Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

20 May 2019

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

not interested in any business recommended to be considered in

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

  commence consideration of all other business at 7pm.

 

LC_WebBanner


 

Notice of Meeting

 

Dear Councillors

 

Notice is given of the Ordinary Council Meeting, to be held in the Council Chambers, 48 Longueville Road Lane Cove on Monday 20 May 2019 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 20 May 2019

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 - 15 APRIL 2019

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

2.       Lane Cove Literary Awards Review

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

3.       Planning Proposal 34 - Sites in Canberra Avenue and Holdsworth Avenue, St Leonards

 

4.       Planning Proposal 35 - Sites in Berry Road, Holdsworth Avenue, River Road and Park Road, St Leonards 

 

5.       Draft Code of Meeting Practice Post Consultation Report

 

6.       Draft Code of Conduct Post Consultation Report

 

7.       Financial Assistance Grants to Community Groups 2019/2020

 

8.       Lane Cove 2019 Bike Plan

 

9.       Burns Bay Road / Penrose Street Pinch Point

 

10.     Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Determination for Councillor Fees

 

11.     3rd Quarter Review of the 2018-19 Delivery Program and Operational Plan

 

12.     Greenwich Library - Results of Opening Hours Survey

 

13.     3rd Quarter Review 2018 - 19 Budget

 

14.     Local Planning Panel Delegation to Conduct Appeal Matters

 

 


 

Officer Reports for Information

 

15.     1 Sirius Road, Lane Cove West.

 

16.     Council Snapshot  

 

 

 

 

                    


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 May 2019

Lane Cove Literary Awards Review

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove Literary Awards Review    

Record No:    SU4951 - 25317/19

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Karola Brent 

 

 

 

The Lane Cove Literary Awards is in its 5th year and has been a resounding success for both our community and the wider literary landscape. The Awards run annually and are open to anyone in Australia to enter, in various literary categories such as Short Story, Poetry, Memoir, Travelogue and Theatre Script. There is also a local award and a best in seniors and youth entries award.

 

Currently, there is no entry fee attached to applications. Council has partnered up with local businesses to sponsor the winning categories. The judging process involves numerous hours of reading by Library staff resulting in a short list judged by professional judges.

 

The Awards have been growing in popularity each year, resulting in more than 600 entries received in 2018. While this success is commendable and speaks volumes of the dedication of Library staff, there are aspects of this growth that make it unsustainable.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.   A report on exploring additional or different ways in which to run the Lane Cove Literary Awards, with respect to its frequency, reach and financing, be prepared for Council; and

2.   Council’s Manager - Library Services and all staff at the Lane Cove Library be thanked for their dedication in making the Literary Awards such a resounding success in its first five (5) years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Karola Brent

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 May 2019

Planning Proposal 34 - Sites in Canberra Avenue and Holdsworth Avenue, St Leonards

 

 

Subject:          Planning Proposal 34 - Sites in Canberra Avenue and Holdsworth Avenue, St Leonards    

Record No:    SU7347 - 22620/19

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Terry Tredrea; Christopher Pelcz 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

On 7 February 2019, Council received draft Planning Proposal 34, a proponent-led planning proposal from Top Springs to amend Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (LCLEP 2009) as it relates to certain land located within the St Leonards South precinct at 21-41 Canberra Avenue and 18-32 Holdsworth Avenue St Leonards, by adopting the Council-sponsored draft PP 25 with some modifications detailed in draft PP34.

 

As shown in Figure 1, the location of this Planning Proposal is within Council’s Planning Proposal No.25 for the St Leonards South Precinct which was granted Gateway Determination in September 2016, has been publicly exhibited and is awaiting review by the Independent Planning Commission, after which it will be reported to Council for final determination.

 

Figure 1: Proposed rezoning area and intended outcome for Top Spring PP No. 34

 

A Concept Development Application has also been lodged, providing detail to PP34.The development comprises 11 stepped and staggered residential flat buildings of mostly 7-to-11-storeys, with lower level townhouses, stepping down the hillside towards the south (Figure 3). Two-storied townhouses front the ground floors along Holdsworth Avenue, Canberra Ave and River Road.


