Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

18 June 2018

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 18 June 2018 commencing at 7:00pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Craig - GMYours faithfully

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

 

Council Meeting Procedures

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

If you do not understand any part of the information given above; require assistance to participate in the meeting due to a disability; or wish to obtain information in relation to Council, please contact Council’s Executive Manager – Corporate Services on 99113550.

 

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 18 June 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

public forum

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 21 MAY 2018

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

2.      Notice of Motion: Reducing and phasing out single use plastic items

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

3.      Northwood Shops Planning Proposal 29 - Public Exhibition

 

4.      Update - Girraween Park Planning Proposal

 

5.      Results of the Consultation on Councils Draft Community Strategic Plan, Liveable Lane Cove: 2035

 

6.      Results of the Consultation for the 2018-21 Draft Delivery Program, 2018/19 Draft Operational Plan, 2018/19 Draft Budget and 2018/19 Draft Fees and Charges 

 

7.      Council Nominations for the Sydney North Planning Panel

 

8.      Woodford Bay Plaques

 

9.      Retrofit of Confiscated Bikes from Bike Share Companies

 

10.    Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Determination for Councillor Fees

 

11.    May 2018 Traffic Committee Meeting

 

12.    China Sword Policy - the impacts on Council

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

13.    Official Opening of Lane Cove Child and Family Health Centre and Lane Cove Creative Studios

 

14.    Council Snapshot                    


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 18 June 2018

Notice of Motion: Reducing and phasing out single use plastic items

 

 

Subject:          Notice of Motion: Reducing and phasing out single use plastic items    

Record No:     SU6188 - 34804/18

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):       Councillor Andrew Zbik 

 

 

Background

 

On the 20 June 2018 the major Australian supermarkets Woolworths and Coles shall cease providing single-use plastic bags in their stores. This follows years of campaigning from local environmental and sustainability groups together with a nationwide effort that has sought this outcome. Council has previously helped local initiatives to reduce the use of single use plastic bags in our Local Government Area.

 

Lane Cove has a Sustainable Events Policy that requires all Council events to implement a wide range of sustainable and waste initiatives when conducting an event. Council has also run a series of events on single use plastics and micro plastics in the environment that have been very well attended by members of the community.  Council has previously collaborated with local businesses to undertake a Bin Trim audit to reduce waste.

 

Lane Cove Council’s approach over many years has been to raise awareness in the community, educate and set an example for the community.

 

An example of where Council is proactive in this area is the prohibition of the giving out of balloons within the plaza, at any business launch or at the Rotary Fair. The release of balloons into the atmosphere is also addressed specifically in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act that prohibits these activities.

 

The Lane Cove Local Government Area includes the river catchments of the Lane Cove and Parramatta Rivers. The pollution caused in our waterways from the littering of single-use plastic items is problematic. Despite this, Council and Council supported and sponsored events still consume a large number of single-use plastic items such as plastic drinking straws, plastic bottles, plastic cups, plastic crockery and cutlery and plastic bags.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Conduct a review of the consumption of single-use plastics such as plastic drinking straws, plastic bottles, plastic cups, plastic crockery and cutlery, plastic bags and any other single-use plastic items at all Council venues and Council supported and sponsored events;

 

2.   Make suggestions of how Council can show leadership by reducing and where appropriate phase out the consumption of all single-use plastic items at all Council venues and Council supported and sponsored events; and

 

3.   Provides a report back to Council later this year to consider the adoption of any initiatives that have been identified to help reduce and where appropriate phase out the consumption of single-use plastic items.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Andrew Zbik

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 18 June 2018

Northwood Shops Planning Proposal 29 - Public Exhibition

 

 

Subject:          Northwood Shops Planning Proposal 29 - Public Exhibition    

Record No:     SU6464 - 24608/18

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Terry Tredrea; Christopher Pelcz; Anthony Crichton 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

History

 

A Planning Proposal to permit a 130-bed residential care facility above age-related retail uses at 4-18 Northwood road & 274/274A Longueville Road (“Blaxlands Corner”) was lodged with Council on 11 November 2016. The Proposal is to amend the permissible uses in the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone (plus some R4 High Density Residential land) to permit “seniors housing”. It also seeks to raise the FSR from 0.8 &1:1 to 1.98:1 and Height to RL 70.25, measured to the underside of the ceiling (from 9.5m & 12m to approx. 14m - 22m front-to-rear).

 

In February 2017 Council refused the Planning Proposal for eight reasons, including setting an unacceptable precedent in bulk and scale, traffic impacts, parking volumes, amenity and safety, and bushland impacts. The proponent did not make a case for the land use changes proposed. However,  under direction of the Sydney North Planning Panel, it was submitted to the Department of Planning who issued a Gateway Determination. Council was instructed to exhibit the Proposal (see AT-1). This report responds to the public consultation, 8 March to 19 April 2018, and considers the Planning Proposal.

 

Review of Planning Proposal and Draft DCP

 

Council has also sought advice from Bitzios Consulting (traffic consultants) (AT-2) and Annand & Associates (urban designers) (AT-3, 4 & 5). A total of 160 submissions was received, including from the Dept of Environment & Heritage (AT-6), the RMS (AT-6), Sydney Water (AT-6) and Transport for NSW (AT-6). Submissions were received from five community groups. Of the 160 submissions, 8 were in favour of the Proposal (5%), 7 were neutral or even-handed (4.4%), and 145 were opposed (90.6%).

 

Issues of concern to the community, and in some cases to agencies and consultants, included:-

 

1.         Traffic flow (arterial road);

2.         Road & Pedestrian Safety;

3.         Traffic flow (local streets);

4.         Parking/vehicle numbers generated;

5.         Public transport;

6.         Land use (as a residential care facility);

7.         Land use (for retail);

8.         Public benefits;

9.         Conflict of interest/ Public hearing;

10.       Seniors Housing SEPP;

11.       Bushland;

12.       Height of building;

13.       FSR;

14.       Visual impact; and

15.       Amenity/Open space.

 

 

The exhibited Planning Proposal and draft DCP are inconsistent with the endorsed Lane Cove LEP and particularly the Lane Cove DCP in the following matters:-

 

·          Proposed Design Strategy to “allow residential aged-care uses above the ground floor to the eastern side of Northwood Road up to 3-4 storeys high…”;

·          Endorsed Locality Objective “to serve local residential needs”;

·          Endorsed Desired Future Character “Mixed use development to all blocks within the area is encouraged with residential uses located further away from Northwood Road to the rear of the blocks.”;

·          Where there are discrepancies between the two, the proposed precedence of the draft DCP over Council’s endorsed DCP (e.g. Part H on Bushland);

·          Permissibility of a 3m rear setback adjacent to SEPP19 bushland (as described in Setback table and Figure 2);

·          Measures under Bushland Protection that are the subject of changes suggested by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (in support of the endorsed DCP); and

·          The provision of less than the three hours of sunlight in a commercial and mixed use development. Part D Section 1(10), requires “a minimum of 3 hours of sunlight on a portion of the windows of the habitable rooms between 9am and 3pm on 21 June”.

 

Recommendation

 

In summary, it is recommended that Council not support the Planning Proposal as exhibited on the following grounds:-

 

       i.          The 3 metre rear buffer to the adjoining SEPP19 bushland (zoned E2) is opposed by NSW Office of Environment & Heritage (OE&H), and it has not been demonstrated that the adjacent bushland can be adequately protected by the proposed 3m wide buffer;

      ii.          Offset planting is required by OE&H on-site if two turpentine trees are removed;

     iii.          NSW OEH have confirmed that the impacts on the adjoining SEPP19 bushland are not adequately addressed;

    iv.          Based on independent analysis of the proponent’s original urban design documents, the building envelope envisaged by the proposed floor space ratio and height control cannot be achieved;

      v.          Council’s independent urban design analysis concludes that both the proponent’s height and floor space ratio are not suitably justified on urban design or planning grounds;

    vi.          Council’s independent urban design analysis has confirmed that a more modest scale would achieve a better built form and design outcome and further reduce likely overshadowing impacts on adjoining residential properties;

   vii.          The proponent’s amended urban design responses does not adequately address issues raised by Council’s independent urban design analysis, nor do they provide any justification for their proposed height and floor space ratio;

  viii.          The proposed scale is considered excessive and conflicts with the scale of the nearby Lane Cove Village;

    ix.          The proposed scale is inconsistent with other B1 Neighbourhood Centre zones;

      x.          The fourth leg at the Kenneth/Northwood signalised intersection is opposed by the RMS;

    xi.          A single site entry/egress is requested at the southern end of the site by the RMS; and

   xii.          No public benefits are proposed to be delivered despite a development that seeks substantial uplift.

 

These concerns are addressed in the body of this report and in greater detail in AT-7.

 

Moreover, the applicant uses non-standard definitions where standard definitions and terms are used in the Standard LEP.

 

Applicant Response

 

In response, the proponent has submitted amended comments for Council’s consideration. They include a covering letter (AT-8), consultation report (AT-9), an addendum urban design report (AT-10), response to Council’s independent urban design analysis (AT-11), response to NSW RMS submission (AT-12), response to Council’s peer review of traffic study (AT-13) and response to NSW OEH comments (AT-14).

 

Of particular concern, the proponent’s amended urban design commentary does not adequately address any of the urban design comments raised by Council’s independent analysis, nor do they provide any suitable justification for their proposed built form of 4 storeys at the front and 6 storeys at the rear.

 

It is important to note that both analyses arrive at similar conclusions i.e. increased rear setback of 6 metres is appropriate, but do not agree on the heights or floor space ratio. There are also a number of comments in the proponent’s response (AT-8, 10 and 11) that appear to misinterpret the recommendations in the independent analysis.

 

However, Council may consider amending the Planning Proposal to provide a more modest scale of residential care facility above age-related ground-floor facilities. One that provides public benefits in return for uplift in line with benefits and obligations afforded under Seniors Housing SEPP. In that case, there may be the opportunity to support a different proposal which meets the concerns of agencies, the community and Council as expressed above.

 

Therefore, it is recommended that Council also consider supporting a better planning outcome. As the original proposal does not provide any community benefit in return for a 98% uplift in floor area, it is proposed to seek from the proponent an amendment to the proposal. That is, a potential amended Planning Proposal which responds to the grounds for refusal listed above. In particular:-

 

·          Rezoning of the subject site to B4 Mixed Use. Under cl.45 (Vertical villages) of the Seniors Housing SEPP, this permits FSR bonuses in response to affordable housing benefits;

·          Retaining the current FSR of 1:1 across the site, which may be increased up to 1.5:1 under the bonuses of the Seniors Housing SEPP;

·          Retain the current height of 9.5m across the site, with an Incentive Height of RL67 (to top of ceiling) in return for full use of the bonuses of the Seniors Housing SEPP; and

·          Applying to the Dept of Planning for an extension of time to negotiate and exhibit this amendment.

Also:

·          A single site entry/egress at the southern end of the site, as requested by the RMS;

·          A minimum rear buffer setback of 6 metres (but ideally 10 metres) to the adjoining SEPP19 bushland, in return for bushland offsets;

·          Offset planting on-site of two turpentine trees, as required by OE&H; and

·          An additional independent road safety audit of the two existing signalised intersections.

 

The rationale for seeking a rezoning to B4 Mixed Use is explained at the end of the Discussion.

 

Other concerns, which are more amenable to being addressed by the applicant at the DA stage if gazetted in due course, include:-

 

·          Addressing shortcomings in the SIDRA modelling detailed in the Bitzios report Section 2.3 Addressing Roads and Maritime’s Concerns in Relation to Sidra Modelling, and Section 2.6 SIDRA Modelling;

·          Details of improvements for public and active transport facilities;

·          The traffic impacts on the local streets are not fully addressed;

·          A median strip should extend south along Northwood Rd to restrict vehicular access to left in left out;

·          The veracity of a provision of 46 on-site car spaces;

·          A proposed roundabout at the intersection of Northwood/River Road;

·          Clarification of the exact nature of proposed through-site links; and

·          More usable communal open space such as roof gardens.

 

Background

 

Review and Assessment of Planning Proposal No 29

 

A Planning Proposal was lodged with Council on 11 November 2016 to amend the permissible uses in the B1 zone to permit a 130-bed residential care facility above age-related retail uses on the site. In addition, it sought to raise the FSR from 0.8 &1:1 to 1.98:1 and Height to RL 70.25 measured to the top of the ceiling only (from 9.5m & 12m to approx. 14m - 22m front-to-rear).

 

At its 20 February 2017 Meeting, Council resolved not to support the Planning Proposal. Following this, a Rezoning Review was lodged by the applicant on 27 February 2017 and referred to the Sydney North Planning Panel for consideration – where Council addressed the panel. Notwithstanding this, the Sydney North Planning Panel determined that the Proposal demonstrated strategic and site-specific merit and that it should be submitted for a Gateway Determination, along with a draft Development Control Plan.

 

Planning Proposal 29 was then conditionally approved for exhibition by NSW Planning and Environment on 26 September 2017, subject to the applicant updating the Proposal to respond to Council’s concerns.  As a result of several months of correspondence between Council and the applicant, the Gateway conditions were addressed and the Proposal publically exhibited.

 

Public Exhibition

 

Following Council report to the 19 February 2018 meeting (AT-1), Council undertook extensive consultation with the community and government departments using a variety of consultation methods, from Thursday, 8 March to Thursday, 19 April 2018. This was 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 over 6,000 registered residents;

·          A notice of the proposal (via 2,400 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 public information evening on 14 March 2018 enabled the proponent and his consultants to detail the Planning Proposal.

 

Council sought further expert consultant peer reviews of the applicant’s traffic report, and the applicant’s urban design report.

 

A total of 160 submissions was received, including from the Dept of Environment & Heritage, the RMS, Sydney Water and Transport for NSW. Submissions were received from community groups such as the Lane Cove Bushland & Conservation Society, the Longueville Residents Association, the Bushland Management Action Committee, the Greenwich Community Association, and the Northwood Action Group.

 

Of the 160 submissions, 8 were in favour of the Proposal (5%), 7 were neutral or even-handed (4.4%), and 145 were opposed (90.6%).

 

The issues raised are addressed below, and are (in order of numbers of submissions):-

 

·          Traffic flow (arterial road and local streets);

·          Road & Pedestrian Safety;

·          Land use (residential care facility) (retail);

·          Parking/vehicle numbers;

·          Height;

·          Public benefits;

·          Bushland;

·          Public hearing;

·          Conflict of interest / Public Hearing;

·          FSR;

·          Visual impact;

·          Public transport;

·          Amenity (on-site);

·          Seniors SEPP;

·          Open space; and

·          Heritage.

