Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

15 May 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 15 May 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 Manager Governance on 99113525.

 

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

 

 

 


Ordinary Council 15 May 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

 

Confidential Items

 

1.       Waste and Recycling Collection Contract

It is recommended that the Council close so much of the meeting to the public as provided for under Section 10A(2) (d) of the Local Government Act, 1993, on the grounds that the report contains commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret; it further being considered that discussion of the matter in open meeting would be, on balance, contrary to public interest by reason of the foregoing. 

 

public forum

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

2.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 10 APRIL 2017

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

3.       Notice of Motion - Merger Court Action and Council Poll

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

4.       Lane Cove Village Traffic Management Plan

 

5.       Post Consultation Report - Planning Proposal and Draft Development Control Plan for 75-79 Lithgow Street & 84-90 Christie Street, St Leonards

 

6.       Results of Consultation - Voluntary Planning Agreement - 75 - 79 Lithgow St and 84 - 90 Christie St, St Leonards

 

7.       Fleming Street Private Road Re-Naming

 

8.       Adoption of the Reconciliation Action Plan August 2016 – June 2018

 

9.       Financial Assistance Grants to Community Groups: 2017/2018

 

10.     Results of the Consultation for the 2017/18 Draft Operational Plan, 2017/18 Draft Budget and 2017/18 Draft Fees and Charges 

 

11.     3rd Quarter Review of the 2016-2017 Budget

 

12.     Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Determination for Councillor Fees

 

13.     Local Government NSW - Reinforcing Local Democracy Roundtable

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

14.     Lane Cove Mayors: A Retrospective 1895 - 2017

 

15.     Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link

 

16.     Performance Audits NSW Auditor General

 

17.     3rd Quarter Review of the 2016-17 Delivery Program and Operational Plan

 

18.     Council Snapshot  

 

 

 

 

                   


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 May 2017

Notice of Motion - Merger Court Action and Council Poll

 

 

Subject:          Notice of Motion - Merger Court Action and Council Poll    

Record No:    SU5558 - 25894/17

Division:         Lane Cove Council

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

 

 

 

Discussion

 

Current Status

 

In December 2016 Lane Cove Council lodged an application in the Supreme Court of NSW to appeal the previous decision in the NSW Court of Appeal.

 

Unlike previous undertakings given by the NSW State Government, at this stage they have indicated that it will not allow any time beyond the day the Appeal is handed down for Council to consider its options should receive a negative decision in respect of our current legal action.

 

Therefore in light of this, Council must consider and determine in advance, that in the event of a negative decision being handed down in the Supreme Court, and subject to our legal advice providing “reasonable prospects of success”, whether an application should be made to the High Court.

 

Due to short time frame that an application to the High Court would need to be made, Council would need to be liaising with our lawyers with the view of lodging an application to the High Court and seek an injunction to prevent any merger in the mean time. In the event that Lane Cove Council is successful then no action would need to be taken.

 

Essentially the process is a two step process:-

 

1.   Apply to the Court for (“Special Leave”) with an application fee of $2645.00; and

 

2.   Once leave has been approved, serve the notice on all respondents and file documents.

 

Supporting the case for an Appeal

 

As Councilors we are charged with statutory obligation pursuant s.232 of the Local Government Act to make considered and well informed decisions and to represent the collective interests of residents, ratepayer and the local community.

 

In that regard I have outlined some of the factors that justifies the use ratepayer’s monies to oppose the amalgamation of Lane Cove with Hunters Hill and Ryde.

 

Loss of representation

 

At present Lane Cove Council has three wards with three Councilors in each ward totaling 9 Councillors include the Mayor.

 

The residents of Lane Cove by electing their Councillors have control of the direction of our LGA through planning laws, development, infrastructure, sporting grounds, social programs including the disabled and the elderly, local business, elderly investment in community and many other areas.

 

The new merger proposal that combines three Councils (Lane Cove, Hunters Hill and Ryde) will reduce the number of Councillors from 28 to a maximum of 15. The 15 Councillors will be disbursed over the total population of 164,094 represented by either 3 or 5 wards.

 

The effective control of our residents over the new Council will reduce from 100% to between 19% and 22% depending upon how many wards are decided by the administrator, with only 3 of the 15 Councillors at best.

 

The potential risk to losing control is the future control over the allocation of our profits towards local projects that are for the benefits of our constituents.

 

Our residents would be at the mercy of the controlling Council and there is no guarantee that the profits generated from our LGA will be applied towards our residents and nor is there and guarantee that profits from the controlling Council will be also applied towards our residents.

 

Analysis of Legal Fees

 

Legal fees paid to date have been approximately $200k or about $13 per rate payers or $6 per resident. It was prudent of Council to support an appeal to the Supreme Court because had Council not appealed, the potential cross claim of legal fees by the government would have crystallised, thereby increasing the legal fees by approximately another $200k .

 

However, at the time of making this decision, Woollahra Council had lost its appeal and we were waiting for the decision in the Ku-ring-gai Council case to be handed down.

 

The recent decision on the Ku-ring-gai case confirmed that they were not provided procedural fairness, as the NSW State Government did not release the full details of the KPMG report. This has provided some confidence in our pending decision given our case has some similar aspect.

 

In recent discussions with the Mayor of Woollahra their approximately of the High Court was approximately $70K and I would expect any application by this Council to be of a similar amount.

 

We know that in other States where amalgamations have occurred rates have increased by up to 30% and when you take into account the financial errors identified by Morrison Low in the State Governments merger proposal of at least $30m and the additional costs that I have identified from the Morrison Low report of approximately $195mil, it is easy to see how the rates in our LGA could reasonable be expected to increase by at least 30%.

 

A 30% increase for the average rate payer in Lane Cove is about $195 per year for forever and does not include any additional rates increases that would required for possible future infrastructure needs when compared with the one off cost legal in defending the existing rate amounts.

 

Council has sufficient funds for the legal action, and the cost is a one off which equates to less than $20 per ratepayer.

 

If Lane Cove Council were to lose its appeal to the Supreme Court and decide to appeal to the High Court this would cost rate payers and residents respectfully would be $8 and $2.

 

It is worth noting that should Lane Cove Council be successful with its appeal in the Supreme Court, then approximately 80% of our legal costs incurred maybe awarded to us.

 


 

Council Poll

 

The NSW State Government does not have a mandate from the taxpayers of NSW to forcibly merge the Local Government sector; in fact, I believe it was an undertaking from the former Premier, Barry O’farrell that forced mergers would not occur.

 

However, the State Government has chosen to not listen to its local communities and put in place a plan to forcibly merge Local Government area’s against the wishes the communities and notwithstanding also that in the case of Lane Cove Council, we are financially sound and demonstrate good governance.

 

It is worth noting that in December 2012 the ‘Independent Local Government Review Panel’ provided its report to the State Government recommending across the board amalgamations. In that report, it states that only 3 Metropolitan Councils were polled and the overwhelmingly response from the communities surveyed is that they wanted community representation.

 

This Council, and in fact many councils, have called on the Government to give the community the chance to vote at a poll on amalgamations. But there has been no commitment from the State Government to facilitate this process and abide by the outcome.

 

Lane Cove Council’s own polls that have demonstrated on a number of occasions over 70% support, not to amalgamate with Hunters Hill and Ryde. However critics of our process have argued that number of responses do not represent the view of the whole community, notwithstanding that the percentage of responses received in our poll is considered statistically significant and therefore it not unreasonable to extrapolate this result across our LGA and an indication of whole of the community’s views.

 

To settle the matter and to also provide an opportunity to de amalgamate at some future point in time should de amalgamations become a viable option to the residents of Lane Cove LGA, I propose that in conjunction with the Lane Cove Council elections to be held on 8 September this year, that a poll be conducted asking essentially two questions:

1.   Do you want to merge with the Hunters Hill and Ryde Councils?; and

2.   In the event that Lane Cove LGA is merged with Hunters Hill and Ryde LGA, should the opportunity to de amalgamate arise in the future, would you like to de amalgamate? 

 

In the event that a poll indicates that a majority of residents support a merger with Hunters Hill and Ryde then I propose that Lane Cove Council withdraw all legal action relating to this matter.

 

The Evidence on Mergers

 

We know that information obtained from Professors Brian Dollery and Percy Allan indicate that forced mergers in Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania have not produced the anticipated objectives and in most cases have resulted in rate increases, de amalgamations and loss of community services. Similarly, a report commissioned by ‘The Committee for Auckland’ in December 2015 highlighted the following proved a 5 year report card of the Auckland amalgamation.

 

I have listed below some extracts of that report:-

·    The regional government needed grassroots input into the decision making and where Maori are exclude from the governing body which is not dissimilar to Lane Cove where the two Aboriginal groups that the merger proposals cover have not been consulted.

·    Local development has been undermined by the governing body’s objectives.

·    Poor community engagement is still a problem.

·    Commission expressed concern that the CCO model removes major assets and services from direct council control, reducing democratic accountability. Others were concerned that CCOs were run like businesses, with business experts on their boards, diminishing their ability to meet the broader economic and social goals as outlined in council’s strategic plans.

·    The size of the new Auckland Council along with the complexity of its structure and the roles different parts of the council play may be a factor in suppressing engagement and participation levels in Auckland.

·    The widespread practise of workshopping – holding meetings between different parts of the council behind closed doors – reduces transparency. Workshopped meetings are confidential; minutes are not kept and the issues discussed cannot then be raised in a public forum. The argument made for workshopping is to encourage free and frank discussions and consultations between, say, a local board and a CCO. But they may have the opposite effect, that of shutting down comment:

·    The implementation of this planning framework does not resolve the conflicts between different neighbourhoods and areas within the region or between different groups and communities with widely disparate views and aspirations.

·    The reorganisation of Auckland’s councils incurred a number of costs including the on-going development of a new, integrated IT system, which has seen considerable cost blow-outs and caused comment from the Auditor-General.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That should Lane Cove Council lose its appeal in the Supreme Court or any aspect thereof and in the opinion of our legal Counsel an application to the High Court to overturn that decision has ‘reasonable prospects’ of success then the General Manager:-

 

1.    Commence the immediate preparation of an application to the High Court in conjunction with our legal Counsel to enable Council to file such application to the High Court seeking special leave to appeal and obtain injunctions as necessary to allow the matter to proceed to hearing;

 

2.    Provide ‘in confidence’ a copy of applications, legal opinions and other correspondence to all Councillors as and when obtained;

 

3.    With respect to any affidavits or other applications that either Councillor Scott Bennison and/or Councillor David Karpin be authorised to sign;

 

4.   With respect to the Local Government Elections scheduled for the 8 September 2017, Council conduct a Poll and the General Manager liaise with Hunters Hill and Ryde Councils to determine:

a.   the questions to be included in the Poll ensuring consistency across the LGA’s to be something like;

i. Do you want to amalgamate with Hunters Hill and Ryde Councils? Yes/No; and

ii. Should Lane Cove be amalgamated with Hunters Hill and Ryde Councils would you support the de-amalgamation of Lane Cove if this choice was available to you? Yes/No.

b.   the nature and timing of information disseminated to the residents of each LGA supporting the case for a vote that supports no amalgamation and also the de amalgamation should that option become available to the residents of each LGA;

c.   the information to be provided to residents including the merger proposal prepared by the NSW State Government in January 2016.

 

5.   In the event that the residents of Lane Cove LGA support the merger with Hunters Hill and Lane Cove that this Council agrees to withdraw from all legal action relating to merger proposal; and

 

6.   With respect to the nature of information provided to our residents that for our LGA, that the following mediums be used to disseminate the information:

i. Lane Cove Council’s WEB page;

ii. Village Observer;

iii.      circulation with rate notices; and

iv.     other methods should the circulation with notices not be viable.

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Scott Bennison

Councillor

 

 

 

Councillor David Karpin

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 May 2017

Lane Cove Village Traffic Management Plan

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove Village Traffic Management Plan    

Record No:    SU6637 - 23264/17

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Abdullah Uddin 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report outlines the outcome of the community consultation for Lane Cove Village Traffic Management Plan. This report makes recommendations for Council’s adoption.

 

Background

 

Due to the Rosenthal car park development, new developments within and in close proximity to the Village and the general background traffic growth, traffic needs to be managed in the Village accordingly in the future.

 

A proposal for redirecting the through traffic around the Village was considered by Council at its meeting held on 19 September 2016 where it resolved that:

 

1.   Indicate in principle support for the construction of a Village by-pass and undertake further design to ensure feasibility of the scheme outlined in the report including the possible widening of Graham Street; and

2.   Undertake community consultation for the proposed road network upgrades in accordance with the consultation plan outlined in the report.

 

Following the Council meeting, plans were prepared and subsequently consulted with the community. Unless safety concerns arise during the construction phase, none of the changes to parking arranges are proposed to be implemented prior to the opening of the new Rosenthal Avenue Car Park. This will ensure existing on street parking capacity is maintained during the construction phase.

 

Discussion

 

The local community was consulted using the following methods:-

 

1.   Letterbox drop – approximately 1,050 letters delivered to the area shown in Figure 1;

2.   E-newsletter – 6,400 recipients;

3.   Survey via Council website;

4.   Community information evening at the Council chamber – 15 March 2017;

5.   A number of on-site meetings with the local residents;

6.   Advertisement to North Shore Times; and

7.   Information published at the Civic Centre and the libraries.

 

Figure 1: Consultation Letterbox Drop Area

 

ConsultationArea.jpg

 

 

The consultation outcome for each of the seven proposals is discussed below.

 

Proposal 1 – Signalisation of Burns Bay Rd/ Coxs Ln/ Tambourine Bay Rd Intersection

 

Council has received 265 responses where majority of the respondents supported this proposal as shown in Figure 2.