 

Planning Proposal 34 is also accompanied by:

 

·    Urban Design Package,

·    Traffic and Parking Assessment,

·    Economic Report,

·    Draft LEP Maps,

·    Voluntary Planning Agreement Letter of offer, and

·    Consistency with Council’s Draft Development Control Plan provisions.

 

The Concept D.A. has also submitted a Voluntary Planning Agreement letter of offer. However, Council’s policy is that any VPA be assessed separately by Council at a later stage to ensure that any Planning Proposal is considered on its own merits.

 

Planning Proposal 34 was referred to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel (LCLPP) for advice on the 7 May 2019. In accordance with Section 9.1 of the EP & A Act, staff prepared an assessment report setting out recommendations in relation to the Planning Proposal including whether or not the proposal should be forwarded to the Minister for a Gateway Determination. The Panel was requested to review and consider issues and amendments proposed by the proponent along with the views and concerns raised in the staff report (AT-1), as well as Council’s urban design consultant’s review (AT-2).

 

The LCLPP advises that Planning Proposal No 34 is not supported and should not proceed to the Gateway Determination. This confirms Council’s view that such a proposal is premature and that Draft Planning Proposal 25 be permitted to run its course and be considered by Council upon receiving advice from the Independent Planning Commission (IPC).

 

It is therefore recommended that Planning Proposal No.34 be rejected in full and not be forwarded to the Minister for a Gateway Determination. This is consistent with advice from the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel (AT-3).

 

Background

 

The Site

 

The site is at 21-41 Canberra Avenue & 18-32 Holdsworth Avenue, St Leonards. As shown in the figure below, it forms most but not all of “Areas” 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 as defined in Council’s St Leonards South Planning Proposal No.25.

Figure 2: Subject site, showing Areas 7 & 8 of St Leonards South minus east-west link (shown in blue cross-hatch)

 

The Proposal for PP34

 

Top Springs Australia seeks to:

 

·    Rezone the site from R2 Low Density Residential to R4 High Density Residential Zone.

·    Include new LEP incentive clause 6.11 and maps to: –

Amend the Height of Building within the subject area to be “generally consistent” with Council’s Planning Proposal 25.

Amend the FSR within the subject area to be “generally consistent” with Council’s Planning Proposal 25.

incorporate two public east-west through-site links between Holdsworth Ave and Canberra Ave, with one being 6m in width and one being (a relocated) 15m.

·    Not permit any variation to a development standard (height of buildings or FSR) through an exclusion from Clause 4.6.

·    Amend Council’s Planning Proposal 25 amalgamation patterns to reflect the Top Springs Landholdings.

·    Insert satisfactory arrangement for provision of a Special Infrastructure Contributions (SIC) levy.

·    Remove existing 550 m2 minimum lot size and replacing it with no minimum lot size.

 

Further details of PP34 are described in the Report to the Lane Cove Planning Panel for its 7 May meeting which is found at AT-1, by comparing them with those of Council’s PP25 for St Leonards South. A general comparison is shown in figure 3 below.

 

Figure 3: *Plan from Council’s Planning Proposal 25           * Plan from Proponent’s Planning Proposal 34

 

The concept development proposal comprises 11 stepped and staggered residential flat buildings of mostly 7-to-11-storeys, with lower level townhouses, stepping down the hillside towards the south. Two-storied townhouses front the ground floor along Holdsworth Avenue, Canberra Ave and River Road.

 

The northernmost three buildings are 37m high (RL), while the others are 31m (RL) and 15m (RL) (on River Road). Townhouses would be located on the Holdsworth Avenue street frontages, and along the south and east boundaries where they would be cut into the sloped land.

 

Discussion

 

Legal Advice

 

Prior to the Panel meeting, Council sought advice on the legal status of Planning Proposal No.25 and to what degree Council’s Planning Proposal can be taken into account as part of the assessment of the proponent’s Proposal.

