Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

20 March 2017

The meeting commences at 6.30pm. If members of the public are

not interested in any business recommended to be considered in

Closed Session or there is no such business, Council will ordinarily

  commence consideration of all other business at 7pm.

 

LC_WebBanner


 

Notice of Meeting

 

Dear Councillors

 

Notice is given of the Ordinary Council Meeting, to be held in the Council Chambers, 48 Longueville Road Lane Cove on Monday 20 March 2017 commencing at 6:30pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Craig - GMYours faithfully

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

 

Council Meeting Procedures

 

The Council meeting is chaired by the Mayor, Councillor Deborah Hutchens. Councillors are entitled to one vote on a matter. If votes are equal, the Chairperson has a second or casting vote. When a majority of Councillors vote in favour of a Motion it becomes a decision of the Council. Minutes of Council and Committee meetings are published on Council’s website www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au by 5pm on the Thursday following the meeting.

 

The Meeting is conducted in accordance with Council's Code of Meeting Practice. The order of business is listed in the Agenda on the next page. That order will be followed unless Council resolves to modify the order at the meeting. This may occur for example where the members of the public in attendance are interested in specific items on the agenda.

 

Members of the public may address the Council Meeting on any issue for a maximum of 3 minutes during the public forum which is held at the beginning of the meeting. All persons addressing the Meeting must speak to the Chair. Speakers and Councillors will not enter into general debate or ask questions.

 

If you do not understand any part of the information given above; require assistance to participate in the meeting due to a disability; or wish to obtain information in relation to Council, please contact Council’s Executive Manager - Corporate Services on 99113511.

 

Please note meetings held in the Council Chambers are recorded on tape for the purposes of verifying the accuracy of minutes and the tapes are not disclosed to any third party under the Government Information (Public Access)  Act 2009, except as allowed under section 18(1) or section 19(1) of the PPIP Act, or where Council is compelled to do so by court order, warrant or subpoena or by any other legislation.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council 20 March 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

MATTERS RECOMMENDED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER TO BE CONSIDERED IN CLOSED COMMITTEE

 

public forum

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 20 FEBRUARY 2017

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

2.       Mayoral Minute - Use of the Council Civic Centre by Political and Lobby Groups

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

3.       Housekeeping LEP Amendments: Planning Proposal 24 - Post Consultation report

 

4.       Proposal to Remove Two Covenants - 2 Zeta Road, Lane Cove

 

5.       Implementation of Legislation to manage Boat Trailer Parking

 

6.       Draft North District Plan - Review

 

7.       Changes to the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act - Review

 

8.       Proposed Partial Road Closure – Rosenthal Car Park Development

 

9.       2017/2018 Draft Budget, Fees and Charges and Delivery Program and Operational Plan

 

10.     NSROC Constitution Amendment

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

11.     Council Snapshot  

 

 

 

         


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 March 2017

Mayoral Minute - Use of the Council Civic Centre by Political and Lobby Groups

 

 

Subject:          Mayoral Minute - Use of the Council Civic Centre by Political and Lobby Groups    

Record No:    SU3104 - 14899/17

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Deborah Hutchens 

 

 

                                                              

Councillors, from time to time groups with political connections and/or lobby groups hire the Cove Room in the Civic Centre for events.  Based on comments from members of the community I am concerned that the advertising of these events can lead to confusion in the community that they are Council endorsed events.

 

It is important that the Council and the Civic Centre be identified in the community as being a-political.  This is particularly important given the NSW Electoral Commission utilises the Cove Room as a designated polling place for State and Council elections and therefore such confusion is not desirable. 

 

Council has other alternate venues which are more than suitable for such uses, particularly the new Terrace Function room in the Pottery Lane Development and there use would not cause confusion as to Council’s involvement.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council not hire any meeting spaces within the Civic Centre, 48 Longueville Road, Lane Cove to groups with political connections and/or lobby groups.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Deborah Hutchens

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

            


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 March 2017

Housekeeping LEP Amendments: Planning Proposal 24 - Post Consultation report

 

 

Subject:          Housekeeping LEP Amendments: Planning Proposal 24 - Post Consultation report    

Record No:    SU5918 - 6645/17

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Christopher Pelcz; Terry Tredrea 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At its meeting in December 2015, Council resolved to proceed with a number of ‘housekeeping style’ amendments to its Local Environmental Plan.

 

A Gateway Determination was issued, by NSW Planning & Environment, on 6 July 2016 with requests for further information and amendments prior to public exhibition. These were provided and confirmed, by the Department, as suitable for public exhibition.

 

Delegation for this proposal was issued to Council for these amendments.

 

Public exhibition of the draft amendments has now concluded, the public submissions have been collated and a summary of the issues have been provided in this report.

 

The draft LEP amendments included:

 

·         Environmental Protection for 14 Gay Street

·         Land reserved for Acquisition in Longueville

·         Excluding access handle of battle axe lot from FSR calculations

·         Prohibit strata subdivision of dual occupancies

·         Amend the LEP Height of buildings objectives regarding solar access, privacy and visual impacts

·         Remove nominated items from the Environmental Heritage Schedule

·         Allow development near zone boundaries in certain circumstances

·         Amend the Acid Sulfate Soils clause

·         Correct various mapping anomalies at 40A Cope Street, and 3 Dunois Street

·         Update Land Use Tables of zones IN2 and R4 to include other identified uses.

 

It is recommended, having regard to the issues addressed in this report, that Council:

 

·         Accepts the changes to the proposal, requested by NSW Planning & Environment;

·         Approves the amended Planning Proposal 24: Housekeeping Amendment for finalisation; and

·         Request, to NSW Planning & Environment, that Council exercise its delegated authority to finalise and give effect to these amendments.

 

Background

 

A report was presented to Council in July 2015 proposing to make amendments to LEP 2009 on such matters as zone boundaries, dual occupancies, road reservations, heritage listings, editing of text and mapping historical anomalies, mis-alignment of floor space and height controls and other matters.

 

Council resolved to defer the matter pending further consideration at a Councillor Workshop in September 2015. 

 

Following the Councillor Workshop, a final report was presented to Council at the December 2015 Ordinary Council Meeting (AT-1 & AT-2) where Council resolved to adopt a range of proposed amendments (AT-3) for the purpose of public exhibition subject to approval from NSW Planning and Environment. 

 

A Gateway Determination (AT-4) from NSW Planning & Environment was issued on 6 July 2015 supporting the overall intent of the LEP amendments.

 

However, in its assessment (AT-5), the Department requested some additional clarification and amendments prior to public exhibition. Council’s response (AT-6) was submitted and confirmed as satisfactory in advice to Council on 24 August 2016. These changes are summarised below.

 

Changes to proposal

 

The amendments requested by the Gateway are summarised under four categories:

 

a)    Supported with variation

b)    Supported with further justification/consultation

c)    Deferred

d)    No alteration

 

a)         Supported with variation

 

1.    Prohibition of strata subdivision of dual occupancies

 

Council’s previous clause requested that its proposed prohibition be excluded from the use of LEP clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards. The Department advised that given that the above is a prohibition clause – no further LEP clauses are required.

 

2.    Amend the LEP Height of buildings objectives

 

The Department opposed Council’s original wording on the basis that it believed the wording strongly favoured new development at the expense of its impact on existing properties. Council was then required to strengthen the proposed amendment in relation to amenity and overshadowing impacts of new development on existing properties. The revised objectives stated:

 

(a)  to ensure development allows for reasonable solar access to existing buildings and public areas, and

(b)  to ensure development allows for reasonable privacy and visual impacts of development on neighboring properties, particularly where zones meet, and

(c)  seek alternative design solutions in order to maximise the potential sunlight for the public domain, where possible, and

(d)  to relate development to topography.

 

It was agreed that based on the Department’s comments, this new proposed clause achieves a careful balance between new and proposed development while retaining the intent of the original LEP Height objectives. The use of the word ‘reasonable’ is consistent with the existing amenity & solar access provisions in Council’s Development Control Plan.

 

3.    Amend the "Floor Space Ratio" clause to exclude the access handle area of a battle-axe lot from FSR calculations

 

The Department requested that this clause was required to specify which zones would be affected. Based on the Department’s comments, Council has now specified that this draft clause will only apply to residential zones.

 

4.    Adopt a new LEP Clause 5.3 to allow development near zone boundaries in certain circumstances

 

Council’s original amendment did not specify which zones and proposed distances would be affected by this draft clause. Council was also required to adopt the proposed clause in its entirety as specified in the Standard Instrument – Principal Local Environmental Plan.

 

As a result, the draft clause was included in its entirety with the affected zones and proposed distances. That is, 15 metres between lots zoned B3 Commercial Core and B4 Mixed Use.

 

5.    Amend the "Acid Sulfate Soils" clause to ensure consistency with the Standard Instrument provisions

 

Although Council’s proposed amendment was very minor, the Department advised that further changes to the clause were required – as it did not comply with Standard Instrument provisions. The amendment was changed to reflect this.

 

b)         Supported with further justification/consultation with landowner

 

1.    Adding permissible uses in the IN2 Light Industrial zone

 

The Department required further information from Council, justifying the proposed additional land uses. While Council’s response to each individual land use is provided in AT-6, it was considered that the proposed land uses were consistent with the definition and objectives of the Light Industrial zone.

 

2.    Reserve existing portions of Environmental Conservation land in Longueville for acquisition

 

The Gateway Determination required that individual property owners of Dettmann Avenue (3A, 5A, & 7) and 41 Stuart Street, Longueville be directly consulted on the proposed amendment.

Council consulted each property owner on an individual basis via letter. The issues that were raised are provided in the Discussion section of this report.

 

3.    Inclusion of a portion of land at 14 Gay Street on the Environmental Protection land map

 

In addition to consultation with the landowners, Council was required to further justify this amendment. This amendment was to be applied to the rear portion of 14 Gay Street, as seen below.

 

 

The request for the ‘Environmental Protection Land’ area, was the result of the study: Native Vegetation of the Lane Cove Council Local Government Area (AT-7), prepared for Council in 2010. It identified that the areas surrounding 14 Gay Street (see map below) contained: Coastal Escarpment Littoral Rainforest; Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest; and Blue Gum High Forest.

 

 

All three species are listed as an Endangered Ecological Community under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. While both Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest, and Blue Gum High Forest are listed as Critically Endangered Ecological Community under the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

 

As a result, the study recommended the following conservation priority and possible management measures:-

 

 

Priority

Vegetation Community

Rationale and comments

High

Blue Gum High Forest

Upper Stringybark Creek, Bluegum Reserve and other areas containing stands of Blue Gum are of conservation significance.

 

The Blue Gum/Blackbutt stand directly upstream of the bushland reserve on Upper Stringybark Creek represents a potential area to increase the extent of BGHF in the LGA.

 

It is recommended to explore areas of privately owned land for possible EEC enhancement (e.g. upstream of Bluegum Reserve).

High

Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest

As above, it is recommended that Council explore opportunities to expand the extent of the EEC on parkland and private land by enhancing remnants in these areas.

 

Based on this study, it is clear that development could result in irreparable damage to the viability of the reserve’s flora and fauna and destruction of the wildlife corridor currently running through the southern half of the property. In addition, given its proximity to these existing vegetation communities, it is highly likely that both Sydney Turpentine’s and Blue Gum are located within 14 Gay Street.

 

The owner’s submission is addressed in the Discussion section of this report.

 

c)         Deferred

 

1.    Correct mapping anomalies – ‘Small lots’ Floor Space Ratio changes for R2 Low Density Residential Zones

 

At the time of the draft comprehensive LEP, Council sought to maintain its relatively consistent residential subdivision pattern across Lane Cove’s proposed R2 Low Density Residential zones.

 

To achieve this, these areas were to be mapped with a standard FSR of 0.5:1 and applied to low density sites with a minimum lot size of 550 sqm. That is, low density residential lots that were 550 sqm (or greater) were given an FSR of 0.5:1. Lots that were smaller than this lot size were designated with a standard FSR of 0.6:1 – the purpose of this was to allow relatively consistent level of development potential. 

 

Through Council’s LEP review process, it identified various properties in Zone R2 Low Density Residential that were mapped at FSR 0.6:1 while neighbouring properties (of the same size) were mapped at FSR 0.5:1. Therefore, the draft Planning Proposal sought to correct this mapping anomaly to ensure compatible building bulk and streetscape.

 

At the time, following Council’s December 2015 resolution, it was believed that this anomaly was only contained to a certain number of properties. Further examination has revealed that this is not the case and requires further review at a later stage. For this reason, Council staff requested that this particular amendment be deferred to a later ‘Housekeeping’ Planning Proposal.

 

d)         No alterations

 

1.    Removing nominated items from the Environmental Heritage Schedule; and

2.    Correcting various mapping anomalies on nominated sites.

 


 

Public Exhibition

 

The Planning Proposal was amended to include supporting studies, maps and further justifications from Council.

