Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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 10 October 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 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.