 

As Council’s Planning Proposal 25 for St Leonards South (PP25) has received Gateway Determination and been publicly exhibited it has the status of being a ‘proposed instrument’ and can be considered in any development or concept development proposal under Clause 4.15(1)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proponent acknowledges this status in their documents and assesses their Proposal to be “generally consistent” with the intent and objectives of Council’s Planning Proposal 25.

 


 

Urban Design Advice

 

Given that the proponents are seeking to be ‘generally consistent’ with Council’s Planning Proposal 25, the proponent’s proposal and their supporting documents were reviewed by Council’s urban design consultant (see AT-2) against Council’s Proposal No.25 and associated draft planning documents.

 

Council’s consultant is of the view that the proponent-led PP34 fails to comply with Council’s draft PP 25 and places at risk the fundamental principles, objectives and desired outcomes proposed by draft PP 25’s LEP amendments, DCP and related documents. However, there may be some non-compliances with Council’s draft DCP, which should be addressed at the appropriate DA stage.

 

Despite these inconsistencies, Council’s consultant notes the proposed park extension on Holdsworth Avenue (in Area 11) may be acceptable; however the general heights (in terms of storeys), masses, bulk, setbacks etc should be discussed in detail at the Development Application stage.

 

All of these matters were incorporated into the report to the Local Planning Panel.

 

Referral to Local Planning Panel

 

Planning Proposal 34 for Top Springs land holdings in the St Leonards South precinct, was referred for advice to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel, under Clause 9.1 of the EP&A Act 1979. The Panel was requested to review and consider issues and amendments proposed by the proponent along with the views and concerns raised in a staff report (AT-1) as well as Council’s external urban design advice.

 

The Report to the Lane Cove Planning Panel examines the detailed provisions of the proponent’s Planning Proposal against the strategic and site-specific merit test as well as consistency against Council’s Planning Proposal 25. All of the discussion is contained within this report (see AT-1).

 

In general terms, the matters for consideration that are addressed are:-

·    Strategic Merit test;

·    Site-specific merit test;

·    Legal and Urban Design advice; and

·    Consistency with Council’s Planning Proposal No.25:-

Amalgamation Patterns;

Incentive FSR;

Incentive Height of Building;

Public benefits;

Green Spines & Building separations;

Building footprints;

Landscape plan;

Setbacks;

Parking Intrusion under Green Spine;

Solar access onsite and beyond; and

Incentive DCP Building Heights (storeys).

 

At the meeting, Council staff provided a broad overview of Planning Proposal 25 and the two proponent-led Planning Proposals. Members of the community addressed the Panel. Proponents of both Planning Proposals No.34 & 35 addressed the Panel.

 

Following this, the Panel deliberated on the PPs and provided their considered advice in the form of recommendations and reasons for their decision, see AT-3. The LPP concurs with staff’s recommendations, and advises that Planning Proposal No 34 is not supported and should not proceed to the Gateway Determination.

 

Advice to Council

 

In providing their advice to Council (see AT-3), the Panel unanimously supported the findings in staff’s report and provided the following additional reasons:-

 

1.       “The Panel has assessed both Planning Proposals, both on their individual merits and against the provisions of the Council’s Planning Proposal 25 which, under the Act, is required to be taken into account.

2.       Planning Proposal 25 is at an advanced stage and should be given appropriate weight.

3.       That the Panel accepts and understands that the proponents of these Planning Proposals have had difficulty in amalgamating all the required lots to achieve the proposed amalgamated patterns.

4.       Nevertheless, Planning Proposal 25 should be allowed to run its course and these Planning Proposals 34 and 35 do not conform with such, in a number of respects, as identified in the assessment reports.

5.       The submissions of the residents go to the acceptability of Planning Proposal 25 rather than to these individual Planning Proposals.

6.       The Panel supports the findings contained in the assessment reports in each case and endorses the reasons for the recommendations in those reports.”