 

It is important to note that some of the amendments affected the entire Local Government Area. As a result it was considered impractical to notify every affected resident/business owner via letter of these amendments. Instead, notification letters were sent to registered community associations and groups including Lane Cove West Business Association, Chamber of Commerce, Local Society groups, Resident Associations, Action Groups and adjoining Council’s.

 

Council undertook extensive consultation with the community using a variety of consultation methods, during an eight-week period of Council’s Consultation Policy:-

 

·         Advertisement in the North Shore Times;

·         An e-newsletter distributed to registered residents;

·         A notice of the proposal (via letters) was distributed to

·         Affected property owners (affected by smaller scale individual items),

·         Registered Community groups/associations,

·         Government Agencies,

·         Adjoining Local Government Areas,

·         An additional notice to owners in Longueville affected by Land Acquisition;

·         On-line exhibition on Council’s website; and

·         Hard copy documents for viewing at Council’s Civic Centre, Lane Cove & Greenwich Libraries.

 

It was publicly exhibited from 17 November 2016 to 12 January 2017. The Department’s required exhibition period is 28 days.

 

Notification was sent to the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, as required by the Gateway. Further notification of residents occurred in accordance with the NSW Planning & Environment’s A guide to preparing local environmental plans, Gateway Determination and Council’s endorsed consultation plan.

 

A total of 22 submissions were received, including those from North Sydney Council (who raised no objection), and NSW Heritage Council (discussed below). One petition with 24 signatories was also received on an item that was not included in the original planning proposal – this will be discussed later.

 

Copies of the submissions have been circulated to Councillors electronically, and the issues are summarised below.

 

Discussion

 

Key issues raised in public submissions related in particular to the following items:-

 

·         Applying an Environmental Protection layer to 14 Gay Street;

·         Reserving land in Longueville for acquisition; and

·         Amending the "Floor Space Ratio" clause to exclude the access handle area of a battle-axe lot from FSR calculations; and

·         Consultation period.

 

Additional comments were received on the following matters:

 

·         Removing nominated items from the Environmental Heritage Schedule;

·         Correcting various mapping anomalies on nominated sites; and

·         Further proposals for rezonings.

 

Issues raised

 

Submissions – Environmental Protection for 14 Gay Street

 

Several submissions were received on this matter, most of which supported the Environmental Protection layer.

 

However, the owners of the property are concerned that the potential effect of the amendment could result in:

 

·         Losing access to (about half) of the property,

·         Further loss of development potential – as the ‘developable area’ is only a suggestion and does not reflect the true development potential or complexities of the site.

 

It is suggested by the owners’ executor that rather than apply an Environmental Protection layer to the rear of the property, that Council purchase the land.

 

Comment

 

As explained in the ‘Changes to the Proposal’ section, the proposed Environmental Protection layer was to be applied to the rear portion of 14 Gay Street. This was due to the likely presence of Sydney Turpentine’s or Blue Gum High forests within the property.

 

To achieve this, Council resolved (in December 2015) to amend its ‘Environmental Protection Land’ map to reflect this proposed boundary – shown below.

 

Proposed Environmental Protection area (seen in green hatching)

The reasons for applying an Environmental Protection layer to the rear, was to achieve a fair and balanced outcome between the development potential and environmental protection of the site.

 

It is important to note that this proposal:

 

·         does not change the property’s existing residential zoning, permissible floor space ratio or maximum building height;

·         The site has an area of 2,790m2 in total. Excluding the Environmental Protection Land which would leave a developable area of around 1,500m2;

·         restricts the protection layer to the rear of the site where the steepest part of the property is located;

·         seeks to protect the wildlife corridor immediately adjoining Stringybark Creek;

·         is consistent with Council’s Bushland policies; and

·         seeks to protect an endangered ecological community.

 

Therefore, the proposed Environmental Protection Land would not unnecessarily or unreasonably impact upon the development potential of the site.

 

This proposal could potentially allow future acquisition of this portion of land at some point; however any type of acquisition would need to be discussed with the owners and pursued in accordance with the NSW Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991.

 

Recommendation

 

The amendment is recommended to proceed, given that it doesn’t unnecessarily or unreasonably restrict the development potential of the site.

 

Submissions – Land reserved for Acquisition in Longueville

 

Council received three submissions from individual owners affected by this amendment. Both questioned the nature, need for and validity of this amendment. It is claimed that this amendment will significantly devalue properties and make sale severely difficult.

 

Comment

 

The portions of land proposed for acquisition are shown below. The acquisition only relates to the existing E2 Environmental Conservation zone at the rear of each property.

Properties proposed for Acquisition

 

These properties have been planned and zoned for open space and environmental conservation, since, at least, the County of Cumberland plan in 1956.

 

Since then, extracts from maps dating from between 1956 to 2010 (AT-8) show a strong continual effort by Council and State Government agencies to preserve these areas for environmental purposes and foreshore public access.

 

The western end of these sites has been identified in plans since the 1950s for environmental protection within a line of vegetation extending between Cowper St and Stuart St and adjoining Council’s reserve, including mangroves near the high water line.

 

From 1987 until 2010, the land was zoned as Regional Open Space Reservation "C". The zoning meant that this area was previously identified for acquisition by the Department of Planning. However, the Department of Planning advised during the drafting of the Draft LEP in 2008 that it no longer intended to acquire the lands to the west of Dettmann Avenue or Stuart Street.

 

Over these decades, Council and State Government agencies have gradually purchased individual sites to provide public with access to the foreshore and preserve and enhance the sensitive environment in this area.

 

It is worth noting that Council either owns or has care, control and management of all the E2 Environmental Conservation zoned sites in this area. The E2 portions of the sites known as 3A, 5A, 7 Dettmann Ave & 41 Stuart St are the last remaining lands that have not yet been acquired.

 

An additional purpose of the acquisition is also to protect the environmental land shown in the map below.

 

Vegetation Community Descriptions (mapped by Storm Consulting)

 

As shown, the sites are adjoining areas of Estuarine Mangrove Forest, Coastal Enriched Sandstone Sheltered Forest and the presence of Salt-marsh. Three out of the four sites also contain Estuarine Swamp Oak Forest – an Endangered Ecological Community under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

 

Although the sites are currently degraded, due to its location adjacent to Warraroon Reserve there is potential for the re-establishment of native vegetation. There is an opportunity for re-seeding from adjacent bushland, with improvement to animal habitat close to Warraroon Reserve.

 

Therefore, this amendment would allow regeneration of this foreshore environment and enhance the area, as well as providing opportunity for future public access.

 

Recommendation

 

In accordance with the Gateway condition, Council has notified the individual owners of its intention to acquire these lands in the future. However during the public exhibition period, some of the individual owners have suggested alternatives to what is proposed.

 

On this basis, it is recommended that Council defer this item and consult directly with the affected owners on an individual basis before this matter is finalised.  

 

Regardless, the current zoning is intended to remain E2 Environmental Conservation as it is supported by independent Council studies.

 

Submissions – Excluding access handle of battle axe lot from FSR calculations

 

It is claimed that existing battle axe properties (with an access handle) would be affected as it would reduce the development potential that was previously permitted, affecting its resale. Conversely, it is argued that such a reduction would affect the calculation of rates and taxes on that property.

 

Two submissions were received in relation to this amendment.

 

Comment

 

As stated in the Planning Proposal, this LEP amendment is re-instating and restoring the former policy that was in Council’s DCP prior to 2010. Entitled ‘Residential Zones Development Control Plan’, the policy was in place from at least 1993 until the adoption of its Comprehensive DCP in 2010.

 

Under Part VII Residential subdivision of that DCP, the ‘minimum allotment size’ (page 25) stated:

 

“The minimum area of an allotment created under this Part is 550m². The “access handle” of battleaxe allotments is not counted in the calculation of allotment size”.

 

The original intention was ‘to ensure a house is built in better proportion to a lot and neighbouring lots’. It is also worth noting that the adjoining Willoughby Council have the same clause in their LEP for Zone R2 Low Density Residential and Zone E4 Environmental Living.

 

Therefore the proposed amendments would not directly alter the actual size of the lot, they would just encourage a more consistent, better proportioned built form.

 

Recommendation

 

As it is re-instating a previous Development Control Plan policy and is consistent with adjoining Local Government Areas, this amendment is recommended to proceed.

 

If approved, it is also recommended that Council’s existing Development Control Plan ‘Part C – Residential Development’ be amended to incorporate these changes.

 

Unsolicited Submissions – Consultation period

 

Some submissions questioned the timing of the public exhibition period, particularly over the Christmas holiday period.

 

Comment

 

Council’s public exhibition period occurred when the amended materials, requested by NSW Planning & Environment were ready and declared suitable for public exhibition.

 

Following this, notification material (described above) was prepared and distributed in November 2016. If the proposal was exhibited for six weeks (Council policy) the submission period would have finished in the middle of Council’s Christmas Closure period. As a result, the exhibition period was extended to eight weeks. 

 

The timing of the public exhibition period was co-incidental, and the length of it was in accordance with Council’s consultation plan – endorsed at its 7 December 2015 meeting.

 

Other issues

 

Submission – Removing items from Environmental Heritage Schedule

 

NSW Heritage Council responded to this item by recommending that Council’s decision whether to list or delist items should be based on information about the item in a heritage study or review.

 

Comment

 

All heritage items mentioned in the proposal have had a development application for demolition approved by Council with the exception of the street trees in front of 87-93 Longueville Rd. They were incorrectly mapped as being at the back in Birdwood Lane, they have since died.

 

After the Gateway Determination was issued, an additional heritage item, at 19 King William St, is also required for removal from Schedule 5 and maps. It also had a previous development application for demolition approved by Council and should have been included in this amendment.

 

As stated in their letter, all these items were of local heritage significance, meaning Council is the consent authority. During the DA stage, heritage reports and studies were submitted and they were then assessed by Council, via its independent Heritage Architect, and were found suitable to have their heritage significance removed.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council support the amendment to the Heritage Register and advise the Heritage Council accordingly.

 

Given that each item was assessed by Council at the Development Application stage through heritage reports/studies and via Council’s Heritage Architect and found suitable for removal this issue is adequately addressed.

 

However, Council can provide the reports if required to NSW Heritage Council. 

 

Submission – Correcting various mapping anomalies

 

One submission related the correction of FSR & Height of Buildings maps for 40A Cope Street. While it supported the mapping change, it claimed that the same change should be extended up to Caroline Chisholm Lane.

 

Comment

 

The Planning Proposal is only seeking to align the FSR & Height boundaries with the correct property boundaries for this site. 

 

As AT-9 shows, the existing anomaly only applies to a small amount of land towards the rear of the lot. This is the property boundary between the Caroline Chisholm Manor (east side) and the Caroline Chisholm Lodge (west side), which does not correspond with the FSR and Height (HOB) boundaries.

It is claimed that these properties should be considered as one site (due to an existing right-of-way) and that the FSR & Height changes proposed should be applied across both the Manor (east side) & Lodge (west side).

 

Recommendation

 

In addition to it being beyond the scope of the LEP Planning Proposal, this proposed extension is not considered to be appropriate. The property boundaries of the Caroline Chisholm Retirement Village site are clearly, and separately, defined through its subdivision pattern. As a result, these properties cannot be considered as one site, they must be considered as separate properties. Each property with its own relative FSR and height restriction in place according to the desired built form.

 

Council’s amendment is correcting a cartographic error and forms a minor re-aligning of FSR and Height boundaries with the correct relevant property boundaries. As the request would be extending the changes over separate properties without broader policy considerations such as traffic, amenity, built form etc, it cannot be supported.

 

Submissions – Proposals for rezoning (not part of the exhibited Planning Proposal)

 

During the exhibition period, two requests for rezoning were received. One was site-specific while the other was a large precinct.

 

Comment

 

Firstly, owners near Charlish Park have requested a change of zoning to permit greater density on the site, comparable to the nearby R4 High Density Residential zone. No reasons or justifications have been provided.

 

Despite this, such a proposal is not consistent with the intent of this LEP amendment which is only to correct minor errors within the LEP document. During the comprehensive LEP consultation in 2008 – 2009, only the area fronting Burns Bay Road was zoned R4 High Density Residential to acknowledge the existing residential flats. 

 

Secondly, some residents of the precinct (see map below) bounded by Roslyn Avenue, Mowbray Road West, and Gay Street have requested a change of zoning to increase density levels in this area.

 

 

This area lies just outside the existing Mowbray Road High Density Residential Precinct. It sits between two existing R4 High Density Residential Zones on either side. The scale of the existing Residential Flat Buildings is shown in Photo A (looking towards Centennial Avenue) and Photo B (looking towards Roslyn Street).

 

Photo A (taken from Google Street view)

 

Photo B (taken from Google Street view)

 

Council’s current LEP controls for these flats are a Floor Space Ratio of 0.8:1 and a building height of 12 metres, this allows for between 3 – 4 storeys. While the existing Low Density Residential zone (houses) allows for an FSR of 0.5:1 and 9.5 metre heights – allowing for 2 storeys.

