Summary
Council is in receipt of a proposal for the
redevelopment of 25-29 Longueville Road, Lane Cove. The proposal involves
the demolition of three (3) existing residential flat buildings and
construction of a new residential development comprising of 40 apartments which
is being assessed separately to this report. As part of the redevelopment
proposal, the existing 900mm wide pedestrian laneway between 25-27 Longueville
Road would be relocated adjacent to 29 Longueville Road, resulting in the
Community having the benefit of a much wider footpath area for access to
Longueville Road from Taylors Lane. The developer would be responsible
for all costs associated with the closure of the existing Laneway, creation of
an easement for a new laneway and construction of a new pathway and
improvements on the site.
This report will recommend that Council
commence community consultation on the proposal to close and relocate the
pedestrian laneway and a further report be provided to Council on the outcomes
of the consultation and for determining whether to support the proposal and
make application to NSW Department of Primary Industry-Lands, to formally close
the existing laneway.
Background
The Lane Cove Partnership, the developers
who are proposing the redevelopment of 25-29 Longueville Road, Lane Cove
propose as part of the redevelopment of the site that in return for the closure
of the existing pedestrian footpath between 25-27 Longueville Road. The
Partnership will:-
1. Provide Council with an easement (the easement) in
perpetuity over an area of land which will be 6 metres wide running along the
length of the Western boundary of No. 29 Longueville Road, Lane Cove which is
owned by the Partnership; and
2. At its own expense construct a new two (2) metre wide
pedestrian footpath (the footpath) within the easement which will run from the
existing pedestrian footpath on Longueville Road down to a new footpath that
will be constructed within their property fronting Taylors Lane:-
a. The
footpath will be designed and constructed so as to meet the
‘accessibility’ requirements of AS 1428.2. On completion of
construction Council will be provided with ‘as built’ drawings
certified by relevant experts confirming that the gradient along the foot path
complies with AS 1428.2;
b. The
footpath will be provided with lighting to a relevant standard which will be
installed at the Partnership’s cost and maintained on an ongoing basis by
the Partnership or its successors in title once a strata plan has been
registered for the development;
c. The
easement will be landscaped to have the appearance of a ‘park’ so
as to provide a pleasant aspect for users of the footpath and for the
community; and
d. The
easement to be incorporated within the required building setback in accordance
with Council’s DCP.
The proposal is illustrated at AT-1
of this Report.
Discussion
The existing pedestrian laneway connecting
Taylors Lane with Longueville Road is quite narrow being approximately 900mm
wide, does not meet DDA requirements, has poor lighting and is potentially
unsafe for pedestrians particularly at night.
The proposed relocated laneway would
provide a better community outcome through a wider passage of 6m including a 2m
wide pedestrian footpath, a ramp at the Longueville Road end to meet DDA
compliance, enhanced lighting to Council’s satisfaction and integration
with the landscaping of the proposed adjoining new development.
It is acknowledged that the relocation of
the laneway will create a ‘dog-leg’ in the path of travel which
commences in Helen Street. However the destination for laneway users is
predominately the Bus Interchange ant the reconfiguration adds no distance to
the journey whilst greatly improving the amenity and safety for users.
Once established, the owners corporation
for the new development will be responsible for the future maintenance and
improvements to the pedestrian path and adjoining landscaped area as well as
any liability issues. Council’s and the communities interest will be
protected by an easement incorporating a pedestrian right of way through the
site. A draft deed has been prepared to ensure delivery and to cover
Council’s interest in the proposal, which is subject to development
consent being obtained for the redevelopment.
To facilitate the closure of the existing
pedestrian laneway, in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
between Council and the NSW Department of Industry – Lands who are the
ultimate consent authority for the closure of roads and laneways under the Roads
Act, it will be necessary for Council to initially consult the community on
the proposal. Consultation includes placing an advertisement in a local
newspaper, providing notice to all adjoining owners and other properties deemed
to be affected by the proposal, notices placed on either end of the existing
laneway and serving notices on all agencies affected by the closure. Following
the community consultation period, any comments and objections must be reported
back to Council for consideration in determining whether to support the
proposal and make application to the NSW Department of Industry-Lands to close
the existing laneway in determination of the proposal.