 

Figure 2: Community Response for Signalisation of Burns Bay Rd/ Coxs Ln/ Tambourine Bay Rd

 

 

The most common comments are provided below:-

 

·         Traffic lights must be installed on the grounds of pedestrian safety;

·         Upgrade the roundabout e.g. improve signage, line marking, a zebra crossing at Coxs Ln approach;

·         Traffic lights will eliminate parking and may increase congestion in the area; and

·         Access to the child-care centre should be away from the proposed lights, in a safe position.

Recommendation

 

The proposed traffic lights at Burns Bay Road/ Coxs Lane/ Tambourine Bay Road intersection will improve the traffic flow within the Village and as well as pedestrian safety. Council regularly receives complaints on near misses at this roundabout as pedestrians have to negotiate traffic in many directions. In addition to the local community, Council’s Age-Friendly Advisory Committee has strongly supported the signalisation of this intersection due to the fact that there is no designated refuge island to cross Burns Bay Road and Coxs Lane at this intersection.

 

As the majority of the respondents supported the proposed traffic lights, the proposal is recommended for approval. The project will result in the loss of five (5) street trees and some kerbside parking spaces due to the minimum 20m statutory ‘No Stopping’ zones at traffic lights. 

 

Traffic lights installation will also require minor land acquisition at two locations (61 & 65 Burns Bay Road), followed by the submission of detailed design to Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) for approval. Council has approached the affected land owners and obtained verbal agreement to commence the negotiation process. As land acquisition is a lengthy process, Council will need to commence the land acquisition process as soon as practicable.

 

Proposal 2 – Full or Partial Closure of Sutherland St/ Coxs Lane Intersection

 

RMS guidelines do not permit a T-intersection in such close proximity to traffic signals. Therefore, should the installation of traffic lights at Burns Bay Road, Tambourine Bay Road and Coxs Lane intersection proceed, then one of the following two (2) options must occur at Sutherland Street/ Coxs Lane intersection. The following two (2) options were consulted:

 

·         Option 2a - Full closure of Sutherland Street at Coxs Lane intersection

·         Option 2b - Partial closure of Sutherland Street at Coxs Lane intersection resulting in a left-in, left-out arrangement

 

Council received 257 responses, the majority supported Option 2a as shown in Figure 3.

 

Figure 3: Community Response for Sutherland St/ Coxs Ln Intersection

 

 

 

The most common comments are provided below:-

 

·         In Option 2a, the turning circle (cul-de-sac) requires further work as it is currently too close to the property boundary. The turning circle should be reduced to a maximum of 15-16m diameter and moved further to the east to retain more trees;

·         Footpaths are required at the periphery of the cul-de-sac;

·         If any of the proposals are implemented, Centennial Ave/ Sutherland St/ Garling St intersection should be signalised;

·         If Option 2a is adopted, then there is no need to make any changes to Graham Street; and

·         Loss of street trees due to the cul-de-sac.

 

Recommendation

 

As the majority of the respondents supported Option 2a, it is recommended for approval with a slight adjustment of the cul-de-sac, as suggested by the community. Following the community consultation, the traffic consultant has been asked to redesign the cul-de-sac so that it provides a reasonable buffer between the road surface and the property boundaries. The revised design is shown in Figure 4 where the waste collection vehicles will require undertaking a three point turn at the cul-de-sac. Local access to existing properties will remain. However, the proposal will result in the loss of five (5) street trees. The proposed Sutherland Street closure would be incorporated with the signalisation of Burns Bay Road/ Tambourine Bay Road/ Coxs Lane intersection.

 

Upon closure of Sutherland Street at Coxs Lane intersection, the residents’ suggestion for signalisation for Centennial Avenue/ Sutherland Street / Garling Street intersection is not warranted as Graham Street should be able to accommodate the additional local traffic.

 

Figure 4: Revised Cul-de-sac design at Sutherland St/ Coxs Ln Intersection

 

 

 

Proposal 3 – Changes to Graham Street

 

If any of the options in Proposal 2 are implemented, there is a potential for traffic to increase in nearby Graham Street which has limited road width as parking is permitted on both sides of the road. Therefore, Council consulted the following three (3) options:-

 

·         Option 3a – Retain the existing width and remove on-street parking (7.4m from kerb to kerb)

·         Option 3b – Widen the street by 0.5m on each side and construct footpath (provides 8.3m kerb to kerb and a 1.2m wide footpath)

·         Option 3c – Widen the street by 1.6m on both sides of the street and construct footpath (provides 10.6m kerb to kerb and a 1.2m wide footpath)

 

Council received 257 responses, the majority supported Option 3a as shown in Figure 5.

 

Figure 5: Community Response on Graham St

 

 

 

The most common comments are provided below:-

 

·         Widening the street on only one side could be another option; and

·         Implement Resident Parking Scheme (RPS) in Graham St and Burns Bay Rd.

 

Recommendation

 

Although a majority of the respondents (37%) supported ‘No Stopping’ zones on both sides of the street, options 3b & 3c both seek to retain some level of parking in this street (143 combined responses). As suggested in the submissions, this could be achieved by removing parking on one side of the street, and this is the recommended option. As Graham Street is predominantly used for overnight parking by locals, before implementing the removal of parking one side, it is proposed to monitor the performance of Graham Street in terms of traffic flow for three (3) months following the implementation of proposals 1 & 2, to determine if the removal of the parking on one side is required.

 

With regards to the RPS, last year Council consulted the affected residents for a proposed RPS in the area which was strongly opposed by the local residents. Therefore, RPS in Burns Bay Road or Graham Street is not recommended at this stage.

 

Proposal 4 – Changes to Coxs Ln (Birdwood Ave to Finlayson St)

 

Currently Coxs Lane is approximately 6.5m between kerbs. To accommodate a two-way vehicular flow, either kerbside parking needs to be removed or the street needs to be widened. Council's Land Use Plan (LEP) also directs the widening of Coxs Lane to provide two travel lanes. Therefore, Council consulted on the following two (2) options:

 

·         Option 4a – Retain existing road width and remove on-street parking (6.5m kerb to kerb)

·         Option 4b – Widen the street by three (3) metres on the eastern side (8.3m kerb to kerb and 1.2m footpath). Indented parking bays are proposed on the eastern side

 

Council received 263 responses, the majority supported Option 4b as shown in Figure 6.

 

Figure 6: Community Response on Coxs Ln (Birdwood Ave to Finlayson St)

 

The most common comments are provided below:-

 

·         A small roundabout at Finlayson St/ Coxs Ln intersection should be constructed;

·         Concerns regarding traffic increase via Coxs Ln; and

·         Retain the on-street parking where possible as it also provides protection to pedestrians.

 

Recommendation

 

The proposed indented parking bays on the eastern side of Coxs Lane will ensure there will be no loss of parking in this proposal. Pedestrian footpath on the eastern side of Coxs Lane will improve pedestrian connectivity in the area. There will be no loss of street trees.

 

The Development Application (DA) approval for the development of 2-22 Birdwood Avenue & 11-15 Finlayson Street requires a 3m wide strip of land to be dedicated to Council. Also, the necessary setback has been provided for in the development of 17-21 Finlayson Street. Council will need to acquire the land from 17-21 Finlayson Street to accommodate the footpath and indented parking bays on the east side of Coxs Lane.

 

The suggestion of a roundabout Finlayson St/ Coxs Ln intersection will assist traffic movements and is therefore supported. The design and implementation will be undertaken as part of the detailed design phase of the indented parking bays.

Once proposals 1 and 2 are implemented Council will undertake traffic counts in the area and monitor the vehicular speed, volume and classification. If there is a trend of speed and traffic volume increase in Coxs Lane or Finlayson Street, traffic calming devices (e.g. raised thresholds) can be considered at that time.

 

Proposal 5 – Changes to Coxs Ln (Finlayson St to Sutherland St)

 

Council consulted the following three (3) options:-

 

·         Option 5a – Retain existing width and remove on-street parking (6.7m kerb to kerb)

·         Option 5b – Widen the street by 1.6m on the western side (8.3m kerb to kerb and 1.2m footpath)

·         Option 5c – Widen the street by 3.9m on the western side (10.6m kerb to kerb and 1.2m footpath)

Council received 262 responses, the majority supported Option 5a as shown in Figure 7.

 

Figure 7: Community Response on Coxs Ln (Finlayson St to Sutherland St)

 

 

The most common comments are provided below:-

 

·         A petition of 382 signatories advocated for saving street trees;

·         Other traffic calming devices should be considered (e.g. speed humps, reduced speed limit, pedestrian crossings, etc.);

·         Widen the street around the trees; and

·         A pedestrian crossing in Coxs Lane near the park.

 

Recommendation

 

Based on the community response, Option 5a is the preferred option. This section of Coxs Ln is predominantly used for parking during the day and therefore the demand will be lessened with the arrival of the new Rosenthal Avenue Car Park.

 

In relation to the traffic calming devices or zebra crossing, once proposals 1 and 2 are implemented Council will undertake traffic counts in the area and monitor the vehicular speed, volume and classification. If there is a trend of speed and traffic volume increase in Coxs Lane or Finlayson Street, traffic calming devices (e.g. raised thresholds) can be considered at that time.

 

Proposal 6 – Changes to Finlayson St (Rosenthal Ave to Coxs Ln)

 

Finlayson Street is approximately 7.5m between kerbs which prohibits two-way vehicular flow with kerbside parking on both sides of the street. Council has implemented parking restrictions on one side during the day, however further improvement will be required with the arrival of the new Rosenthal Avenue Car Park, therefore Council consulted the following four (4) options:-

 

·         Option 6a – Retain existing road width and remove parking on both sides (7.5m kerb to kerb)

·         Option 6b – Widen the street by 0.8m on the northern side (8.3m kerb to kerb)

·         Option 6c – Widen the street by 3.1m on the northern side (10.6m kerb to kerb)

·         Option 6d – Widen the street by 3.1m on the northern side, excluding the eastern end (10.6m kerb to kerb)

Council received 264 responses, the majority supported Option 6a as shown in Figure 8.

 

Figure 8: Community Response on Finlayson St (Rosenthal Ave to Coxs Ln)

 

The most common comments are provided below:-

 

·         Install a pedestrian zebra crossing half way down to Finlayson St;

·         Wider roads will encourage heavy traffic which will cause traffic & pedestrian safety issues, noise pollution and speeding. Speed limit should be reduced to 40km/h;

·         Where trees are removed, replace them with new native trees / eucalypts; and

·         The overhead wires could eventually be undergrounded to allow for new street tree planting.

 

Recommendation

 

Whilst Option 6a received the most support and is the recommended option. Options 6b, 6c and 6d all seek to retain some parking (combined 121 responses). If any of these options is to be further considered, Option 6d is the most popular, however, it would result in the loss of 10 street trees. With the arrival of the new Rosenthal Avenue Car Park, the main demand for parking will come from locals wishing to park over night. Council currently allows free entry to Council Car Parks in the Village after 6pm, which means overnight parking would be available to locals in the Rosenthal Avenue Car Park.

 

As stated above, any traffic calming device or zebra crossing will be considered in due course, subject to finding of traffic and pedestrian surveys.

 

Proposal 7 – New Right Turn from Coxs Lane to Epping Road

 

Council is working with RMS to provide better access to Epping Road via revisions to the traffic signals at the intersection with Coxs Lane to ease traffic congestion in and around the Village.

A one-way northbound movement along Coxs Lane from Birdwood Avenue to Epping Road, will provide for two lanes to turn right onto Epping Road (retaining the kerbside lane as a shared left and right turn). To achieve this, the plan currently involves relocating the existing signalised pedestrian crossing and bus stop on Epping Road, near Coxs Lane. Council also proposes widening part of Epping Road, subject to RMS approval and funding.

 

Council received 267 responses, the majority supported the proposal as shown in Figure 8.

 

Figure 8: Community Response for Signalisation of Epping Rd/ Coxs Ln Intersection

 

The most common comments are provided below:-

 

·         Restricting entry into Coxs Ln from Epping Rd would cause greater strain on Longueville Rd, especially as cars would stack up behind the buses;

·         Install parking restrictions in Coxs Ln (7am to 7pm) until the right turn onto Epping Rd is achieved;

·         Parking could be removed from the streets during the construction period of the Rosenthal Avenue Car Park development and be reviewed after the car park is operational. Evening parking could be unrestricted; and

·         Improve public transport and restrict heavy vehicle thoroughfare in the area.

 

Recommendation

 

A traffic modelling report for the proposal has been submitted to RMS for approval. The report has addressed the residents’ concerns raised above. The morning peak, city bound, is significantly greater than the volume using Coxs Lane southbound in the afternoon. It should be noted temporary approval has been provided by the RMS for the left turn restriction from Epping Road to Coxs Lane during the construction periods (7am-3.30pm, Mon-Fri & 8am-12pm, Sat) to ease congestion in the area.

 

No action is recommended until RMS approval is obtained in this proposal. Following the approval, further discussion on the project funding and timing can be discussed with the RMS.

 

Conclusion

 

The report has captured the results of the community consultation, in which it was clear that the community is seeking a balance between maintaining on street parking and the streetscapes of the streets affected. This planning is necessary to allow Council to holistically plan in relation to the Rosenthal Car Park project. As stated earlier in the report, unless safety concerns arise during the construction phase, none of the changes to parking arranges are proposed to be implemented prior to the opening of the new Rosenthal Avenue Car Park.