 

Issues

 

The issues are addressed partly in order of concern to the community, except where similar issues are more logically dealt with together, such as public transport as it relates to parking and traffic flow. In the interests of brevity, each discussion is summarised. For a fuller discussion of each issue, refer to the Attachment –Discussion in Full (AT-7).

 

1.         Traffic flow on the arterial

 

a.         Current capacity of the arterial road for increased volumes

 

It is claimed in some submissions that the current volume of Traffic on the arterial road is at or above capacity, and is therefore an unsuitable location for further traffic generating development (an assumption). that the proposal would significantly increase traffic volumes on an already “congested” arterial road.

 

Comment

 

In 2018, the roadway carries 21,373 vehicles/day (according to Traffic Volume Viewer). The NSW Road Classification Review states that generally regional roads carry traffic volumes between 15,000-25,000 vpd. The existing traffic volumes on River Road are within this range.

 

The applicant’s traffic report suggests a relatively small addition of traffic (possibly 45 extra trips per day) to that already feeding onto the arterial road, and is not a significant impact. Even if the 45 extra trips is an underestimation, the actual increase would most likely have a minimal impact on total traffic volumes. See AT-2.

 

The applicant’s traffic report calculates the “existing” versus the “proposed” traffic feeding onto the arterial road using the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Development. See AT-2 for details.

           

 

AM peak (trips/hour)

PM peak (trips/hour)

Existing development

33

64

Proposed development

43

76

Change

Up to 30% increase

Up to20% increase

n.b.: Permissible development

40

100

 

A conservative interpretation of these indicative figures suggests that a 20-30% increase in traffic associated with the proposed development of the subject site (at least 45 extra trips per day) is not a significant impact on the current 21,373 trips/day along the arterial road, and is unlikely to contribute more traffic volume to the arterial road to a point beyond acceptable volumes.

 

b.         Impact of development on the three intersections

 

As noted in the applicant’s traffic report, the two signalised intersections are described as currently having “acceptable delays and spare capacity”. Many submissions disagree.

 

Comment

 

As discussed above, the hypothetical modelling of the traffic report indicates that the proposed development is unlikely to significantly impact traffic volumes on the arterial road, and by extension is unlikely to significantly impact volumes at the three intersections.

 

However, the NSW Roads and Maritime Service (RMS), in its submission does not support the proposed addition of a “fourth leg” to the signals at the intersection of Kenneth St/Northwood Rd (which would bring traffic onto the subject site). The three reasons given are discussed in AT-6.

 

Further, in keeping with RMS policy opposing vehicle entry/access to arterial roads where possible, the RMS requires that the proposal be altered “to show a combined entry/exit driveway at the southern end of the site; and a raised median to extend… to restrict vehicular access to left-in and left-out only.” Land may also need to be dedicated for a deceleration lane to facilitate entry to the site from Northwood Road, together with a driver sight line assessment.

 

For all these reasons associated with the Kenneth/Northwood intersection, the current proposal’s site access does not meet RMS requirements. Further detail is addressed in AT-2 and AT-7.

 

2.         Traffic flow on local streets (the ‘rat run’)

 

a.         Traffic volumes on the local streets

 

Residents believe the proposed development will increase traffic volumes on the local streets as cars and trucks coming to and leaving the subject site are obliged to use the local streets as a ‘rat run’ in order to return in the direction they originally came from. Local streets concerned are:-

 

•           Northwood Road (and its intersection with Fleming Street)

•           Arabella Street

•           Woodford Street

•           Kenneth Street

 

 

The concern is that if traffic increases, this could aggravate what is perceived as a congested and unsafe network of small streets.

 

Comment

 

The applicant provided a traffic study comparing the volumes at the intersection of Arabella/ Woodford experienced currently during “peak time” with those resulting from the “future” proposed development. The result:

 

Arabella/Woodford

AM (2hours) vehicles

PM (2 hours) vehicles

Existing survey

160

202

Proposed model

168

213

 

Therefore, in comparing existing local traffic with that resulting from the proposal, it is claimed that the volume (and route) of local traffic is virtually unchanged (“traffic neutral”).

 

However, several assumptions about local traffic movements are not addressed:

1)         That the critical timing of use is ‘peak hours’ Monday to Friday. However, peak congestion is reported by residents to occur on Friday, Saturday and Sunday PM.

2)         That the percentage of total district traffic that will use the local streets to and from the proposed development is the same as that % accessing current uses.

3)         That the current presence of commercial vehicles appears to be negligible and will remain so.

 

Therefore proposed traffic volumes could quite likely to be higher than existing volumes, in terms of a change in user behaviour, in terms of share of commercial vehicles, and in terms of the critical time of peak use.

 

b.         Potential congestion on the local streets

 

The local streets around Woodford/Arabella are perceived as a congested and unsafe network.

 

Comment

 

The traffic assessment describes the intersection as a Level of Service (LOS) of “A” (good operation), and that the volumes of cars (approx. 80-100 veh/hr) is below the RMS Guidelines of a threshold of 300 veh/hr for local residential streets.

 

While the intersection may perform well in terms of raw numbers of vehicles proposed to pass through the intersection, the level of congestion and potential hazards is underestimated, for the following reasons:-

 

1)         As noted above, proposed traffic volumes are most likely to be significantly higher than existing volumes;

2)         The critical periods of congestion may also be Friday, Saturday and Sunday PM due to users of the local clubs overflow parking in Kenneth and especially Woodford Street;

3)         Arabella and Woodford Streets are 7m wide, creating a single-car-passing situation when overflow parking fills the streets; and

4)         The turn into Arabella from Northwood is made difficult by being an acute angle turn opposite the 261 bus stop, especially for commercial vehicles.

 

 

 

Therefore, local congestion, especially at critical times (Friday, Saturday and Sunday pm) under the proposal is likely to be worse, aggravating a periodically obstructed local street network. It is acknowledged that any development permissible under the current controls is likely to create the same or worse negative impact on the local streets.     

 

3.         Road Safety

 

a.         Safety of Vehicles

 

Concern is expressed that the site of the combined intersections is a vehicle hazard “black spot”, and that the proposed 130-bed residential care facility with age-related retail below will aggravate the dangers to motorists, both by increasing the traffic volumes on the arterial road, and by altering motorists’ behaviour around the changed signals and entry/exist points.

 

Comment

 

The RMS submits (AT-6) that proposals for the Kenneth/Northwood signalised intersection raises unsupportable road safety concerns, regardless of the current dangers of the road.

 

The applicant’s Feasibility Design Road Safety Audit (Appendix F of the Traffic Impact Assessment) provides a list of measures designed “to consider potential road safety implications of the proposed access/ egress arrangements to this development and the proposed changes to the Northwood Road/ Kenneth Street intersection”. The Audit notes 2012 RMS support for the view that:

 

…Given that there is no formal design for these changes, this is considered a feasibility stage road safety audit.

 

However, in its recent submission, the RMS states that this in-principle support:

 

… has been superseded by various correspondence since 2012.

 

Therefore, Council intends to commission an additional independent road safety audit of the two existing signalised intersections.

 

b.         Safety of Pedestrians

 

There is some apprehension about the danger this busy road represents to local residents, including occupants of the care facility, and to its visitors and staff. Concern is expressed for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists crossing the roads and in using crossovers that enter/exit the site.

 

Comment

 

The RMS states that:

 

The traffic impact study should examine the impacts for all road users and investigate improvements for public and active transport facilities. …

 

Pedestrian/cyclist safety in crossing the roads and in using crossovers is addressed in the applicant’s Feasibility Design Road Safety Audit (Appendix F of the Traffic Impact Assessment).  

 

 

 

 

The applicant states that:-

 

A more detailed comprehensive traffic safety audit (including pedestrian desire lines) can only be prepared once the specific pedestrian entry and exit points of the development are known, based on a carefully prepared development application.

(letter to Council, 9 February, 2018)

 

Therefore, in the light of RMS comments on the proposed development, the Road Safety Audit as it applies to vehicle, pedestrian and cyclist safety requires further consideration. Therefore, Council intends to commission an additional independent road safety audit of the two existing signalised intersections. See the Bitzios review (AT-2).

 

4.         Parking & Vehicle numbers generated

 

a.         Accuracy of Parking Space Demand

 

The proposal is for 46 car spaces on-site to accommodate staff and visitors to the residential care facility, as well as parking for the retail premises and proposed vet. Concern is raised that 46 spaces seems “inadequate”. And if on-site parking is inadequate, it could result in overflow parking in local streets.

 

Comment

 

Parking demand is also important because it is a predictor of “trips” generated by a land use, and the resultant impacts on nearby roads.

 

The conclusion that 23 non-retail/vet spaces, for residents, visitors, “nursing, catering and administration” would be sufficient for Northwood appears at first glance reasonable for morning shift changeover see (AT-7).However, the impact of differing public transport options between Northwood and Pathways Northbridge is critical. The proposed 46 car spaces is questioned on the grounds that staff cannot rely on the poor public transport service for Northwood (see Public Transport below).

 

b.         Comparison of Existing, Permitted and Proposed Parking/Traffic Generated

 

Concern is expressed that the proposal will generate more traffic than at present, which will clog the local streets and add to the existing danger to pedestrians and vehicles.

 

Comment

 

A comparison is drawn by the traffic report between the car parking spaces required for the three scenarios:

 

 

Total parking spaces

AM trips/hr

PM trips/hr

Existing land use

44

33/hr

64/hr

Permitted (under the LEP)

88

43/hr

103/hr

Proposed land use

46

29/hr

62/hr

 

The applicant’s conclusion is theoretically reasonable. However, a comparison of “traffic generation” at the subject site is only one aspect of the traffic impact, and must be considered in terms also of the changes in routes that result from a different use of the subject site. See AT-7.

 

Furthermore, the reliance on public transport by 50% of staff is highly problematic, as addressed below. Therefore, the proposed 46 car spaces is considered an underestimation.

 

5.         Public transport

 

Adequacy of bus service

 

Concern is expressed that the public transport service to the site is “poor” (poorer than the comparable Sailors Bay site), and therefore almost all staff will be required to travel by car, especially on weekends. This impacts the provision of on-site parking spaces.

Comment

 

Because train and ferry services do not run in the vicinity of the subject site, some staff may be expected to travel to and from work by bus. While either the 261 or the 254 would suffice for staff on Monday to Friday, a combination of the 261 and the 254 would nevertheless be highly problematic for staff working on Saturday and Sunday (who change shifts at 7am, 2pm and 10pm). See AT-7. Nor does this take into consideration the extra travel at interchange points in the CBD, Lane Cove Interchange or McMahons Point.

 

The use of public transport by staff is therefore highly unlikely, and will most likely require that almost all staff (not the 50% assumed under parking requirements above) travel by car and park on-site. The 46 car spaces are therefore an underestimation.

 

6.         Land Use: A residential care facility

 

Four separate issues have arisen relating to the use of this site as a residential care facility and are discussed below.

 

a.         Demand for Aged Care Facilities – Sufficient or insufficient aged care facilities

 

Many residents submit that approximately 450 aged care and seniors living units are planned for this area and this should be sufficient.

 

Several residents, however, submit that Lane Cove is short of aged care facilities and that this is an ideal location close to transport and medical support organizations for residents who need aged care and wish to remain living in the area to stay close to their family and friends. 

 

Comment

 

The proponent’s Planning Proposal cites a growing need for residential aged care facilities.

 

The general principle of providing aged care in the local area is supported by Council as it enables people to continue living in the area and to stay close to their family and friends. Council’s Human Services Department has been consulted and supports the provision of additional high care facilities in Lane Cove LGA.

 

The Sydney North Planning Panel, in its Determination of 2 May 2017 considered that

the Planning Proposal has strategic merit on the basis that it will allow for the growing need for aged care accommodation in the North District, however no evidence is given for this view.

 

The proponent cites the provisional allocation of 86 residential aged care places for the proposed development by the Federal Government to suggest at least a minimum number is recognised as being required in this location.

 

The viability of demand for aged care facilities is not the determining factor in this assessment. The proponent has decided that there is a demand for aged care units and this is a matter for the proponent. A more critical issue is whether the site is suitable on traffic grounds, whether there are more suitable locations closer to the Lane Cove Village and whether a proper level of facilities has been provided for the residents and the local community. There may also be a view that there should be a public benefit for the upzoning (capacity) of the site; similar to the Seniors Housing SEPP obligations for an uplift in density.

 

b.         Visual appearance of this development

 

Several submissions believe the current development site is unsightly and under-developed, and would thus benefit from this development.

 

Comment

 

It is agreed that the proposed development would present an opportunity to improve the appearance of the area.

 

c.         Unsuitable site

 

Concern has been expressed that the proposed site is unsuitable due to poor traffic conditions and lack of amenities.  Seniors housing would be better located close to the Lane Cove Village with better access to medical services such as doctors, physiotherapists, blood testing facilities, libraries, local coffee shops and the Lane Cove Hub – not a remote location requiring transportation of elderly citizens to the service hub.

 

Comment

 

Council officers note that older people want places that are close to transport and shops and need to be connected to the community.  Blaxland’s Corner is a relatively flat area and relatively close to town.

 

Key  issues are whether the site is suitable on traffic grounds (as discussed elsewhere), whether there are more suitable locations closer to the Lane Cove Village and whether the site and the community would be better served by site re-development for neighbourhood retail facilities (eg small supermarket).

 

It is agreed that aged persons housing may ideally be better located close to the Lane Cove Village where a range of retail and community facilities.  However, the site cannot be precluded due to the distance from the Lane Cove village as facilities are proposed on-site and the proposed development can provide transport to the Lane Cove centre for residents of this facility.

 

Indeed it can be expected that this business would arrange for doctors, ‘physios’ and other services to visit patients on-site and a mini-bus service is typically made available for residents for day trips or for other short duration trips.

 

Although there may be some benefit for the local community in site re-development for neighbourhood retail facilities, this may not be a viable outcome for this site. 

 

Concluding comment

 

Sites closer to centres are favoured, but this site cannot be discounted on grounds of distance to the Lane Cove Village.  Therefore it is valid to consider the development of this site for aged care units.

d.         Site is an “isolated island” and is not likely to serve the local community

 

Some concern has been expressed by the community that, if developed as an aged care facility it will remain an isolated island and not generate any commercial or social activity for the community, and that this development is unlikely to serve only locals and may be expected to bring in people from outside of the area.