Community Consultation
Statement of Intent
The consultation is designed to seek public
opinion on the proposal to close the existing laneway and replace it with a new
pedestrian laneway as outlined in this report. Any comments received will be
reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with an
application to the Department of Industry-Lands to close the existing laneway.
Method
|
Level of Participation
|
Inform
|
Inform
|
Consult
|
|
Form of Participation
|
Open
|
Targeted
|
Open
|
|
Target Audience
|
Lane Cove Community
|
Adjoining and surrounding residents and
any affected agencies.
|
Lane Cove Community
|
|
Proposed Medium
|
Advertisement
and
eNewsletter
|
Notification
Letters and
Letterbox
Drop
|
Website
Exhibition
|
|
Indicative Timing
|
6 weeks
|
6 weeks
|
6 weeks
|
Conclusion
The proposed closure and relocation of the
pedestrian laneway potentially provides a more accessible, safer and attractive
landscaped outcome for the community. However, it is necessary to consult the
community and any affected agencies prior to determining the proposal and to
making a formal application to close the existing laneway.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:-
1. Receive and note the information;
2. Proceed with public notification to close the
laneway between 25-27 Longueville Road, Lane Cove at AT-1 in
accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding dated April 2006 with the NSW
Department of Primary Industry-Lands; and
3. Following public consultation, receive a further
report outlining the submissions received with respect to the proposed
laneway closure and for determining whether to proceed with an application to
NSW Department of Primary Industry-Lands.
|
Craig Dalli
Executive Manager - Corporate Services
Corporate Services Division
ATTACHMENTS:
|
AT‑1View
|
Plan Highlighting Proposal Including
Existing Laneway between 25-29 Longueville Road, Lane Cove
|
1 Page
|
|
Ordinary Council Meeting 10 October 2016
Mechanical
Street Sweeping Tender
Subject: Mechanical Street Sweeping Tender
Record No: SU4228 - 56979/16
Division: Corporate Services
Division
Author(s): Kirsty
Beram
Executive Summary
Council called for tenders in accordance
with Council’s Tender and Quotation Procedure for the provision of Mechanical
Street Sweeping for a period of up to 5 years. This
report provides details on the tender process conducted and recommends that the
tender from Environmental Waste Water Catchment Services Pty Ltd (trading as Enviro
Sweep) be accepted.
Background
Council for many
years has used a contractor to provide Mechanical Street Sweeping of its roads
due to the cost of purchasing, replacing and maintaining the street sweeping
equipment as well as the additional staffing costs. The contractor daily
sweeps the Lane Cove CBD as well as the St Leonards shops in the Lane Cove
area. In addition, all other council roads are swept on a 10 day rotating
basis. Council staff work closely with the contractor to ensure all
streets are swept to council’s specifications and provide hand sweeping
to complement the work of the mechanical street sweeper.
A tender
specification was prepared detailing the schedule of work, hours of work,
safety requirements and reporting requirements. To ensure the contractor
is sweeping the required areas, Council included in the tender specification
the requirement for the sweepers to be fitted with a GPS device so that online
reports can be produced. These reports will not only provide real time
data (i.e. the current position of the street sweeper) but historical data
which will show the route taken by the street sweeper and the dates and times
of when streets are swept.
The
specification outlined that the tender submissions would be assessed based on
the following weighted criteria:-
Price 40%:- Based on the Tender Price and schedule of rates provided in the
mandatory schedules. The bids were scored based on a
pro rata difference in prices submitted, with the lowest price receiving a
score of 10/10.