 

There are currently no plans to redevelop this area any further as Lane Cove Council has already met and exceeded its previous State Government dwelling targets, and is likely to exceed its new dwelling targets proposed by the Greater Sydney Commission.

 

However, the Commission’s Draft North District Plan states that each Local Government Area will need to prepare Local Housing Studies to deliver a range of diverse housing for the future.

 

Recommendation

 

In terms of both requests, neither is a mapping anomaly, an item identified by the original draft LEP amendment and does not contain any planning analysis or justification. Therefore, both requests do not fall within the scope of these amendments and cannot be included or considered as part of this amendment.

 

However, given the Draft North District Plan calls for Council’s to prepare Local Housing Studies to provide a diverse range of housing it is recommended that both requests be investigated in any future Local Housing Study.

 

Overall Conclusion

 

Following requests from NSW Planning & Environment, the Planning Proposal was amended to incorporate their comments and provide additional justifications for some of the items. These were confirmed as suitable for public exhibition.

 

During the public exhibition period objections were received from some individual property owners affected by individual items in the proposal, while others either supported or raised no objections to the amendments.

 

Responses to the submissions have been provided above, however the unsolicited proposed rezoning requests at Charlish Park and Mowbray Road suggested by some of the submissions cannot be supported or included in these amendments for finalisation as:-

 

·         They fall outside the scope of this particular amendment and would require an entirely separate Planning Proposal.

 

Therefore, it is recommended that Council not proceed with the submissions relating to 40A Cope Street, owners near Charlish Park; and Mowbray Road owners. These areas may be considered as part of a broader local housing strategy (as envisaged by the Greater Sydney Commission) and would need to be supported by detailed evidence and planning analysis.

 

It is recommended that Council only proceed with the amendments to the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan as described in AT-10. They include:-

 

1.    Update Land Use Tables of:-

·         IN2 Light Industrial Zone to include ‘animal boarding or training establishment’, ‘medical centre’, ‘vehicle repair station’ and ‘vehicle body repair workshop’ as ‘Permissible with Consent’.

·         R4 High Density Residential Zone to include ‘Restaurants & cafes’ as ‘Permissible with Consent’.

 

2.    Update LEP:- 

·         Clause 4.1 (Minimum Subdivision Lot Size) to include (4B);

·         Clause 4.3 (Height of Buildings) to include new objectives;

·         Clause 4.4 (Floor Space Ratio) to include (2B); and

·         Clause 6.1 (Acid Sulfate Soils) to amend (6)(a).

 

3.    Insert new LEP Clause 5.3 (Development near zone boundaries).

 

4.    Delete the following heritage items from ‘Schedule 5 Environmental Heritage’:-

 

Suburb

Item name

Address

Property description

Significance

Item No.

Greenwich

House

13 Kingslangley Road

Lot 8, Section 6, DP 656213

Local

I89

Greenwich

House

15 Kingslangley Road

Lot 1, Section 6, DP 957741

Local

I90

Greenwich

House

16 Kingslangley Road

Lot 2, DP 310610

Local

I91

Lane Cove

Street Tree Planting

Adjacent to 87–93 Longueville Road

Road reserve

Local

I168

Longueville

House

73 Arabella Street

Lot 6, DP 5005

Local

I228

Northwood

House and garden

62 Northwood Road

Lot 1, DP 826939

Local

I293

Riverview

House

44 College Road South

Lot 7, DP 739156

Local

I317

Greenwich

House

19 King William Street

Lot 2, Section 5, DP 3101

Local

I93

5.    Amend Council’s ‘Environmental Protection Land Map’ to include an 'Environmental Protection' layer over the southern portion of 14 Gay Street, Lane Cove North.

 

6.    Amend Council’s Floor Space Ratio and Height of Buildings maps to correct anomalies at:-

 

i.          40A Cope Street, Lane Cove; and

ii.          3 Dunois Street, Longueville.

 

Council is requested to defer the item below from the current Planning Proposal:

 

1.    Amend Council’s ‘Land Reservation Acquisition Map’, to include the E2 Environmental Conservation zoned portions of land at:-

 

a)    3A Dettmann Avenue, Longueville; 

b)    5A Dettmann Avenue, Longueville;

c)    7 Dettmann Avenue, Longueville; and

d)    41 Stuart Street, Longueville.

 

Given that Council is still committed to aquiring the E2 Environmental Conservation portion of land at the rear of these properties, it is recommended that this item be incorporated into a separate ‘housekeeping’ style Planning Proposal at a later date.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.    Receive and note the report.

2.    Amend the current Planning Proposal to defer the item ‘Amend Council’s Land Reservation Acquisition Map to include the E2 Environmental Conservation zoned portions of land at Longueville’ from this amendment, to allow additional public consultation as part of a separate Planning Proposal.

3.    Adopt the amendments to the LEP Planning Proposal 24 as described in AT-10 for finalisation.

4.    Authorise Council’s General Manager to:

a.  Submit the amended Planning Proposal to the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office and NSW Planning and Environment,

b.  Request to exercise its delegation under Section 59 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to amend the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 to give effect to these amendments.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Council REPORT 7 December 2015

11 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Council MINUTES 7 December 2015

1 Page

 

AT‑3View

Council's Original LEP amendments

3 Pages

 

AT‑4View

Gateway Determination - issued 6 July 2016

5 Pages

 

AT‑5View

Department's Assessment of Proposed Amendments

7 Pages

 

AT‑6View

Council's response to Department's comments

12 Pages

 

AT‑7View

Report - Native Vegetation of the Lane Cove Council LGA Report Sept 2010

68 Pages

 

AT‑8View

Land Acquisition - Extract Maps

3 Pages

 

AT‑9View

Caroline Chisholm FSR and Height boundary anomaly

2 Pages

 

AT‑10View

Proposed changes to Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009

26 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 March 2017

Proposal to Remove Two Covenants - 2 Zeta Road, Lane Cove

 

 

Subject:          Proposal to Remove Two Covenants - 2 Zeta Road, Lane Cove    

Record No:    DA16/181-01 - 5408/17

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Stan Raymont 

 

 

Background

 

On 2 June 1992 Council approved Development Application D49/92 for 2 Zeta Road, Lane Cove for a detached Dual Occupancy and Torrens Title subdivision. The Council of the day also imposed the following two conditions:

 

1.    No main building shall be erected on the site with a ceiling height greater than 49.40m Australian Height Datum. The restriction shall not be released, varied or modified, without the consent of the Council of the Municipality of Lane Cove.

 

Subsequent to the above the covenant was varied to change the ceiling height of the dwelling to 49.60m Australian Height Datum.

 

2.    The site is to be landscaped in accordance with drawing number 18492.DA1 pursuant to a Development Approval dated 2 June 1992 and to the satisfaction of Lane Cove Municipal Council prior to the use/occupation of the approved building works. The restriction shall not be released, varied or modified, without the consent of the Council of the Municipality of Lane Cove

 

Discussion

 

The current owners of 2 Zeta Road lodged a development application, DA181/2016 for an additional storey, deck and extension of the existing carport. The proposed alteration and addition, although compliant with current DCP provisions would be prohibited by the 1992 Council imposed covenants.  Only Council can release the covenants given they were specifically referenced in the original consent DA49/92.

 

Bearing such in mind the application was referred to the March Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel for a merit based assessment to enable Council to consider the broader policy issue of the request to release the Council imposed covenants.

 

The IHAP report is attached AT1 and extract from the Minutes of the IHAP Panel meeting AT2. The Panel determined, interalia, that:

 

PART A

 

“the two covenants, placed by Council in relation to the maximum height and landscaping in Development Application DA49/1992 for a detached dual occupancy and Torrens title subdivision should be released for the reasons discussed in the report”.

 

PART B

 

That should Council resolve to release the covenants indicated in Part A, the application be approved as recommended and subject to a vegetative strip of land with screening vegetation along the western boundary having a minimum width of 700mm [to aide privacy and soften the boundary interface].

Conclusion

 

Given that the merit of the development proposal has been considered by the IHAP, it is appropriate that Council turn its mind to whether the current planning provisions should inform the request and decision to release the two covenants applying to 2 Zeta Road, Lane Cove.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That in view of the merits of the application and position of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel, it is recommended that Council release the 2 covenants relating to height and landscaping at 2 Zeta Road, Lane Cove.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Report on 2 Zeta Road of 7 March 2017

18 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Extract of IHAP Minutes of 7 March 2017

6 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 March 2017

Implementation of Legislation to manage Boat Trailer Parking

 

 

Subject:          Implementation of Legislation to manage Boat Trailer Parking    

Record No:    SU4145 - 14612/17

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      David Wilson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council’s approval is sort to apply to the Office of Local Government for permission to implement the Impounding Amendment (Unattended Boat Trailers) Act 2015. This act allows Council’s to take action where a boat trailer has been in the same on street location for more than 28 days.

 

Unlike other legislation regularly used by Council, the delegation of powers to utilise this legislation will only be granted after special application to the Office of Local Government which requires community consultation and publishing of the approved area in the NSW Government Gazette.

 

Background

 

The Impounding Amendment (Unattended Boat Trailers) Act 2015, commenced on 1 July 2016. Initially, the legislation only applied in three local government areas, Pittwater, Woollahra and Warringah; with these three LGA’s being used as a pilot program, to evaluate the new measures. As may be appreciated, these three waterfront councils face significant issues with the parking of boats on residential streets in the vicinity of nearby boat ramps.

 

This legislation attempts to regulate the parking of boat trailers on public roads, as boats on trailers are classed as a registered vehicle/item and are able to be parked in accordance with standard parking restrictions. Boat owners are using on-street parking as a long term parking solution for their boats and in some cases; this has led to concerns about loss of local streetscape amenity and increased road safety risks. Currently in New South Wales, there are 204,000 boat trailers registered with Roads & Maritime Services. This number is forecast to increase by around 3% over the next decade.

 

Currently, the Impounding Act 1993 confers the power on regulatory officers to impound a vehicle or a trailer where the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the vehicle or trailer has been abandoned or left unattended. The inherent difficulty with the current legislation is proving that the trailer or vehicle has been abandoned. Regulatory officers must contact the last registered owner of the trailer or vehicle and give them notice of the intended impounding. Should the owner respond to the notice and advise the regulatory officer that they still have an interest in ownership of the trailer or vehicle, the officers may not impound or move the trailer on. It is only if the owner cannot be traced or the vehicle or trailer is in such poor condition as to be considered unroadworthy that Council may impound the vehicle or trailer.

 

The legislation prescribes that boat trailers are to be moved at least every 28 days. To be regarded as having “moved” the trailer must be moved:

 

Along the same road and pass an intersection with another road. An intersection with a road related area is to be disregarded for the purposes of this subsection unless it is related to a different road.”

 

Should a regulatory officer observe a trailer not having been moved within the previous 28 days, they must give 15 days’ notice to the owner to move the trailer so as to avoid impounding. If Council does not receive any correspondence from the owner after the 15 days’ notice period, Council would instruct its service provider to remove the trailer. The trailer would be then held for a further 28 days at Council’s impounding yard. The trailer would then be sold through an auction process if the trailer is not claimed within the specified time frame.

 

The Impounding Amendment (Unattended boat trailers) Act 2015 also requires individual councils to “declare” an area for which this legislation will apply. This may be the whole or any part/s of the local government area.

 

For the calendar year 2016, Council received on average 4 complaints per month in relation to boat trailers. The complaints were across the LGA and generally related to loss of amenity in terms of local streetscape or concerns about non residents parking their trailers in their street.

 

It is considered appropriate that if Council were to introduce this legislation, the legislation should be applied across the whole of the LGA. Council may also need to consider the introduction of a local parking permit scheme, so as to accommodate locally owned boats if exemption provisions for local residents are considered appropriate.

 

Discussion

 

Unlike other legislation regularly used by Council, the delegation of powers to utilise this legislation will only be granted after special application to the Office of Local Government, and publishing of the declared areas within the NSW Government Gazette.

 

Council must first consult with its local community regarding the intended implementation of the legislation, and liaise with neighboring councils, as the implementation of a 28 day parking limit restriction may have the effect of just moving the problem onto another neighbouring Council.

 

The 28 day relocation / moving provision is intended to ensure that boat owners return to their on-street parked boat and trailer at least monthly so as to check on its condition, and acts as a disincentive to persons residing outside the local area. As there is an obligation of the boat owner to visit their boat at a remote location each month and this may be enough reason for them to relocate their boat to their place of residence.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to inform and raise awareness about the proposed introduction of changes to the parking arrangements for boats on trailers / boat trailers. Any comments received during exhibition will be reviewed and evaluated to determine whether or not to proceed with the introduction of these legislative changes.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Key Message givers eg. Boat owners and residents in key areas of the LGA i.e areas near boat ramps and slipways.