 

The Signalisation of Burns Bay Road/ Tambourine Bay Road/ Coxs Lane, full closure of Sutherland Street at Coxs Lane intersection, widening on the eastern side of Coxs Lane (between Birdwood Avenue and Finlayson Street), a roundabout at Finlayson Street/ Coxs Lane intersection, removal of parking on Finlayson Street and changes to the signalisation of Epping Road/ Coxs Lane are recommended for approval.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

 

1.   The signalisation of Burns Bay Road/ Tambourine Bay Road/ Coxs Lane proceed and Council undertake the detailed design including for submission to the RMS for approval;

 

2.   The necessary land for the signalisation of Burns Bay Road/ Tambourine Bay Road/ Coxs Lane be acquired;

 

3.   The full closure of Sutherland Street at Coxs Lane intersection proceed and Council undertake the detailed design for submission to the RMS for approval;

 

4.   Three months after the implementation of Parts 1 and 3 above, Council undertake a survey of traffic flow in Graham Street to determine if parking should be restricted to one side of Graham Street;

 

5.   Indented parking bays be constructed and parking be restricted to one side of Coxs Lane between Finlayson and Sutherland Streets, to coincide with the opening of the new Rosenthal Avenue Car Park;

 

6.   The land located at the north-eastern corner of Coxs Lane/ Finlayson Street (17-21 Finlayson Street) to facilitate the indented parking bays be acquired;

 

7.   Subject to an appropriate design being developed, a roundabout be constructed on the corner of Finlayson Street and Coxs Lane;

 

8.   Parking be restricted on both sides of Finlayson Street between Rosenthal Avenue and Coxs Lane, to coincide with the opening of the new Rosenthal Avenue Car Park;

 

9.   Council work with the RMS to signalise the intersection of Epping Road/ Coxs Lane to facilitate a right hand turn onto Epping Road; and

 

10. Participants in the consultation and affected residents be notified of the Council’s decision.

 

 

 

Peter Patterson

Executive Manager - Open Space and Urban Services

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Traffic Changes for Lane Cove Village Traffic Management Plans 2017

25 Pages

Available Electronically

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 May 2017

Post Consultation Report - Planning Proposal and Draft Development Control Plan for 75-79 Lithgow Street & 84-90 Christie Street, St Leonards

 

 

Subject:          Post Consultation Report - Planning Proposal and Draft Development Control Plan for 75-79 Lithgow Street & 84-90 Christie Street, St Leonards    

Record No:    SU5658 - 21198/17

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Christopher Pelcz; Terry Tredrea 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council received a Planning Proposal (on 24 December 2014) from JBA on behalf of Northern Terrace 88 Pty Ltd for the St Leonards Plaza Precinct (the site) which comprises a number of properties in St Leonards, bounded by Christie Lane to the north, Christie Street to the east, Lithgow Street to the west and commercial development to the south.

 

On 20 April 2015 Council approved the Planning Proposal for submission to the NSW Department of Planning & Environment seeking Gateway approval for public exhibition.

 

A number of clarifications were requested, and a Gateway Determination was issued by NSW Planning & Environment for the Planning Proposal on 21 October 2015. Although requested, Council was not issued with delegation for this Proposal.

 

Subsequently, at its meeting of Monday 21 March 2016, Council resolved to approve a Draft DCP, which provides detailed development controls for the site, for public exhibition.

 

A related draft Voluntary Planning Agreement was also considered by Council in March 2016 as a separate matter and was publicly exhibited with the Planning Proposal.

 

The Planning Proposal and supporting materials, were publicly exhibited from 29 September 2016 to 10 November 2016.

 

This report recommends adopting the Planning Proposal and Draft Development Control Plan with some minor amendments and clarifications. Issues raised during the public exhibition period have been addressed in the Discussion section.

 

Background

 

Part 3A Consent

 

Part of the site (88 Christie St) had previously been granted development approval (see image below) for an eighteen-storey commercial building under the former NSW Part 3A system. The permissible FSR is 14:1 and height was 65 metres.

 

Current Planning Proposal

 

The Planning Proposal, submitted by JBA on behalf of Northern Terrace 88 Pty Ltd, relates to 75-79 Lithgow St and 84-90 Christie St, St Leonards (Site A). The proposal also includes amalgamation of the eight properties at 546-564 Pacific Highway, opposite St Leonards station, for commercial redevelopment (Site B) as shown in Figure 1. Details of the Proposal are as follows:

 

·         Rezone Site A from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use, to allow the development of two residential towers above retail / commercial. This rezoning includes the adjoining portion of Lithgow St;

 

·         Increase the building heights of Site A to a maximum of RL 227.4 metres (east tower) and RL 166.8 metres (west tower);

 

·         Permit a total floor space ratio (FSR) of 17.6:1, using a bonus FSR mechanism on Site A (see below), in return for public benefits, allowing for:-

 

o   an additional FSR of 2:1 for providing public car parking in association with a full size supermarket (3,000 m2) on site, and

o   an additional FSR of up to 1.6:1 for site amalgamation of shops at 546-564 Pacific Highway, adjacent to the site, for a new commercial building on Site B.

 

·         Include a non-residential floor space ratio for Site A which must not be less than 2.5:1; however if Site B is amalgamated, this can be reduced to 1.5:1.

 

 

Figure 1: Sites A & B

 

In terms of building heights, the height of the east tower on Christie St (RL 224.7m) is comparable in height with the Charter Hall building’s height, at 504 Pacific Hwy (New Hope development), and (west) Winten tower on Lithgow St (RL 166.8m), which would adjoin the proposed rail plaza and be comparable with the Loftex tower at 1-13A Marshall Avenue.

 

At its meeting on 20 April 2015, Council resolved to forward the Planning Proposal to NSW Planning & Environment for a Gateway Determination. It was also intended to create a Draft Development Control Plan to accompany the Planning Proposal.

 

Draft Development Control Plan

 

Council’s planning intention for the St Leonards Commercial area has been clearly expressed through Part D – Commercial Development and Mixed Use Localities in its Development Control Plan since being adopted in 2010. It created a series of block plans for a number of sites in the St Leonards Commercial Core area. The main DCP controls are highlighted in AT-1.

 

SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) would apply to the residential component of the site. Although the ADG does not apply to commercial development, it states that where residential is next to commercial development the separation distances should be treated the same – this is discussed in the ‘Issues’ section of this report.

 

The DCP would also be supplemented by other generic provisions under DCP 2010 including general commercial and mixed use development controls. 

 

St Leonards/Crows Nest Strategic Employment Review

 

NSW Planning & Environment is currently undertaking an Employment Lands analysis of the St Leonards/Artarmon area to control and guide future development.

 

The purpose of the Review is to investigate and respond to the actions identified in “A Plan for Growing Sydney”, including ways to maintain employment in the area, provide new homes, shops, cafes and open space and maximise access to public transport. As part of this investigation, infrastructure needed to support the area into the future will be identified, including improvements to transport, the road network, open space and social infrastructure including community and education facilities.

 

This planning proposal forms part of the suite of existing land uses on which the Employment Review is predicated and are to be treated as existing developments. By incentivising the provision of a substantial increase in employment floor space, and by creating a community urban public domain through the adjacent Rail Plaza, the Winten proposal supports the objectives of the Employment Review.

 

Public Exhibition

 

Gateway Determination

 

During the LEP Gateway Panel’s assessment of the proposal, a number of clarifications were requested. Both Council and the Applicant’s response (dated 26 August 2015) were made available on Council’s website as part of the public exhibition material.

 

Following these clarifications, a Gateway Determination (AT-2) was issued to Council with a number of items to be amended prior to public exhibition – one of which included an amended cumulative traffic study in consultation with Transport for NSW. The final cumulative traffic report, from TEF Consulting, which was completed on 23 August 2016 concluded that the proposed traffic impacts were acceptable  – this is discussed in the ‘Issues’ section of this report.

 

Due to the nature of the consultation with Transport for NSW and Roads and Maritime Services a 12 month extension of the Gateway Determination was requested. This was granted by the Department on 9 September 2016.

 

The minor Gateway amendment was required to change incorrect references to a report within the Planning Proposal document. This amendment was approved on 18 October 2016.

 

Having fulfilled the conditions of the Gateway, NSW Planning & Environment confirmed on 25 October 2016 that the amended Planning Proposal could now proceed to the public exhibition stage.

 

Details

 

Council undertook extensive consultation with community and government departments using a variety of consultation methods, from Thursday, 29 September to Thursday, 10 November 2016 in accordance with planning regulations and Council’s Consultation Policy, community consultation included the following:-

 

·         Advertisement in the North Shore Times;

·         An e-newsletter distributed to registered residents;

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

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

o   Government Agencies,

o   Adjoining Local Government Areas,

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

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

 

A total of 22 submissions were received, including from North Sydney Council. Other government agencies made submissions - Northern Sydney Local Health District and Transport for NSW – discussed below. One submission was received from the Greenwich and St Leonards Action Group – discussed below under issues.

 

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

 

Transport for NSW & RMS concerns

 

The final cumulative traffic study concluded that the impacts of the proposed developments were acceptable.

 

TfNSW, in their submission referenced the ongoing investigations for the St Leonards and Crows Nest Station Precinct and recommended that:

 

Until the aforementioned investigations are complete, it is recommended that Council defer any further consideration of the subject planning proposal. There are a number of other planning proposals within the Precinct including the subject proposal. Transport considers that any significant individual planning proposals (such as the subject one) be reviewed once the Strategy is exhibited.

 

In response, the TfNSW and RMS issues were included and addressed in the cumulative traffic study. The 2015 Gateway requirement to “consult and work with Transport for NSW on the cumulative impacts of the proposed development and the capacity of the road network to cater” has been undertaken and the cumulative traffic study has also been amended to incorporate previous TfNSW and RMS comments (AT-3), addressing the concerns raised by both agencies.

 

Lane Cove Council will continue to work and liaise with TfNSW, NSW Planning & Environment, Willoughby & North Sydney Councils as part of the St Leonards/Crows Nest Strategic Employment Review.  Discussions with the Department of Planning have reinforced that this Planning Proposal should not be deferred pending the outcome of the current Review.

 

Discussion

 

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

 

·         Traffic and Parking;

·         Views;

·         Overshadowing;

·         Compliance with SEPP65 provisions;

·         Open Space;

·         Status of Plaza;

·         Car Share;

·         Current D.A.;

·         Local Infrastructure;

·         Employment Floor Space;

·         Air Space;

·         Broad Context;

·         FSR Calculation.

Issues

 

Traffic

 

Cumulative impact

 

Several submissions expressed concerns that increasing development would put such a load on the existing street network that it would fail. Nor would any measures be taken to ameliorate the situation be effective.

 

Comment

 

As stated in the ‘Public exhibition’ section of this report the cumulative traffic study assessed the cumulative traffic impacts caused by proposed development levels on both the western (St Leonards South and Loftex) and eastern (Winten, Mirvac, New Hope & VIMG) sides. It concluded:

 

“Primarily due to the fact that the proposed developments replace existing substantial buildings, traffic increases as a result are very moderate for each of the developments on sites L (Marshall Ave), A (Winten), B (Mirvac) and C (New Hope & VIMG).

 

Accordingly, although total traffic delays for the whole network generally increased with each additional development, some intersections even experienced slight improvements (due to traffic redistribution), whilst increased delays at other intersections were minor to moderate. Levels of Service remained essentially the same for all models”.

 

The report also concluded that “by themselves, Winten, Mirvac and, specifically, New Hope/VIMG developments will not generate sufficient additional traffic to require infrastructure improvements”.

 

Further communications with NSW Roads and Maritime Services clarified and resolved minor concerns.

 

Proposed Lithgow Street Closure

 

Several submissions noted that Council’s cumulative traffic study did not take into account the proposed closure of Lithgow Street to vehicular traffic nor the impact of the proposed relocation of Christie Lane south linking Lithgow and Christie Streets.

 

Comment

 

Council’s consultant (TEF consulting) has since updated the model and study to address these comments. The full amended study is attached as AT-4.

 

Council’s Development Control Plan for the ‘Winten’ site envisages closing the existing Christie Lane to vehicular traffic. A ‘new laneway’ would then be relocated to the south of the development site as a 2 lane road. Council would also partially close the adjoining portion of Lithgow St to allow the development of its Over Rail Plaza. Council’s cumulative traffic model was amended to reflect this proposal as shown in Figure 2 below.

 

 

Figure 2: Changes to model

 

Based on this, the study was to determine what the potential impact of the road closure and road relocation would be. While there were some changes in delays and queues as a result of the update, such were considered to be minor and would not change any of the conclusions in the report which were:

 

-           “The results of modelling for all development options, with consideration of subsequent cumulative impacts of each large development analysed in this study, are generally consistent with findings of the traffic impact assessment reports submitted for the respective development applications.

 

-           Primarily due to the fact that the proposed developments replace existing substantial buildings, traffic increases as a result are very moderate for each of the developments on sites L (Marshall Ave), A (Winten), B (Mirvac) and C (New Hope & VIMG).

 

-           Accordingly, although total traffic delays for the whole network generally increased with each additional development, some intersections even experienced slight improvements (due to traffic redistribution), whilst increased delays at other intersections were minor to moderate. Levels of Service remained essentially the same for all models.

 

-           By themselves, Winten, Mirvac and, specifically, New Hope/VIMG developments will not generate sufficient additional traffic to require infrastructure improvements”.

 

Proposed 300 space public car park

 

One submission was concerned that the traffic impact assessment did not take into account the 300 space public car park provided in the planning proposal.