 

Comment

 

These concerns are understood as the proponent had not indicated with any certainty what services are to be provided that can be accessed by the community.  It would be preferable if residents were drawn from the local community, but that is not within Council’s control. 

 

7.         Land Use: Retail on-site

 

Three separate issues have arisen relating to the potential use of this site for retail, commercial or community facilities and are discussed below.

 

a.         A neighbourhood shopping centre is not viable on this site

 

It is claimed that this is not a naturally “good” retail location and shops are not viable on this site for a number of reasons including heavy traffic, lack of parking, isolated from Lane Cove retail precinct and poor and inconvenient pedestrian access.

 

Most of the local community considers that the nearby Lane Cove area is already well served by a variety of shops, services and food premises and Greenwich and Artarmon are more shopper and car-friendly than Northwood.

 

Comment

 

It is acknowledged that this site is in competition with the main Lane Cove shopping village and with other nearby local shopping centres at Greenwich and Artarmon.  It is located on a busy intersection and has limited parking opportunities and difficult pedestrian access.

 

Council’s Urban Design Consultant has pointed out that although the site has sufficient traffic flows to prosper, it is hamstrung by poor access at a busy intersection and limited on-site parking opportunities. It is therefore unlikely to succeed as a local neighbourhood shopping centre without an anchor supermarket which is unlikely to be attracted to this location.

 

Available evidence suggests that the re-development of this site as a local shopping centre would not be viable on this site because it is unlikely to attract a supermarket and is located on a busy intersection, with poor pedestrian access, a lack of on-site parking opportunities and lack of patronage.

 

b.         Support for local shops and Local facilities (retail/commercial) to be provided by the proposed development

 

Some submissions have suggested that 6-8 neighbourhood shops would re-invigorate the local area and help integrate the aged care facility into the neighbourhood.  It has been suggested that the increased retail/services amenities will allow local families to visit elderly relatives.

 

Some residents would prefer to see shops which benefit the local community with residences above and claimed that the Planning Proposal does not provide local amenities of a neighbourhood level.  Another submission suggests that the area needs vibrancy and not to be killed off by an aged care facility.  Although there is some minority support for the re-development of this site as a local shopping centre, it was not supported by many submissions.

 

Comment

 

The Planning Proposal proposes a series of retail and commercial shop fronts and may include local retail services such as vet clinic, restaurant of cafe, medical centre pharmacy and other retail tenancies.  It is expected that provision will be made for a general medical practitioner to be either be located on site or for regular visits to be made by a local GP to the site.

 

However, the PP fails to clarify in any detail what retail and commercial services would be provided. It is suggested that this planning proposal would not be acceptable to Council unless a revised PP that ensured a more modest bulk and height, and the provision of an affordable housing component and local retail/commercial facilities was agreed upon by the proponent. 

 

c.         Loss of local jobs

 

It is claimed that approximately 15-20 jobs will be lost as a result of the closure of businesses currently operating on this site. 

 

Comment

 

Overall the number of jobs that would be created on-site would likely be similar to those lost by the closure of existing businesses.  Importantly, the existing vet business is proposed to be retained.

 

8.         Public Benefits

 

a.         Public or Community Benefits 

 

Eleven out of the 24 submissions on public benefits expressed the view that there were no public or community benefit outcomes whatsoever. The community can see no advantage in the proposal as it removes local retail facilities and replaces them with aged care facilities that are not wanted by them, seen as provided elsewhere and seen as hard to access.

 

Submissions argued that there is no specific community benefit to the community:

 

i.          No Community facility such as a hall, playground or public park;

ii.         No access to nearby and adjoining bushland from the site;

iii.         No Affordable housing proposed hence fails to meet community needs for affordable housing; and

iv.        No social or practical retail i.e. a café or supermarket or a pedestrian footbridge.

 

Comment

 

Because the proponent has not demonstrated how the local community would benefit from this proposal, the community is entitled to hold a position on this matter.

 

Council notes that:-

 

(i)         The proponent has not offered significant community infrastructure such as a community facility, hall, playground, public park or clear access to bushland from the site;

 

(ii)        Affordable housing is not proposed which is in short supply in the area;

 

(iii)       Retail and commercial shop fronts such as vet clinic, restaurant of cafe, medical centre pharmacy and other retail tenancies will be provided and it is expected that provision will be made for a general medical practitioner;

 

(iv)       The proposal seeks to avoid the Seniors Housing SEPP and it is also unclear how Council might ensure that the requirements of clause 26 of that SEPP be applied; 

 

(v)        There is no obligation to provide a supermarket or road infrastructure requested by the resident submissions, but there is a need to ensure the provision of a satisfactory level of retail and community facilities at least for the residents. It would assist the proponent to provide more details of the provision of retail and community services now and to explain how the open space facilities may be delivered or embellished; and

 

(vi)       Additional details of how the community may access the adjacent bushland would be of benefit to the local community.

 

It is a significant shortfall that affordable housing is not included as part of this planning proposal as it is in short supply in the area.  Council also seeks more clarity and certainty on the provision of retail and community facilities for the site.

 

Council might welcome a revised PP by the proponent that provides a reduced bulk and scale, a component of affordable housing and retail and community facilities within the development which may be accessed by the local community. 

 

9.         Conflict of Interest/Public hearing

 

Two separate issues have arisen relating to LEP integrity and requests for a public hearing.

 

a.         Conflict of Interest

 

The community has raised concerns that a member of the Sydney North District Panel had a conflict of interest and the panel was aware of this. It is understood that there is now a Code of Conduct for Regional Panels in place and this has been complied with. This matter is beyond Council’s control.  

 

b.         Public Hearing

 

A total of 23 submissions requested a Public Hearing or independent enquiry under the Local Government Act. 

 

Submissions have requested:

 

(i)         A Public Hearing and independent enquiry into the subject proposal and the findings of the Sydney North Planning Panel under the LG Act, on the basis that the Panel did not adequately assess the negative impacts on the local roads and community.

(ii)        Residents have objected due to the scale and effect of the development and its severe detrimental impact on the safety and character of our local area.

 

Comment

 

Under Section 438U of the Local Government Act 1993, the Governor or the Minister may appoint a person (or persons) as a commissioner(s) to hold a public enquiry on any matter relating to this Act or a Council.

 

 

 A PP provides an opportunity for a new proposed development to be considered by Council. 

The proposal represents a significant departure from the existing Lane Cove LEP 2009 and DCP.  The public concerns over the Sydney North Planning Panel decision and the community view that local planning issues have not been properly or fully considered are understood. It is noted that a public hearing would not resolve any of these matters. However, these views have been acknowledged and responded to in Council’s assessment.

 

10.       Seniors Housing SEPP

 

A key issue relates to the view expressed by the community that the proponent has avoided the use of the Seniors Housing SEPP and not provided affordable housing or an appropriate level of services to the aged residents or the local community for the development rights sought.

 

Seniors SEPP

 

Specific submissions are summarized as follows:

 

(i)         The Seniors Housing SEPP does not apply to a Business zone under clause 4 of the SEPP.  The rationale is to protect employment land from non-business uses.  This PP sets a dangerous precedent for non-business uses in business zones.

(ii)        The proponent has “cherry picked” parts of the Seniors Housing SEPP but avoided triggering the provisions of SEPP (SL) 2004.  This is at odds with the proponent’s Urban Design Report where it states that it seeks to add ‘seniors living’ as a permissible use under the PP.

(iii)       A number of the submissions argue that “there is no logical basis for the proposal and the developer to be exempt from SEPP Seniors Living guidelines.”

 

Comment

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004, also known as the Seniors Housing SEPP, aims to encourage the provision of housing (including residential care facilities) that will increase the supply and diversity of residences that meet the needs of seniors and people with a disability and makes efficient use of infrastructure and services.

 

Essentially it provides that services should be available to residents and that at least 10% of the dwellings may be affordable (Clause 45(6)).

 

Clause 26 of the Seniors SEPP states that the following should be available within 400m on a slope of <1:14:

 

(a)  shops, bank service providers and other retail and commercial services that residents may reasonably require;

(b)  community services and recreation facilities, and

(c)  a general medical practitioner.

 

In summary, SEPP (SL) 2004 offers a number of advantages to both applicant and future residents including:-

 

(i)         Flexibility of “self-contained dwelling” and “serviced self-care housing”;

(ii)        Use of ground floor for non-residential uses (Cl. 19);

(iii)       Access to facilities and services and control of gradients (26)(2);

(iv)       Access to useful public transport (26)(3);

(v)        Bonus FSR available and minimal 10% affordable housing requirement (45); and

(vi)       Parking (48) (d).

 

The proponent, however, has indicated that it is their intention not to utilise the Seniors Housing SEPP.

 

It is unfortunate that the proponent has elected to avoid contributing to these modest affordable housing provisions under the SEPP, but that is out of Council’s jurisdiction. 

 

A second issue is whether Council can ensure that the services under clause 26 will be provided.  One option available to council is to propose a clause within the Planning Proposal approval similar to other conditional bonus provisions already in LC LEP 2009.  The proponent has also indicated an intention to add 'seniors housing' as a permissible use under Lane Cove LEP 2009 for the B1 zone for this site only. This ensures an outcome for aged care units but avoids the SEPP 2004’s affordable housing provisions. 

 

It is disappointing that the Sydney North Planning Panel has indicated no objection to this. The proponent and the Sydney North Planning Panel have argued that the PP can be justified by citing Planning Priority N5 from the ‘North District Plan’ which refers to the need for aged care housing.

However, the PP is inconsistent with a key intended outcome and direction of the ‘North District Plan’ in that it seeks to avoid the affordable housing provisions of SEPP 2004.

 

The PP also fails to provide any certainty on the level of services to be provided for the residents and the local community.  It is especially critical that this be provided given that the proponent has chosen to avoid the requirements of SEPP 2004.  Issues relating to access to facilities and services, type of services and access to transport or public transport have not been properly addressed.

 

We are concerned that the important matters relating to affordable housing have been avoided and those relating to local and community services have not been clarified. We would welcome a revised PP by the proponent that provides a reduced bulk and scale, a component of affordable housing and retail and community facilities within the development which may be accessed by the local community.

 

11.       Bushland

 

Buffer to Bushland

 

The proposed building encroaches in part to within 3m of the zone boundary with the E2 (Environmental Protection) land to the rear of the property. In an attempt to protect the SEPP19 bushland in this E2 land, the Lane Cove DCP (Part H) requires a minimum 10m buffer separating bushland from the building area. The Office of Environment & Heritage (OE&H) calls for this buffer to be supported and measured 10m from the zone boundary, not from the actual stands of remnant bushland.

 

Comment

 

The adjacent SEPP19 bushland of Coastal Enriched Sandstone Moist Forest, is described by Council officers as “holding high environmental protection values”, and “currently being actively managed by Council.”   The applicant has yet to address any site constraints justifying their encroachment into the 10m buffer with adjoining SEPP19 land. The applicant’s DCP objective needs to be consistent with SEPP19, “To protect and preserve neighbouring bushland”. The OE&H also states that the applicant should address many other potential impacts, and in each case to suggest measures to mitigate.

 

If removal of two of the 11 Turpentine trees on-site is shown to be unavoidable, the OE&H requests that they be replaced on-site, and the replacements should be protected in perpetuity.

 

The OE&H also suggests a range of changes to the wording of the proposed section of the DCP.

                                     

Where it is not possible to set the building back the full 10 metres, the urban design review (AT-3, 4 & 5) commissioned by Council has flagged the possibility of a compromise buffer See elsewhere in this report.

 

12.       Height of building

 

a.         Use of a Reduced Level (RL)

 

The RL of 70.25 is an internal ceiling height, and does not cater for any planned plant and equipment that may be placed on the roof. This equipment would effectively create a further "storey" to the building.

 

Comment

 

Most of the existing heights expressed in Lane Cove’s Local Environmental Plan are height in metres; however there are some instances where it is appropriate to use reduced levels (RLs) instead.

 

A height control expressed in metres measures the height from the existing ground on the site – resulting in the height control following the land in parallel, as shown by the large dashed line in the diagram below.

 

 

Whereas a height control expressed in a reduced level (RL) sets the height limit at a specific level to create an indicative building envelope.

 

Council has used Reduced Levels before at the 266 Longueville Road site where there is significant variation in a sites’ topography. The use of an RL was considered appropriate as it allowed the bulk of the development to be massed at the rear of the site, while still cascading down the hill and being sympathetic to the height of the adjoining buildings. This resulted in the front portion of the building (along Longueville Road) to be partially countersunk below the street level and the rear portion of the building almost completely hidden from street view – thus reducing the visual impacts at the street level, as seen the diagram below.

 

 

It is important to note that the height of this building was later reduced to RL 62.8 metres to make it consistent with the height of the adjoining flat buildings. While minor adjustments could be considered, the principle provides clarity and intent for a building envelope. This approach was consistent with Clause 33 of the Seniors Housing SEPP for developments to adopt building heights that are compatible in scale with adjacent development.

 

Such an approach would not have been possible using height in metres as it is measured from the existing ground level on site and does not permit buildings to be countersunk.

 

This difference is clearly expressed in the Standard LEP template which defines building height (or height of building) as being:-

 

(a)        in relation to the height of a building in metres—the vertical distance from ground level (existing) to the highest point of the building, or

 

(b)        in relation to the RL of a building—the vertical distance from the Australian Height Datum to the highest point of the building, including plant and lift overruns, but excluding communication devices, antennae, satellite dishes, masts, flagpoles, chimneys, flues and the like.

 

However, there is a different definition under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004. This defines building height as:

 

the distance measured vertically from any point on the ceiling of the topmost floor of the building to the ground level immediately below that point”.

 

It appears that the proposed RL 70.25 metres comes from the SEPP definition as it only measures it to the underside of the top floor ceiling. This does not take into account the plant and lift overruns.

 

Both definitions are mandatory and cannot be altered by Council. In the event that there is an inconsistency between the provision of a SEPP and an LEP – it is the provision of the SEPP that prevails. In this case, if the current Planning Proposal was approved the proposed height of RL 70.25 metres would not include lift overruns or plant equipment and the final height will be higher.

 

However, Council currently has a control in its Development Control Plan for B1 Neighbourhood Centre zones which can address this matter. Part D – Commercial Development and Mixed Use states that:

“No plant or lift overruns or screening to plant is to be visible above the roof to the public domain”.