 

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and

eNewsletter

 

Notification Letters and

Brochure / Letterbox Drop  in defined areas

 

Public Exhibition,

Website Exhibition and Survey

Indicative Timing

To be completed by 12 May 2017

To be completed by 12 May 2017

To be completed by 12 May 2017

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed changes to the Impounding Act 1993 would give Council more appropriate legislation to deal with complaints regarding boat trailer parking. Under the previous legislation, Council’s Rangers could not move on trailers that have been parked on Council’s roads for extended periods of time. This on occasion has had a impact on the amenity of the local area and in some circumstances, the safety of road users.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.         Council applies to the Office of Local Government declaring Lane Cove Council as an interested entity in implementing the Impounding Amendment (Unattended Boat Trailers) Act 2015.

 

2.         Council consult with its community and neighbouring councils regarding its intention to implement the legislation.

 

3.         Following the community consultation period a further report be presented to Council.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 March 2017

Draft North District Plan - Review

 

 

Subject:          Draft North District Plan - Review    

Record No:    SU2871 - 10963/17

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Christopher Pelcz; Terry Tredrea 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) has released six draft District Plans, including one for the North District, which includes Lane Cove. These plans provide a 20 year vision for each of the Greater Sydney Districts. The GSC is exhibiting the Plans until the end of March 2017, and  Council is requested to adopt its response to the Commission’s draft plan. It is expected that these will be finalised later this year.

 

The District Plans represent a response to the need to rethink our current planning approach for the Greater Sydney Area. Previously, a mono-centric approach was used, which resulted in limited flexibility to grow without further exacerbating our failing infrastructure (road/ rail/ schools/ water/ electricity/ housing/ employment/ land etc).

 

Council staff support this new focus of a more integrated approach to planning for these important elements, as together they provide a more holistic approach to the region including, for example:

 

·    Increased housing targets that have regard to capacity of an LGA;

·    Refining targets to a capacity model that is reviewed on a 5-year basis;

·    Employment targets;

·    Protection of employment and urban services land; and

·    Integration of Sydney’s Green Grid.

 

The Plan refers to targets for housing, economic hubs, transport infrastructure, natural landscapes and heritage. The proposed economic targets set for St Leonards as primarily an employment and transport hub, as well as the strategic role of Lane Cove West Business Park as a key employment centre within the district, appear well founded and support Council’s current policy approach.

 

Over the past 5 – 10 years, Lane Cove has been working hard to achieve the housing targets set previously by the State Government. Given that Council is already well ahead of current growth targets it is requested that the GSC acknowledge the ‘heavy lifting’ currently undertaken by the Lane Cove community and that there will be limited capacity for continued dwelling construction in Lane Cove as development opportunities are exhausted.

 

It is recommended that Council support the Draft North Plan, in principle, highlighting the concerns described in this report.

 

Background

 

The Greater Sydney Commission was established by the NSW Government in order to develop six draft District Plans. These plans will provide a 20 year vision for Greater Sydney Districts, including Lane Cove which is part of the North District. Our District extends from the Hornsby local government area in the North to Ryde in the West, North Sydney to the South and the Northern Beaches in the East. (see map below).

 

The Greater Sydney Commission is exhibiting these six draft District Plans until the end of March 2017. 

 

Consultation has been broad and inclusive of community groups, councils and, most importantly, government agencies. Consultation recognised the need for greater collaboration between all spheres of Government and the community. All councils in the North District participated and contributed and contributed to the draft North District Plan.

 

Guiding principles were adopted early in the process for the three key priorities of:

 

1.   productivity (employment and economic connections),

2.   liveability (housing choice, diversity and affordability) and

3.   sustainability in an environmental, economic and service sense.

 


The Plan was released in November 2016 and Council is requested to adopt its response to the Commission’s draft Plan.

 

Status of the Draft District Plans

 

Draft District Plans sit in the middle of the hierarchy of the Regional, District and Local Planning controls within Greater Sydney. Draft District Plans provide guidance for councils on priorities and actions that need to be addressed in future Local plans (LEPs & DCPs). Councils are required to give effect to the District Plans as soon as practicable after they are made.

 

Structure of the Plan

 

The Draft North District Plan is divided into three sections, and the following discussion is mostly focused under each of the three Priorities: Productive City; Liveable City; and Sustainable City.

 

Each section contains a series of Priorities and Actions. Only some are relevant to Lane Cove. These are summarised in AT-3, and will need to be taken into account when a Planning Proposal is submitted and considered.

 


 

Discussion

 

The following issues within the plan are of particular importance to the Lane Cove Local Government Area.

 

Productivity

 

This section of the Plan specifically relates to employment and economic growth in the District. The North District is home to 19% of Greater Sydney’s population and accommodates 20% of its jobs. Over the past two decades, the District’s population grew by 23%, and employment grew by about 37%. It contains part of the Global Economic Corridor. Moreover, “the highest concentration of knowledge-intensive jobs in the North District is in the strategic centres of North Sydney, St Leonards, Chatswood and Macquarie Park” (page 44).

 

The Plan sets a jobs target only for St Leonards:

 

Centre

Centre Type

2016 Estimate

2036 Baseline Target

2036 Higher Target

St Leonards

Strategic

47,100

54,000

63,500

 

 

Priorities and Actions

 

The following key Productivity Priorities are relevant to Lane Cove.

 

·    Priority 1: Protect and support employment and urban services land. This priority states that: 

 

Relevant planning authorities should take a precautionary approach to rezoning employment and urban support lands or adding additional permissible uses that would hinder their role and function.

 

The exception being where there is a clear direction in the Regional Plan (currently A Plan for Growing Sydney), the District Plan or an alternative strategy endorsed by the relevant planning authority.

 

Any such alternative strategy should be based on a net community benefit assessment (i.e. analysis of the economic, environmental and social implications) of the proposed exception taking into account a District-wide perspective in accordance with Action P1” (page 40).

 

Comment

 

The direction is to retain and protect employment lands, such as in Lane Cove West and St Leonards, especially from rezoning valuable employment land to residential use. This supports Council’s long-standing policy position on development in Lane Cove West and St Leonards.

 

·    Priority 2: Manage growth and change in strategic and district centres and, as relevant, local centres

 

“…the use of the B3 Commercial Core Zones in strategic centres and where appropriate in district centres to reinforce and support the operation and viability of non-residential uses including local office markets. (p46)

 

Comment

 

The primacy of employment land use over residential use in the B3 Commercial Core zone, particularly in St Leonards is in keeping with Council’s strategic direction for St Leonards. the St Leonards/Crows Nest land use and infrastructure strategy currently underway by the Department will look to further define the St Leonards Commercial Core.

 

The following key Productivity Action is relevant to Lane Cove.

 

·    Action P4: Facilitate place making and the growth and diversification of job opportunities in St Leonards.

 

“A Special Infrastructure Contribution will be considered as an option to fund transport, open space and community and education facilities” (purpose: “to coordinate growth in the area”.)

 

The first stage will analyse existing employment and understand future employment demands and requirements. A land use and infrastructure strategy will guide future development and infrastructure delivery over the next 20 years to 2036” (page 51).

 

Comment

 

No specific actions have been identified for the Special Infrastructure Contribution levy/charge at this stage. However, the St Leonards/Crows Nest land use and infrastructure strategy currently underway by the Department may well recommend a Special Infrastructure Contribution to operate in St Leonards. This form of value capture is supported by Council and will ensure that the infrastructure requirements for this high density urban area is provided in a timely manner.

 


 

Job Targets

 

The economic targets will be set by the yet-to-be-finalised Plan for St Leonards as an employment and transport hub as well as the strategic role of Lane Cove West Business Park as a key employment centre within the district.

 

Comment

 

The lower end of the range of the St Leonards job target (54,000) reflects the baseline of projected job growth that is anticipated in the centre, while the upper end (63,500) is an aspirational higher growth scenario. To date the jobs targets for St Leonards have not been achieved and the new targets appears to be an extrapolation of previous targets. This needs to be addressed in the Plan and detailed work is required to determine if the proposed Health and Education “super precinct” and infrastructure investment (in this case, the Crows Nest Metro rail station) will deliver the anticipated jobs.

 

Liveability

 

Priorities and Actions

 

Affordable Rental Housing

 

The Plan establishes an affordable housing target. The Affordable Rental Housing dwellings will provide for those on ‘very low’ and ‘low’ incomes, and will be secured by the relevant planning authority and passed onto a registered Community Housing Provider to manage, further developing this emerging sector of the economy.

 

A target of 5% to 10% of new floor space will be applied at the rezoning stage so that it can be factored into the development equation. 

 

Housing Targets

 

The draft plan includes new targets for an additional 1,900 dwellings over the next five years (2016-2021). These targets are to be reviewed in 2021. The Plan also provides a population target, which would see Lane Cove increase by 14,900 people to 50,859 people. The following table outlines the population increases for Northern Sydney Council areas.

 

Local Government Area

Population 2016

Growth

Population 2036

Hornsby

170,563

28,350

17%

198,913

Hunters Hill

14,741

1350

9%

16,091

Ku-ring-gai

122,859

31,000

25%

153,859

Lane Cove

35,959

14,900

41%

50,859

North Sydney

72,618

19,600

27%

92,218

Ryde

117,171

51,700

44%

168,871

Willoughby

76,364

13,300

17%

89,664

 

Comment

 

Over the past 5 years Lane Cove has facilitated significant development which has exceeded the growth targets set by the State Government, previously 3900 by 2031. The capacity within the current LEP is approximately 4.300 dwellings. Since 2010 Council has approved 3919 additional dwellings, and a current DA at St Leonards for 458 apartments, would if approved, see this increase to 4377. In 2010 there were 12,606 rateable residential properties, a 4377 dwelling increase equates to approximately 35% additional dwellings.  Council has already undertaken planning for St Leonards South, which will deliver an additional 2200+ dwellings and a planning proposal in St Leonards will deliver 450 units, this equates to a 55% increase. Of concern therefore is the 20 year population targets, which suggest Lane Cove would experience the second highest growth in population terms amongst the Northern Sydney councils. Based on an average occupancy of 2.1 persons per dwelling such population would require 7095 more dwellings, which would be approximately a 91% increase in dwellings from 2010.

 

Given that Council is already well ahead of current growth targets it important that the Commission’s projections in the final plan acknowledge the limited capacity for further dwellings in the Lane Cove LGA.

 

The current plan is also lacking detail on the infrastructure required to accommodate the population growth in the Plan. Such infrastructure is essential to service the populations needs including:

 

·    Need for primary/secondary schools;

·    Need for more open space and the changing need/ opportunities this creates (synthetic grass etc);

·    Need for connections between/among communities.

 

Sustainability

 

This section of the Plan specifically relates to environmental outcomes within the District.

 

Priorities to promote sustainability include:

 

·    Protecting our waterways

·    Protecting and enhancing biodiversity

·    Delivering Sydney’s Green Grid

·    Creating an efficient North District.

 

Priorities and Actions

 

Priority 5: Align strategic planning to the vision for the Green Grid

 

Comment

 

The delivery of Sydney’s Green Grid, is articulated in A Plan for Growing Sydney. It is a network of parks and open space, which includes plazas and public areas used for sport. It is noted that Council’s proposed St Leonards Plaza over the rail corridor is not listed as a Priority Project for the Green Grid. Given the strategic importance and the lynchpin status of the Plaza to the revitalisation and development in St Leonards, it is recommended that Council request that this item be specifically included in the proposed Green Grid, or be attributed special significance and priority in the North District Plan.

 

Conclusion

 

There have been a number of State Government Plans in recent years seeking to identify and resolve challenges faced by a city that has a strong economic base, an ever-expanding population with ageing and problematic infrastructure systems. These plans have been well intentioned but limited in the range of issues considered, experts consulted and understanding of community wants, needs and desires.

 

Sydney has had a singular focus with political and administrative control, economic activity and transport emanating from the CBD.  While this centralist model has served Sydney and NSW well in the past, a new polycentric model is required to build on current strengths and take advantage of emerging employment opportunities, greater integration of Regional/District and Local plans, and the guiding principles for economic, environmental and liveability standards.

 

The District Plans represent a response to these needs by rethinking our current approach to planning for the Greater Sydney Area. It is recommended that Council support the focus on a more integrated approach to planning for these important elements, as together they provide a more holistic approach to the region, including, for example:

 

·    Increased housing targets;

·    Refining targets to a capacity model that operates on a 5-year basis;

·    Protection of employment and urban services land;

·    Integration of Sydney’s Green Grid.

 

The draft plan includes new targets for an additional 1,900 dwellings over the next five years, these targets are to be reviewed in 2021. It is noted, however, that over the past 5 – 10 years Lane Cove has exceeded the growth targets set by the State Government previously. It is therefore important to acknowledge that there is for Lane Cove limited capacity to maintain this trend to 2036.