Capacity 20%:- Refers to the Tenderer demonstrating sufficient capability and capacity
to carry out the services required, ensuring the
desired project outcomes are completed for the project in the specified time
and to the standard required.
To achieve the
maximum score the tenderer is to have provided full details of the personnel and
equipment to be used to carry out the work, details on the management structure
of the company, evidence of financial capacity, details of proposed methods of
service delivery, any initiatives and continuous
improvement programs and contingency plans to cover
downtime and other unforeseen circumstances.
Experience
20%:- Refers to the demonstrated ability of the tenderer and its personnel, including management and
supervisors and the experience of any sub-contractors to be used.
To achieve the maximum score the tenderer is to have relevant
experience, technical expertise, qualifications to
carry out the contractor's obligations under the Contract, experience with
contracts of a similar nature with other NSW Councils, and
positive reference checks.
Work, Health
& Safety (15%): Refers to the Tenderers commitment to and compliance with the Work Health & Safety
legislation. To achieve a maximum score tenderers are to provide details in
their submission that they have in place adequate Work,
Health and Safety policies and procedures, Quality Assurance Programs, all
relevant insurances, and Safe Work Method Statements.
Sustainability
and Environment 5%:- Sustainability and Environment
Assessment refers to the manner in which environmental issues are to be
appropriately addressed. Including commitment to due diligence and the
principles of ecological sustainability and environmental legislation and
documentation outlining past performance in regard to environment protection
and enhancement initiatives.
To achieve the
maximum score the tenderer is to have answered yes to all applicable questions
in the Environmental Survey included in the specification and provided details
of relevant environmental policies and procedures.
Discussion
Council advertised
the tender in the Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday, 9 August 2016 and the North
Shore Times on Thursday, 11 August 2016. Tenders closed at 2pm on
Tuesday, 30 August 2016 and Council received six (6) submissions.
The tender evaluation panel consisted of
Council’s Manager – Civic Services, Manager – Assets and
Manager – Governance.
Each tender was
assessed based on the above weighted criteria and ranked accordingly:-
|
Company
|
Price (40%)
|
Capacity (20%)
|
Experience (20%)
|
WH&S (15%)
|
Sustainability (5%)
|
Rank
|
|
Citywide
|
|
Equal Preferred
|
|
|
Preferred
|
4
|
|
Enviro Sweep
|
|
Equal Preferred
|
|
Preferred
|
|
1
|
|
Raygal Pty Ltd
|
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
Roadworx
|
|
|
Preferred
|
|
|
3
|
|
Specialised Pavement Services
|
Preferred
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
Watercart & Roadsweeping Works
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Conclusion
A confidential
memorandum has been circulated separately to Councillors detailing the prices
submitted by each tenderer, how each of the weighted criteria was assessed and
details of the reference checks undertaken of the recommended tenderer.
Having recorded
the highest score across all the weighted criteria and given that positive
reference checks were received about the quality and reliability of their work,
the Tender Assessment Panel recommends:-
1. The tender for the provision of Mechanical Street Sweeping
for a period of up to 5 years be awarded to Environmental
Waste Water Catchment Services Pty Ltd trading as Enviro Sweep for an amount of up to $1,177,600; and
2. The General Manager be authorised to enter into a contract with them.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That:-
1. The tender for the
provision of Mechanical Street Sweeping for a period of up to 5 years be awarded to Environmental Waste Water Catchment Services Pty
Ltd trading as Enviro Sweep for an amount of
up to $1,177,600; and
2. The General Manager be authorised to enter into
contract with Environmental Waste Water Catchment
Services Pty Ltd.
|
Craig Dalli
Executive Manager - Corporate Services
Corporate Services Division
ATTACHMENTS:
There are no supporting documents for this
report.