If approved, it is recommended that the Draft Development Control Plan be amended to reiterate this clause.

 

Concluding comment

 

Based on Council’s previous experience with the use of RLs, they can be used as an appropriate response to a site’s topography while hiding the potential bulk and mass of a building from street level.

 

Any proposed RL should also be made consistent with the Standard LEP template definition, which allows for lift overruns, and not use the SEPP’s definition. This is particularly relevant as the proponent has indicated that they do not intend to use the provisions of this SEPP. However, nothing can prevent a proponent from using the provisions of the SEPP in the future – therefore Council’s analysis recommends that if seniors housing is pursued on this site, then changes to the built form are recommended. Both Council and the proponent’s analysis conclude that it is normal practice for a local centre (i.e. B1 Neighbourhood Centre zones) to have a greater height (normally 1-2 storeys) than the surrounding residential area. This is to create a sense of place and clear identity for the centre.

 

Taking this into account along with all the comments from the proponent, public, government agencies as well as the intent of Council’s existing planning controls a more modest height of RL 67 metres (excluding lift overruns and plant equipment) should be applied to this site.

 

b.         Excessive internal heights

 

It is submitted that the proposed ground floor-to-floor height of 4.5m is in contradiction to the objective of creating a 'fine grain' shop front design for small scale neighbourhood shops. This height is more suited for uses such as a mini supermarket or manufacturer showroom. The other floor to floor heights are higher than they need to be, while the 3.5m ceiling height for top floor is over-generous and unnecessary.

 

Comment

 

A cross-section, provided by the proponent, details the indicative internal building heights.

 

Original internal heights by proponent

 

From the ground floor level (taken from Northwood Road) the floor-to-floor height is 4.5 metres, the remaining floor-to-floor heights are at 3.25 metres and the top floor is 3.5 metres to the underside of the ceiling.

 

The proponent states that “the proposed higher floor to floor height of 4.5m for the ground level allows for the loading/service truck access to the basement”. While this is larger than average, it is considered as necessary given the sloping nature of this site and the need to provide access for large vehicles including emergency service vehicles and small trucks.

 

The standard floor to floor heights can vary with each development type however the proposed floor to floor height of 3.25 metres is within an acceptable range as it would allow for required services. While it is not clear why the 4th storey requires a height of 3.5 metres, this is not however considered to be a significant issue – when compared with the overall height of the building.

 

Concluding comment

 

Proposed internal heights are not considered to be a significant issue as these may be specific to each development type (i.e. Seniors Housing).

 

The biggest issue appears to be a discrepancy between the definition of Reduced Level height and the height in metres, as stated earlier.

 

c.         Overshadowing

 

Concern is expressed that the development is too large for the site, and especially that the height of the building overshadows surrounding residential areas. The height should be restricted to two storeys above the existing road height and set further back from the road.

 

Comment

 

Shadow analysis has been conducted by the proponent and states that the proposed building envelope “will not result in adverse impacts on the surrounding dwelling”. It is understood that the living room of the adjoining dwelling would receive full solar access for 2 hours in the morning time (9am to 11am mid-winter).

 

While the proposed building would result in a better shadow outcome then a compliant building (i.e. building allowed under existing planning controls), Council’s independent urban design analysis (see AT-3, 4 and 5) does not consider this to be suitable justification.

 

However, a reduced height with an increased rear setback would result in a much better solar access for the adjoining dwelling. A reduction in height to RL 67 metres would effectively result in 2 storeys fronting Northwood Road with a 3rd storey setback and 5 storeys at the rear of the site.

 

Council’s independent urban design analysis also concludes that a further front setback is not warranted. It is also interesting to note that if the building height was reduced to 3 storeys then Council’s existing control for front setbacks would be 3 metres. Notwithstanding this, increasing the front setbacks would likely push the building towards the habitable rooms of the surrounding residential areas, further increasing the shadow impacts of the development.

 

Concluding comment

 

In order to improve the shadow outcome to the existing dwelling at the southern end of the site, it is recommended that the building height be decreased to RL 67 metres.

Council’s independent urban design analysis also concludes that a further front setback is not warranted.

13.       FSR

 

a.         Excessive bulk and scale

 

The building will be overwhelming in size and height in the context of this area.

 

Comment

 

It is understood that the proponent used an Urban Design study to “suggest appropriate built form principles and density to achieve a better urban design outcome that contributes to the revitalisation of the area as well as a sustainable development which benefits the local community”.

 

An independent assessment of these urban design principles is provided in AT-3, 4 and 5 to the Report. Based on a review of the proponent’s urban design documents, the analysis has stated that “it is unclear how a FSR of 1.98:1 could be obtained within the current footprint”. Furthermore, the analysis states that:

 

“The final FSR should be consistent with an acceptable building mass and form.

 

Current proposed FSR appears unachievable. A reduced building height with increased setbacks will reduce FSR to say 1.3 – 1.5:1”.

 

As stated earlier, it is recommended that the reduced level (RL) of the proposed building should be reduced from RL70.25 metres to RL 67 metres. 

 

While even a floor space ratio of 1.5:1 and RL 67 metres is slightly more than what is permissible now, it still results in 3 storeys fronting Northwood Road – which is a similar level of development envisaged by the current planning controls.

 

Currently, the planning controls are mostly an FSR of 1:1 and a height limit of 9.5 metres. This is a potential building of 3 storeys all throughout the site, however use of the reduced level (RL) height control (i.e. RL 67 metres) would still allow for 3 storeys fronting Northwood Road and potentially 5 storeys at the rear of the site.

 

Having 3 storeys fronting Northwood Road is consistent with Council’s existing Development Control Plan for the site, while allowing 5 storeys at the rear could be considered as a reasonable compromise to allow some re-development of the site – since some submissions acknowledge that re-development is warranted.

 

Council’s proposed controls of a height limit of RL 67 metres with an FSR control of 1.5:1, increased rear setbacks and no visibility of plant equipment or lift overruns to the public domain it would result in the following built form.

 

Summary of Built Form recommendations

 

These changes would improve the visual impacts of the development from the front and rear of the site and be more consistent with the surrounding developments.

 

Concluding comment

 

Council’s independent urban design analysis concludes that 4-storeys fronting Northwood Road and 6 storeys is considered to be excessive.

 

However, it suggests that a modest reduction of floor space ratio is warranted in order to promote re-development of the site. A floor space ratio of 1.5:1 would still achieve a level of re-development but keep within the 3-storey limits envisaged by Council’s existing Development Control Plan for the area.

 

b.         Lack of justification

 

The proponent has stated that it is necessary to amend the Lane Cove LEP 2009 to enable seniors housing to be developed on the site, and introduce a new floor space ratio and height control. Submissions express the view that there does not appear to be any justification whatsoever for anything being ‘necessary’.

 

Comment

 

The existing planning controls that apply to this site would not have permitted a seniors housing development – hence a Planning Proposal was required in order to add seniors housing as a permissible land use for this site only.

 

As for the change in the building heights and floor space ratio, this was to achieve a site-specific urban design and planning outcome. The proponent’s urban design analysis argued that a 3 storey street wall height with a 4th level (with a 5 metre set back) and a 6 storey building at the rear of the site was appropriate to achieve the desired urban design outcome.

 

 

The independent urban analysis has tested these urban design principles and found that:

 

“The general principles and intent of the Masterplan are laudable and once implemented should deliver a scheme which is generally appropriate for the context.

 

We do not however accept that a 4 storey height is appropriate to the street (even with Level 4, 5 metre setback). Nor do we accept that a 6 storey building at the rear is appropriate”.

 

Therefore, the Planning Proposal and supporting urban design documents appears not to provide a clear suitable urban design justification for an FSR of 1.98:1 and an RL 70.25 metre height control. Notwithstanding this, the proposed land use could be considered to be a less intensive traffic generating use and with a reduced building form could be made consistent with the scale of the existing planning provisions.

 

Concluding comment

 

Given what is already permissible in the current zonings, a ‘seniors housing development’ could be considered as a less intensive use on the site – although it does require a Planning Proposal in order to make the land use permissible.

 

However, if re-development of this site is to be facilitated, a reduced floor space ratio of 1.5:1 is recommended to promote a more sympathetic built form. 

 

c.         Unacceptable precedence

 

Concern is expressed that the proposed FSR of 1.98:1 would be inconsistent with the other developments in the immediate area. The Lane Cove CBD has a height limit of 9.5m and max. FSR of 2:1 and the dominance of Lane Cove CBD should not be compromised by the overdevelopment of a secondary neighbourhood centre in such close proximity. This sets an unacceptable precedent in the area, as well as for other B1 neighbourhood centres.

 

Comment

 

Council’s independent urban design analysis has concluded that there is no suitable justification for increasing the floor space ratio to a level similar to the Lane Cove Village. This location is not close to a major transport hub, and nor is it envisaged to be, under State Government Plans.

 

In part, the Planning Proposal does recognise the need for the site to remain as a neighbourhood centre serving the local community, however the proposed scale of 1.98:1 appears to be unjustifiable and unachievable based on Council’s urban design analysis.

 

However, a more modest approach proposed by the independent urban design analysis could be considered as an acceptable alternative to allow for some re-development of this centre. With a potential floor space ratio of 1.5:1, it would be similar in scale to the nearby seniors living development at 266 Longueville Road.

 

It should also be pointed out that since this Planning Proposal was granted a Gateway Determination and publicly exhibited, both the Greater Sydney Region Plan and North District Plan have been adopted. These documents will guide future development across Sydney Council’s. Future development of localised centres (including this one) will be led by local Councils:

 

“As the management of local centres is predominantly led by councils, the resolution of which local centres are important to each council will need to be assessed as part of their preparation of local strategic planning statements and local environmental plans” (North District Plan: 2018, page 49).

 

Any future development of local centres will also need to be assessed against the ‘Principles for Local Centres’ and place-based planning.

 

Concluding comment

 

An FSR of 1.98:1 is considered to be inconsistent with the surrounding development and conflicts and competes with the nearby Lane Cove Village scale. However, a reduced maximum scale of 1.5:1 would be more sympathetic to the surrounding area and could potentially lead to a re-development of the site.

 

d.         Appropriateness

 

Submissions note that most higher-density development is along the more major roads, and areas which have significant public transport, transport hubs, and commercial development. That is appropriate. The corollary is that these high-density developments DO NOT occur outside the areas that are zoned for high-density.

 

Comment

 

Generally this can be one of the deciding factors used when planning for increases in residential densities. State Government policies focus on clustering the highest densities (residential or employment land) within 400 metres of major public transport corridors, hubs and major centres.

 

Residential aged care facilities, however, are not typically associated with a high density residential land use. In planning terms, there is no accepted measure to distinguish between low, medium and high density land uses – instead this is largely dependent on local context.

 

The proponent argues that a residential aged care facility is a less intensive land use than what is currently permitted now. There is also proposed to be some small scale retail with cafes, a medical centre in order to serve the aged care facility as well as the local community. It would also generate less traffic compared to existing Local Environmental Plan controls that apply to the site.

 

Most of Lane Cove’s existing aged care facilities are also located near centres or major roads.

 

Conclusion

 

It is agreed that this area is not considered to be a major transport corridor or hub – it is however considered a Neighbourhood Centre. The nature of these proposed land uses is not considered to be high density per se.

 

Furthermore, given that most of the existing aged care facilities in Lane Cove are located near a centre or major road – this proposed land use can be considered acceptable in this context, subject to other considerations.

 

e.         Adherence to standards

 

The request to increase the FSR to 1.98:1 will be subject to abuse.  What assurances can be provided to avoid that this will not occur?

 

Comment

 

Assurances cannot be provided as variations to development standards can be considered at two separate levels.

 

The first is the strategic planning level where variations to existing planning controls in the Local Environmental Plan can be considered if it complies with the broader strategic planning framework set by the Greater Sydney Commission and State Government.

 

The second is the Development Application stage where variations to the Local Environmental Plan are considered against clause 4.6 which allows for flexibility if compliance with these numerical standards is considered unreasonable or unnecessary and there are suitable environmental planning grounds to justify this variation.

 

As a result, a Planning Proposal can consider changes to a development standard in a Local Environmental Plan if there is suitable justification.

 

Concluding comment

 

Depending on the planning merits, a degree of flexibility can be considered with regard to numerical development standards.

 

The purpose of applying this flexibility is made clear in the Standard Instrument Local Environmental Plan template as it seeks to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

 

While no assurances can be given in relation to the FSR if approved, any proposed increase at the Development Application stage would need to be justified by the proponent according to the local planning framework.

 

14.       Visual impact

 

Out of Character

 

The four storey building fronting Northwood Road and increasing to 6 storeys at the rear of the site, would “dwarf” and be completely out of scale with all other structures in the area.

 

Comment

 

The proponent argues that there will be view corridors at street level through to the bushland to break up the visual impacts. The 3 storey street wall height with a 4th level setback 5 metres would also assist with this while being sympathetic to the surrounding character.

 

However, the ground floor level is significantly higher than normal standards which will add to the visual impact. The proponent states that “the proposed higher floor to floor height of 4.5m for the ground level allows for the loading/service truck access to the basement”. This would make the building appear much bulkier and larger than envisaged by the Planning Proposal.

 

Council’s independent urban design analysis agrees that the increased height of the ground floor level makes a:

 

“2 storey street façade plus additional 3rd storey floor setbacks (5m) would be more acceptable.

 

Whilst the setback is appropriate the tall 4 storey height will be out of character with existing development and anything developed in accordance with existing controls”. 

 

In terms of the rear portion of the building, a 6 storey component will have the same effect. However, the impact of the rear portion is not considered to be as significant as the front. Council’s urban design analysis notes that the site:

 

“has low visibility from the opposite ridge or from the reserve or from the golf course, due to the height of the turpentine forest on each side of the golf course”.

 

However, there is a mobile phone tower visible from on the site, which can be seen through a small gap on the other side of the golf course. Staff estimate that the base height of the phone tower is RL 54 metres and extends 18 metres in height. This would mean that the tallest point of the proposed building would be almost the same height of the existing phone tower and be visible above the existing tree line.

 

Council’s independent urban design analysis considers that the height of the rear building “should be 5 storeys (measured from natural ground below) and a height of 16.25 metres with potential for additional height to facilitate roof top gardens”. If the rear portion of the building were reduced to 5 storeys there would be minimal visual intrusion above this established tree line and not be visible from the other side of the golf course.