 

Council welcomes the economic targets set for St Leonards as an employment and transport hub as well as the strategic role of Lane Cove West Business Park as a key employment centre within the district. Council would furthermore seek recognition of the St Leonards Rail Plaza over the rail corridor as a long-standing project of the Council and ongoing support at the Department and the GSC. This vital piece piece of public infrastructure and open space will become a foundation for sustained growth and liveability in the St Leonards/Crows Nest precinct and provide high quality public domain and workforce amenity as a stimulus to commercial growth of the precinct.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council write to the Greater Sydney Commission supporting the Draft North Plan, in principle, and highlighting the concerns outlined in this report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Draft North District Plan - Overview

12 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Draft North District Plan - Whole Document

167 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑3View

Draft North District Plan – Notes

22 Pages

Circulated Separately

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 March 2017

Changes to the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act - Review

 

 

Subject:          Changes to the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act - Review    

Record No:    SU6600 - 10999/17

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Christopher Pelcz; Terry Tredrea 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the proposed changes to the NSW Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and identify any potential issues associated with the changes.

 

NSW Planning & Environment have released a series of explanatory documents and a draft Bill to support these changes. The documents include:

 

1.    Summary of Proposals – January 2017 (AT-1);

2.    Bill Guide – January 2017 (AT-2);

3.    Draft Bill (AT-3); and

4.    Stakeholder feedback – January 2017 (AT-4).

 

As explained in the Bill Guide, the proposed changes will either amend existing provisions or insert new provisions in the EP&A Act. In some cases, the amendments repeal an entire part of the EP&A Act and replace it with a new part. This has resulted in minor ‘housekeeping’ amendments to existing provisions, including renumbering and re-structuring.

 

Overall, the changes to the EP&A Act can be described as being:

 

·         New – matters not currently addressed in the EP&A Act,

·         Updated – revised approach to current provisions in the EP&A Act, or

·         No change – no change in policy (does not include housekeeping/renumbering amendments)

 

Therefore, only key ‘New’ and ‘Updated’ items have been analysed in separate documents attached to this report (AT-5 and AT-6). Matters of ‘No change’ or ‘housekeeping’ have not been included.

 

Proposed changes to the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are currently on public exhibition until 31 March 2017.

 

It is recommended that Council authorise the General Manager to make a submission to the exhibition, highlighting the key concerns (AT-7) raised in this report and its attachments.

 

Background

 

A review of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 originally started in 2011 as part of an Independent Review. This was followed in July 2012, with the publication of A New Planning System for New South Wales – Green Paper. After public exhibition, the White Paper – A new planning system for NSW, with supporting draft legislation, was released for public comment by the NSW Government between 16 April – 28 June 2013.

 

A number of these items were concerning to many NSW Councils and the NSW Government decided not to proceed with these amendments.

 

In contrast to the previous approach, NSW Planning & Environment is now proposing a series of changes to the existing EP&A Act rather than creating an entirely new Act. These changes are described below.

 

Discussion

 

Although the proposed changes are described under a range of headings in the exhibition documents the key proposed changes can be categorised under four elements:

 

1.    Community Participation

2.    Strategic Planning

3.    Local Decision Making

4.    Design and Building

 

Community Participation

 

1.    Community Participation Plans and Principles

 

Councils, and other planning authorities, would be required to prepare participation plans in accordance with the participation principles described in the Bill. The principles are similar to the ones previously exhibited during the draft White Paper phase in 2013 and include:

 

·         The community has a right to be informed about planning matters that affect it.

·         Planning authorities should encourage the effective and on-going partnerships with the community to provide meaningful opportunities for community participation in planning.

·         Planning information should be in plain language, easily accessible and in a form that facilitates community participation in planning.

·         The community should be given opportunities to participate in strategic planning as early as possible to enable community views to be genuinely considered.

·         Community participation should be inclusive and planning authorities should actively seek views that are representative of the community.

·         Members of the community who are affected by proposed major development should be consulted by the proponent before an application for planning approval is made.

·         Planning decisions should be made in an open and transparent way and the community should be provided with reasons for those decisions (including how community views have been taken into account).

·         Community participation methods (and the reasons given for planning decisions) should be appropriate having regard to the significance and likely impact of the proposed development.

 

However, Councils would not need to prepare a separate plan if their community strategic plans already address these requirements.

 

The proposed plans would include mandatory or discretionary public exhibition requirements for development, which Council would be required to nominate. The level of consultation needs to be proportionate to the proposed level of development proposed and documents can no longer be exhibited in Xmas/NY period (20 December – 10 January). So far the only mandatory requirements described in the Bill relate to the exhibition of State level planning documents and local Development Applications.

 

Once a plan is adopted it could only be legally challenged within 3 months of being published. Planning authorities must then report on the implementation of their community participation plans in accordance with the regulations. It is understood that the Department will publish models at a later date.

 

In its previous submission, Council raised no issue with these items and would welcome greater public participation in the planning system, similar to this Councils inclusive consultation policy.

 

2.    Statement of Reasons

 

For Development Assessment, Councils would be required to publish a statement of reasons to show how community views were taken into account. Planning authorities must give notice of and provide reasons for the following decisions (including how community views were taken into account):

 

·         development application determinations (including modification applications);

·         approving or deciding to carry out an activity where an environmental impact statement was obtained and exhibited under Part 5; and

·         State significant infrastructure determinations (including modification requests).

 

Details of these reasons would be proportionate to the proposed level of development. These would be necessary as any future modification requests would need to address these reasons.

 

While Council’s Development Assessment reporting structure already promotes this, the State Government would provide model guidance and templates at a later date. It would be expected that the inclusion of reasons would also have a time and resource impact on DA assessment.

 

3.    Early consultation with neighbours

 

Although not specifically stated in draft Bill, the exhibition documents suggest that incentives (likely reduced fees) would be provided to applicants who consult with their neighbours early (prior to a D.A.).

 

It is stated that the Department would conduct a pilot with selected local councils to trial different incentive mechanisms and administrative approaches. Therefore, no further details are available on this matter.

 

Therefore, Council must question:

 

·         How will incentives work?

·         Subsequent regulations would need to specify – when has consultation occurred? Who was it with? How were the issues addressed?

·         Should this be included in the Community Participation plan?

·         If Council is to bear the cost of the intended incentive.

 

4.    Objects of the Act

 

It appears that the intent of this amendment is to clarify language/meaning of objects and to recognise design and heritage (Aboriginal and European). To support this, many of the proposed changes are re-wordings of existing EP & A Act objects with the exception of two new objects:

 

·         to promote the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment by the proper management, development and conservation of the State’s natural and other resources;

·         to facilitate ecologically sustainable development by integrating relevant economic, environmental and social considerations in decision-making about environmental planning and assessment;

·         to promote the timely delivery of business, employment and housing opportunities (including for housing choice and affordable housing);

·         to protect the environment, including the conservation of threatened and other species of native animals and plants;

·         promote the sustainable management of built and cultural heritage (including Aboriginal cultural heritage) - NEW;

·         to promote good design in the built environment - NEW;

·         to promote the sharing of the responsibility for environmental planning and assessment between the different levels of government in the State; and

·         to provide increased opportunity for community participation in environmental planning and assessment.

 

Council provides in-principle support for the two new objects however, it does not agree that the proposed changes clarify the language or meaning as key words and phrases (already existing in the legislation) have been excluded in the draft.

 

If these changes proceeded there would be a removal of protections for:

 

·         habitats’ - Makes possible the destruction of habitats which indigenous fauna not currently inhabiting.

·         threatened populations & communities’ - Watered down to single species. Will create the same problem as removal of ‘habitats’.

·         provision and maintenance of affordable housing’ – this should remain as it is relevant and applicable.

·         orderly and economic use and development of land’ – Could potentially impact timing of infrastructure delivery and development sequencing.

 

These key words and phrases are vital to the operation and meaning of the existing Act and removal of them would likely contravene the intentions of the amended Act. It is recommended that these words and phrases be re-incorporated into the draft amendments to the Act.

 

Strategic Planning

 

1.    Local Strategic Planning Statements

 

Council’s would be required to prepare a Local Strategic Planning Statement to provide a clear link between higher level plans and local plans (as shown below).

 

 

The document will:

 

·         Be reviewed every 5 years;

·         Explain how the council will give effect to regional and district plans in its local area; and

·         Have regard to any community strategic plan under the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Although the content of the proposed planning statement has not been included in the draft Bill, the exhibition materials proposes the statements to include:

 

·         A 20 year vision for the local area;

·         Goals and actions to achieve the vision;

·         Links to Planning controls; and

·         Monitoring and reporting on progress.

 

These statements must be endorsed by the Greater Sydney Commission and once adopted, Planning proposals to be assessed against Local Strategic Planning Statements.

 

Council’s existing integrated planning framework (Community Strategic Plan, Operational Plan, Delivery Plan) already has comments on some development matters and may provide a good starting basis for the development of its statement provided that it links to Council’s broadest visions with land use planning.

 

Council can provide in-principle support for this amendment, although the monitoring and reporting on progress part appears to be duplication of current integrated planning framework reporting.

 

2.    Regular LEP checks

 

Council is to review adequacy of its LEP every 5 years to ensure the LEP is up to date, particularly in order to minimise spot rezonings.

 

The exhibition material suggests that reviews would be assessed against the following criteria:

 

·         Does a new regional or district plan necessitate major change to local strategic plans or controls?

·         Has there been a marked demographic change in recent years, or is one expected in coming years?

·         Has there been or is there expected to be significant infrastructure investment that necessitates or justifies major change to local strategic plans or controls?

·         Has there been a high number of planning proposals in recent years?

·         Does the LEP demonstrate consistency with relevant state environmental planning policies, section 117 directions and the regulations?

·         Has the community requested significant changes to the LEP in recent years?

 

While the above criteria may appear appropriate, there are also other factors which may trigger an LEP review (i.e. minor errors). Council’s recent ‘housekeeping’ amendments are a good example, they were collected since the gazettal of its comprehensive Local Environmental Plan in 2010 and submitted to NSW Planning and Environment in 2015 for a Gateway Determination. Council would only be able to finally determine the outcome of this proposal in 2017.

 

Therefore, while Council can provide in-principle support for this amendment it is apparent that reviews of any environmental planning instrument (an LEP) should occur on either a needs-basis, or over a longer period than 5 years.

 

3.    Standard format for DCP

 

Development Control Plans would be standardised in format and possibly contain optional model DCP provisions.

 

No other details have been provided on this matter other than these models would be developed over time in line with priorities identified by a working group. The Department has also advised that it would not follow the Standard Instrument LEP format.

 

It is acknowledged that applicants find it difficult to navigate through the planning system and that standardising DCPs may assist people, however Council would need to see the details before it could provide any further commentary on the matter.

 

Local Decision Making

 

1.    Approvals and advice from NSW agencies

 

The amendments would give the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment the reserve power to prevent delays and resolve conflicts between agencies. To ensure these timely approvals, the Department would be given ‘step-in powers’ to speed up advice, and to adjudicate on inter-agency conflicts for integrated development only. This would be managed via a digital platform and ongoing review.

 

The digital platform for managing concurrences and referrals would be centralised through the NSW Planning Portal and links with online lodgement facilities. Once implemented, this process would be subject to ongoing review. The proposed process is described below.

 

 

Other State Government agencies would be supported in implementing a risk-based approach to concurrences and referrals.

 

Within the public exhibition material, there is no explanation of what is considered as ‘untimely’ for replies. Based on Council experience, some concurrences or referrals take longer because of the complexity of an application.

 

In some instances applications require concurrences or referrals from Commonwealth Government agencies (i.e. Civil Aviation Safety Authority), which would not be subject to this legislation. Notwithstanding that, these instances may potentially occur in rare circumstances and the bulk of the concurrences/referrals would largely be with NSW State Government agencies.

 

While Council can provide in-principle support to this, these ‘reserve powers’ would need to be clarified in any future amendments.

 

2.    Improvements to Complying Development

 

This appears to be a significant change in policy direction since the previous White Paper amendments. Rather than having a development target for complying development approvals, the change seeks to give Council’s greater resources to enforce complying development standards and provide greater confidence in the complying development system.

 

Changes include:

 

·         Regulations identify types of complying development for which an accredited certifier may not issue a complying development certificate.

·         Makes provision for a levy on applicants for complying development certificates which reimburse councils for the costs of investigating and enforcing compliance with the planning legislation.

·         Authorises council officers to suspend the carrying out of work under a complying development certificate for up to 7 days, pending an investigation into the whether the development complies with the applicable development standards.

·         Where a Complying Development Certificate does not comply with the relevant standards in the State Policy, it can be declared invalid by the Court.

 

·         Regulations would require certifiers - 

 

o    who are intending to issue a complying development certificate in metropolitan areas to give a copy of the proposed certificate, plans and other applicable documents (such as a compliance table demonstrating how the proposal complies with the relevant standards) to the council and direct neighbours; and

o    after issuing a certificate, to give a copy of the certificate and any endorsed plans to direct neighbours at the same time as they provide the information to councils.

 

·         A complying development certificate could be subject to a deferred commencement condition.

·         Proposed to allow collection of special infrastructure contributions to be required, and planning agreements to be entered into, for complying developments.

 

While these changes can potentially be supported, during the previous White Paper amendments, Council identified further opportunity to improve regulation of certifiers which included:

 

·         Upfront penalties;

·         Removal of self-selection of Principal Certifying Authorities; and

·         Standard Complying Development Certificate conditions.