Ordinary Council Meeting 10 October 2016
Traffic
Committee - September 2016
Subject: Traffic Committee - September 2016
Record No: SU1326 - 61940/16
Division: Open Space and
Urban Services Division
Author(s): Abdullah
Uddin
Executive Summary
The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday,
27 September 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, 27 September 2016.
|
Abdullah Uddin
Manager - Traffic and Transport
Open Space and Urban Services Division
ATTACHMENTS:
|
AT‑1View
|
Agenda - Traffic Committee- September
2016
|
18 Pages
|
|
|
AT‑2View
|
Minutes - Traffic Committee - September
2016
|
18 Pages
|
|
Ordinary Council Meeting 10 October 2016
Changes to
Joint Regional Planning Panel
Subject: Changes to Joint Regional Planning Panel
Record No: SU1802 - 62094/16
Division: Environmental
Services Division
Author(s): Rajiv
Shankar
Executive Summary
The report outlines amendments to the JRPP
process and functions for major developments and planning proposals. From
21 November 2016 the new Sydney Planning Panels will commence, it is
recommended Council’s existing JRPP representatives be nominated for the
panel.
Background
Development Applications are
referred to the Joint Regional Planning Panel as per Schedule
4A of Environmental Planning
and Assessment Act 1979. These applications include:-
· Developments
which have a capital investment value of greater than $20 million;
· Council related
developments which have a capital investment value of
greater than $5 million;
· Private
infrastructure and community facilities which have a capital
investment value of greater than $5 million. This would include child care
centres.
The Panel constitutes three (3) members
appointed by the Department of Planning as State members and two Council
nominated members.
Discussion
JRPP Panel
Members
Mr John Roseth, Ms Sue Francis and Ms
Nicole Gurren have been appointed as State members for the Sydney East Joint
Regional Planning Panel ending on the 20 November 2016. From 21 November
2016 the new Sydney Planning Panels will commence, when it is anticipated that
the District Commissioner Ms Deborah Dearing will take on the role of Chair of
the panel.
Council members for the new Sydney Planning
Panel are to be nominated no later than 20 November 2016. It is proposed
to re-nominate Council’s existing JRPP representatives, Councillor Scott
Bennison, with Councillor Marc Gold as alternate and Planning Consultant, Mr
Eugene Sarich (Mr Sarich also sits on Council’s IHAP).
JRPP Code of
Conduct Amendments – Conflict of Interest
Amendments to the JRPP Code of Conduct have
been introduced requiring any Councillor who has deliberated or voted on a
matter (including a planning proposal, voluntary planning agreement) in their
role at Council to stand aside. The new clause is as follows:
3.22 Councillors
who have deliberated or voted on a matter (including a planning proposal,
voluntary planning agreement or to make a submission to the panel on a DA for
regional development) in their role at council and that matter, or a related
matter, subsequently comes before the panel, are to stand aside from their
place on the panel, and allow council’s nominated alternative member to
take their place, to avoid any perceptions of bias or pre-judgement.
This amendment follows concerns raised by
Council as to the lack of clarity on this issue.
Amendments
to Appeals on Planning Proposals
A new review process for Planning Proposals
has been introduced to “(formerly pre-Gateway review) to increase
independence and transparency, and to focus reviews on a strengthened strategic
merit test.” The new process will be undertaken directly by the Regional
Planning Panels under the Greater Sydney Commission Act.
The proponent may ask for a rezoning review
if the Council has not supported the request to prepare a planning proposal or
not prepared the planning proposal in a timely manner. Of note is the
introduction of guidance to undertake a strategic merit test as follows:-
“The
relevant Planning Panel or Commission will undertake a strategic and
site-specific merit assessment of rezoning review proposals...
The key
factor in determining whether a proposal should proceed to a Gateway
determination should be its strategic merit. The Department has strengthened
the Strategic Merit Test and proposals will now be assessed to determine if
they are:
· consistent with the relevant regional plan outside of the Greater
Sydney Region, the relevant district plan within the Greater Sydney Region, or
corridor/precinct plans applying to the site, including any draft regional,
district or corridor/precinct plans released for public comment; or
· consistent with a relevant local strategy that has been endorsed by
the Department; or
· responding to a change in circumstances, such as the investment in
new infrastructure or changing demographic trends that have not been recognised
by existing planning controls.