 

Concluding comment

 

A 2 storey building fronting Northwood Road, with a 3rd storey setback a further 5 metres would reduce the visual appearance and be relatively consistent with Council’s existing planning controls (i.e. Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan).

 

Massing the remainder of the bulk to the rear of the site (only 5 storeys) will take advantage of the existing topography and would not be visible from the other side of the golf course.

 

To further address visual impact, more attention needs to be given (at the Development Application stage) to articulation, colours and materials, façade treatment and the relationships and interfaces with its surrounds.

 

15.       Amenity/Open space

 

a.         Pedestrian Links

 

The location of any new pedestrian linkages from the street to the existing bushland pathway should avoid removing/disturbing remnant native vegetation in the E2 zone.

 

Comment

 

Currently none of the proposed through-site connections appear to be located on existing E2 Environmental Conservation land. While it appears that the proponent’s urban design response appears to have taken this into consideration, further analysis is needed to assess any impacts on the vegetation.   

 

Based on an independent review of the proponent’s urban design material (Urban Design study and draft Development Control Plan) it is unclear whether access is to be provided through the site to the reserve. In any event, the proponent’s studies recommend 3 through site links as shown below

 

 

In all cases, the independent analysis noted that:

 

“It is unclear if these are in fact through-site links or in fact merely visual connections with the bushland reserve. There may be security issues if actual through site links were to be contemplated”. 

 

Greater clarity should be provided in the Development Control Plan to specify and distinguish which links are through site links (i.e. publicly accessible) which are view corridors, and/or vehicular access points. It is important to note that these potential security issues could be addressed through appropriate design measures – which could also be incorporated into the Development Control Plan.

 

The design intent of these proposed links also appears to be unclear. According to the Planning Proposal, it is envisaged that one of these 4.5 metre wide links would lead to a narrow terrace with views into the reserve woodland and a 10 metre wide access way. However, the 10 metre wide main through-site link/view corridor is also identified as a potential drop off zone and vehicular access point, as shown below.

 

 

Based on advice received from NSW Roads and Maritime Services, this not considered acceptable and will require a re-design of the site’s access.

 

 

 

 

Concluding comment

 

Given the lack of clarity around the through-site links and view corridors in the draft plans and the concerns raised by NSW Roads and Maritime Services and NSW Office of Environment and Heritage a re-design is required.

 

In order to address these comments, a revised Development Control Plan is required to clearly show the access points (vehicular and pedestrian) and what types of links are proposed (i.e. through site links, view corridors etc). 

 

 

b.         Lack of Green Space

 

Submissions claim there is insufficient open space for this development, and what is proposed is not useable.

 

Comment

 

Most residential development is required to provide its own private open space, which can be in the form of soft (i.e. deep soil planting, shrubs, grass etc) or hard (i.e. planting on structures, paving etc) landscaping. However, there is no requirement for any development to provide public open space.

 

The proponent’s plans indicate that deep soil areas would be located to the north and south site boundaries, while the rear is to be landscaped. NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) has requested that the Draft Development Control Plan be amended to increase the rear setback to 10 metres – to make it consistent with Council’s established setbacks to bushland in urban areas – however the proponent has indicated that a setback of 10 metres would render the site undevelopable and that 3 metres was sufficient to allow established trees to grow.

 

Council’s independent urban design analysis tested this assumption and found that if a 3 metre setback was applied this would not leave enough space for established tree roots to grow, and could also potentially affect drainage and increase run off from the development. However, an increased rear setback (possibly 6 metres) would allow an appropriate amount of space for both established trees and drainage – this would also increase the area which qualifies as deep soil and represent a compromise between OEH, Council and the proponent. Therefore, increasing the amount of deep soil planting on site is supported.

 

There is also a discrepancy in the draft Development Control Plan as to what constitutes ‘public open space’. The diagram below (taken from the draft Development Control Plan) identifies that two of the through site links are classified as ‘public open space’.

 

 

It is understood that the proposed 10 metre ‘drop off zone’ would connect to an area which overlooks the woodland reserve (see diagram below).

 

 

Council’s urban design analysis agrees that these areas should not be considered as ‘public open space’ as the primary function appears to be servicing the café and outdoor dining areas. The 10 metre wide link is also to act as a vehicular drop off zone and would not function as public open space either.

 

Communal open space for the residents is provided through the use of a terrace on the upper levels of the building as shown below.

 

 

According to the draft plans, this communal open space is likely to be on Levels 1 – 2. While the draft plans only provided indicative dimensions, the independent analysis concludes that the Planning Proposal would provide approximately 500 m2 of communal open space through the terrace. It is assumed the rest of the open space would be made up of deep soil planting and other landscaped areas. The size of the communal open space is considered to be an under provision, well below established Council standards.

 

With this in mind, the analysis recommended an additional roof top garden be provided for more communal open space with appropriate communal facilities (i.e. BBQ, outdoor dining, toilets, kitchenette etc).     

 

Concluding comment

 

Given that neither of the through site links will serve as ‘public open space’, it is recommended that the draft Development Control Plan be amended to delete all references to public open space on the site.

 

By increasing the rear setbacks this provides the potential for more deep soil planting on site. This would be consistent with the bushland character and general amenity of the area.

 

It is also agreed that the provision of a single communal open space on the site is inadequate, and that this could be improved if an additional roof top garden were incorporated into the design, along with the appropriate amenities (i.e. BBQ, outdoor dining, toilets etc). 

 

c.         Impacts on Amenity

 

Submissions consider that this site is an undesirable location for a residential aged care facility due the levels of traffic, parking, noise, pollution.

 

Comment

 

Given the land uses suggested by previous Planning Proposals, it is acknowledged that residential aged care would be a less intensive land use on this site. 

 

The draft Development Control Plan proposes measures to address the impacts on traffic and parking. The independent urban design review agrees that most of these traffic and parking planning measures are generally acceptable, however there is a conflict with allowing a common access point to be used by vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists, as:

 

“it presupposes that service and emergency vehicles can pass through the private car park with associated safety and security issues (and additional ceiling height)”.

 

For this reason, NSW Roads and Maritime separately recommend that the draft Development Control Plan be changed to have one common access point, located south of the site (as stated earlier). They also believe that the traffic study should be amended to: 

 

examine the impacts for all road users and investigate improvements for public and active transport facilities. The traffic impact study should identify improvements to pedestrian connections external to the site on key desire lines (e.g. footpath improvements, connections to bus stops etc)”.

 

As a result, the ground floor level and its access arrangements are required to be re-designed to address this matter in particular.

 

In terms of noise and pollution, the draft Development Control Plan does not appear to contain measures for this. This is considered to be warranted given its proximity to a busy road. Possible measures could include altering the internal configuration to orientate habitable rooms (bedrooms, balconies) away from the main road (Northwood Road) as well and noise attenuation measures (limiting the number and size of openings facing a noise source).

 

 

 

Concluding comment

 

While a residential aged care facility may be considered a less intensive land use on this site, it still requires careful design.

 

However, in order to address these matters, the proponent’s draft Development Control Plan will need to be amended to relocate the common access point towards the south of the site, and propose suitable noise and pollution attenuation measures. Some examples of noise and pollution measures can be found in the State Government’s Apartment Design Guide.

 

Proponent’s Response

 

The proponent’s amended urban design does not adequately address any of the urban design comments raised by Council’s independent analysis, nor do they provide any suitable justification for their proposed built form.

 

Based on the proponent’s urban design response, it appears that the only justification provided for their built form is that the original design strategy and desired future character expressed in Council’s Development Control Plan seeks to allow 3-4 storeys along the Kenneth St part of the centre and encourage commercial/retail uses for the northern side of the centre rather than uses with high pedestrian visitation. Given that both sides have the same zoning controls it is appropriate that this be extended to their site:

 

this suggests that the centre specific vision in the DCP seeks to achieve an outcome that does not correlate with the LEP height control for either side of Northwood Road (AT-11)”.

 

If this is the case, then this represents an error with the DCP controls and not the LEP – as a result it is the DCP that would require an amendment to better reflect and articulate the intent of the LEP provisions. It is well established that where there is an inconsistency between the provisions of an LEP and DCP controls, the provisions of the LEP always take precedence over a DCP control. This is because controls expressed in a Development Control Plan are to be used as indicative design guidelines to be applied with flexibility and do not have any statutory weight.

 

Another particular comment states that on page 20, Council’s analysis says 2 storey to street height with a 5 metre setback to 3rd storey to a maximum height of 14.25 metre (plus roof garden). They argue that this height is similar to the Planning Proposal heights and won’t result in 3 storeys. However, it is stated later in Council’s analysis this was calculated using the proponent’s floor heights (seen earlier) with ‘an addition of a 3 metre lift overrun and the roof garden is included’ in that height. Based on the applicant’s proposed internal floor heights a 3 storey building fronting Northwood Road would be 4.5 metres + 3.25 metres + 3.5 metres = 11.25 metres (see earlier Summary of built form recommendations diagram). Interestingly the proponent’s response states that the exhibited Planning Proposal would provide for a 3 storey street wall height in the order of 11.45 metres.

 

If a lift overrun is included (3 metres) and a roof garden is provided at the same level Council’s urban design (3 storeys at front) results in a total height of 14.25 metres – not 15.25 metres as claimed by the proponent.

 

Despite the above, Council’s analysis concludes by saying “Revise maximum building height down from RL 70.25 to 67 m to topmost ceiling” (page 44) – the proponent gives no analysis or commentary on this matter. It is interesting to note that even with the proponent’s revised internal floor heights (see below), the RL of the third storey is RL 66.55 metres.

 

Proponent’s revised urban design

 

Therefore, it stands to reason that by deleting a residential storey from the building and reducing the building height accordingly (RL 67), and increasing the rear setback to 6 metres that a maximum floor space ratio of 1.5:1 and a height of RL 67 metres is achievable. 

 

Amendments

 

Given the comments above, the proponent has not suitably justified the proposed urban design controls (i.e. FSR and building height) nor have they adequately responded to Council’s independent urban design analysis which demonstratesit is unclear how a FSR of 1.98:1 could be obtained within the current footprint” (page 44). It further states that:

 

“Current proposed FSR appears unachievable. A reduced building height with increased setbacks will reduce FSR to say 1.3 – 1.5:1” (page 14).

 

Based on the above analysis, Council is recommended not to support the planning proposal as exhibited or amended.

 

Another aspect that has not been addressed by the proponent is that it does not propose to deliver public benefits despite a development that seeks substantial uplift. The benefits within the Seniors Housing SEPP are considered above under Point 10 as worthwhile public benefits. They include:-

 

·          at least 10% of the dwellings to be affordable (Clause 45(6)); and

·          a range of services including shops, bank services, other retail and commercial services, community services, recreation facilities, and a general medical practitioner, within 400m on a slope of <1:14 (Clause 26).

 

The Seniors Housing SEPP only applies to land on which development for the purpose of dwelling-houses, residential flat buildings or hospitals is permitted. It does not apply to the current B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone. It would, however, apply to the B4 Mixed Use zone. Therefore, rezoning the entire site to B4 Mixed Use produces the following outcome:

 

·          the Seniors Housing SEPP applies to the site;

·          a single floor space ratio of 1:1 applies to the site, which may be increased up to 1.5:1 under the bonuses of the Seniors Housing SEPP;

·          a single height control limit of 9.5m applies to the site, with an Incentive Height of RL 67 metre only if the site is developed for Seniors Housing; and

·          the rezoning avoids setting an unintended precedent for other B1 zoned land.

 

Such an approach is similar to the proponent’s intended outcome where they seek to increase FSR and height by introducing an incentive mechanism to encourage the development of Seniors Housing on the site.

 

Conclusion

 

The Planning Proposal cannot be supported for a variety of reasons. In particular, the proposed bulk and scale is not suitably justified on urban design or planning grounds, and is in excess of the scale of the nearby Lane Cove Village and other B1 Neighbourhood Centre zones. Nor does it propose to deliver public benefits despite being a development that seeks substantial uplift.

 

Council is recommended to consider supporting a more modest scale of development that provides public benefits (such as affordable places, and retail and community facilities) under the Seniors Housing SEPP. This involves rezoning to B4 Mixed Use which would permit, with consent, a ‘Seniors housing’ development, with an uplift in height conditional upon the site being developed for ‘Seniors housing’ only, while an FSR bonus would only apply if the provisions of the SEPP (including public benefits and affordable places) are utilised. It is recommended that Council write to the proponent and request that the Planning Proposal and supporting documents be amended to accord with recommendations within this report, and to apply to NSW Planning and Environment for an amended Gateway Determination to allow an extension of time for a re-exhibition of this amendment

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.         not support the Planning Proposal as exhibited on the following grounds:

 

a)     The  3 metre rear buffer to the adjoining SEPP19 bushland (zoned E2) is opposed by NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), and it has not been demonstrated that the adjacent bushland can be adequately protected by the proposed 3m wide buffer;

b)     Offset planting is required by OEH on-site if two turpentine trees are removed;

c)     NSW OEH have confirmed that the impacts on the adjoining SEPP19 bushland are not adequately addressed;

d)     Based on independent analysis of the proponent’s original urban design documents, the building envelope envisaged by the proposed floor space ratio and height control cannot be achieved;

e)     Council’s independent urban design analysis concludes that both the proponent’s height and floor space ratio are not suitably justified on urban design or planning grounds;

f)       Council’s independent urban design analysis has confirmed that a more modest scale would achieve a better built form and design outcome and further likely reduce overshadowing impacts on adjoining residential properties;

g)     The proponent’s amended urban design responses does not adequately address issues raised by Council’s independent urban design analysis, nor do they provide any justification for their proposed height and floor space ratio;

h)     The proposed scale is considered excessive and conflicts with the scale of the nearby Lane Cove Village;

i)       The proposed scale is inconsistent with other B1 Neighbourhood Centre zones;

j)       The fourth leg at the Kenneth/Northwood signalised intersection is opposed by the RMS;

k)     A single site entry/egress is requested at the southern end of the site by the RMS; and

l)       No public benefits are proposed to be delivered despite a development that seeks substantial uplift.