 

It is recommended that Council re-state its position on Complying Development in relation to Certifiers.

 

There is one change within these amendments that Council strongly disagrees with – allowing planning agreements to be entered into for complying development proposals, this is discussed below.

 

3.    Fair and consistent Planning Agreements

 

Department previously exhibited the draft ‘Improving VPA process’ to provide clearer directions to Councils.

 

Council reviewed its Voluntary Planning Agreement policy (reported to Council’s 22 April 2014 meeting). The policies and procedures implemented at the time was best practice and consistent with the previous Departmental Practice Note from 2005. Furthermore, Councils’ current approach is also consistent with directions issued for the draft amendments.

 

Therefore, Council supported the proposed Practice Notes and provided a recent example of one of its Voluntary Planning Agreements that had been publicly exhibited.

 

In addition to these amendments, it is proposed that planning agreements may be entered into for complying development proposals in an attempt to level the playing field between complying development and development applications. It is explained in the ‘Summary of proposals’ document that the current Act has anomalies that create unnecessary differences between the complying development and development application pathways.

 

For example, one anomaly is that a certifier is not currently able to issue a complying development certificate if the development is to occur on an unregistered lot.

 

By contrast, consent to a development application may be granted subject to a condition which defers the operation of the commencement until a matter is resolved. Another anomaly is that there is currently no ability to levy for special infrastructure contributions for complying developments nor enter into planning agreements yet this can be for development applications.

 

It is stated that “this will be corrected by allowing special infrastructure contributions to be required and planning agreements to be entered into, for complying developments”.

 

Given the role and functions of a Certifier are specifically listed in the draft amendments, this item is not described anywhere. Nor is there any supporting policies or reasons as to why planning agreements should be entered into for complying development proposals.

 

It is recommended that Council not support the planning agreements for complying development items, as there has been no suitable justification or explanation for these amendments.

 

4.    Local Planning Panels and delegations

 

Legislative basis for all panels to be made clearer and Regulations would develop model codes of conduct for panels. The changes include:

 

·         Planning and Assessment Commission (PAC) will become the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) - Loses statutory function to “review” development proposals. Simply a determining authority.

·         Independent Hearing and Assessment Panels (IHAPs) renamed to Local Planning Panels (LPP) with the same functions.

·         Council’s can be directed by the Minister to create LPPs because DAs determined by some councils under delegation are creating “unnecessary delay”.

·         There would be model codes of conduct for IPC, JRPPs & LPPs.

·         Proposed JRPP (District Planning Panels) thresholds:

·         DAs of $20m becomes $30m;

·         All new schools; 

·         Alts & adds to schools down to $20m;

·         $5m up to $15m for Council-related development (only for Council’s with a Local Planning Panel);

·         Private infrastructure & community facilities >$5m.

·         Expanded ability for internal reviews to include some State significant and integrated development applications.

 

There are two key concerns for Council in these amendments – changes to IHAP panels and proposed District Planning Panels thresholds.

 

Under the proposed amendments and supporting regulations, local planning panels would be established and operate as follows:

 

·         The panels are to comprise three members, with an independent expert chair, another independent expert member and a community representative.

·         The council will set the rules for which matters go to the panel. It is expected that the vast majority of development applications would continue to be determined by council staff, with the more complex and contentious applications reserved for the local planning panels.

·         The NSW Government would publish guidance material to help councils establish the panels, including a model charter and operating procedures.

 

In contrast, Council’s IHAP currently includes four (appropriately qualified) members comprised of the permanent chairperson, a rotating community member and two members who represent each of the expert fields of: architecture, urban design or planning and the environment. It is both a Determining Body, with delegated authority to consider and determine development applications, s96 modifications and s82A reviews of applications or any other matters referred to it by the General Manager, and a Review Body, with delegated authority to consider and determine S82A reviews of determinations made by the Determining Body.

 

While Council’s approach is largely consistent with the proposed changes it raises concern with every IHAP being made consistent across the board with only 3 members, without consideration of the local context.

 

As stated above, Council currently has a 4 person IHAP – this allows for additional expertise to be provided to draw upon a broader skills base. Allowing for a broader skills base with additional experts with urban design experience would seem particularly appropriate given the Department’s focus on a new design objective.

 

Furthermore, Council’s IHAP charter prevents applications from being submitted to IHAP based on number of objections or value. It promotes merits-based referrals and ensuring that most D.A’s are determined by staff via Delegated Authority. 

 

Therefore, Council objects to the transitioning of the new requirements, “Where the composition or functions of any such panel are inconsistent with the new requirements, councils would be given 12 months to bring these into compliance”. Its IHAP charter is largely consistent with the proposed legislation and draws on a broader skills base without the need for unnecessary referrals based on value or a high number of objections. This allows a greater number of applications to be assessed via delegated authority.

 

Council also raises objection to the proposed threshold for Council-related development. Instead of being increased to $15 million (where a Council has a LPP) it should be reduced to $500,000. The reduced threshold would ensure that the assessment process for Council-related development be clear and transparent, ensuring a greater level of transparency.

 

5.    Changes to Modifications

 

To address concerns raised about unauthorised works, subsequent modification applications would need to consider the original statement of reasons.

 

In relation to unauthorised works, if development is carried out in breach of a development consent, it cannot be modified to authorise the breach – except to correct a minor error, misdescription or miscalculation. Any further modification requests will require planning authorities to consider the statement of reasons for the original consent. These changes would apply to planning authorities and certifiers.

 

Council supports deterrence of unauthorised works, but it is unsure what effect that proposed changes would have to deter unauthorised works.

 

Therefore it is recommended that Council provide examples as to instances where unauthorised works have occurred for the Department’s consideration.

 

Design and Building

 

1.    New Design Object

 

Currently the Act does not recognise design in any of its objects nor is it expressly referenced anywhere else. According to the exhibition material, the new object would promote the role of design in all elements in the planning system. It is based on the Draft Architecture and Design Policy for NSW created by the Office of the Government Architect – consultation is scheduled for mid-2017.

 

According to the Draft Policy, it “sets out the NSW Government’s position on design in the urban environment. It is not a set of guidelines, or a ‘how to’ instruction manual. Instead, it:

 

·         Establishes the objectives and expectations in relation to design and creating good places

·         Provides principles and direction to achieve these

·         Provides a framework for examining places and reviewing proposals, from a design perspective”.

 

It also sets out a series of seven distinct design principles which are “applicable at any scale, from the city to the building or space, and address the broad range of issues, considerations and parameters that should be taken into account:

 

·         Contextual, local and of its place

·         Sustainable, efficient and durable

·         Equitable, inclusive and diverse

·         Enjoyable, safe and comfortable

·         Functional, responsive and fit for purpose

·         Value-creating and cost effective

·         Distinctive, visually interesting and appealing”.

 

The next stage is for the NSW Office of the Government Architect to develop a design-led planning strategy, comprising incentives and measures to assist planning system users to achieve a range of well-designed places. New and enhanced design tools would then be developed, to inform the design process and outcomes and assist authorities in the assessment of design proposals.

 

While it is unclear what “good design” means or how it would translate into a planning strategy, a specific design objective in the Act would be welcome. However, there is no mention of any other supporting policies and it is likely that such an objective would require this supported elsewhere in the draft legislation. Another question regarding the design-led planning strategy is how this be implemented at the local level?

 

Furthermore, elements of design (some are mentioned in the principles) can also impact on the everyday lives of people, which is something the previous White Paper amendments acknowledged.

 

The previous objective on this matter was “health, safety and amenity in the planning, design, construction and performance of individual buildings and the built environment”. During the exhibition on Council’s Draft St Leonards South Master Plan, NSW Health Promotion Unit provided a number of key comments on how the built environment could have a net-positive impact on the health and wellbeing on individuals and the wider population. Given the shift towards greater urban densities, the design of the built environment will become even more critical.

 

It is therefore recommended that Council provide in-principle support to the new design object, but that the draft legislation re-considers the wording of objective to incorporate a health element, similar to the one expressed in the previous White Paper.

 

2.    Clearer Building Provisions

 

The basic purpose of these amendments are to consolidate building provisions scattered throughout the Act, also provide better clarity and direction to certifiers. Overall it would:

 

·         Bring together key provisions relating to building regulation and certification into a single part of the EP&A Act;

·         List specific functions of certifiers; and

·         Provide directions for certifiers on matters of non-compliance.

 

While there would need to be further changes done to the EP&A Regulations to implement this, Council supports this amendment.

 

3.    Some new building provisions

 

Changes seek to ensure appropriate use of certificates and building maintenance over time. One major change includes the introduction of a building manual for certain classes of building.

 

This manual is to be prepared by the certifier when issuing an occupation certificate for specified buildings and is to be maintained by the owner of the building. It would include matters required to be checked for ongoing compliance, for example fire systems that must be maintained. It would also be an offence not to maintain a building manual.

 

There is also the introduction of a new “subdivision works certificate” — to certify that subdivision work is completed in accordance with approved plans and specifications would comply with the requirements of the regulations in addition to a “subdivision certificate”.

 

Again, while there would need to be further changes done to the EP&A Regulations to implement this, Council supports this amendment.

 

4.    Consistency with Development approval

 

Any certificates (apart from occupation certificates) can be challenged within 3 months and if found to not be consistent with the development consent, a Court can declare the certificate invalid.

 

While Council supports these changes, they would also need to be implemented into other Acts to give the Court the ability to declare a certificate invalid if it is inconsistent with the consent.

 

In any event, the Department would need to provide further non-statutory guidance on this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

It is clear from these amendments that a number of changes have been made from the previous White Paper. These changes represent a seemingly more balanced approach which Council can largely provide its in-principle support to.

 

However there are number of items that would require further clarification and a number of amendments that are concerning. These items are listed under the following headings.  

 

Items requiring further clarification

 

·         Regular LEP checks

 

While there does need to be ongoing reviews of individual LEP’s, there are also other factors which may trigger an LEP review (i.e. minor errors). Council’s recent ‘housekeeping’ amendments are a good example, they were collected since the gazettal of its comprehensive Local Environmental Plan in 2010 and submitted to NSW Planning and Environment in 2015 for a Gateway Determination. Council would only be able to finally determine the outcome of this proposal in 2017.

 

Therefore, reviews of any environmental planning instrument (an LEP) should occur on either a needs-basis, or over a longer period than 5 years.

 

·         Standard format DCP

 

No details have been provided on this matter other than these models would be developed over time in line with priorities identified by a working group. Council would need to see the details before it could provide any further commentary on the matter. It would not be desirable for any model DCP controls were used for example in the Land and Environment Court to justify why an applicant should not comply with a DCP control, particularly as they are likely to be simplistic.

 

·         Approvals and advice from NSW agencies

 

While Council can provide in-principle support to this, ‘reserve powers’ would need to be clarified in any future amendments.

 

·         Clearer building provisions & Some new building provisions

 

There would need to be further changes done to the EP&A Regulations to implement this, it is requested that these changes be further clarified through non-statutory guidance.

 

Items of concern

 

·         Providing incentives (likely reduced fees) for early consultation with neighbours

 

Given the lack of detail provided Council questions how these incentives would work and operate. Any subsequent regulations would need to specify – when has consultation occurred? Who was it with? How were the issues addressed? Who would bear the cost of such incentives?

 

·         Objects of the Act

 

While Council provides in-principle support for the two new objects, it does not agree that the proposed changes clarify the language or meaning as key words and phrases (already existing in the legislation) have been excluded in the draft, including:

 

habitats’ - Makes possible the destruction of habitats which indigenous fauna not currently inhabiting.

threatened populations & communities’ - Watered down to single species. Will create the same problem as removal of ‘habitats’.

provision and maintenance of affordable housing’ – this should remain as it is relevant and applicable.

orderly and economic use and development of land’ – Could potentially impact timing of infrastructure delivery and development sequencing.

 

·         Proposed structure of Local Strategic Planning Statements

 

The proposed monitoring and reporting aspects of the statement appears to be duplication of current integrated planning framework reporting. However, Council agrees that the statement should include a vision, goals and actions and links to planning controls.

 

·         Improvements to Complying Development

 

Council previously identified further opportunity to improve regulation of certifiers which included:

 

·         Upfront penalties;

·         Removal of self-selection of Principal Certifying Authorities; and

·         Standard Complying Development Certificate conditions.

 

It is recommended that Council re-state its position on Complying Development in relation to Certifiers.

 

·         Allowing planning agreements to be entered into for complying development proposals

 

It is proposed that planning agreements may be entered into for complying development proposals in an attempt to level the playing field between complying development and development applications.

 

Given the role and functions of a Certifier are specifically listed in the draft amendments, this item is not described anywhere. Nor is there any supporting policies or reasons as to why planning agreements should be allowed to enter into complying developments proposal.

 

On this basis, Council cannot not support this amendment as there has been no suitable justification or explanation.

 

·         Changes to IHAP (Local Planning Panels)

 

Council objects to the transitioning of the new requirements, as its IHAP charter is largely consistent with the proposed legislation and draws on a broader skills base without the need for unnecessary referrals based on value or a high number of objections. This allows a quicker processing and a greater number of applications to be assessed via delegated authority.