 

Comment

 

The intent of the proposed 300 space public car park was to satisfy the commercial/retail and visitor parking rates of Site A. The applicant’s original transport report, by Colston Budd (AT-5) identified the relevant parking requirements for the site based on both the Lane Cove DCP & RMS rates as follows:

 

·         Council’s rate

o   585 spaces (75 commercial/ 8 retail/ 389 residential/ 113 visitor spaces)

 

·         RMS rates

o   For sub-regional centres = 570 spaces (75 commercial/ 41 retail/ 364 residential/ 90 visitor spaces) or

o   For CBDs = 454 spaces (75 commercial/ 41 retail/ 274 residential/ 64 visitor spaces)

 

Regardless of which rates were utilised in order to accommodate them, a number of basement levels would be required. However, given that the supermarket and commercial development on Site B will generate a large amount of traffic, some trade offs were required.

 

Therefore, construction and dedication of the 300 space public car park would satisfy commercial/retail and visitor parking requirements. This approach would allow for better shared utilisation of space, and significantly reduce the amount of basement levels. The proposed public car park should be as close to the supermarket as possible (on Site A). The residential parking would also be able to be provided under Christie Lane and Site B.

 

Access to the parking would be able to be relocated to the south of the site, off Christie Street – however the final location of the vehicular entry would be determined at the Development Application stage. Based on the parking rates mentioned above and by providing a lower residential parking rate, the proposed 300 space public car park is consistent with Council’s cumulative traffic study.

 

Both the location and access to the parking levels would need to be incorporated into the Draft Development Control Plan.

 

Parking

 

Some submissions have stated that there is insufficient parking for the new 695 units as well as insufficient visitor and service vehicles parking.

 

Comment

 

In addition to the above comments, Section 2.3 of Council’s DCP Part R, states that the policy for on-site parking rates is to reduce them for land within a 400m radius of St Leonards Railway Station. The lower parking rates reflect the availability of realistic alternatives to private car travel, existing road capacity constraints, and lower car ownership rates in the area.

 

A lower parking rate would need to be explained and justified as part of a Sustainable Travel and Access Plan (STrAP) and be submitted with any subsequent Development Application. This plan would also need to detail which parking rates (described above) should apply to the site.

 

The emergence of the Crows Nest Metro Station would be located approximately 500m east along Pacific Highway would also need to be considered.

 

Views

 

Several submissions were received on views. One concern is that, from the Forum, “the higher buildings will completely block the views of the Bridge and block out a large section of the CBD skyline”. The proposal will therefore result in view losses, as well as de-valuing properties there.

 

Further visual impacts will be made on Northmark and Shoremark and Duntroon residences. This is not regarded as “view-sharing”.

 

Comment

 

Urban intensification is occurring in all three council areas throughout St Leonards, as envisaged by the Draft North District Plan. This is occurring on both sides of Pacific Highway and within 400 metres of the rail station in accordance with State policies for employment growth and the integration of land use and transport. Such intensification would result in stimulating economic activity throughout the broader St Leonards CBD.

 

It is acknowledged that, for many current owners on the north side, this may result in an impact on current panoramic views. However, view-sharing does not mean that one half of a centre is to have total enjoyment of the views while the other half is unable to redevelop. In this context, it would be unreasonable and inequitable to expect that redevelopment would be prevented indefinitely for properties on the south side in order to preserve an unimpeded outlook held by residential use on the north side.

 

In terms of the impacts on the Forum to the north, the north-south orientation of the proposed residential towers, together with the 4m setback to the eastern boundary, aims to ensure that the slenderest possible form is presented. The separation of 24m between the two residential elements seeks to maintain a key view corridor from the Forum buildings towards the Sydney CBD, as shown in the photo-montages in the JBA Planning Proposal report (pages 41-43).

 

This is in stark contrast with the Part 3A approval for a bulky eighteen-storey commercial building. Notwithstanding this, current planning controls allow for a commercial development of up to 65m to be permissible on the site. Therefore, the proposal represents an enhanced opportunity for view-sharing than would be the case through the existing consent for commercial development (with wider floor plates and narrower side setbacks) by proposing taller, more slender buildings which allow for view sharing across the site.

 

Current views north and east from apartments at Northmark and Shoremark and Duntroon Avenue are of the St Leonards CBD skyline. District views would remain, though in part would be changed in character.

 

Overshadowing

 

Concern was expressed that the combined effect of all four developments on overshadowing has not been considered.

 

Comment

 

In the Concept Design Report, shadow modelling of key buildings (including this site) was provided on an hourly basis from 9am to 3pm. As shown in figures 3, 4 and 5 (below) this development would not cause any overshadowing (in midwinter) of the existing residential area from 12pm onwards. Furthermore, this development would not overshadow the ‘Northmark’ and ‘Shoremark’ sites between 9am and 11am at mid-winter. However, this development would overshadow both ‘Northmark’ and ‘Shoremark’ from 12pm onwards.

 

Figure 3: Shadow Diagram (22 June – midwinter) 9am

 

Figure 4: Shadow Diagram (22 June – midwinter) 12pm

 

Figure 5: Shadow Diagram (22 June – midwinter) 3pm

 

In terms of the cumulative overshadowing effect, other developments near Friedlander Place (472-486 Pacific Hwy & 496-504 Pacific Hwy) would only affect ‘Northmark & ‘Shoremark’ from 9am to 12pm mid-winter.

 

Based on this, the proposed development would impact Northmark and Shoremark but not cause an unreasonable amount of overshadowing on the existing residential area. Both the individual and cumulative outcomes are consistent with SEPP 65 / Apartment Design Guide overshadowing provisions.

 

Compliance with SEPP65 provisions

 

Concern was expressed that the built forms would not be able to meet the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) or Apartment Design Guide (ADG). In particular, it was considered that separation distances were inadequate.

 

Comment

 

Council’s Draft Development Control Plan (AT-6) has been designed to accord with SEPP 65 and Apartment Design Guide provisions where applicable.

 

Notwithstanding this, due to the site constraints the proposed setbacks cannot be increased to allow for more separation. The proposed Christie Street setback is 4 metres, if this was reduced by 2 metres it would allow for a greater internal building separation of 24 metres but reduce building separation (across Christie Street) to 22 metres which would affect existing and future buildings in the area.

 

Furthermore, the proposed floor plates were carefully configured to achieve a high level of inherent privacy separation between buildings. The Planning Proposal stated that:

 

“Apartments in the Plaza buildings are laid out in a single loaded configuration to ensure no living areas face the courtyard or residential tower opposite. Eastern outlook from the plaza buildings is limited to approximately 4 bedrooms per floor only, two from dual aspect apartments located in the centre of the floor plate and one each from the northern and southernmost units which have primary living areas facing north and south respectively”.

Basically, apartments would be oriented to the south-east (City and Harbour), minimising loss of privacy across the courtyard between the taller (eastern) tower and lower (western) tower.

 

Notwithstanding this, any future Development Application would need to justify how the proposed built form achieves the objectives and criteria of the Apartment Design Guide.

  

Open Space

 

One submission was concerned that, with a large increase in residential population, there needs to be more provision of green space and parkland “for the people to use”, rather than the St Leonards Plaza.

 

Comment

 

In addition to the proposed over-rail Plaza, the St Leonards South Planning Proposal has proposed new areas of public open space which is intended to be shared by all new residents of St Leonards. This new open space will cater for a diverse range of uses and changing demographic profile of residents.

 

The Plaza is a vital component of Council’s vision to provide a strong physical link between both the east and west sides of the train line leading up to St Leonards rail station and eastward beyond.

 

Status of Plaza

 

Concern is expressed over the uncertainty of negotiations with Transport for NSW over Council’s right to develop the land over the rail line.

 

Comment

 

Council continues to work with TfNSW to bring the Plaza to reality.  The project has attracted the support of the Minister for Planning, Hon A Roberts and the Northern District Commissioner, Dr Deborah Dearing of the Greater Sydney Commission.

 

Car share

 

The Northern Sydney Local Health District proposes that the development ensure car sharing facilities.

 

Comment

 

Under Part R of the Lane Cove DCP a Sustainable Travel and Access Plan (STrAP) is required for:

 

·         Any residential flat building of 75 or more units;

·         Other developments over $20 million AUD in value; and

·         the proposal is within 400m of St Leonards rail station.

 

As a result, the applicant must submit a STrAP with their future Development Application. The objective of a STrAP is to encourage residents / customers / staff to make greater use of public transport, cycling, walking and car-sharing for journeys to and from the development.

 

It is recommended that this issue be dealt with at the D.A. design and development stage.

 

Current Development Application in Site B

 

The owner of two shops in Site B on Pacific Highway is concerned that their “submitted plan of development to Lane Council” is being ignored by the conditions of the VPA.

 

Comment

 

A development application was lodged with Council on 12 September 2016, involves demolition of two existing 2 storey commercial buildings on Pacific Highway in Site B to enable the construction of a 14 storey commercial hotel development over basement parking. The development proposal will be determined by the Sydney North Planning Panel, as the proposed development has a capital investment value of greater than $20 million.

 

Council’s planning intent for the site was made clear in Part D – Commercial Development and Mixed Use Localities of its DCP, which has been adopted and publicly available since 2010. The provisions for this precinct included:

 

·         developing the sites along Pacific Highway as one single development;

·         closing Christie Lane to vehicular traffic;

·         embellishing the laneway for pedestrian-only access to provide pedestrian connectivity to the proposed Plaza;

·         partially close Lithgow Street to facilitate the delivery of the proposed plaza; and

·         relocating vehicular access to the south (to align with Nicholson Street).

 

A planning proposal to redevelop the Winten site and the shops along the Pacific Highway (in accordance with this intent) was publicly reported to Council at its 20 April 2015 meeting. This was approved by Council and received a Gateway Determination on 21 October 2015.

 

A further public report on the draft Voluntary Planning Agreement was also considered by Council at its 21 March 2016 meeting which incentivised acquisition and amalgamation of the existing commercial sites along with other matters mentioned above.

 

From this, it is clear that Council has made publicly available its long-standing planning intent for the commercial development of sites along the Pacific Highway. Under Section 79C of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, these matters must be taken into account when assessing the development application.

 

Local Infrastructure

 

One submission is concerned about the impact the proposal will have on local infrastructure, such as energy, water, sewage, internet access, schools and recreational facilities such as parks.

 

Comment

 

Submissions were sought from government agencies, including Sydney Water. Local infrastructure needs such as energy, water, sewerage, and internet access are generally considered at the development application stage.

 

Council has continued discussions with the Department of Education regarding future school needs. It is also being examined as part of the St Leonards/Crows Nest Strategic Employment Review. The Department continues to monitor and plan for future residential growth.

 

As noted under Open Space, under the St Leonards South Planning Proposal, it is intended that the public open space would be shared by all new residents of St Leonards.

 

Loss of Employment Floor Space

 

North Sydney Council comments that:

 

“Despite the fact that an amalgamation of the two sites has the potential to deliver better built form outcomes, this is done with the reduction of employment floor space as described in the employment section of this submission”.

 

Comment

 

With regard to Site B, the current two-storey retail use is an underdevelopment of a site with an FSR of 10:1 and potential height of 45m. The cumulative amalgamated development of Sites A and B represents a realistic opportunity to develop the commercial potential of Site B. It is anticipated that to generate an overall commercial floor space of 17,000m2 for Site B, having the potential to provide the additional commercial floor space that would not otherwise be likely to be delivered due to Pacific Highway sites’ fragmented ownership.

 

Regarding Site A, the proposal’s Economic Impact Assessment, indicates that Site A’s existing approval for an 18 storey (31,000 m2) commercial building cannot be supported by market conditions. The proposal envisages a four storey retail and commercial podium component comprised of 8,275m2 non-residential uses, centred around an internal courtyard and through-site link. The non-residential GFA includes:

 

·         Supermarket (3,150m2 GFA)

·         Commercial / retail (5,125m2 GFA).

 

While the proposal would result in an overall reduction in potential employment floor space, the proposed amalgamation would effectively increase actual employment floor space provided:

a)    Directly, by incentivising the development of both Site A and B; and

b)    Indirectly, by contributing to the vitalisation of the public domain, which has the purpose of attracting commercial growth and renewal to St Leonards.

 

Air space

 

One submission states that Air Services Australia and Sydney Airport Corporation Limited have indicated that the tower has an intrusion into ‘prescribed airspace’.

 

Comment

 

No submission was received from Sydney Airport Corporation Limited or Air Services Australia during the public exhibition period. However, based on Council’s understanding that compliance is achieved and previous experiences, any intrusions would need to be addressed in a subsequent Development Application for the site which would need to comply with Lane Cove Council’s LEP clause 6.7 Airspace Operations. This clause states that Development Consent must not be granted unless the applicant has obtained approval from the relevant Commonwealth Government agency.

 

This requirement was also mentioned in the exhibited Draft Development Control Plan.

 


 

Broad context

 

No analysis is provided to support this amendment in the LEP vis-a-vie the development of the wider area.

 

Comment

 

Refer above to discussion under the St Leonards/Crows Nest Strategic Employment Review, where the role of St Leonards as a strategic centre is addressed.

 

FSR Calculation

 

Some submissions claim that when balconies are included the FSR is much higher than disclosed. When including lifts, storage and common areas then the FSR is above what is proposed.

 

Comment

 

Under the Standard Instrument—Principal Local Environmental Plan, the FSR is based on the definition of “Gross floor area”, which specifically excludes:

 

(d)  any area for common vertical circulation, such as lifts and stairs, and

 

(e)  any basement:

 

(i)  storage, and

 

(ii)  vehicular access, loading areas, garbage and services, and

 

(f)  plant rooms, lift towers and other areas used exclusively for mechanical services or ducting, and

 

(g)  parking to meet any requirements of the consent authority (including access to that parking), and

 

(h)  any space used for the loading or unloading of goods (including access to it), and

 

(i)  terraces and balconies with outer walls less than 1.4 metres high, and

 

(j)  voids above a floor at the level of a storey or storey above.