 

2.         Write to the proponent and request that the Planning Proposal and supporting documents be amended to:-

 

a)     Rezone the entire subject site to B4 Mixed Use;

b)     Establish a single floor space ratio of 1:1 across the site, which may be increased up to 1.5:1 under the bonuses of the Seniors Housing SEPP;

c)     Establish a single height control limit of 9.5m across the site, with an Incentive Height of RL 67 metre only if the site is developed for Seniors Housing;

d)     Provide a single site entry/egress at the southern end of the site, as requested by the NSW Roads and Maritime Services;

e)     Prefer a minimum 10m rear buffer (but consider a setback of 6 metres if satisfactorily justified) to the adjoining SEPP19 bushland, with bushland offsets to apply if the development encroaches into the 10 metre setback;

f)       Provide offset planting on-site of two turpentine trees, as required by OE&H;

g)     Respond to the independent traffic analysis by Bitzios Peer Review;

h)     Clarify the exact nature of proposed through site links and provide more useable communal open space through an additional roof garden through the Draft Development Control Plan; and

i)       Give consideration at the development application (DA) stage to other issues raised in this Report, such as a roundabout at the intersection of Northwood/River Road.

 

3.         If the proponent agrees to these changes, then apply to NSW Planning and Environment for             an amended Gateway Determination which would allow an extension of time and a re-                   exhibition of this amendment.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

REPORT Rezoning Review for Northwood Shops Planning Proposal 29 - 19 Feb 2018

7 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑2View

Peer Traffic Review - Bitzios

6 Pages

 

AT‑3View

Urban Design Review Part 1

15 Pages

 

AT‑4View

Urban Design Review Part 2

14 Pages

 

AT‑5View

Urban Design Review  Part 3

15 Pages

 

AT‑6View

Government Agency submissions

22 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑7View

Discussion in Full (of submissions)

40 Pages

 

AT‑8View

Proponent Response - CityPlan covering letter

7 Pages

 

AT‑9View

Proponent Response - Appendix 1 - Consultation Outcomes Report

141 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑10View

Proponent Response - Appendix 2 - Addendum Design report - comments attached

14 Pages

 

AT‑11View

Proponent Response - Appendix 3 - Response to Annand review comments attached

12 Pages

 

AT‑12View

Proponent Response - Appendix 4 - Response to RMS submission

3 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑13View

Proponent Response - Appendix 5 - Response to Bitzios Review

4 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑14View

Proponent Response - Appendix 6 - Response to OEH submission

5 Pages

Available Electronically

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 18 June 2018

Update - Girraween Park Planning Proposal

 

 

Subject:          Update - Girraween Park Planning Proposal    

Record No:     SU6268 - 32494/18

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Anthony Crichton 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the current status on the Planning Proposal (PP) for Girraween Park.

 

On 9 January 2018 Council received Gateway Determination from the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for Council to proceed with the planning proposal to rezone and reclassify the land subject to a number of conditions. Under the Gateway conditions, further studies and materials were required to be reviewed by Rural Fire Service and DPE before community consultation can commence.

 

A public hearing into the reclassification of 1 Girraween Avenue is also required to be held after the public exhibition process is completed.

 

Background

 

The JBA Mowbray Precinct Master Planning Study in December 2011 recommended that Council and Housing NSW undertake a land swap with respect to Council’s existing open space at No. 1 Girraween Avenue (1,332 m2) and Housing NSW’s residential land at No 10-20 Pinaroo Place (4,055 m2).

 

The proposed outcome would enable a larger, more useable open space recreation area by integrating the Pinaroo Place properties with the existing open space at the corner of Kullah Parade and Mindarie Street. In return, No. 1 Girraween Avenue would be developed for residential purposes (R4).

 

Separate to the above 552 Mowbray Road (697m2) was acquired by Council which is nearby and also can be developed as a pocket park to partially offset the loss of the Girraween Avenue site.

 

ZONE MAP.jpg

 

The 2017 Planning Proposal sought to amend the Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (LEP 2009) with respect to the following three (3) sites:-

 

 

A.   1 Girraween Avenue

B.   10 to 20 Pinaroo Place

C.  552 Mowbray Road

 

On 21 August 2017 (see AT-1) Council resolved to:-

 

1.   Prepare a Planning Proposal to rezone the public park on Girraween Avenue , Lane Cove North , from RE2 Public Recreation to R4 High Density with a height limit of 17.5m and FSR of 1.6:1;

2.   Commence a process to reclassify the public park at 1 Girraween Avenue, Lane Cove North from Community Land to Operational Land;

3.   Rezone 552 Mowbray Road from R4 High Density to RE1 Public Recreation; and

4.    Remove the identification of 10-20 Pinaroo Place on Council’s Land Reservation Acquisition Map as “Reserved for Acquisition.”

 

A Planning Proposal was subsequently submitted in November 2017 to NSW DPE for a Gateway Determination.

 

Discussion

 

In January 2018, Council received Gateway Determination from the Department of Planning and Environment for Council to proceed with the planning proposal to rezone and reclassify the land subject to the conditions outlined in (AT-2). In summary the Gateway requires:

 

1.   Prior to consultation the Planning Proposal (PP) is to be updated to demonstrate acceptability of the proposed building height at 1 Girraween Avenue having regard to SEPP 65 provisions regarding potential impact on amenity of neighbouring properties;

2.   Community consultation for a minimum of 28 days;

3.   Consultation with NSW Rural Fire Service and NSW Land and Housing Corporation; and

4.   Public Hearing is not required.

 

Despite the Gateway Determination to not require a Public Hearing under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Council is required under the Local Government Act to conduct a public hearing due to the reclassification of 1 Girraween Avenue from ‘Community Land’ to ‘Operational Land’. Council will conduct a public hearing after the public exhibition of the Planning Proposal has been completed. 

 

In relation to the other conditions, staff have been working with Land and Housing Corporation, Rural Fire Service and Department of Planning to fine tune the proposal.  The Land and Housing Corporation has recently submitted the required Urban Design Study.  Upon final review, Council will be in a position to commence the consultation in line with the consultation strategy detailed in the original report.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Receive and note the report.

2.   Council liaise with Land and Housing Corporation, Rural Fire Services and NSW Department of Planning and Environment as stated in the Gateway Determination.

3.    Following public exhibition of the Planning Proposal, facilitate an independent public hearing into the reclassification of 1 Girraween Avenue, from Community land to Operational land.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

REPORT Planning Proposal No 27 - Open Space Rezonings - 10 -20 Pinaroo Place, 1 Girraween Avenue and 552 Mowbray Road

5 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑2View

Gateway Determination - Planning Proposal 27 Open Space Rezonings Girraween Park

4 Pages

Available Electronically

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 18 June 2018

Results of the Consultation on Councils Draft Community Strategic Plan, Liveable Lane Cove: 2035

 

 

Subject:          Results of the Consultation on Councils Draft Community Strategic Plan, Liveable Lane Cove: 2035    

Record No:     SU6891 - 32589/18

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):       Kirsty Beram 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Community Strategic Plan (CSP), Lane Cove 2025 was adopted in 2011 and outlined the long term vision for the local community and Council.  As per Section 402 of the Local Government 1993, Council is required to review the CSP following each local government election. ‘Liveable Lane Cove, 2035’ a new Draft CSP that will guide us to 2035 was developed following months of preliminary community engagement.  This was endorsed by Council for public exhibition in April 2018.

 

A second phase of community engagement, consistent with the Community Engagement Strategy adopted by Council in December 2017, was undertaken from April to June to ascertain the level of community support for the Draft CSP.

 

Overall the engagement process has revealed a high level of support for the Draft Plan. A key concern evident throughout the consultation was the impact of the rapid population growth on local amenity and our environment.  Particularly, participants expressed concerns regarding overdevelopment and the increase in high rise development signalling that effective planning controls,  appropriate urban design, and sufficient infrastructure is vital for the community as we move towards 2035.  The community has indicated that they expect Council’s leadership and advocacy for effective management of development occurring around the Lane Cove area.  They value involvement in the decision making process and are supportive of Council’s community engagement activities.   

 

It is considered that these issues are adequately reflected throughout the plan with a greater level of detail in regards to the actions Council will pursue to achieve these aspirations, set out in the Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan, which is the subject of a separate report to Council. 

 

Minor amendments have been made to the Draft Plan to clarify information and/or correct typographical errors. The revised Draft Community Strategic Plan, Liveable Lane Cove: 2035 is attached at AT-1.  It is recommended that the Community Strategic Plan – Liveable Lane Cove; 2035 be adopted.

 

Background

 

In 2011, Council adopted the initial Community Strategic Plan – Lane Cove 2025 in conjunction with the implementation of the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework for councils in NSW.

 

As per Section 402 of the Local Government 1993, the Community Strategic Plan must be reviewed by 30 June following ordinary local government elections. As such, Council is required to undertake the current review of the CSP by 30 June 2018.

In December 2017, Council endorsed a Community Engagement Strategy in relation to the review of the Community Strategic Plan.  In the early months of 2018, Council worked with the community to develop a new Draft Plan, Liveable Lane Cove: 2035, that will guide us towards 2035 and help maintain a long term focus on planning for the future of Lane Cove.

This preliminary engagement process focused on interactive workshops with community members, Councillors and Council staff.  During these discussions we heard many thoughts and ideas about the future of Lane Cove, about what's important to our community and about what our priorities should be over the next ten plus years.

The feedback and ideas received across our six peak themes of the CSP were used to refine the core of the plan, being the long term goals and objectives and the strategies to achieve them.  The new Draft CSP was presented to Council at the Ordinary Council meeting of 16 April 2018 and adopted for the purpose of Community Consultation.

 

Discussion

 

Community consultation on ‘Liveable Lane Cove: 2035’ ran from 18 April 2018 to 1 June 2018 in conjunction with consultation on the 3 year Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan, Draft Budget and Draft Fees and Charges.  

The aim of this second stage of community engagement was to determine the level of community support for the Draft Plan.  Specifically, did the Draft Plan reflect the future the community imagined for Lane Cove, was there anything we could improve in the Draft Plan or was there anything missing from the Draft Plan?

Consultation methods utilised included:-

·    Advertisements in the North Shore Times on 19 April 2018 and The Village Observer (May Edition);

·    Public exhibitions at the Civic Centre, Lane Cove Library and Greenwich Library;

·    An online exhibition;

·    An eNewsletter sent to over 6,200 recipients;

·    A feature in Council’s April 2018 Quarterly Newsletter;

·    Notifications to Council Advisory Committees;

·    Plaza Stalls on Saturday 5 May and Wednesday 16 May 2018;

·    A community survey; and

·    Deliberative Polling (Telephone Interviews).

 

Deliberative Poll Results

 

Council engaged IRIS Research to conduct a Deliberative Poll to collect feedback regarding the Goals, Objectives and Strategies set out in the Draft CSP.  The main objectives of the research were to:

·    Identify the important goals and objectives that Council should focus on in the future;

·    To explore the top priorities Council should consider over the next 10+ years; and

·    To collect suggestions for objectives that are missing in the current Draft CSP.

 


Key Findings

 

405 residents participated in telephone interviews as part of the Deliberative Poll which demonstrates a high level of interest and engagement amongst our community.  The complete analysis of the results of the Deliberative Poll are attached at AT-2.

 

1.    Goals and Objectives

 

Participants have indicated that the objectives set out under Our Council and Our Society are particularly important. Agreeing that Council should focus on:-

·      Ensuring a high standards of leadership, accountability and transparency;

·      Engaging the community in planning and decision making processes;

·      Providing useful information to the community regularly;

·      Ensuring the services and facilities are accessible, relevant, affordable and well used;

·      Providing ways for residents to live a healthy and active life; and

·      Fostering a sense of belonging within the community.

      

2.    Top Priorities

 

Respondents were asked to identify what they felt should be Council’s top three priorities over the next 10 years?

 

12 common themes were identified (shown in Table 1).  Further details in relation to the feedback received in relation to each of these themes is provided in AT-2.

 

Table 1

 

 

 

 

 

3.    What Is Missing?

 

Participants were given an opportunity to openly share any ideas about things they felt were missing from the Draft CSP.  Of the 405 participants, 180 offered feedback in this regard.  Thematic analysis generated in relation to these comments revealed that most comments received related to the depth of the plan, suggesting details on how the plan will be implemented should be included.  Secondly, participants raised concerns in relation to development in the area.  It is noted the majority of these comments related to high density development and the need for better controls and management of this throughout the area. 

 

 

Surveys

 

In addition to the Deliberative Poll, Council simultaneously ran an open survey, available in hardcopy or online, which included the same questions providing all interested members of the community with an opportunity to have their say. 

 

Council received 17 completed surveys in relation to the Draft CSP.  The results of this survey closely reflected those captured through the Deliberative Polling process. 

 

 

 

 

1.    Goals and Objectives

 

Respondents have again indicated that the objectives set out under Our Council and Our Society are particularly important.  Agreeing that Council should focus on:-

·     Ensuring high standards of leadership, accountability and transparency;

·     Engaging the community in planning and decision making processes;

·     Providing useful information to the community regularly;

·     Ensuring the services and facilities are accessible, relevant, affordable and well used; and

·     Providing ways for residents to live a healthy and active life.

 

Additionally, respondents have agreed that the following objectives set out under Our Natural Environment and Our Built Environment as priorities:-

·     Managing the impact of human activity;

·     Ensuring accessibility to bushland and waterways and support diverse ecosystems;

·     Ensuring housing and infrastructure cater for population growth; and

·     Balancing growth and development

 

 

 

 


 

2.    Top Priorities

 

When asked to identify what they felt should be Council’s top three priorities over the next 10 years responses fell within 10 common themes (shown in Table 2)Again, the majority of comments received are related to development followed by the environment and traffic.      

 

No. of Comments

1

1

21

9

1

2

1

4

5

4

 

Table 2

 

3.    What Is Missing?

 

Respondents were given an opportunity to openly share any ideas about things they felt were missing from the Draft CSP.  13 comments were offered in this regard.  Thematic analysis revealed that most comments received related to traffic infrastructure and transport (4), the depth and implementation of the plan (3), development (2) and Council’s leadership and transparency (1). 

 

Public Submissions

 

Council also received 10 separate submissions on the Draft CSP, eight (8) from individuals and two (2) from a Community Associations/Groups.  A summary of the points raised in these submissions and Council’s responses is attached at AT-3

 

Response

 

Overall the engagement process has revealed a high level of support for the Draft Plan.  There is a high level of agreement by participants that the goals and objectives relating to each theme are important.  This confirms that the objectives set out in the plan are consistent with their vision and aspirations for the future of Lane Cove.