 

 

Conclusion

 

Overall, the proponent’s Planning Proposal 34 is not consistent with the Strategic or Site-specific merit test as it is not consistent with the recommendations of the Draft 2036 Plan. Nor does it respond to any change in circumstance. However, it also fails to adequately consider the likely impacts of its proposed changes on the PP 25 amalgamation and landscape patterns, DCP generally and the uses of surrounding sites as envisaged by Council’s Planning Proposal and supporting documents.

 

Notwithstanding this, Council’s Planning Proposal 25 has Gateway endorsement to proceed and been the subject of public consultation which gives it legislative status. Further, the proponent also seeks to use Council’s Planning Proposal 25 as part of its justification. Therefore, it is must be considered in an assessment of a proposal.

 

The resultant non-compliances of PP34 with PP25 would have unintended negative consequences for both the subject site and the entire precinct, including setting an undesirable precedent for further relocated public amenities, modified built form which would not deliver quality urban design & planning outcomes.

 


 

PP34 would place at risk the fundamental principles, objectives and desired outcomes of Council’s Planning Proposal No.25 for St Leonards South which are to achieve a liveable precinct by implementing site-specific controls which would coordinate development in predetermined and appropriate locations and deliver community infrastructure.

 

A number of the other provisions of the proponent’s Planning Proposal are relatively minor in nature and could be addressed at the Development Application stage and should be proposed at the DA stage if PP 25 is adopted.

 

Having regard to the above, the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel, at its 7 May 2019 meeting, recommended that the Top Springs Planning Proposal No.34 not be supported and not proceed to Gateway Determination. It is recommended that Council adopt the recommendations of the Panel in full.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.       Having considered the advice from the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel meeting of 7 May 2019, Council rejects Planning Proposal No.34 in full and such not be forwarded to the Minister for a Gateway Determination, as:-

a)      It fails strategic merit test

Reason

Not consistent with the findings of the Draft 2036 Plan which recommends that the St Leonards South Planning Proposal be referred to the Independent Planning Commission for review. Further, Council’s Planning Proposal and its supporting documents already responds to a change in circumstances.

b)      It fails site-specific merit test

Reason

Council’s Planning Proposal 25 has been done on a precinct-wide basis and the proponent’s Planning Proposal does not consider the potential impacts (i.e. relocating the central east-west connection) it will have on the proposed future uses of Areas 5 & 6. 

c)      Council’s legal advice confirms that Planning Proposal 25 has the status of a ‘proposed instrument’ and has been the subject of public consultation under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act. The proponent also uses Council’s Planning Proposal as justification yet fails to comply with Planning Proposal 25.

d)      The proposed relocation of the 15m wide east-west pedestrian link fails to satisfy the planning reasons for the original location being:

i.        a contiguous straight line of travel from Newlands Park to the new park between Berry & Park Roads;

ii.       a connected accessible link, including people with a disability, involving ramps and lifts which connect in with other community facilities and infrastructure (in Areas 5 and 17);

iii.      a coherent east-west visual corridor and central ‘pedestrian boulevard’.

The bonus FSR and Height is an incentive for Areas 7 & 8 to provide the 15m wide east-west pedestrian link in that location, as justified by points above. The applicant seeks the bonuses without seeking to satisfy the intent.

e)      Based on Council’s Urban Design advice, the proponent’s re-design of Areas 7 & 8 would not only have an adverse impact on its adjoining sites (i.e. Areas 5 & 6) but also adversely affect Areas 9, 10 & 11 in terms of potential solar access to units, and compliance with ADG requirements.

In addition, by reducing Areas 7 & 8, the building on Area 7 has been rotated 90 degrees, adversely affecting sunlight to the already narrowed Green Spine in Areas 9 & 10.

f)       In particular, Planning Proposal 34 is inconsistent with the following objectives of Planning Proposal 25:

i.        Amalgamations Patterns

Reason

These were designed and based on achieving specific urban design & planning outcomes while the proposed variations are designed to suit the proponent’s landholdings.

ii.       Green Spines

Reason

These are to be generally 24m wide but are shown as between 12m and 24m. The planning reason for requiring a generally uniform 24m width is to facilitate the creation of integrated “communal” open space with extensive (50+%) deep soil zones, consistent throughout the precinct.

iii.      Landscape Master Plan

Reason

The intent of the Landscape Master Plan is to ensure a consistently high level of landscaping is provided throughout the precinct.