 

Notwithstanding this, the applicant would need to submit a more detailed area schedule as part of any Development Application.

 

Other issues

 

Several issues raised should more appropriately be dealt with at the D.A. (design and development) stage. This applies to the suggestions regarding bicycle end-of-trip facilities, a community garden and playground, the location of the proposed “food and beverage precinct”, the impact of a child care centre, and the need for additional studies.

 


 

Comment

 

While a number of these items can be addressed at the Development Application stage or incorporated into Council’s existing or draft DCP, it is important to note that no further studies are considered necessary at the Strategic Planning stage.

 

Other matters for clarification

 

Since this Proposal was submitted to Council in April 2015, there have been a number of changes to this proposal and its supporting materials. As a result, this section clarifies and details proposed changes, errors and omissions since the April 2015 Council report.

 

Planning Proposal

 

As part of the public exhibition material for the Planning Proposal it included a base FSR, with an LEP bonus mechanism to potentially increase the FSR to 17.6:1 for a public car park (2:1) and amalgamation of commercial sites along Pacific Highway (1.6:1). Upon consideration of all LEP submissions clarification of the following issues if provided:

 

It is proposed to remove the portion of Lithgow Street which has an FSR.

 

This is for two reasons. Firstly, Lithgow Street is a Council-owned local road and is subject to the control of Council – it was never intended that any part of it could be incorporated into an adjoining development. Secondly, this will ensure that no additional Gross Floor Area can be incorporated into Site A.

 

·         The proposed FSR bonus mechanisms will be similar to the ones used for other St Leonards sites.

 

For example, LEP clause 6.6 is a bonus mechanism that was previously used to encourage site amalgamation and commercial development for 472-486 Pacific Highway and 496-504 Pacific Highway. If amalgamation did not occur than the bonus did not apply and could not be used.

 

·         No FSR bonus applies to the development of a full size supermarket.

 

Although bonuses were clearly stated in the Planning Proposal, the FSR bonuses only relate to the development of the proposed public car park which is associated with the supermarket. The proposed bonus does not relate to the development of both items. It is recommended that this be reflected in the draft Development Control Plan.

 

·         No FSR bonus is applicable to Site B, and must be re-developed for commercial purposes only, in conjunction with Site A.

 

Current planning controls i.e. 45 metres in height and 10:1 FSR would result in a 10 storey commercial building along Pacific Highway. The proposed FSR bonus is intended to incentivise the acquisition and amalgamation of existing sites along the Pacific Highway. The proposed minimum non-residential FSR on Site ‘A’ can be reduced from 2.5:1 down to 1.5:1 only if amalgamation of Site B occurs.

 

Draft Development Control Plan

 

Based on the comments mentioned above, the draft Development Control Plan is recommended to be amended to incorporate the following:

 

·         The proposed 300 car space public car park is not in addition to DCP parking requirements.

 

This car park aims to satisfy the commercial/retail and visitor parking rates for Site A.

 

·         Provisions relating to the location and access of the 300 car space public car park.

 

The DCP should state the public car park should be located as close as practicable to the proposed supermarket, and permit part of the residential car park to be partially located under Christie Lane and Site B.

 

·         The size of the proposed supermarket should be mentioned.

 

As this will not be incentivised in the LEP, it is recommended that the supermarket’s specifications be incorporated into the Draft DCP ie. Minimum 3000m2 GFA.

 

·         A number of the Draft DCP objectives are similar or repeated as different objectives.

 

It is recommended to condense the number of objectives to better reflect Council’s planning intent for the precinct.

 

·         Relocation of the laneway to the south and the mid-block connection on Christie Lane is not mentioned in the Draft DCP.

 

The Draft was designed to be incorporated into Council’s existing suite of controls relating to the Christie Precinct and these items are still intended to remain. However, the draft DCP will need to be amended to incorporate these aspects.

 

·         In some instances it is not clear whether the controls relate to Site A or Site B.

 

Where relevant, the Draft DCP will need to specifically mention which controls apply to which site.

 

Subject to the inclusion of these changes, it is recommended that the Draft Development Control Plan be adopted by Council.

 

Conclusion

 

Council has taken a measured approach to the revitalization of the St Leonards CBD by targeting a limited number of sites that will stimulate and broaden the economic base by permitting a small number of mixed use zones within the CBD as a whole.

 

By targeting these key sites the rest of the B3 Commercial Core area (within Lane Cove LGA) is to remain as currently zoned, supporting the Department of Planning & Environment’s aim to maintain employment opportunities and avoid isolation of commercial sites. This policy is also consistent with successive Metropolitan Plans for Sydney.

 

The allowance of a limited proportion of unit-living within the commercial core, in conjunction with the Plaza’s public domain enhancements, aims to preserve and extend business opportunity and public benefit and amenity in a way that will benefit all owners including this subject site.

 

Council’s amended cumulative traffic study has demonstrated that the proposed partial closure of Lithgow Street and relocation of Christie Lane to the south has a minor impact and does not result in a deterioration of levels of service in the area. It also addresses the previous concerns of TfNSW and RMS.

 

Having regard to the information above, it is recommended that Council proceed to finalise the Planning Proposal and adopt the Draft Development Control Plan in line with the matters of clarification mentioned above.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council resolve to:-

 

1.    Receive and note the report;

 

2.    Adopt an amended Planning Proposal for 75-79 Lithgow Street and 84-90 Christie Street, St Leonards (known as Site A) as follows:

a)    Rezone Site A (as shown in Figure 1), part of Lithgow Street and Christie Lane from B3 Commercial Core to B4 Mixed Use,

b)    Increase the building heights of Site A to a maximum of RL 227.4 metres (east tower) and RL 166.8 metres (west tower),

c)    Provide an FSR bonus mechanism to a maximum of 17.6:1 on Site A to allow for

i.   An additional FSR of 2:1 for providing public car parking in association with the full size supermarket on site, and

ii.  an additional FSR of up to 1.6:1 for site amalgamation of 546-564 Pacific Highway, adjacent to the site, for a new commercial building (on Site B) to be constructed concurrently with Site A.

d)    Include a non-residential floor space ratio for Site A which must not be less than 2.5:1, however if Site B is amalgamated, this can be reduced to 1.5:1;

 

3.    Remove the FSR that currently applies to the portion of land in Lithgow Street;

 

4.    In accordance with the Planning Proposal, that a Voluntary Planning Agreement be entered into in respect of the land;

 

5.    Forward the amended Planning Proposal to NSW Planning and Environment to be finalized;

 

6.    Amend the Draft Development Control Plan to incorporate the changes proposed in this report; and

 

7.    Advertise the adoption of these DCP Amendments in a local newspaper as soon as practical.

 

 


 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Draft DCP Part D - Discussion of controls

2 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Original Gateway Determination

4 Pages

 

AT‑3View

Response to TMA modelling report

5 Pages

 

AT‑4View

Revised Cumulative Traffic Study

24 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑5View

Transport Report, Colston Budd Hunt & Kafes

27 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑6View

Draft DCP Part D for Locaility 75-79  Lithgow 84-90 Christie Sts

11 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 May 2017

Results of Consultation - Voluntary Planning Agreement - 75 - 79 Lithgow St and 84 - 90 Christie St, St Leonards

 

 

Subject:          Results of Consultation - Voluntary Planning Agreement - 75 - 79 Lithgow St and 84 - 90 Christie St, St Leonards    

Record No:    SU571 - 25466/17

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli; Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

This report outlines the results of the consultation for a proposed Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) with the proponents of the Planning Proposal for 75-79 Lithgow St and 84-90 Christie St, St Leonards which is the subject of a planning proposal. The VPA requires the payment of a monetary contribution to fund the St Leonards Rail Plaza and Bus Interchange, construction of the eastern deck of the proposed St Leonards Plaza and park, a Library, and other items in return for the provision of additional storeys on the proposed towers on the site. It is recommended that Council proceed to enter into the VPA.

 

Background

Council at its meeting of 21 March, 2016 resolved:-

“1.        The report be received and noted;

2.         Council give notice of its intention to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement as outlined in the report with the developer of the subject site in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in the report in conjunction with the Planning Proposal; and

3.         Following the community consultation, a further report be submitted to Council for determination.”

The VPA is required to be placed on public exhibition in conjunction with the LEP and DCP amendments for the site. This process was delayed pending additional information. The Planning Proposal, VPA and supporting materials were publicly exhibited from 29 September 2016 to 10 November 2016.

 

The Planning Proposal is the final site identified by Council to provide an opportunity to revitalise an ageing precinct, improve public domain activation and circulation space and provide considerable public benefits. To realise the public benefit, a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) is a requirement of the Planning Proposal.

 

The objective of the Voluntary Planning Agreement system is designed to extend the means by which planning authorities such as Council may obtain development contributions to provide public amenities, services and other public purposes.

In keeping with the definition of public purpose, Council has identified the following matters to be funded via the VPA, which is in addition to s94 Developer contributions:-

(i)         St Leonards Rail Plaza and Bus Interchange: a financial contribution will be made towards Council’s vision for this project over the rail corridor, which will provide a significant increase to the amenity of the St Leonards commercial precinct.

 

(ii)        A fitted-out library of at least 1000m2, located in an area with high pedestrian activity;

(iii)       Construction and embellishment of the section of the proposed St Leonards Plaza deck over Lithgow Street (Approx 1708m2), with capacity in the associated supports for the portion of St Leonards Plaza spanning the rail corridor in return for access easements for Site A and Site B under the Plaza;

(iv)       Embellishment of Christie Lane to a maximum value of $388,000;

(v)        Construction and dedication of a public road to the south of Site A;

(vi)       International standard of architecture achieved at the interface with the plaza in exchange for a 4m Articulation zone overhanging the Plaza, (maximum 40% can be used for floor space).

(vii)      Commitment to construction of a 300 space carpark dedicated as a stratum parcel to Council, close to the proposed supermarket which will service the non-residential uses of Site A in return for the 2:1 bonus provided for in the LEP;

 

(viii)     Commitment to the delivery of a 3,000m2 space full−line supermarket; and

(ix)       Commitment to the delivery of a new 10 storey commercial building on the Pacific highway frontage (Site B) at the same time as Site A in return for the 1.6:1 proportional pro-rata bonus provided for in the LEP.

In the event that the St Leonards Rail Plaza and Bus Interchange does not proceed, the funds may also be utilised by Council for the provision of public infrastructure generally within the Lane Cove Local Government Area.

Council has applied a consistent formula in the St Leonard’s Precinct to capture the FSR uplift in respect of Planning Proposals, originally developed by Hill PDA.

 

·    $/Rate (value of bonus FSR) x 50% x bonus GFA

Hill PDA have previously established through valuation the $/Rate to be $2,600per sqm of GFA.

Based on the Hill PDA methodology, the VPA contribution is calculated as follows:-

$2600 x 50% = $1300

$1300 x 12,821.4 = $16.667,820 (approximately)

Of this amount the following provisional sums have been allocated to fund public benefits, (all other benefits are free of cost); a Library Shell and fit-out $6.4m; embellishment of the Lithgow Street section of the Plaza $1.7m; and construction of the new public road $.768m, leaving a cash balance of $7,799,820 as a contribution towards the St Leonards Rail Plaza and Bus Interchange.

 

Discussion

The consultation was carried out concurrently with the Planning Proposal, which is the subject of a separate report. It was undertaken as per the consultation strategy included in the original report, and included Newspaper Advertisement, eNewsletter, Notification Letters, Public Exhibition, and Website Exhibition. Submissions closed 10 November 2016, with the majority of the 22 submissions being in relation to the Planning Proposal.  

It was noted during the consultation that the Explanatory Note included a reference to a Design excellence FSR bonus of 1:1. This was previously deleted by Council and does not apply. Also the base FSR for the site currently is 14:1 - it is actually 14.1:1. Neither of these were reflected in the actual Voluntary Planning Agreement and have no impact on further consideration of the VPA.

Many of the comments raising concerns about the VPA relate to the principle. The VPA framework is a legitimate process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in order for the community to receive benefits from developments. In this case it will provide significant urban renewal in the precinct which would not otherwise be achievable from Council’s available financial resources. The process is transparent and robust in that the VPA’s are specific purpose, legally enforceable and registered on the title of the properties.

Additionally, the Northern Sydney Local Health District have proposed in their submission the following provisions with the VPA:-

i.    Provide an off-road bicycle route along Lithgow Street, incorporating the St Leonards Plaza, to connect the two regional bicycle routes planned in the Lane Cove Bicycle Plan;

ii.    Include public end-of-trip facilities including bike lockers and short-term bike rails, shower facilities and drinking fountains in the carpark and St Leonards Plaza sites; and

iii.   Installation of a bike hire network, with hire stations located at St Leonards Plaza, St Leonards and Wollstonecraft Train Stations, Royal North Shore Hospital, the St Leonards TAFE campus, Lane Cove Village and the proposed Crow’s Nest Station.

It is considered that items i and ii above, which are linked directly to the site and proposed St Leonards Plaza can be considered with the detailed design and development of the Plaza and carpark. Installation of a bike hire network is an issue for wider consideration by Council and community stakeholders.

The infrastructure proposed by the VPA is consistent with the St Leonards Strategy, and Council is working with TfNSW to bring it to reality, within the timeframe of the proposed developments. The project has attracted the support of the Northern District Commissioner, Dr Deborah Dearing of the Greater Sydney Commission. Council is currently seeking a legally binding agreement for the project with TfNSW.