Reflection of Top Priorities in the Draft CSP

 

The majority of comments received indicate that the management of development is a top priority for the future.  It is very clear that our community is concerned about the rapidly growing population and the impact this has on local amenity and our environment.  Particularly, participants expressed concerns regarding overdevelopment, the level of high density development and population growth.  The need to better manage development through effective controls and appropriate urban design and to have infrastructure in place that has the capacity to keep up with high density growth has been identified as vital.  The community has indicated that they expect Council’s leadership and advocacy for effective management of development occurring around the Lane Cove area.  They value involvement in the decision making process and are generally supportive of Council’s community engagement activities.   

 

It is considered that these aspirations are effectively reflected throughout the Plan particularly in the following areas:-

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

Depth of the Plan

 

The feedback received, particularly that received via the Deliberative Poll, in relation to what was missing from the plan primarily centred around the depth of the information included in the Plan.  It is acknowledged that one of the limitations of the Deliberative Poll was that information distributed consisted of a condensed summary of the higher level elements of the Draft CSP.  Participants were provided with an outline of the Goals and Objectives under each of Council’s six (6) planning themes and were provided with details on how to access further, more detailed information on the strategies under each Objective and the supporting plans including the Draft CSP in its entirety and Council’s Delivery Program and Operational Plan. 

 

The Draft CSP is designed to set out the high level of strategic direction upon which Council can develop a Delivery Program and Operational Plan which translates the community’s strategic goals into actions. This is consistent with the requirements set out in the Office of Local Government’s Integrated Planning and Reporting Manual for local government in NSW.  It is not considered that any additional level of detail in relation to these individual actions needs to be included the Draft CSP as this is captured in the Delivery Program and Operational Plan. 

Additionally, it is important to note that Council has a range of other medium and short term plans in place, each dealing with a specific subject area.  These include the Sustainability Action Plan, Council range of Open Space Plans, the Lane Cove LEP, Create Lane Cove: Cultural Plan, Disability Discrimination Act Action Plan, Road Safety Strategic Plan, Bicycle Plan, Major Projects Strategic Plan, Village Structure Plan, Information Technology Strategic Plan, St Leonards Strategy, St Leonards Public Domain Master Plan​, Willoughby/Lane Cove Local Disaster Plan, Pedestrian Access Mobility Plan and Infrastructure Works PlansThese plans are appropriately referenced throughout the Draft CSP and linked to the specific objectives against which they apply.  Similarly, they are directly referred to in the Delivery Program and Operational Plan with performance against the actions set out therein reported on a quarterly basis.

Conclusion

 

Liveable Lane Cove: 2035, a new Draft Community Strategic Plan that will guide us to 2035, was developed following months of preliminary community engagement.  Following endorsement by Council for public exhibition in April 2018, a second phase of community engagement, consistent with the Community Engagement Strategy adopted by Council in December 2017, was undertaken to ascertain the level of community support for the Draft CSP.

 

Overall the engagement process has revealed a high level of support for the Draft CSP. Key community concerns around the impact of rapid population growth on local amenity and our environment were flagged as vital to the community as we move towards 2035. As was the community’s expectation that Council demonstrate strong leadership and advocate for effective management of development.  Our community have indicated they value involvement in the decision making process and are supportive of Council’s community engagement activities.   

 

It is considered that these issues are adequately reflected throughout the Plan and supported by the Draft Delivery Program and Operational Plan which is the subject of a separate report to Council.  Minor amendments have been made to the Draft Plan to clarify information and/or correct typographical errors.  It is therefore recommended that the Community Strategic Plan – Liveable Lane Cove: 2035, attached at AT-1, be adopted.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Draft Community Strategic Plan, Liveable Lane Cove: 2035, attached at AT-1, be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Revised Draft Community Strategic Plan - Liveable Lane Cove: 2035

64 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Deliberative Poll Results - Liveable Lane Cove - Main Report

26 Pages

 

AT‑3View

Summary / Response - Public Submission Comments

8 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 18 June 2018

Results of the Consultation for the 2018-21 Draft Delivery Program, 2018/19 Draft Operational Plan, 2018/19 Draft Budget and 2018/19 Draft Fees and Charges 

 

 

Subject:          Results of the Consultation for the 2018-21 Draft Delivery Program, 2018/19 Draft Operational Plan, 2018/19 Draft Budget and 2018/19 Draft Fees and Charges      

Record No:     SU6612 - 33747/18

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):       Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report outlines the results of the consultation process for Council’s proposed activities outlined in the 2018-21 Draft Delivery Program, 2018/19 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 16 April 2018 considered a report on the 2018/19 Draft Budget, Fees and Charges, 2018/19 Operational Plan and 2018-21 Delivery Plan and resolved to adopt the Draft Plans for the purpose of public exhibition, undertake community consultation on the Draft Plans and receive a report on any submissions received at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 18 June 2018. 

 

Discussion

 

Community consultation on the Draft Plans was undertaken from 18 April 2018 to 1 June 2018 in conjunction with consultation on the Draft Community Strategic Plan, Liveable Lane Cove: 2035. It included:-

·    Advertisements in the North Shore Times on 19 April 2018 and The Village Observer (May Edition);

·    Public exhibitions at the Civic Centre, Lane Cove Library and Greenwich Library;

·    An online exhibition;

·    An eNewsletter sent to over 6,200 recipients;

·    A feature in Council’s April 2018 Quarterly Newsletter;

·    Plaza stalls on Saturday 5 May and Wednesday 16 May 2018;

·    Notifications to Council Advisory Committees; and

·    A community survey.

 

As a result, one (1) written submission was received and 17 people completed Council’s survey on these Draft Plans, with varying numbers of responses for the range of survey questions. The survey sought comments and/or satisfaction levels on the following documents:-

·    Draft Delivery Program 2018-21 incorporating the Operational Plan 2018/19;

·    Draft Budget 2018/19; and

·    Draft Fees and Charges 2018/19.

 

 

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:-

·    100% of respondents indicated that they had read the plans on exhibition.

·    57% of respondents were either very satisfied or satisfied with the Delivery Program and Operational Plan.  A further 21% were neutral.  There were 14 responses to this question however only four (4) comments were offered to support or offer context to these responses.

·    36% of respondents were either very satisfied or satisfied with the Draft Budget, with a further 55% remaining neutral.  There were 11 responses to this question however only one (1) comment was offered to offer context to these responses; and

·    50% of respondents were either very satisfied or satisfied with the Draft Fees and Charges, with a further 40% neutral.  There were 10 responses to this question however only three (3) comments were offered to support or offer context to these responses.

 

 

Operational Plan and Budget Comments

 

One (1) written submission was received. 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. The issues raised in the submission and responses are as follows:

 

Comment

Response

Toy Library – suggests this should be implemented as soon as possible with budget increases implemented to permit delivery of this service.

The investigation of this service has been included in the Delivery Program and Operational Plan at 2.5.  Investigation of the feasibility and associated costs is proposed as a first step towards consideration of this proposal.

Library – requests consideration of increased funding for the Lane Cove Library to allow for additional staff in view of the recently increased operating hours.

Increased working hours for part time staff have been allowed for to cover increased operating hours.

Encouraging Council to investigate Kerbside Recycling of Food Matters including grants that are available and suggesting budget increases be implemented to permit delivery of this service.

Covered by 13.3 ‘Develop food waste reduction program’.  Comments in relation to the availability of potential grants has been forwarded to the Council’s sustainability team for consideration in investigating this action.

 

Suggesting traffic flow along Longueville Road and the Longueville Road Pedestrian Crossing should be looked at and steps taken to assist traffic flow

Council’s Road Safety Team are currently undertaking a review of traffic management options along Longueville Road.  Additionally Council's Draft Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plan is currently on exhibition for public comment. Implementation of this plan is included as an action to achieve the above objective in the Delivery Program and Operational Plan (10.2)

Requesting more microphones availability and use for public meetings at the Terrace Room (Lane Cove Community Hub).

Microphones are readily available to all users of the Terrace Room.

 

Update of the Long Term Financial Plan

 

The Long Term Financial Plan is reviewed each year having regard to the previous Financial Statements (2016/17) and the proposed Estimates. The Plan is a dynamic document which has been updated to cover the period 2018 – 2028 (AT-4). It includes consideration of sustainability, service provision levels and the creation, upgrading and renewal of infrastructure. The Long Term Financial Plan highlights that Lane Cove Council continues to meet all industry benchmarks over the ten year period.

Amendments to the Draft Budget

 

One (1) comment was received in relation to Council’s Draft Budget:-

 

Comment

Response

Put more money into recreational facilities, playgrounds and library

In 2018/19 Council is proposing and delivering a significant capital projects program in the area of recreational facilities. The development of Mindaree Park, upgrade of Kingsford Smith Oval, Tantallon Oval grandstand works, significant increase for playground upgrades and amenities upgrade in Helen Street Reserve. Council also maintains and funds the Lane Cove and Greenwich Libraries in our local government area.

 

 

Amendments to the Fees and Charges

 

Minor administrative amendments have been made to the Draft Fees and Charges such as recent proclaimed statutory charges for companion animals and minor oversights that have been detected during the consultation period.

 

 

 

Three (3) comments were received in relation to Council’s Draft Fees and Charges:-

 

Comment

Response

The price of playing golf is too high and therefore the usage is low.  It is better to have more people playing at a lower fee than very few at a high fee - simple maths and a simple revenue strategy.

Playing golf at Lane Cove Gold Club is proposed to increase between 50 cents and $1 per game. Prices compare favourably to nearby courses such as Chatswood Golf Club. 

It would be helpful if you highlighted where the changes are from the previous year, and provide explanation of why these have increased i.e. day rates for public halls have risen substantially - why? as a member of a textile art group, we sometimes are looking for venues for workshops and knowing these prices it does not encourage participation locally.

The current 2017/18 and proposed 2018/19 Fees and Charges are shown in the documents for consultation. Change are easily visible.

Day rates for Council halls have been included to provide flexibility to constituents who hire over a multiple hour period.

Council should reduce fees payable for matters outside a land owner’s control.  We had to pay for a tree inspection so we could prune our tree which was dropping large branches and took out our neighbour’s fence.  There should be no fees for this and it will encourage people to apply and not just do it.  Also there should be no charge for applications for digging up council verges where council trees have invaded pipes and broken them.  Sydney Water has in fact offered to pay for some costs and Council should do the same. There should not be a fee for replacement garbage bins.  Many bins get damaged due to being dumped on the ground by the operator.

Council has a tree inspection fee to protect and maintain healthy trees in our local government area. Qualified Arborists are contracted to carry out these inspections.

Home owners are responsible for the maintenance of old terracotta pipes similar to all house maintenance at the owners expense including restoration of damaged verges.

The replacement of damaged garbage bins are the responsibility of the occupier. Otherwise, all constituents with a domestic waste charge would need to pay for other occupiers damaged bins.

 

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 2018/19. Copies of the revised documents are available electronically only, due to their size.  It is therefore recommended that Council adopt the documents and 2018/19 Rates, Fees and Charges and Domestic Waste Charges as proposed.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.     The revised Draft Delivery Program  2018-21, incorporating the Operational Plan 2018/19 shown attached as AT-1, revised Draft Budget 2018/19  shown attached as AT-2, revised Draft Fees and Charges 2018/19 shown attached as AT-3 and updated Long Term Financial Plan 2018-28  shown attached as AT-4, be adopted.

 

2.   Council fix the Ordinary Rates and Charges for 2018/19 as:-

a)    Ordinary Rates

(i)      An Ordinary Residential Rate of 0.116571 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 $867, to yield $18,361,556..

 (ii)    An Ordinary Business Rate of 0.635051 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 $886 to yield $5,410,429.

(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 0.199654 cents in the dollar be made for 2018/19 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 $164,538..

b)    Domestic Waste Management Charges

(i)    In accordance with S.496 of the Local Government Act 1993, that an annual charge of $435.00 per annum be made for the year 2018/19 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 $115.00 per annum be made for the year 2018/19, 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 $6.40 per service  be  made for the year 2018/19, 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 $8.40 per service be made for the year 2018/19, 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 $8.40 per service be made for the year 2018/19, 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 $8.40 per service be made for the year 2018/19, 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 2018/19 for each extra recycling service to single residential dwellings.

 

 

c)    Stormwater Management Service Charge

       i.        In accordance with clauses 125A and 125AA of the Local Government (General)  Regulation 2005 and Section 496A of the Local Government  Act 1993, annual charges for the year 2018/2019 for Stormwater Management Services be made and levied as follows:

 

- All parcels of vacant land                                    - Nil $ charge

- All Residential Strata Units                                   - $12.50  per unit

- All Residential Non Strata Properties                   - $25.00 per property

- All Business Strata Units and Properties - $25.00 per unit or property

 

d)    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 2018 to 30 June 2019 to all outstanding rates and charges be calculated at the maximum interest rate currently 7.5% as specified by the Minister for Local Government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

2018/19 Draft Budget

179 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑2View

2018/19 Draft Fees and Charges

23 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑3View

2018-21 Draft Delivery Program incorporating the Operational Plan 2018/19

121 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑4View

2018 Update of the Long Term Financial Plan

29 Pages

Available Electronically

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 18 June 2018

Council Nominations for the Sydney North Planning Panel

 

 

Subject:          Council Nominations for the Sydney North Planning Panel    

Record No:     SU1787 - 34769/18

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       Michael Mason 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to nominate Council representatives to the Sydney North Planning Panel.

 

Background

 

Council currently operates various Advisory Committees and participates in a range of external Committees and Panels to provide local advice and representation.

 

In June 2009 the NSW Government established a number of Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPPs) to determine development proposals of regional significance.  Each Panel established was comprised of 3 members appointed by the then Minister for Planning and 2 members appointed by the relevant Council to sit on matters in their Local Government Area.

 

Over the years the make up of the Panel and membership has changed to reflect priorities of the Minister of the day.

 

Currently the Regional Panel is called the Sydney North Planning Panel which considers and determines development applications of regional significance which are defined as:

 

·    Development with a Capital Investment Value (CIV) over $30 million; and

·    Development with a CIV over $5 million which is Council related; lodged by or on behalf of the Crown (State of NSW); private infrastructure and community facilities;

 

In considering the following nominations I had regard to relevant professionals with Regional Planning Panel and Planning Panel experience, academic qualifications and experience, understanding of the Lane Cove physical, social and cultural context and an affinity for this place.

 

Council representatives and an alternate are appointed by Council, at least one (1) Council representative is required to have expertise in planning, architecture, heritage, the environment, urban design, land economics, traffic and transport, law, engineering or tourism.

 

As this is an external Panel, the role and function is governed by the Minister for Planning.  Council at its meeting of October 2017 omitted to resolve Council representatives for nomination to the Sydney North Planning Panel.  The following professionals have an affinity for Lane Cove and have advised of their preparedness to sit as Council’s representatives on the Sydney North Planning Panel.