A proposal
that seeks to amend controls that are less than 5 years old will only be
considered where it clearly meets the Strategic Merit Test……
Having met
the Strategic Merit Test, the relevant Planning Panel or the Commission must
then determine if the proposal has site-specific merit, having regard to:
· the natural environment (including known significant environmental
values, resources or hazards);
· the existing uses, approved uses and likely future uses of land in
the vicinity of the land subject to the proposal; and
· the services and infrastructure that are or will be available to
meet the demands arising from the proposal and any proposed financial
arrangements for infrastructure provision.
Proposals
that do not reasonably meet the assessment criteria above in the opinion of the
Planning Panel or Commission will not be able to proceed to a Gateway
determination.”
|
RECOMMENDATION
That the report be received and noted and
Council nominate its existing JRPP representatives to the new Sydney Planning
Panel.
|
Michael Mason
Executive Manager
Environmental Services Division
ATTACHMENTS:
There are no supporting documents for this
report.
Ordinary Council Meeting 10 October 2016
2016 Festival
by the River
Subject: 2016
Festival by the River
Record No: SU4985 - 61852/16
Division: Human Services
Division
Author(s): Corinne Dickinson
Executive Summary
This year’s Festival by the River
will take place during the first two weeks of November. The 2016 program
features the signature Food and Wine by the River event, community events such
as the Greenwich Arts Trail as well as activities connecting Greenwich Sailing
Club, Lane Cove River Kayakers and North Shore Rowing with the community. A
total of 14 community and Council-run events will take place from 1 – 13
November.
Background
In 2015 Lane Cove’s inaugural
Festival by the River was designed to help celebrate life on the Lane Cove and
Parramatta Rivers. It provides an opportunity to connect recreational groups
along the river with the community as well as run complementary Council activities
that help to showcase the important role the river plays in our community.
Discussion
This year’s Festival builds on the
success of the 2015 events with new activities including the Screen on the
Green event, Greenwich Arts Trail, History Talk and Centenary Celebrations at
Greenwich Baths.
Popular activities such as Aboriginal
Astronomy, the River Cruise and Fishing Expo are being included to provide
opportunities to those who missed the opportunity to attend last year.
Greenwich Sailing Club have expanded their event offering to include a Come and
Try Sailing session and Council has established a connection with Lane Cove
River Kayakers.
It is expected that advanced Festival
promotion at the upcoming Village Fair as well as the increased profile of the
Food and Wine by the River event on Channel Seven’s Sydney Weekender will
ensure another successful year of this newly established Festival.
Conclusion
Lane Cove’s Festival by the River
will take place from 1 – 13 November 2016.
|
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 10 October 2016
Pecuniary
Interest Returns 2016
Subject: Pecuniary
Interest Returns 2016
Record No: SU2095 - 60998/16
Division: Corporate
Services Division
Author(s): Kirsty
Beram
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to table the Pecuniary
Interest Returns of Designated Staff and Councillors as required by the Local
Government Act 1993. This report recommends that Council notes the
tabling of these returns.
Discussion
Section 449(3) of the Local Government Act 1993 (“LG
Act”) requires Designated Staff and Councillors holding these positions
as of 30 June 2016 to lodge a “Disclosures by Councillors and Designated
Persons Return” to the General Manager by 30 September 2016.
Conclusion
All returns for Designated Staff and Councillors in office
as at 30 June 2016 have been submitted.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the tabling of Pecuniary Interest
Returns of Designated Staff and Councillors for the return period 1 July 2015
till 30 June 2016.
|
Craig Dalli
Executive Manager - Corporate Services
Corporate Services Division
ATTACHMENTS:
There are no supporting documents for this
report.