 

Conclusion

On balance, it is considered that the community and future residents of the proposed development will benefit from the improvements to public infrastructure, in particular the plaza and bus rail interchange. The dual residential/commercial role that St Leonards plays will also be boosted through the availability of a greater retail offering. It is recommended that Council enter into the proposed VPA and subject to Council’s consideration, the VPA would be executed prior to Gazettal of the LEP and DCP.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council receive and note the report;

 

2.   Council enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement as outlined in the report with the developer of 75-79 Lithgow St and 84-90 Christie St, St Leonards; and

 

3.   The General Manager be authorised to finalise the terms and conditions of the proposed Voluntary Planning Agreement and sign the Agreement on behalf of Council.

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 May 2017

Fleming Street Private Road Re-Naming

 

 

Subject:          Fleming Street Private Road Re-Naming    

Record No:    SU4577 - 22794/17

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Terry Tredrea 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council at its 20 June 2016 meeting resolved to name the private internal roadway between 18 and 20 Fleming Street to Nichols Close. This decision was submitted to NSW Land & Property Information.  The Geographical Names Board rejected the name Nichols Close on the grounds that it is too “similar” to an existing Nichols Lane, Chatswood and because it is within a “radius of 10km”.

 

The GNB has since pre-approved a list of suitable names, including Pendray Close. Council at its meeting 20 February 2017 resolved to rename this private roadway Pendray Close, and to exhibit the proposed street name for public comment for six (6) weeks. Eleven (11) submissions were received. It is recommended that the private road be named Pendray Close and adjacent properties be re-numbered accordingly.

 

 

Background

 


The need to name the private road arose from recognition that several properties were wrongly addressed to River Road, although accessed via the private (un-named) road off Fleming Street. See Figure below.

 

 

Council had resolved to name the private road, as required by the Geographical Names Board’s NSW Addressing User Manual (AUM). The AUM requires private roads to be named on the basis that this provides more clarity for emergency vehicles to locate properties.

 

The proposed name, Pendray Close, was named after William Pendray (and his immediate family), who had a 20 acre orchard in the area (the original name for Northwood was Penry or Pendray Point). Community consultation was undertaken from 16 March to 26 April 2017 in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Regulation 2000 and Local Government Act 1993. It included:-

 

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

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

·    consults on;

·    A website exhibition;

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

·    Public notice in the North Shore Times on 17 March 2017.

 

As a result, eleven (11) submissions were received. Eight were in favour or neutral and three were opposed. The issues raised were:-

1.    The name is historically appropriate to Northwood;

2.    Reconsider choosing an Aboriginal name;

3.    Reconsider choosing Howard Close after the former prime minister; and

4.    Ignore calls to return to Fleming Street.

 

Discussion

 

Reconsider choosing an Aboriginal name

 

An objection was raised with choosing the name Pendray from a list of early European settlers. It was pointed out that the first Australians were overlooked in considering historic names.

 

In order to consider an Aboriginal name, Council would need to identify and consult with the appropriate body, obtain an agreed list of names, consult with the Geographical Names Board (GNB), then begin the entire process of consideration of names (both European and Aboriginal), and exhibition of names for public consideration. Given that this road-naming process has been actively debated and consulted on numerous occasions beginning in March 2016, together with the false start of naming the road Nichols Close (later rejected by the GNB), it is considered that this would create further confusion and debate on what some residents have considered an unnecessary naming process to begin with.

 

Therefore, while it is acknowledged that Council’s historical research for place-naming should in future take into account local Aboriginal names, it is considered too onerous an undertaking in this instance to submit the residents of this street to a further prolonged naming process.

 

Reconsider choosing Howard Close after the former prime minister

 

There is a Howard Place, 2.8km away in Hunters Hill. The NSW Addressing Users Manual requires places that are “similar” in name to be at least 10km apart. Therefore it is unlikely that this would be supported.

 

 

Omit 20 Fleming Street from Pendray Close

 

The owner of 20 Fleming Street wishes to remain as Fleming Street because their property faces Fleming Street.

 

The NSW Addressing User Manual states that street numbers must begin where the road starts. In this case, it is where the private road leaves Fleming Street, which is called the “datum point”.

 

An aerial of the new private road, shown below, shows how access to the property (20 Fleming, renumbered 2 Pendray) begins well into the private road below the datum point.. Therefore the correct address is the first house (No. 2) along the new private road.

 

 

Conclusion

 

A private road is required to be named, as per the GNB’s NSW Addressing User Manual. The name Pendray is an historically appropriate name for Northwood. It is favoured by eight of eleven submitters.  In this case, it is recommended that the private road be named Pendray Close and adjacent properties be re-numbered accordingly.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

5.   Notify the appropriate agencies of the change; and

 

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

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 May 2017

Adoption of the Reconciliation Action Plan August 2016 – June 2018

 

 

Subject:          Adoption of the Reconciliation Action Plan August 2016 – June 2018    

Record No:    SU5096 - 21914/17

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Carol Sinclair 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council at the meeting of 20 February 2017 considered the adoption of the Draft Innovate Reconciliation Action Plan and resolved that the adoption of the Draft Lane Cove Innovate Reconciliation Action Plan dated August 2016 - June 2018 be deferred and referred to the Aboriginal Advisory Committee for comment prior to further consideration by Council.

 

This report considers the discussion with the Aboriginal Advisory Committee as per the decision made at the February Council meeting when the Draft Innovate Reconciliation Action Plan, March 2017 – June 2018 was put forward for adoption. It is recommended that the amended Plan be adopted.

 

Discussion

 

Discussions were held with representatives of the Lane Cove Aboriginal Advisory Committee who suggested the following amendments:-

 

1.   The actual wording on the plaque at Woodford Bay be included instead of a description of those words (Page 7) ‘Memorial Plaque to honour and recognise the Cameraygal people who defended their Country by resisting British invasion’; and

2.   The Memorandum of Understanding with St Ignatius’ College, Riverview be referenced after mention of the ‘Principles of Cooperation’ with the Metropolitan Aboriginal Land Council (Page 7).

All of the above suggestions have now been incorporated into the RAP document

 

Conclusion

 

It is considered that following the 6 week public exhibition period that closed on 10 November 2016 and the support and amendments from the Aboriginal Advisory Committee that the Draft Innovate Reconciliation Action Plan, March 2017 – June 2018 be adopted.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Draft Innovate Reconciliation Action Plan, March 2017 – June 2018 be amended with the above changes and be adopted.

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Reconciliation Action Plan 2016-2018

32 Pages

Available Electronically

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 May 2017

Financial Assistance Grants to Community Groups: 2017/2018

 

 

Subject:          Financial Assistance Grants to Community Groups: 2017/2018    

Record No:    SU6604 - 23449/17

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Carol Sinclair 

 

 

Executive Summary

This Report discusses the 2017/2018 Financial Assistance Grants application process and recommends various grants to Council. Under Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993 Council may grant Financial Assistance to Community Organisations. Each year Council calls for applications for financial assistance from community groups either based in the Lane Cove Local Government Area (LGA) or those whose assistance addresses the identified needs of people within the LGA. 

The Financial Assistance Grants program was promoted through The Village Observer, Council’s Website and through an extensive mailout during December 2016 and January 2017. Applications closed on 6 March, 2017. The 2017/2018 budget includes a provision of $484,155 for Financial Assistance to Community Groups.  Council has received a total of 23 applications requesting funds to the value of $500,991. Two (2) applications to the value of $3,250 were received for the Cultural Performance Venue Hire Subsidy Fund.

Background

Community organisations play a critical role in providing vital community and recreational activities, keeping the community healthy and connected. Council’s approach to working with local community organisations is to work in partnership so that the local community can receive high-quality services and participate in important community orientated activities improving their connectedness and ability to participate.

Financial Assistance Grant Applications Received for 2017/2018

Currently, Council’s Financial Assistance Grants to community organisations fall into the following categories:

·    Arts and Cultural Services

·    Children’s Services

·    Youth Services

·    Disability Services

·    Community Development and Support

Applications are assessed against the criteria provided in the Guidelines attached as AT-1

Applicants are required to show how their application meets the needs of Lane Cove by referring to Council’s Plans. 

The commitment for Council based on the recommendations from the Council Selection Committee of 8 May 2017 is $446,648. A copy of these recommendations has been circulated separately to Councillors in a Confidential Memo.

The Council Selection Committee has deferred allocation of funding to the Lane Cove Theatre Company pending discussions with them regarding their application.  This includes their application for funding through the Financial Assistance Grants Program and the Cultural Venue Hire Subsidy Fund. The amount above does not include any funding allocated to the Lane Cove Theatre Company.

In addition there are recurring commitments to community organisations totaling $34,025. The recurring commitments to community organisations are listed in AT-2. The majority of these are longstanding commitments relating to Council’s contributions to rate payments, or the waiving of payments and other costs.  The estimated cost of the Presentation Ceremony in August is $3,500 and this has been allocated within the Financial Assistance budget.

The total amount of the Financial Assistance Grants Program recommended in this Report is $484,673.74.

 

Discussion

The funding recommendations were made with focus on several areas including:-

·      Support to (3) longstanding and established organisations within the community, namely Lane Cove and North Side Community Services, Centrehouse and the Meeting House;

·      Support to projects that can be successfully completed within the 2017/18 financial year; and

·      Assisting organisations which need Council Funds/Support for their continued sustainability.

 

Receipts of greater than $20,000

Four (4) groups are recommended to receive $20,000 or more in funds for 2017/2018. They are North Shore Rowing, Centrehouse, Meeting House and Lane Cove and North Side Community Service.  As outlined in the funding guidelines, organisations which receive over $20,000 will be asked to enter into Service Agreements. The Service Agreements outline the mutual obligations between Council and the organisation and stipulates how the organisation will use the funds against performance measures. 

 

Grant Writing

Even though it was well publicised and highly recommended that organisations applying for funding assistance through Council’s Financial Assistance Grants program attend the Grant Writing Seminar organised through Council in November only 6 applicants attended which was disappointing.  That said however, with a change in application form and stronger guidelines the overall quality of the applications was markedly improved with almost all applications relating their project to Council’s Plans

It is proposed that the applicants will be provided with feedback on ways to further improve their applications when they receive advice regarding the outcome of their application.

 

Board Training

Another area in which community groups require support is governance. An effective, skilled and well-functioning Board is essential for the sustainability and development of these organisations. 

In 2015 a statutory review of the Incorporation Associations Act was conducted and as a result changes were made.  Changes to the association laws began on 1 September 2016, including amendments made to the Associations Incorporation Act 2009 (the Act) and a new Regulation.  It is recommended that all Associations receiving financial support be made aware of these changes and how it will affect their governance mechanisms and Constitutions.

 

When advising the outcome of their applications, applicants will be invited to Board Training related to the above changes. They will be reminded of Council’s recommendation that community organisations attend Board Training workshops once every five years to ensure all Board Members have the opportunity to receive training in Governance.

 

Financial Assistance Grants Comparisons with Other Areas

It is difficult to compare what occurs in other Council areas because of the following:-

·       Some councils run direct services and there is a mix of community based and local government services;

·       In some areas organisations can apply for funds under the ClubGRANTS program, whereby Clubs that earn over $1 million annually in gaming machine revenue provide funding for community projects and services, and in turn receive dollar-for-dollar gaming tax deductions. Lane Cove does not receive funds from this source;

·       There is no consistent accounting procedure across councils which captures the value of contributions that councils provide to local organisations; and

·       Some councils may support local groups out of separate line items as identified in their Delivery and Operational Plans and budgets.

With this in mind, presented below are some comparative figures for the 2016/2017 financial year. 

 

Council

Community Grants Program

Budget for Community Grants

Population*

Per Capita Funding

Willoughby

 

Up to $4,000

$71,530

74,166

$0.96

Ku-ring-gai

Up to $5,000

$97,900

120,978

$0.81

North Sydney

Up to $2,000

$26,000

71,025

$0.37

Hunters Hill

Up to $800

$30,000

14,689

$2.04

Lane Cove

No limit

$484,155

34,807

$13.91

Ryde

Up to $3,500

$190,000

114,598

$1.66

Australian Bureau of Statistics, National Regional Profile, 2010-2014 (23 September 2016)

 

Community Grants Presentation

Council over the past nine (9) years has invited all funded groups to a Presentation Ceremony in August to receive their funding cheques. This provides the opportunity for Council to showcase its Grants Program and for local groups to receive recognition for the work they do in a wider forum. It is suggested that the practice be continued and the ceremony take place on Wednesday 2 August 2017, at the Civic Centre.

 

Conclusion

Council’s Financial Assistance Grants Program assists in the development of a range of community based services which meet, and are responsive to changes in the needs of people living and working in Lane Cove.  It promotes equitable outcomes in terms of access to services and quality of life for all residents. Council uses its planning documents to assist in organisations’ understanding the needs of the community and in assessing the grant submissions. 


 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

 

1.    Give consideration to Financial Assistance Grants to Community Groups for 2017-2018;

 

2.    Give consideration to Cultural Venue Performance Hire Subsidy Funds 2017-2018;

 

3.    Give Public Notice of the proposed Financial Assistance Grants to Community Groups and to the Cultural Venue Performance Hire Subsidy Funds 2017-2018, and subject to no bjections being received, grant the funds to the recommended groups;

 

4.    Host the Community Grants Presentation Ceremony on Wednesday 2 August 2017, as part of the Financial Assistance Grants process;

 

5.    Write to:-

a.   all Incorporated Associations that receive funding from Council inviting them to attend Board Training on changes to the Associations Incorporation Regulations 2016

b.   provide all applicants feedback regarding their application in relation to the Grant Application Guidelines

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Guidelines for Financial Assistance Grants 2017/2018

7 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Standard Rates and Contributions - Financial Assistance Grants - 2017/2018

1 Page

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 May 2017

Results of the Consultation for the 2017/18 Draft Operational Plan, 2017/18 Draft Budget and 2017/18 Draft Fees and Charges 

 

 

Subject:          Results of the Consultation for the 2017/18 Draft Operational Plan, 2017/18 Draft Budget and 2017/18 Draft Fees and Charges      

Record No:    SU6612 - 23359/17

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report outlines the results of the consultation process for Council’s proposed activities for 2017/18 outlined in the Draft Operational Plan, Draft Budget and Fees and Charges, which are recommended for adoption, subject to some minor amendments.  Additionally this report presents for consideration of Council an update of the Long Term Financial Plan.