 

The nominations are:-

 

                                    Ms Vivienne Albin

                                    Mr Eugene Sarich

                                    Ms Deborah Sutherland

                                   

CV’s have been provided separately.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.   Council note the report and nominate Ms Deborah Sutherland and Mr Eugene Sarich as the Lane Cove SNPP representatives and Ms Vivienne Albin as the alternate Lane Cove SNPP representative; and

 

2.   The Sydney North Planning Panel Secretariat be advised accordingly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 18 June 2018

Woodford Bay Plaques

 

 

Subject:          Woodford Bay Plaques    

Record No:     SU2509 - 34694/18

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):       Corinne Hitchenson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council is ready to install two new plaques in the vicinity of Woodford Bay to recognise the history of the local area formerly known as Nichols Bay.

 

Background

 

In 2017 two new plaques were commissioned to provide the community with information on the rich history of the local area near Woodford Bay. The first plaque includes information on William Reynolds who had a private bullock track which led down to what would later become a sandstone wharf at Nichols Bay (joining Kellys Esplanade, Woodford Bay). The track from the bay followed the escarpment up to a junction near the current Woodford and Kenneth Streets.

 

The second plaque refers to Isaac Nichols whose bullock track operated along the general vicinity of the Pacific Highway and Longueville Road to Nichols Bay Wharf. The wharf was originally a simple landing place on the northern part of what was Nichols Bay, now known as Woodford Bay.

 

This information was researched by local resident Frank Knowles and has been assisted by Council’s Local Studies section.

 

Discussion

 

The two plaques are related and are accompanied by a surveyors map prepared by Walter Knowles making their installation location significant to the context of the plaque content.

 

The junction near Woodford and Kenneth Streets has been identified for the installation of one of the plaques as it reflects the location of the earlier bullock track down to the bay. Council has written to the owner of the adjoining property to seek their feedback on the location on no less than four occasions over the past six months. A phone call in December 2017 acknowledged receipt of the letter but no subsequent communication has been received. The second location is adjacent to a bushland track and therefore does not require neighbour notification however as the plaques are related this plaque will be installed at the same time as the other plaque.

 

Conclusion

 

Council has invited the adjoining neighbour to provide feedback on the installation of a plaque in the nature strip in close proximity to their property. Following six months awaiting confirmation of any feedback, Council now intends to install the plaque in the proposed location to allow the project to be finalised.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.     Install the plaques at the intended locations; and

 

2.   Write to the adjoining property owners to inform them of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 18 June 2018

Retrofit of Confiscated Bikes from Bike Share Companies

 

 

Subject:          Retrofit of Confiscated Bikes from Bike Share Companies    

Record No:     SU1330 - 33922/18

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):       Sashika Perera 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council at its meeting of 18 March 2018 considered a report on the rollout of dockless bike share schemes around Sydney and the lack of a clear regulatory framework which has resulted in the increase in road-side clutter.

Council resolved to adopt a consistent framework for bike share companies in line with the Inner Sydney Bike Share Guidelines as well as to investigate ways in which impounded bikes could be repurposed for local children without bikes. This report outlines the results of the investigation and determines that repurposing of impounded bikes for local children is not cost effective.

 

The report also provides details of the latest efforts of the NSW Government to introduce penalties to address bike dumping.

 

Background

 

Council at its meeting of 18 March, 2018 resolved that:-

 

1.   Council adopt the Inner Sydney Bike Share Guidelines, as amended from time to time; and

 

2.   With respect to bikes impounded over 28 days, the General Manager investigate and provide a report to Council on ways in which these bikes could be repurposed for local children without bikes.

 

Subsequent to the resolution Council was advised the State Government is looking to regulate the use of the bicycles. In addition staff investigated repurposing of the bikes, which are usually damaged when Council collects them

 

With respect to the impounding of bike share bicycles, Council has collected 11 units with various levels of damage. Under the impounding laws, Council is able to dispose of the bikes after 28 days and retain any proceeds. At this stage none of the companies have paid the impounding fees to collect the bikes.

 

Discussion

 

Repurposing of Impounded Bikes

 

In March, Lane Cove only had three (3) bikes collected and impounded by Council Rangers. Currently, there are eleven impounded bikes stored in the Council depot.

 

Of the eleven bikes currently impounded at the Council depot all have various levels of damage. To determine if repurposing them is viable three bikes which were in the best condition were chosen to determine the cost of any repairs. In general, the bikes required wheel and pedal replacements and truing of wheels.

The bikes were taken to a local bike shop where a quote was sourced to bring the bikes up to a satisfactory standard. This is necessary as Council would have a liability if unsafe bikes were distributed.

 

The total quoted cost for the three bikes was $806.20, which means the average cost to bring each bike to a satisfactory standard is $268. Council also investigated the cost of new child’s bikes with, units available from $100.

 

Based on the repair costs, it is not cost effective to repurpose the bikes.

 

Code of Practice for Bike Share Operators

 

In May 2018, the NSW Government announced that an enforceable code of practice for bike share scheme operators will be set up and Council Rangers will have the powers to penalise operators who do not follow the Code.

 

The proposed Code of Practice will set the minimum standards which bike share operators will need to adhere to and includes safety standards, appropriate bike parking, user education, data sharing and service levels for reporting and responding to complaints.

Under the Code of Practice, operators and users will have an obligation to utilise designated parking areas which will assist in resolving the issues of pedestrian safety and amenity. 

The NSW Government will consult with councils, share bike operators and other key stakeholders in developing the code which Parliament will consider later this year.

The Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) will administer programs and provide grants to develop infrastructure that meets the program guideline requirements. This includes bicycle parking infrastructure such as docking bays.

 

Conclusion

 

In view of the above, the investigation has determined that repurposing of impounded bikes for local children is not cost effective and should not be further pursued. The State Government has now indicated a willingness to regulate bikeshare schemes which will result in a consistent approach by councils and achieve a balance for operation of the schemes.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.          The report be received and noted; and

 

2.          Council not proceed with the repurposing of impounded dockless bike share bicycles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Terescenko

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 18 June 2018

Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Determination for Councillor Fees

 

 

Subject:          Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Determination for Councillor Fees    

Record No:     SU839 - 31068/18

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 17 April 2018 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 2018.

 

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)

$42,120

$19,100

$43,150

Councillors

$19,310

$8,970

$19,790

 

It is noted that Council’s Draft Budget for 2018/19 provides for a 2.5% increase.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council determine the appropriate fee to be paid to the Mayor and Councillors for 2018/2019.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 18 June 2018

May 2018 Traffic Committee Meeting

 

 

Subject:          May 2018 Traffic Committee Meeting    

Record No:     SU1326 - 34240/18

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):       Santosh Rai 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday, 15 May 2018. The Agenda is included as AT-1. The Traffic Committee recommendations are shown in the Minutes of the Meeting, included as AT-2.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopts the recommendations of the Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday, 15 May 2018.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Terescenko

Executive Manager - Open Space and Urban Services

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

AGENDA - Traffic Committee - May 2018

45 Pages

 

AT‑2View

MINUTES - Traffic Committee - May 2018

19 Pages

 

 

  


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 18 June 2018

China Sword Policy - the impacts on Council

 

 

Subject:          China Sword Policy - the impacts on Council     

Record No:     SU1943 - 33460/18

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):       David Wilson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report provides an overview of the impacts on Councils recycling contract for mixed containers following the decision by China’s Sword Policy that to stop accepting contaminated recycling materials.

 

Under Council’s current contract, United Resources Management (URM) have ownership of the mixed containers and paper from the point of collection and have been able to sell these commodities in the past.

 

As a result of these global changes initiated by China, the market for recycling materials has changed significantly and this will result in Council’s current waste and recycling collection contract needing to be amended to reflect the changed market conditions and or risk having the materials going to landfill, as has been the case in some Queensland councils.  The increased costs associated with these changes will ultimately need be passed onto the community through increased Domestic Waste Management Charges.

 

Background

 

In July 2017, China notified the World Trade Organisation (WTO) that it intended to stop accepting 24 types of solid wastes from 1 January 2018 on the grounds that the imports contained dirty and even hazardous wastes which were polluting the environment. Although often seen as a recent and sudden decision, China had actually issued regulations about waste imports as early as 2011 and again in 2014.  It appears that neither of the earlier regulations had been strictly applied and it may be that nations exporting to China may not have treated the WTO filing as seriously as it deserved.

In 2016, China imported over half of the world’s plastic wastes.  In Australia, the ability to export sorted plastic and paper wastes to China with very little processing had ensured that up to 30% of mixed paper and 15% of mixed plastic was sent to China.  Of the major processors, Visy was almost the only one to have its own domestic market for recycled product with its paper mills and a facility to manufacture food grade plastic.

 

Discussion

 

The reliance on foreign markets and the significant falls in commodity prices for the lower quality waste materials after China’s ban on contaminated waste imports has created a glut of product worldwide and seriously threatened the viability of kerbside dry recycling in Australia. Since 1 January 2018, China has required any wastes imported to meet a very stringent 0.5% contamination limit.  MRFs in Australia would typically achieve around 5-6% contamination, but in some cases the contamination is even higher.

 

In NSW, the Container Deposit Scheme (CDS) is creating additional revenue from containers in kerbside recycling bins which should help offset the net cost of providing waste services. However, refunds are only available under the CDS if the materials are recycled. It is not yet clear whether sufficient recycling markets can be found to replace the tonnages previously exported to China. Visy the largest Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) operator in Australia, may not accept recyclables from councils unless they accept the increased gate rates and/or less portion of the CDS refund. A new waste consortium known as iQ Recycling or Polytrade, has made a similar approach to councils.

 

The possibility of councils not having their yellow bins recycled is a serious concern and both state and local government has been keen to ensure that recycling should continue. The Office of Local Government report prepared for the CDS estimates that the value of eligible containers in kerbside bins across NSW before diversion is approximately $100 million per year. The report also indicates that the CDS revenue for all materials dwarfs the commodity price e.g. for aluminum cans the CDS revenue would be about $6,700 per tonne while the commodity price is around $1,250 per tonne.

 

In addition, the MRF gets both the CDS revenue and the commodity price if it recycles the material.  The Regulation Impact Statement for the CDS estimated that diversion from kerbside bins would start at about 5% and rise to about 40% over 10 years. It is too soon to tell what the actual diversion from kerbside bins will be in practice, but the OLG report suggests that it will vary across the state with socio economic differences.

It is too soon to tell how many councils across the State may lose access to processing of recyclables, but it is understood that MRFs are currently seeking suitable markets while those collection contractors who own the material are seeking the best price from any MRF within a reasonable travel distance.

The government’s offer to allow MRF’s to stockpile materials on a case by case basis may provide some temporary relief.  Ultimately the CDS may also make it worthwhile for new MRFs to enter the market, but this could take 3-5 years if a new facility had to be built and would be especially challenging in metropolitan areas.

Regardless of the solution, the State Government could take further action to cushion the impact of the current cost impacts by releasing further funding from the NSW Waste Levy collected by the Government to cushion the financial impact on communities, and it is considered appropriate to write to the Minister for Environment, Minister for Local Government and Heritage, the Hon Gabrielle Upton.

Conclusion

 

Council is currently in discussions with our waste collection contractor, URM regarding this current situation and the need to review our existing recycling contract for mixed containers following this significant event, All indications are that there will be increased costs despite any refunds from the CDS scheme. In determining the adjustment to the contract the main deliverable will be to ensure Council’s recyclables continue to be accepted for recycling and processing and are not diverted to landfill.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.         The report be received and noted.

 

2.         Council delegate authority to the General Manager to negotiate and determine a variation to Council’s existing contract with URM for recycled materials, with the the main deliverable will be to ensure Council’s recyclables continue to be accepted for recycling and processing and are not diverted to landfill.

 

3.         Council write to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government the Hon.Gabrielle Upton calling for the State Government to release further funds from the NSW Waste Levy to assist councils in meeting the current increased costs for recycling materials, to cushion the impact on communities.

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 18 June 2018

Official Opening of Lane Cove Child and Family Health Centre and Lane Cove Creative Studios

 

 

Subject:          Official Opening of Lane Cove Child and Family Health Centre and Lane Cove Creative Studios    

Record No:     SU371 - 34226/18

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):       Corinne Hitchenson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

In June Council is celebrating the official opening of the Lane Cove Child and Family Health Centre and the Lane Cove Creative Studios in the newly refurbished facility at 164-172 Longueville Road.

 

Background

 

Council commenced works to refurbish the Community Centre at 164-172 Longueville Road in December 2017. This initially involved alterations and additions to create new premises for Centrehouse, now known as Lane Cove Creative Arts Studios. The works involved:-

 

·    Renovation and reconfiguration of floor areas to provide a space for pottery, printmaking, artists in residence, photography, kilns, textiles, arts and teaching rooms;

·    Refurbishment of lounge and lobby areas;

·    Removal of an internal staircase; and

·    Provision of new toilets and the redesign and reconstruction of existing toilets for compliance with access requirements.

 

The newly created spaces will allow for classes and artist in residence activities to take place in Term 3 under the newly branded Gallery Lane Cove and Creative Studios space.

 

To ensure that the Early Childhood Health Centre service could still operate while the building was refurbished, the service was relocated to the Cove Room in the Civic Centre for a six month period. During this time an agreement was reached to refurbish the Community Centre space previously used by this service to provide an accessible and updated space for this important service.

 

Discussion

 

Works have now been completed to the Community Centre site allowing for the official opening of these newly refurbished spaces.

 

On Friday 8 June the Hon. Anthony Roberts MP joined the Mayor of Lane Cove and Deb Willcox, Chief Executive of Northern Sydney Local Health District to officially open the newly named Lane Cove Child and Family Health Centre. A number of past and present users of the service were also present to mark the occasion.

 

The official opening of the Lane Cove Creative Studios is planned for Saturday 23 June at 11:00am. This will form part of the Creative Studios open day which will run from 10:00am – 4:00pm, helping to showcase some of the activities which will be taking place within the brand new spaces created through the refurbishment.

 

Conclusion

 

Council is pleased to celebrate the official opening of these two newly refurbished spaces.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 18 June 2018

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot    

Record No:     SU220 - 33756/18

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):       Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Attached for the information of Councillors is a review of Council’s recent activities.  This report provides a summary of the operations of each Division for May 2018.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Snapshot for May 2018

36 Pages