While the proponent provides some elements the missing elements (a continuous north-south and east-west accessibility link, children’s play areas, much formal seating for gathering) are essential to the vision of a communal open space that welcomes users of all ages and abilities.

iv.      Bonus Heights and Floor Space Ratios

Reason

The intent of Council’s site-specific incentive heights and FSRs is to prevent development in areas identified for public parks, communal open spaces (Green Spines), walkways and roads and provide bonus heights and FSRs in return for identified outcomes. Most of the proponent’s proposed changes are not consistent with overall amenity outcomes.

g)      A number of matters raised in the proponent’s Planning Proposal are relatively minor in nature and should be addressed at the Development Application stage. However, Council would advise the proponent that:

i.        Proposed parking basements are inconsistent with Council’s Draft Development Control Plan which requires deep soil as a minimum of 50% of the Green Spine. Council’s Urban Design advice states that proponent’s basements are too extensive and intrude into deep soil and Green Spine areas.

ii.       It is noted that the proposed park extension on Holdsworth Avenue (in Area 11) could be acceptable subject to other considerations.

2.       The following Lane Cove Local Planning Panel additional reasons for rejection of Planning Proposal 34 be accepted and endorsed:

"The Panel has assessed both Planning Proposals, both on their individual merits and against the provisions of the Council's Planning Proposal 25 which, under the Act, is required to be taken into account.

·        Planning Proposal 25 is at an advanced stage and should be given appropriate weight.

·        That the Panel accepts and understands that the proponents of these Planning Proposals have had difficulty in amalgamating all the required lots to achieve the proposed amalgamated patterns.

·        Nevertheless, Planning Proposal 25 should be allowed to run its course and these Planning Proposals 34 and 35 do not conform with such, in a number of respects, as identified in the assessment reports.

·        The submissions of the residents go to the acceptability of Planning Proposal 25 rather than to these individual Planning Proposals.

·        The Panel supports the findings contained in the assessment reports in each case and endorses the reasons for the recommendations in those reports."

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Report to Local Planning Panel on Planning Proposal 34

29 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Consultants Compliance Report on PP34 & PP35

21 Pages

 

AT‑3View

Advice from Panel on Planning Proposal 34 - Minutes

3 Pages

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 May 2019

Planning Proposal 35 - Sites in Berry Road, Holdsworth Avenue, River Road and Park Road, St Leonards 

 

 

Subject:          Planning Proposal 35 - Sites in Berry Road, Holdsworth Avenue, River Road and Park Road, St Leonards      

Record No:    SU7348 - 22982/19

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Anthony Crichton; Christopher Pelcz 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

On 8 February 2019, Council received draft Planning Proposal 35 (PP35) from Greaton Pty Ltd (with an addendum) to amend Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 (LCLEP 2009) as it relates to certain land located within the St Leonards South precinct at 24-34 Berry Road, 23-31 Holdsworth Avenue and 42-46 River Road, St Leonards (East Quarter) and 26-36 Park Road and 27-39 Berry Road, St Leonards (West Quarter) by adopting the Council-sponsored draft PP 25 with amendments detailed in draft PP35.

 

As shown in Figure 1, this Planning Proposal (PP) is within Council’s Planning Proposal 25 for the St Leonards South Precinct which was granted Gateway Determination in September 2016, has been publicly exhibited and is awaiting review by the Independent Planning Commission. It will then be reported to Council for final determination.

 

The PP consists of two separate sites, an East Quarter site bounded by Holdsworth Avenue, Berry Road and River Road and a West Quarter site bounded by Park Road and Berry Road.   A concept development application has also been lodged providing detail to PP35.