 

Background

 

Council at its meeting of 20 March 2017 considered a report on the 2017-2018 Draft Budget, Fees and Charges, and Operational Plan and resolved, in part 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 on 15 May 2017.”

 

Discussion

 

In accordance with Council Policy, Community Consultation was undertaken for a period of six (6) weeks, closing on 10 May 2017, as per the consultation strategy outlined in the previous report. It included:-

·    Public exhibitions at the Civic Centre and Libraries;

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

·    A website exhibition and survey; and

·    An advertisement in the North Shore Times.

 

As a result, two (2) written submissions were received and 28 people completed Council’s survey, with varying numbers of responses for the range of survey questions.  The survey sought comments and/or satisfaction levels on the following documents:-

·    Draft Operational Plan 2017-18;

·    Draft Budget 2017-18; and

·    Draft Fees and Charges 2017-18. 

 


It is pleasing to note that primarily feedback was positive and constructive in respect of the plans.  Some key observations and comments raised in relation to the survey are as follows:-

·    84% of respondents indicated that they had read the plans on exhibition.

·    64% of respondents were either very satisfied or satisfied with the Operational Plan.  A further 14% were neutral.  There were fourteen  (14) responses to this question however only eleven (11) comments were offered to support or offer context to these responses.

·    33% of respondents were either very satisfied or satisfied with the Draft Budget, with a further 50% remaining neutral.  There were twelve (12) responses to this question however only seven (7) comments were offered to support or offer context to these responses; and

·    45% of respondents were either very satisfied or satisfied with the Draft Fees and Charges, with a further 18% neutral.  There were eleven (11) responses to this question however only seven (7) comments were offered to support or offer context to these responses.

 

 

Operational Plan and Budget Comments

 

Two (2) written submissions were received. The first submission was from the Lane Cove North Residence Association (LCNRA) addresses four (4) separate issues and Operational Plan themes. The second submission was received from a resident from Longueville in relation to the condition of Woodford Bay Reserve. The limited response is considered to be reflective of the high level of community satisfaction with the priorities, direction and actions of the Council during the current term. Issues raised in the submission and responses are as follows:

 

1.   LCNRA – Our Built Environment 1.6, 2.4

 

The Association raised the following concerns:-

·    Loss of amenity;

·    Development without infrastructure;

·    Local school over capacity;

·    Reduced safety;

·    Over scale Pre-School; and

·    Increased traffic.

 

Response

 

LCNRA is concerned about the loss of amenity, greenspace and character of the Village, and the need for infrastructure to keep pace with growth. Council has acknowledged these concerns with a number of key strategies and actions included in the Delivery and Operational Plans throughout the term of Council. In this regard, planning is well advanced for a new open space and associated facilities in Pinaroo Place, Blackman Park has been upgraded with not only more durable synthetic playing fields, it has also seen delivery of shared pathways around the perimeter, new basketball facilities, upgraded playground equipment and brand new amenities, community space and scouting facilities. New open space facilities have also been developed in Burns Bay Road at the extremely popular Hughes Park. Rosenthal will deliver in addition to 500 car spaces (currently 186) a state of the art public open space including parks, performance space and BBQ facilities designed to reflect the Village feel and character and planning is advanced on  the creation of a public open space plaza at St Leonards town centre and reserves are proposed within master planning of St Leonards South precinct.

In terms of infrastructure keeping pace with growth generated as a result of NSW State Government housing targets, Council continues to lobby for additional schools and expansion of the capacity of existing schools to meet current and future needs. Council has facilitated creation of additional child care spaces leading the way in providing a childcare centre in Stokes Street for private operation and proposed within a new development at 314 Burns Bay Road. Lobbying continues on ensuring increased bus services for peak periods and through Lane Cove West and to the City via Victoria Road. Council has in recent years upgraded the Aquatic Centre and Gymnasium and provided new community centres at Stokes Street, Waterview (adjoining Hughes Park) and the Lane Cove Community Hub within the Little Lane development.

 

Council shares concerns about the impact of construction activity with controls in place for management of noise and other environment issues such as dust and traffic management and has been proactive in addressing concerns with builders/developers in this regard. Council has recently consulted the community over options for traffic improvements in and around the Lane Cove Village.

 

2.   LCNRA - Our Built Environment 2.1, 2.4

 

The Association raised the following concerns:-

·    Exceeding housing targets;

·    Outgrowing the local geography; and

·    Requirement for a more varied choice of housing.

 

Response

 

Lane Cove is a highly desirable locality in which to reside and this has been recognized by developers resulting in Council exceeding State Government housing targets significantly ahead of schedule. Mindful of the potential impact of development on the highly valued character and amenity of Lane Cove, Council has planned and delivered new and upgraded infrastructure which reflects the character, look and feel of the area. Development controls for new development promote the objectives of liveability and sustainability through the built form. Planning policies seek to provide a variety of housing choices to meet the needs and demographics of the area, at various price points. 

 

 

 

3.   LCNRA - Our Society 7.7; Our Economy 1.1, 2.2, 3.5

 

The Association raised the following concerns:-

·    Viability of businesses on Longueville Road during and after the development of Rosenthal car park, and

·    Maintenance of landscaping on the North Side of Epping Road between Centennial and Parklands Avenue.

 

Response

 

Council acknowledges the impact on residents and businesses during the construction phase of new developments such as the Rosenthal Project. To minimise impact dialogue has been commenced through consultation and information sharing. A community liaison group is being established for the Rosenthal project as a forum for discussion, information exchange and feedback on issues during the construction phase including project delivery and timing, access and environmental management and business resilience programs to assist retailers.

 

In regard to the previous landscaping feature along Epping Road, it is pointed out for any planting and garden maintenance work, there is now a need for safety reasons to close part of Epping Road i.e. the bus lane whilst works are underway, which impacts on traffic flow. The garden verge is still being maintained but not to past levels due to these issues. Landscaping is a feature of the design of new Council facilities and infrastructure such as Hughes Park, proposed reserve at Pinaroo and the Rosenthal Project as well as throughout Village Centres and Lane Cove Plaza.

 

4.   LCNRA - Our Society 4.5

 

The Association raised the following concerns:-

·    Fewer accessible recreational / quiet spaces to enjoy;

·    Better tree replacement; and

·    A reasonable portion of funds raised from the development in Lane Cove North to be spent in our precinct.

 

Response

 

LCNRA are naturally concerned about the loss of trees and green space in that precinct as a result of new development taking place. Council is seeking to address these issues with creation of new open space areas and facilities in Pinaroo Place and at 552 Mowbray Road as well as enhancing bushland access along Stringybark Creek. Planning controls seek to facilitate best practice developments in terms of design, liveability and environmental impacts including landscaping requirements. 

 

5.   Submission from Local Resident - Condition of the Woodford Bay Reserve

 

A resident from Longueville has raised the following concerns about the condition of Woodford Bay Reserve:-

·    The public reserve has been neglected for a number of years;

·    The corner of the picnic ground in the centre of the reserve has had the seawall damaged;

·    Hand railings to the public pathways need to be replaced;

·    Pipes need to direct water into the bay more directly to save soil erosion;

·    Upgrade of pathways;

·    Public notice that dumping rubbish is a finable offence;

·    Loss of view due to exotic plants;

·    Request for plaques recalling historic importance; and

·    Street trees to be maintained below power lines to retains iconic views. 

 

 

Response

 

An investigation is being undertaken of the issues raised and works requested at Woodford Bay Reserve by the resident.

 

 


 

Update of the Long Term Financial Plan

 

The Long Term Financial Plan is reviewed each year having regard to the previous Financial Statements (2015/16) and the proposed Estimates. The Plan is a dynamic document which has been updated to cover the period 2017 – 2026 (AT-4). It includes consideration of sustainability, service provision levels and the creation, upgrading and renewal of infrastructure.

Amendments to the Draft Budget

 

The Draft Budget 2017/18 has been amended to include confidential revenue streams from the sale of land and properties. These revenue streams are recorded for the purpose of funding major projects and the redevelopment of Rosenthal Car Park.

 

Conclusion

It is considered that the minimal response during the public exhibition period reflects general community support for Councils proposed activities, budget and fees and charges for 2017/18. Copies of the revised documents are available electronically only, due to their size.  It is therefore recommended that Council adopt the documents and 2017/18 Rates, Fees and Charges and Domestic Waste Charges as proposed.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.   The Draft Operational Plan 2017/18 shown attached as AT-1, revised Draft Budget 2017-18  shown attached as AT-2, revised Draft Fees and Charges 2017/18 shown attached as AT-3 and updated 2017 Long Term Financial Plan shown attached as AT-4, be adopted.

2.   Council fix the Ordinary Rates and Charges for 2017/18 as:-

a)    Ordinary Rates

(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.

(iii)     Council being of the opinion that works related to the construction and maintenance of car parking facilities will be of benefit to the Lane Cove Village Commercial Area, (as defined by the meet’s and bounds description advertised in the North Shore Times on 13 June, 1979), that a Parking Special Rate, of 0.195165 cents in the dollar be made for 2017/18 on the Land Value of all rateable land within that part, in accordance with S.538 of the Local Government Act 1993, with a Minimum Rate of $2.00, to yield $160,839.

b)    Domestic Waste Management Charges

(i)    In accordance with S.496 of the Local Government Act 1993, that an annual charge of $425.00 per annum be made for the year 2017/18 for domestic waste management services rendered to all properties categorised residential or non-rateable residential, for each once weekly 80 litre MGB (or equivalent) service;

(ii)   In accordance with S.496 of the Local Government Act 1993, that an annual charge of $110.00 per annum be made for the year 2017/18, for Domestic Waste Management Services for all properties categorised residential vacant land;

(iii)  In accordance with S.502 of the Local Government Act 1993, that a pay-for-use charge of $6.25 per service  be  made for the year 2017/18, for each additional weekly 80 litre domestic waste management service rendered to owner occupied single occupancy residential dwellings (excluding green waste and recycling service);

(iv)  In accordance with S.502 of the Local Government Act 1993, that a pay-for-use charge of $8.20 per service be made for the year 2017/18, for each extra weekly 80 litre (or equivalent) domestic waste management service rendered to residential properties other than single occupancy residential properties;

(v)   In accordance with S.502 of the Local Government Act 1993, that a pay-for-use charge of $8.20 per service be made for the year 2017/18, for each once weekly 80 litre (or equivalent) domestic waste management service rendered to non-rateable  properties;

(vi)  In accordance with S.502 of the Local Government Act 1993, that a pay-for-use charge of $8.20 per service be made for the year 2017/18, for each once weekly 80 litre (or equivalent) domestic waste management service rendered to residential units above business category premises.

(vii) In accordance with S.502 of the Local Government Act 1993 that a pay-for-use-charge of $4.80 per fortnightly service be made for the year 2017/18 for each extra recycling service to single residential dwellings.

c)    Interest on Overdue Rates and Charges

       In accordance with the provisions of S.566(3) of the Local Government Act 1993, Council hereby resolves that the interest rate to apply for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018 to all outstanding rates and charges be calculated at the maximum interest rate currently 8.0% as specified by the Minister for Local Government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

2017-2018 Draft Budget

179 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑2View

2017-2018 Draft Fees and Charges

23 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑3View

2017-2018 Draft Operational Plan

66 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑4View

2017 Update of the Long Term Financial Plan

29 Pages

Available Electronically

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 May 2017

3rd Quarter Review of the 2016-2017 Budget

 

 

Subject:          3rd Quarter Review of the 2016-2017 Budget    

Record No:    SU757 - 22064/17

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The 3rd Quarter 2016 – 2017 Budget Review involves a variety of variations in both income and expenditure. It is recommended that the Budget be varied in terms of the report.

 

Background

 

Council is required to prepare a Budget Review Statement each quarter, in accordance with Clause 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005. This report is prepared in accordance with the clause for the period ending 31st March 2017. The Office of Local Government has issued a prescribed format for reviews which is included as an attachment to this report. The purpose of these reviews is to ensure that the impact of financial variations are reflected in the forecast of Council’s global budgetary position to 30 June 2017, and the adopted Budget adjusted accordingly.

 

Discussion

The following is a summary of Council’s adopted Budget for 2016 – 2017 and the revised Budget following the adjustments for the September 2016 and December 2016 quarterly reviews and further adjustments proposed for the period ending 31 March 2017 and outlined in this report:-

 

 

Original Budget

000’s

30.09.2016
Quarter 1 Revised Budget

000,s

31.12.2016

Quarter 2 Revised Budget

000,s

31.03.2017 Quarter 3 Adjustments

000,s

31.03.2017 Quarter 3 Revised Budget

000,s

Expenditure

$40,862

$188

$186

$227

$41,463

Income

$52,095

$706

$197

$20,241

$73,239

Surplus/ (Deficit)

$11,233

$518

$11

$20,014

$31,776

Surplus/(Deficit) before

Capital           Grants/Contributions

$278

$18

$11

$20,014

 

$20,321

 

Operating Expenditure

 

There are a number of changes to Operating Expenditure recommended for 3rd Quarter Review. The major changes recommended are increased legal expenses, facilities redevelopment transaction costs for 266 Longueville Road, consultants for the St Leonards Planning Precinct, additional roads linemarking and signs and Financial Assistance for Occasional Care.