 

It also raises objection to the proposed threshold for Council-related development and request that it be reduced to $500,000 to ensure that the assessment process related to Council-related development should be clear and transparent.

 

·         ‘Design’ object

 

While Council provides in-principle support to a design object, given that elements of design can impact on the everyday lives of people and the transition towards greater urban densities the Department should considers re-wording of the objective to incorporate a health element, similar to the one expressed in the previous White Paper.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council authorise the General Manager to make a submission to the proposed changes to the NSW Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, highlighting the concerns raised in this report and its’ attachments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Summary of proposals

51 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Bill Guide

40 Pages

 

AT‑3View

Draft Bill

115 Pages

 

AT‑4View

Stakeholder feedback

24 Pages

 

AT‑5View

Planning Act Changes - Lane Cove Council Draft Bill Summary

33 Pages

 

AT‑6View

Planning Act Changes - Lane Cove Council Issues Table

13 Pages

 

AT‑7View

Planning Act Changes - Summary of Councils key Concerns

1 Page

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 March 2017

Proposed Partial Road Closure – Rosenthal Car Park Development

 

 

Subject:          Proposed Partial Road Closure – Rosenthal Car Park Development    

Record No:    SU6222 - 13605/17

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Geoff Douglas 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report sets out the results of the public notification to close parts of Rosenthal Ave and Rosenthal Lane as public road as illustrated in AT-2 and recommends that Council make the formal application to the Department of Primary Industries – Lands.  The partial road closures are required to facilitate the redevelopment of the Rosenthal Ave Car Park for which a Stage 1 development consent has been received.

 

Background

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

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

 

The Department is responsible for approving such applications and has recently standardised its processes for Public Road Closure applications by a Council. Council has undertaken the closure process in accordance with the approved process.

 

Discussion

First Public Notification

 

The proposed road closure was advertised in the North Shore Times on 18 November 2015 and notification letters sent to nearby residents and public utilities on 16 November 2015.  The extent of the proposed partial road closure as notified was as per AT-1.  A report to Ordinary Council Meeting 26 April 2016 summarised responses and objections, and sought Council’s resolution to proceed to lodge the road closure application to the Department of Primary Industries – Lands. 

 

During finalisation of the Stage 1 DA application in December 2015, it became apparent that the footprint of the proposed road closure would have to be modified due to further design development of the building to accommodate the requirements of Coles and Aldi.

 

 It therefore was necessary to re-advertise the proposal. The difference between the first and the second road closure plan is minor – the removal of a proposed below road stratum in Birdwood Lane, the creation of a below road stratum in Rosenthal Lane, and the removal of a proposed dedication at the corner of Birdwood Avenue and Rosenthal Avenue.  The revised closure plan is included as AT-2.

 

Second Public Notification

 

The revised proposed road closure was advertised in the North Shore Times on 7 July 2016. Council also wrote to the relevant authorities and surrounding property owners likely to have an interest in the proposal.

Responses

 

A.  Public Authorities

1.    DPI Fisheries - No response was received from DPI Fisheries to the second notification letter, however they did reply to the first notification plan by email dated 26 November 2015, advising  that “they had no concerns with the proposal”.

2.    Transgrid - By email dated 14 July 2016, wherein they advised that “the proposed road closure will not affect our infrastructure”.

3.    RMS - No direct response received, however they previously provided comment on the proposed development and did not raise any specific issues relating to the proposed partial road closures.

4.    Ausgrid - No direct response received, however they are in active consultation with Council to relocate their substation out of the Rosenthal Avenue Car Park site including provision of alternate new kiosks.  These works are presently under construction.

5.    Sydney Water - No direct response received, however a limited extent of adjustments to their existing services may be required to divert the sewer main along a section of Rosenthal Ave around the proposed partial road closure.  This area of the building is currently being closely investigated by ADCO Constructions who are responsible for the design and construction of the Rosenthal Project.  If required, any diversion works will be negotiated with Sydney Water as part of an early works package.

6.    National Parks and Wildlife Service - Office of Environment & Heritage - By letter dated 19 July 2016 (ref16/349066) stating that NPWS  “…has no objection to these proposed road closures”

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

 

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

 

B.  Submissions from Individuals

The following issues were raised in submissions from individuals.

8.    Impact on Rosenthal Ave bus routes - The bus routes would not be affected as the closure relates to below ground stratums or minor alterations to the road reserve boundaries. The road pavement width (kerb to kerb) is not significantly reduced.

9.    Impact on access to apartments at 5 Birdwood Avenue - there will be no impact on access to 5 Birdwood Ave due to the partial road closure.  In respect of pedestrian access generally, a DDA compliant footpath will be provided commencing at Birdwood Lane will link with a pedestrian over bridge across Rosenthal Avenue, eliminating the need to have an at grade footpath (not DDA compliant) along the eastern side of Rosenthal Avenue.  Importantly this also eliminates pedestrian conflict points along the proposed loading dock and car park entry at Finlayson Street intersection.

10.  Impact on access to the rear of his businesses from Rosenthal Lane - The partial road closure in Rosenthal Lane will be a below road stratum lot and does not affect existing at grade property accesses.

One submission also strongly supported the closures.  

Construction Access

 

The process for finalisation of the road closure is not likely to be concluded prior to the anticipated construction commencement date. To facilitate the construction works, s138 of the Roads Act allows Council to approve works in the Road Reserve, including excavation and the erection of a structure. It is therefore recommended that Council authorise the works under s138 of the Roads Act. Upon finalisation of the partial road closure, the works will fall within the new title for the consolidated site.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

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

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

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

4.         Grant consent to ADCO Constructions under s138 of the Roads Act for the excavation and construction works for the Rosenthal Development within the proposed road closure areas.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Rosenthal 1st Partial Road Closure Plan

1 Page

 

AT‑2View

Rosenthal 2nd Partial Road Closure Plan

1 Page

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 March 2017

2017/2018 Draft Budget, Fees and Charges and Delivery Program and Operational Plan

 

 

Subject:          2017/2018 Draft Budget, Fees and Charges and Delivery Program and Operational Plan    

Record No:    SU6612 - 11063/17

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Introduction

 

The 2017/18 Budget has been formulated in the context of continuing to maintain service delivery levels for existing and new residents and initiating the redevelopment of Rosenthal Car Park within an ongoing tight economic environment.  This combined with ongoing cost increases in utilities, the pressure local government generally is under from a variety of sources, has once again made the development of this budget difficult. Major pressures include:-

·    Continued rate pegging from the State Government has seen revenue lag behind actual costs, with only a 1.5% increase in Rates approved for 2017/18; and

·    Employee costs generally are anticipated to increase by approximately 2.6% for 2017/18.

 

Draft Budget for 2017/18

 

Budget Summary

 

The 2017/2018 Draft Budget as shown attached as (AT-1) was prepared using Council's normal format and arranged in program areas that reflect Council’s activities. The document contains explanatory notes that describe the activities covered by each of the programs.

 

The 2017/2018 Budget has been formulated on the basis of applying the principle of seeking a balanced budget in cash terms without reliance on debt. Despite the significant program of works and services, on an Accrual Accounting basis, Council’s budget shows a small surplus which is required to cover non cash revenues; the revaluation of Market Square, Profit on Sale of Assets and estimated increase in Joint Ventures such as Civic Risk Mutual,  that are excluded in the most important Operating Surplus Ratio.

 

To achieve this, the 2017/2018 Draft Budget was formulated based on materials and contracts being pegged at previous year levels. Any changes beyond this were made in an environment of contestability which required individual Divisional Managers to critically evaluate and justify program expenditures, matching each against their respective funding source thus leading to the containment of costs.   The draft budget as presented will continue to facilitate the achievement of Council’s objectives in the coming 12 months.

 

Fit for the Future Ratios

 

It is important in preparing the 2017/18 budget that financial sustainability ratios remain in a strong position and meet industry benchmarks.  The following comments are made in relation to the published Fit for the Future industry ratios:-

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

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

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

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

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

 

Criteria

Benchmarks

Ratio

Comply

Sustainability

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

3.22%

Yes

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

73.15%

Yes

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

average over 3 years

332.61%

Yes

Effective Infrastructure Management

Infrastructure Backlog Ratio (less than 2%)  

1.81%

Yes

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

223%

Yes

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

0%

Yes

Efficiency

Real Operating Expenditure per capita (decreasing over time)

0.90%

Yes

 

Budget Highlights

 

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

 

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

 

Mowbray Precinct – Open Space - $2,000,000 has been provided for the construction of new open space and an active recreation facilities in the Mowbray Precinct to cater for the additional population growth that is occurring in this area.

 

Aquatic Centre Olympic Pool Grandstand - The Olympic Pool was built in 1961 and concern has been raised about its remaining lifespan. The grandstand also has reached the end of its effective life. Council staff over the next year will produce plans for exhibition to the public in regard to the   refurbishment or replacement of the Olympic Pool and grandstand in future years. $600,000 has been transferred to Reserve for this future project.

 

Traffic Signals - Funds have been allocated to upgrade traffic signals at Mowbray Road West/ Centennial Avenue/ Greenlands Road intersection ($730,000 including land acquisition cost).

 

Cultural Services – A total of $163,000 has been provided for cultural services program including Sunset in the Village, Plaza decorations, Art Exhibition, Lane Cove Festival, Autumn Harmony Festival and celebrating 40 years of Lane Cove Plaza.

 

Corporate Services

 

Administration 1.1

 

Council will need to continue to contribute an additional $128,000 for staff who are in the Defined Benefits super fund in 2017/18. Superannuation estimates in individual accounts will vary throughout the budget depending on the number of staff in the scheme.

 

$60,000 is provided for Council’s Internal Audit program, which is a shared resource with other Northern Sydney Councils, the program is now at full capacity with 2.5 auditors. External audit services are now provided by the Auditor General. $63,000 has been allowed for, which is an increase on the current year budget of $37,500 set prior to the Auditor-General taking over the carriage of audits.

 

The NSROC contribution has increased by an incremental amount to $42,000. NSROC continues to play a vital regional advocacy role particularly in response to the State Government’s Fit for the Future program. Current NSROC projects include the regional waste strategy; regional ageing strategy; renewal energy project; and ongoing investigation of resource sharing opportunities such as shared learning and implementation of the NSROC sportsground strategy.

 

eNotices

 

In 2017/18 Council will continue to offer the opportunity to ratepayers to receive their rate notices via email through Bpay View and the ability to pay using Bpay or any of the other current payment options.

 

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

 

Organisation Development - Administration (Program 3.1)

 

Workers Compensation premiums are claims driven and are spread throughout.

 

Provision is made for training associated with the progression of staff through Council’s salary system and mandatory training for WHS purposes.

 

Council provides staff with ad-hoc access to an Employee Assistance Program, charges are in line with utilisation.

 

This program provides for uniforms, community consultation initiatives and the annual community satisfaction survey.

 

Environmental Services

 

Overall the Environmental Services Division is seeking to continue existing program initiatives for the 2017/18 budget year.

 

Strategic Planning (Programme 2.1)

 

The ongoing series of LEP and DCP amendments will continue, and a number of ad hoc special projects arise each year, including liaison with the new Greater Sydney Commission and progressing St Leonards South Planning Proposal and DCP. Funding has been provided to develop DCP controls for the Lane Cove Village laneways which are undergoing redevelopment.

 

Development Control (Programme 6.2)

 

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

 

Environmental Health (Programme 6.3.1)

 

Council continues to undertake water quality monitoring and inspections for food shops, cooling towers, skin penetration and beautician services to ensure public health standards are maintained.

 

Regulatory Services (Programme 6.4)

 

Council will continue to focus on minimising graffiti, waste dumping and vandalism. Additionally, surveillance of major construction sites and adherence to conditions of consent will be a priority during 2017/18.

 

Household Garbage Collection (Programme 9.2)

 

Council will continue to implement its waste strategy and educational programs, which seek to increase diversion rates above 50%. The partnership with NSROC to develop a Regional Waste Disposal Strategy  has seen  reduction in Waste Disposal costs, which has allowed Council to retain the 2016/17 Domestic Waste Management charges, that is no increase. Council has in conjunction with surrounding councils established a permanent dedicated ‘problem waste’ (paint, e-waste etc) collection centre in Artarmon.

 

Sustainability Levy (Programme 13)

 

Over 50 projects are likely to be funded during the 2017/18 budget year that will contribute to the economic, social and environmental sustainability of the Lane Cove community.

 

Human Services

 

Major projects that will be undertaken in the next twelve months include the refurbishment of the Community Centre to allow for the relocation of Centrehouse and planning for the future of the Olympic Pool and Grandstand.

 

Council has completed the first three years of this WHO (World Health Organisation) and funds have been made available to commence work on the next five year action plan. Funds have also been made available to implement the recommendations of the Disability Action Plan and the Reconciliation Action Plan and to continue to implement the Cultural and Social Plan initiatives.