 

The proposed concept development in the East Quarter would comprise a series of apartment buildings in two rows ranging from 4 storeys on River Road to 9 and 10 storeys further up the site to the north. It would consist of two building blocks which are virtually contiguous. The proposed development in the West Quarter would comprise two buildings each of 8 storey height, with part of the eastern building being 10 storeys in height.

 

Planning Proposal 35 is also accompanied by:

 

·    Design Report & Concept Scheme plans;

·    Voluntary Planning Agreement letter of offer;

·    Proposed LEP maps;

·    Draft Development Control Plan compliance table;

·    Traffic & Transport Assessment;

·    Heritage Impact Statement;

·    Landscape Design Report;

·    Economic Impact Assessment;

·    Site Surveys; and

·    East Quarter Shadow study.

 

Two separate Concept Development Applications for the East and West Quarters were also submitted at the same time along with a Voluntary Planning Agreement letter of offer, however Council policy is that any VPA be assessed separately by Council at a later stage to ensure that any Planning Proposal is considered on its own merits.

 

Planning Proposal 35 was referred to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel (LCLPP) for advice on the 7 May 2019. In accordance with Section 9.1 of the EP & A Act, staff prepared an assessment report setting out recommendations in relation to the Planning Proposal including whether or not the proposal should be forwarded to the Minister for a Gateway Determination. The Panel was requested to review and consider issues and amendments proposed by the proponent along with the views and concerns raised in the staff report (AT-1), as well as Council’s urban design consultant’s review (AT-2).

 

The LCLPP advises that Planning Proposal No 35 is not supported and should not proceed to the Gateway Determination. This confirms Council’s view that such proposal is premature and that Draft Planning Proposal 25 be permitted to run its course and be considered by Council upon receiving advice from the Independent Planning Commission (IPC).

 

It is therefore recommended that Planning Proposal No.35 be rejected in full and not be forwarded to the Minister for a Gateway Determination. This is consistent with advice from the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel (AT-3).

 

Background

 

The Site


Figure 1 shows the proponent has broken the site into two separate Quarters as follows:

 

·    East Quarter (total site area 7,643 m2)

24-34 Berry Road,

23-31 Holdsworth Avenue and

42-46 River Road, St Leonards.

 

·    West Quarter (total site area 5,605 m2)

26-36 Park Road and

27-39 Berry Road, St Leonards.

 

Fig 1: Location of Proponent’s sites within the St Leonards South Residential Precinct area

 

It is important to note that only 4,362 m2 of the West Quarter is proposed for development due to the presence of the existing Berry Lane and proposed new east-west road (this road is not subject to any incentive heights and floor space ratios in Council’s proposal).

 

Figure 2 shows that these sites form most but not all of “Areas” 18, 19, 20 & 22 as defined in Council’s St Leonards South Planning Proposal 25.

 

Fig 2: Subject sites, showing both East and West Quarters against Council’s required amalgamations

 

Planning Proposal PP35

 

The proponent-led Planning Proposal PP35 by Greaton Pty Ltd seeks to amend Lane Cove Local Environmental Plan 2009 as follows:

 

·    Rezone the site from R2 Low Density Residential to R4 High Density Residential Zone.

·    Insert new LEP incentive Clause and maps to: –

Amend the Height of Building within the subject area to be “generally consistent” with Council’s Planning Proposal 25.

Amend the FSR within the subject area to be “generally consistent” with Council’s Planning Proposal 25.

Dedicate a proposed public road being 12 m in width between Park Road and Berry Road.

Incorporate a (relocated) 6m wide public east-west through site link between Berry Road and Holdsworth Ave.

·    Not permit any variation to a development standard (height of buildings or FSR) through an exclusion from Clause 4.6.

·    Amend Council’s Planning Proposal 25 amalgamation patterns to reflect the Greaton Pty Ltd Landholdings.

·    Insert satisfactory arrangement for provision of a Special Infrastructure Contributions (SIC) levy.