 

Capital Expenditure

 

Changes to Capital Expenditure in the 3rd Quarter Review were costs pertaining to the fence replacement at Kindy Cove and creating access and a track upgrade at Jago Street Reserve.

 


 

Operating Income

Adjustments recommended in Operating Income are an increase in hording and construction zone fees due to development trends, higher than expected revenue from parking fines and additional garbage services as a result of new properties.

Council will also see a large operating surplus, in the order of $20 million, due to the proceeds from the sale of units at the Little Lane redevelopment and the deposit from the sale of 314 Burns Bay Rd. These proceeds will be transferred to the Rosenthal Redevelopment Reserve as reflected in the Capital Expenditure adjustment.

Capital Income

 

Capital Income adjustments are transfers from Kindy Cove Reserve and the Sustainability Reserve to provide contra funds for the Capital Expenditure Projects listed above.

 

Conclusion

The following statement is made in accordance with Clause 203(2) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005.

It is my opinion that the quarterly Budget Review Statement for Lane Cove Council for the quarter ended 31 March 2017 indicates that Council's projected financial position will be satisfactory at year end 30 June 2017, having regard to the projected estimates of income and expenditure and the original budgeted income and expenditure.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the 2016 – 2017 Budget be varied as follows:-

 

Original Budget

000’s

30.09.2016
Quarter 1 Revised Budget

000,s

31.12.2016

Quarter 2 Revised Budget

000,s

31.03.2017 Quarter 3 Adjustments

000,s

31.03.2017 Quarter 3 Revised Budget

000,s

Expenditure

$40,862

$188

$186

$227

$41,463

Income

$52,095

$706

$197

$20,241

$73,239

Surplus/ (Deficit)

$11,233

$518

$11

$20,014

$31,776

Surplus/(Deficit) before

Capital           Grants/Contributions

$278

$18

$11

$20,014

 

$20,321

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Review of the 2016-2017 Budget

6 Pages

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 May 2017

Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Determination for Councillor Fees

 

 

Subject:          Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Determination for Councillor Fees    

Record No:    SU839 - 23578/17

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

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

 

Discussion

 

The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal is responsible for categorising councils and determining the maximum amount of fees to be paid to Mayors and Councillors in each category.  The Tribunal handed down a determination on 12 April 2017 under Sections 239 and 241 of the Local Government Act on the level of fees to be paid to Mayors and Councillors from 1 July 2017.

 

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

 

 

Current Annual Fee

New Minimum Annual Fee

New Maximum Annual Fee

Mayor (in addition to the Councillor Fee)

$41,090

$18,630

$42,120

Councillors

$18,840

$8,750

$19,310

 

 

The program in Council’s Draft Budget for 2017/18 provides for a 2.5% increase.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council determine the appropriate fee to be paid to the Mayor and Councillors for 2017/2018.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 May 2017

Local Government NSW - Reinforcing Local Democracy Roundtable

 

 

Subject:          Local Government NSW - Reinforcing Local Democracy Roundtable    

Record No:    SU846 - 23588/17

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

                                                              

LGNSW have invited Mayors, Councillors and General Managers to attend a special Roundtable discussion with Dr Johnathan Carr-West, Chief Executive of the UK Local Government Information Unit, one of Britains leading think tanks.

 

The Roundtable, which will be held from 12.30pm – 3.30pm on Wednesday 31 May 2017 will provide an opportunity for a high-level exchange of views on how we can reinforce local democracy in NSW.  The cost of attendance is $125 per delegate.

 

Councillor Palmer has requested permission to attend the Roundtable.  It will be recommended that Council endorse the attendance of Councillor Palmer at the Roundtable and any other Councillors who may nominate to attend.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council endorse the attendance of Councillor Palmer and any other Councillors nominating to attend the Reinforcing Local Democracy Roundtable hosted by LGNSW on 31 May 2017.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 

  


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 May 2017

Lane Cove Mayors: A Retrospective 1895 - 2017

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove Mayors: A Retrospective 1895 - 2017    

Record No:    SU1717 - 24562/17

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Jennifer Bice 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Municipality was incorporated in February 1895 and has undergone a great deal of growth and development over the last 122 years. In the time since Council was incorporated there have been 51 Mayors, including many that have served multiple terms.

 

This report discusses the creation of an electronic flip book, Lane Cove Mayors: A Retrospective 1895 - 2017.

 

It is recommended that this document be posted on Council’s website and a small number of printed copies be made available for use in Council’s Local Studies Section. It will be a valuable source of information about Lane Cove’s history for future generations.

 

Background

 

With the proposed Council merges, it was decided to capture the political history of Lane Cove by creating an electronic flip book which would include a photograph (where possible) and a short history of events which occurred during each Mayor’s term.

 

Local Studies staff have researched 122 years of Council Minutes and documents held in the Council’s Archives to produce Lane Cove Mayors: A Retrospective 1895 – 2017. While the quality of photographs is uneven, the information about the achievements of each Mayor captures the history of the Lane Cove Local Government Area.

 

Discussion

 

When Lane Cove was incorporated the area looked more like a collection of country villages then the dense residential area that exists today. There was little street lighting and the few roads that existed were made of dirt and gravel.

 

Over the last 122 years successive Councils have made decisions about roads, services, planning, civic buildings, community facilities, parks and reserves and responded to a variety of community concerns. These decisions have shaped the way the Municipality has developed over time.

 

While the book discusses the Mayors of Lane Cove each Mayor worked in collaboration with then Alderman/Councillors to achieve the results/outcomes described. As such the book would not be complete without a list of all the Alderman/Councillors that have served the community of Lane Cove.

 

Conclusion

 

Local Studies staff  have researched the history of the Mayors of Lane Cove to produce Lane Cove Mayors: A Retrospective 1895 – 2017. This document will be a valuable source of historic information for students, researchers and the general public.

 

Reading the history of the Mayors of Lane Cove reveals the development of Lane Cove to the Municipality that exists today.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the publication of “Lane Cove Mayors: A Retrospective 1895 – 2017” be noted.

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Lane Cove Mayors: A Retrospective 1895 - 2017

34 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 May 2017

Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link

 

 

Subject:          Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link    

Record No:    SU1543 - 23641/17

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Abdullah Uddin 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report provides information on the proposed Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link project by the Roads and Maritimes Services (RMS). It is recommended the report be received and noted and a further report be submitted when the Environmental Impact Statement is released.

 

Discussion

 

The NSW Government has announced a preferred route and next steps for the proposed Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link project. As per the 2012 Long Term Transport Master Plan and other major planning documents, this is a priority infrastructure project for Sydney. The project is expected to reduce east-west & north-south congestion across northern beaches and the Sydney CBD and reduce rat-running through the residential precincts. The project will also improve Northern Beaches public transport (e.g. B-Line which is currently being implemented). However, it is rated no provision has been made for light rail or a metro system with the tunnel.

 

According to the RMS website, the project is currently at concept stage. The Western Harbour Tunnel will connect to WestConnex at the Rozelle interchange, cross underneath the Sydney Harbour between Birchgrove and Waverton areas and connect with the Warringah Freeway at North Sydney (marked blue in Figure 1).

 

The Beaches Link is a tunnel which will connect to the Warringah Freeway, crossing under the Middle Harbour and connecting with Burnt Bridge Creek deviation at Balgowlah. The Wakehurst Parkway will be upgraded to two lanes each way between Seaforth and Frenchs Forest (marked orange in Figure 1).

 

To the west, the tunnel will connect with the existing Lane Cove Tunnel. However, in the concept plan, it is unclear whether any on or off-ramp is proposed at or near the Pacific Highway/ Longueville Road intersection, Lane Cove. Any connection with (Epping Road), at this location is likely to create further traffic congestion in the area.

 

Further, during the detailed design stage, noise, air quality, flora, fauna and marine ecology studies must ensure that the project will have no adverse impact to the Lane Cove residents. Council will make a formal submission when the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is published.

 

Currently detailed engineering investigations are being undertaken by the RMS. Also, community information sessions on this project have been organised in specific locations across Sydney. The upcoming community information sessions are:

 

1.   Balmain Town Hall (370 Darling St, Balmain) – Saturday, 20 May – 10am-2pm

2.   Manly-Warringah Leagues Club (563 Pittwater Rd, Brookvale) – Thursday, 25 May – 2-6pm & Saturday, 27 May – 10am-2pm

3.   Northbridge Bowling Club (Warners Park, The Outpost (off Kameruka Rd), Northbridge – Thursday, 1 June – 2-6pm & Saturday, 3 June – 10am-2pm.

 

The project costing, funding strategy, tolling options, private sector involvement and construction timeline are unknown at this stage.

 

Figure 1: Proposed Western Harbour Tunnel & Beaches Link Route

Source: RMS website

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   The report be received and noted; and

 

2.   A further report to be submitted to Council when the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link project is released by the RMS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Patterson

Executive Manager - Open Space and Urban Services

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 May 2017

Performance Audits NSW Auditor General

 

 

Subject:          Performance Audits NSW Auditor General    

Record No:    SU6718 - 24147/17

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The report outlines the cost and activities of the Audit Office in relation to the conduct of Council’s audit of the Lane Cove Council’s financial statements for the year ending 30 June 2017. The Audit Office in relation to their program of value adding, will also be conducting three Performance Audits across the industry. It is recommended the report be received and noted.

 

Background

Council when adopting the 2017/19 Budget resolved in part to:-

“Write to the Auditor General and seek clarification regarding the following:-

a.      The cost of this years audit for Lane Cove Council;

b.      What additional tasks will be performed by the Auditor’s General Office that justifies the increase in costs; and

c.      with the outsourcing of the audit, what price was negotiated with PWC.”

 

Discussion.

 

Following the meeting, Council received written advice conforming that the audit fees would not increase by the amount originally advised (double existing $37,000), instead the increase would be $12,000 p.a.. This amount comprises $6,000 increase for services of PWC and the $6000 for the Audit Office.

 

The Audit Office have also advised the following in relation to their program of value adding, which includes Performance Audits.

 

“Performance Audits assess whether selected activities or services are carried out efficiently, effectively and economically. … I have consulted with organisations like Local Government NSW and the Office of Local Government regarding topic selection.

 

In this first year, I have chosen to focus on the sector as a whole, rather than on any individual council. In this way I hope to improve my Offices understanding of Local Government and to work alongside you to provide some general benchmarking or improvement opportunities. My aim is to support Councils to identify good practice and to make improvements overtime. The first Performance Audit will focus on Councils' own reporting to their communities on service delivery. My Office is conducting a desktop review of reporting in Council annual reports and will select a sample of Councils to profile in more detail.

 

The second audit will survey fraud controls in place across Councils. And the final performance for the 2017/18 financial year will examine current shared services arrangements.”

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting 15 May 2017

3rd Quarter Review of the 2016-17 Delivery Program and Operational Plan

 

 

Subject:          3rd Quarter Review of the 2016-17 Delivery Program and Operational Plan    

Record No:    SU238 - 18490/17

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

This report outlines the 3rd Quarter progress towards achieving the projects listed in the adopted 2016-17 Delivery Program and Operational Plan.  It is recommended that the report be received and noted.

Discussion

Council’s adopted 2016-17 Delivery Program and Operational Plan details the projects proposed to be undertaken during the financial year in order to meet the goals and objectives of Lane Cove 2025 - Community Strategic Plan. Council reports quarterly on the progress towards completing the projects and achieving the targets for the adopted performance measurements. The 3rd Quarter Review of the 2016-17 Delivery Program and Operational Plan is shown attached as AT-1

 

The projects in the Quarterly Review are listed by the responsible Council Division and where the project has a completion date the ‘Action Status’ column graphically demonstrates the progress towards completion. The Review also includes a comment on the status of each project.

 

The Quarterly Review also provides a report on progress towards achieving the targets set for performance measurement for each Division of Council. A cumulative figure for performance measurement is shown so that performance can be tracked each quarter towards achieving the required target.

The highlights of the projects either commenced or completed for the 3rd quarter include:-

·    Signing of contract with ADCO for the design and construction of the Rosenthal Project (January);

·    Opening of Lane Cove Community Hub;

·    2017-2018 Draft Operational Plan, Draft Budget and Draft Fees and Charges were developed, endorsed and placed on public exhibition (March);

·    Pension Asset Testing Workshop (January);

·    Consulted with the community on the Disability Inclusion Action Plan (March);

·    Community consultation commenced for:-

Traffic Changes for Lane Cove Village (March); and

Fleming Street, Northwood Private Road Naming (March).

·    Arrangements made for Council assuming collection of the Fire and Emergency Service Levy on behalf of the State Government (January - March);

·    Opening of the Pedestrian Overbridge in Little Street (January);

·    Lane Cove and North Side Community Services relocated to the new Community Hub  in Little Street (February);

·    Chinese New Year Celebrations (February);

·    Sunset in the Village (January – February);

·    Walk Around the World program held with 263 participants (March).

·    Extension of shared pathway from Wood Street to Blackman Park (March);

·    Successfully conducted Bush kids Term 1 program for 2017 - 11 activities with 159 participants (March);

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the 3rd Quarter Review of the 2016-17 Delivery Program and Operational Plan be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

3rd Quarter Review of 2016 - 2017 Operational Plan

59 Pages

Available Electronically

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 15 May 2017

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot    

Record No:    SU220 - 23433/17

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 - April 2017

41 Pages