 

Kindy Cove Child Care Centre   (Program 4.3.2)

 

Kindy Cove Child Care Centre is run as a business unit of Council.  The budget is developed in close cooperation with the Management Advisory Committee.  The fees have been increased by an amount of $4.00 per day for all age groups from July 1, 2017.

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

 

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

 

The Youth Services Program continues to provide high quality services to our residents including initiatives such as the school holiday program, continuing the Primary School Open days and the Youth Centre operating as a five day a week drop in service from Tuesday to Saturday. Some additional funding has been included in the 2017/18 budget reflecting a rise in the number of youth regularly attending the Centre and the need for more materials, including food to meet the need.

 

Shorefest, which is a regional youth music festival will continue in 2017/8 and funds have been included in the budget to cover this event.

 

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

 

Communications and Cultural Events

 

Funding has been allocated to a range of cultural activities outlined in the current Cultural Plan.  For the 2017/2018 budget, additional funds have been allocated to assist in celebrating 40 years of the Lane Cove Plaza. Funds have again been allocated for signature events, such as Festival by the River and Coffee Carnevale that appeal to the broadest cross section of our community.

 

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

 

Library and Information Services (Program 5.1)

 

The Library continues to provide a wide range of programs targeting all elements of the Lane Cove community.

 

The Shorelink budget has increased reflecting increased costs in 2017/8 due to Willoughby Council’s decision to withdraw from the Network.

 

Facilities (Programs 4, 5 & 9)

 

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

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

 

The 2017/8  budget reflects the reduction in electricity usage both at the Civic Centre and at the Library. The Civic Centre and the Library continue to show decreased electricity usage as a result of energy saving initiatives as well as the increased calibration of the installed systems.

 

Income and Expenditure codes have been included in this budget for the new Little Lane development for associated maintenance and cleaning costs.

 


 

Open Space and Urban Services

 

Open Space   (Programs 5.7.1 – 5.7.6)

 

During 2017/2018 a number of maintenance and capital improvements are planned for Council’s Open Space areas including parks, sporting grounds and water recreation.

 

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

 

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

 

Funds in the amount of $500,000 have been provided as matching funding for upgrades to the toilets, storage area, grandstand view deck and amenities at Tantallon Oval as part of the Community Building Partnerships program in conjunction with the Lane Cove Tigers and the Lane Cove Junior Rugby Union.  The allocation of these funds is subject to Council approval of the staging plan, with Stage 1 to include the toilets, storage, administration, Canteen/BBQ area and viewing deck.

 

Funding has also been provided for the upgrade of the Kingsford Smith Oval grandstand ($250,000) and the rotunda roof replacement at the Plaza.

 

Following audits of play equipment, benches and picnic tables in 2017-18, funding has been dedicated to arrange for the repair of a number of items identified.

 

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

 

Engineering and Support Services (Program 8.1)

 

Further work will be undertaken on the strategic traffic and transport studies for St Leonards as required due to new significant development. Other works planned include detailed design work for the proposed Epping Road/ Coxs Lane and Burns Bay Road/ Coxs Lane/ Tambourine Bay Road signalisation, widening of Coxs Lane and Finlayson Street, subject to the outcome of community consultation.

 

Roads (Program 8.2)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Ancillary Works (Program 8.3)

 

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

 

Funding for street lighting expenditure has been based on the latest Ausgrid fee structure. Energy costs will gradually decrease once the lighting upgrade work is fully completed. .

 

Council’s bicycle funding will remain at $150,000 to allow continued implementation of Council’s Bicycle Plan.

 

Funds have been allocated for bushland regeneration in the vicinity of River Road near Standish Street.

 

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

 

Footpaths (Program 8.4)

 

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

 

In addition to a $50,000 contribution from the RMS, $170,000 has been allocated to construct the shared user path in River Road West outside Greenwich Public School.

 

Bus Shelters (Program 8.6)

 

The bus shelter contract with Adshel will expire on 2 September 2017 and Council is considering an extension of the contract for a further nine months to align with City of Ryde Council’s contract.

 

Water Transport (Program 8.7)

 

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

 

Street Sweeping (Program 9.3)

 

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

 

Other Garbage Expenses (Program 9.4)

 

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

 

Urban Stormwater (Program 9.5)

 

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

 

Other Community Facilities (Program 9.7)

 

Provision has been made for increased maintenance to appropriately maintain the newly constructed Little Street Car Park and Lane Cove Plaza.

Sustainability Levy

 

This year Council continues to fast track Sustainability initiatives utilising the 6% Sustainability Levy. Projects for 2017/18 include:-

·    Environmental education;

·    Bush Kids;

·    The Backyard Habitat Program;

·    Walk Around The World;

·    Public Art Initiatives;

·    Love Where You Live Lane Cove; and

·    Sustainable Building Advisory Program.  

 

Budget Revenues

 

Rates Levy

 

The Minister for Local Government has announced the general rate peg increase as 1.5 % for 2017/18.

 

General Purpose (Ordinary) Rates

 

It is proposed to levy two (2) Ordinary Rates in 2017/18 in accordance with S.492 and S.497(a) of the Local Government Act.

 

i.  An Ordinary Residential Rate of  0.119138 cents in the dollar, on the Land Value of all Rateable Land categorised as Residential in accordance with S.516 of the Local Government Act, (with the exception of heritage properties which are rated on their heritage value), with a Minimum Rate of $788, to yield $17,703,547.

 

ii. An Ordinary Business Rate of $0.620667 cents in the dollar, on the Land Value of all Rateable Land categorised as Business in accordance with S.516 of the Local Government Act, with a Minimum Rate of $866 to yield $5,215,387.

 

Car Parking Special Rate

 

It is proposed to levy a Car Parking Special Rate on Business premises in Lane Cove of 0.195165 cents in dollar with a minimum rate of $2 per assessment, to raise $160,839.

 

Domestic Waste Management (DWM) Charges

 

Domestic Waste Management Services are rendered by Council to all residential properties (including flats and strata’s) in the Lane Cove Municipality. DWM does not include waste services rendered to business rated properties. As provided for in the Local Government Act, the “reasonable” cost of DWM is fully recoverable and is reflected in the recommended charge for Domestic Waste Management in the Operational Plan. However, due to reduced contract charges and increased collection services the charge is proposed to remain at 2016/17 levels.

 

The Draft Budget provides for the levying of a Domestic Waste Management Charge (under S.496 of the Act) of $425.00 for each 80 litre MGB and recycling service on all rateable and non-rateable residential properties. Additional DWM services to Owner Occupied Single Residential Dwellings are available at $6.25 per week. Charges for DWM services rendered to residential units above business premises, or extra DWM services rendered to other premises, are set out in the Schedule of Fees and Charges for 2017/2018.

Interest Charges

 

Interest is to be charged on overdue Rates and DWM Charges in accordance with S.566(3) of the Act. The maximum rate of interest payable has not yet been announced by the Minister for 2017/2018.

 

Valuation Base

 

Rates for 2017/2018 will be levied on the 1 July 2016 Base Date Valuations as issued by the Valuer General.

 

Fees & Charges

 

The Reserve Bank of Australia inflation forecast for the ensuing year is 2 to 3% whilst wages and salaries are anticipated to grow by 2.6% over the coming year. These have been used as a reference for any recommended increases in the Schedule of Fees and Charges for 2017/2018 (AT-2) for those charges which are set by Council.

 

S.611 Charges – Infrastructure Charges

 

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

 

Loan Borrowing


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

 

Salaries and Wages

 

Salaries and Wages include provision for staff progression through Council's revised Salary System and a 2.6% award increase from 1 July 2017. All other provisions are as per the Local Government (State) Award. Sick leave has been based on 50% of leave entitlement and on sick leave history.

 

Depreciation Charges

 

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

 

Community Strategic Plan, Lane Cove 2025 and Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2017-2018

 

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

·         A community strategic plan;

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

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

·         A delivery program; and

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


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

 

As reported to Council at the Ordinary Meeting on 5 December 2016, as the 2016 Elections were deferred due to the merger proposal, Council was advised to prepare a One (1) year Operational Plan and Budget based on the existing Community Strategic Plan and Delivery Program.

 

Community Strategic Plan, Lane Cove 2025

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

 

The 2017-18 Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan, shown attached as AT-3, outlines the actions to be implemented over the coming year in order to achieve the goals, objectives and strategies of the Community Strategic Plan. New actions suggested by Councillors at the 2017 Corporate Planning Day for inclusion in the Delivery Program and Operation Plan are shown in blue.

 

Community Consultation

 

It is a statutory requirement that the Draft Budget 2017-2018, Delivery Program (Incorporating Operational Plan) 2017-2018 and Fees and Charges 2017-2018, following Council’s initial consideration, be placed on public exhibition for a period of not less than twenty eight (28) days. Following this, Council must consider any public comments submitted before the Plan can be adopted.

 

It is proposed to exhibit these documents for six (6) weeks from late March 2017 to May 2017. A report will be prepared for Council’s consideration at the May Ordinary Council Meeting advising of the results of the community consultation and recommending final adoption. Until the Delivery Program is adopted, Council is unable to levy rates and charges for the fiscal year for which the plan is prepared.

 

Consultation Statement of Intent

 

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

 

Methods

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Open

Target Audience

Whole Community

Whole Community

Proposed Medium

Exhibition / Advertising / eNewsletter

Survey

Indicative Timing

March – May 2017

March – May 2017

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.   Council adopt for the purpose of public exhibition, the 2017-2018 Draft Budget, Draft Fees and Charges and Draft Delivery Program (Incorporating Operational Plan);

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

3.   Following public exhibition, the 2017-2018 Draft Budget, Draft Fees and Charges and Draft Delivery Program (Incorporating Operational Plan) together with any submissions received, be considered at the Council meeting to be held 15 May 2017.

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

2017-18 Draft Budget

179 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑2View

2017-18 Draft Fees and Charges

23 Pages

Circulated Separately

AT‑3View

2017-18 Draft Operational Plan

66 Pages

Circulated Separately

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 March 2017

NSROC Constitution Amendment

 

 

Subject:          NSROC Constitution Amendment    

Record No:    SU902 - 13556/17

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

NSROC is proposing to alter its Constitution to ensure each Council has the opportunity to have two voting delegates by removing the current limitation that one of the voting delegates for each Council at a meeting must be the Mayor or Acting Mayor. This will effectively mean the alternate delegate appointed by Council can substitute for the Mayor or the other Councillor representative. It is recommended the amendment be supported.

 

Background

 

At the NSROC Board meeting of 23 February 2017 a resolution was passed to amend the NSROC Constitution in relation to voting rights. Specifically, the proposed amendment relates to Clause 5 of the Constitution (Representation). As Lane Cove Council is the member of NSROC, any change to the Constitution must be adopted by the Council.

 

Discussion

 

The current NSROC Constitution indicates that each member Council is represented at the Board meeting by the Mayor and one other Councillor.  Where a Mayor of a Council is unable to attend a meeting, the Council may only be represented by the Acting Mayor in the place of the Mayor.

 

The effect of this clause is that, if a Mayor is unable to attend a meeting, then the alternate delegate (representing the Mayor at the NSROC Board meeting) does not have voting rights on issues that come before the meeting, unless that member Council has previously resolved that the alternate delegate is the ‘Acting Mayor’.

 

The Board considered a proposed amendment to the NSROC Constitution to the effect that in the event that a Mayor is unable to attend, another delegate may attend in his/her place and will have the benefit of the same voting rights.

 

Proposed Amendment

 

The proposed revised wording of the NSROC Constitution, as agreed by the Board at its meeting of 23rd February, is as follows:

 

Amend Clause 5v) to read:

 

“Where the Mayor or other appointed delegate of a Council is unable to attend a meeting of the Organisation, the Council may be represented by another member of the Council duly appointed for the purpose of being an alternative delegate. This alternate delegate has the same voting rights as the Mayor and appointed delegate”

 

The amendment would also require:

 

·         The deletion of Clause 5 vi) (as it will then be superfluous); and

·         Minor amendment to the wording of Clause 5 vii) to retain consistency (renumbering the relevant clauses).

A copy of the full Clause 5, with amendments is included as AT 1.

 

The Process of Amending the Constitution

 

The Associations Incorporation Act provides the requirements for an amendment to the NSROC Constitution. The Act requires that not less than 21 days notice to be given and that in order for the decision to be carried, the motion must be supported by a majority of not less than three-quarters of votes cast. Subject to each Council being able to consider the matter individually, the proposed amendment will be considered at the Board meeting of 11 May 2017.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed amendment will ensure full voting requirements in the absence of the Mayor from a NSROC meeting, and is therefore recommended to be supported.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorse the proposed amendment to Clause 5 of the Constitution of the Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils and direct its NSROC representatives to support this decision when the matter is considered by the NSROC Board.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

NSROC Proposed Constitutional Amendments (Clause 5)

1 Page

 

 

  


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 March 2017

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot    

Record No:    SU220 - 12428/17

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

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

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Council Snapshot - February 2017

39 Pages