·    Remove existing 550 m2 minimum lot size and replacing it with no minimum lot size.

 

The proposed concept development proposal in the East Quarter would comprise a series of apartment buildings in two rows ranging from 4 storeys on River Road to 9 and 10 storeys further up the site to the north. It would consist of two building blocks which are virtually contiguous. The proposed development in the West Quarter would comprise two buildings each of 8 storey height, with part of the eastern building being 10 storeys in height.

 

Figure 3 and 4 below show the proposed building form for both PP25 (Council) and PP35 (Greaton):

 

Fig 3: Council’s Draft Building Footprints and Floors (PP25)            Fig 4: Proponent’s Building footprints and floors (PP35)

 

Discussion

 

Legal Advice

 

Prior to the Panel meeting, Council sought advice on the legal status of its current Planning Proposal and to what degree Council’s Planning Proposal can be taken into account as part of the assessment of the proponent’s Proposal.

 

As Council’s Planning Proposal 25 for St Leonards South (PP25) has received Gateway Determination and been publicly exhibited it has the status of being a ‘proposed instrument’ and can be considered in any development or concept development proposal under Clause 4.15(1)(a)(ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proponent acknowledges this status in their documents and assesses their Proposal to be “generally consistent” with the intent and objectives of Council’s Planning Proposal 25.

 

Urban Design Advice

 

Given that the proponent’s are seeking to be ‘generally consistent’ with Council’s Planning Proposal 25, the proponent’s proposal and their supporting documents were reviewed by Council’s urban design consultant (see AT-2) against Council’s Proposal No.25 and associated draft planning documents.

 

Council’s consultant is of the view that the proponent-led PP35 fails to comply with Council’s draft PP25 and places at risk the fundamental principles, objectives and desired outcomes proposed by draft PP25’s LEP amendments, DCP and related documents. However, there may be some non-compliances with Council’s draft DCP, which should be addressed at the appropriate DA stage.

 

All of these matters were incorporated into the report to the Local Planning Panel.

 

Referral to Local Planning Panel

 

Planning Proposal 35 for Greaton land holdings in the St Leonards South precinct, was referred for advice to the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel, under Clause 9.1 of the EP&A Act 1979. The Panel was requested to review and consider issues and amendments proposed by the proponent along with the views and concerns raised in a staff report (AT-1) as well as Council’s external urban design advice.

 

The Report to the Lane Cove Planning Panel examines the detailed provisions of the proponent’s Planning Proposal against the strategic and site-specific merit test as well as consistency against Council’s Planning Proposal 25. All discussion is contained within this report (see AT-1).

 

In general terms, the matters for consideration that are addressed are:-

·    Strategic Merit test;

·    Site-specific merit test;

·    Legal and Urban Design Advice; and

·    Consistency with Council’s Planning Proposal No.25:-

Amalgamation Patterns;

Incentive FSR;

Incentive Height of Building;

Public benefits;

Green Spines & Building separations;

Building footprints;

Landscape plan;

Setbacks;

Parking Intrusion under Green Spine;

Solar access onsite and beyond; and

Incentive DCP Building Heights (storeys).

 

At the meeting, Council staff provided a broad overview of Planning Proposal 25 and the two proponent-led Planning Proposals. Members of the community addressed the Panel. Proponents of both Planning Proposals No.34 & 35 addressed the Panel.

 

Following this, the Panel deliberated on the PPs and provided their considered advice in the form of recommendations and reasons for their decision, see AT-3. The LPP concurs with staff’s recommendations and advises that Planning Proposal No 35 is not supported and should not proceed to the Gateway Determination.

 

Advice to Council

 

In providing their advice to Council (see AT-3), the Panel unanimously supported the findings in staff’s report and provided the following additional reasons:

 

 “1.       The Panel has assessed both Planning Proposals, both on their individual merits and against the provisions of the Council’s Planning Proposal 25 which, under the Act, is required to be taken into account.

2.         Planning Proposal 25 is at an advanced stage and should be given appropriate weight.

3.         That the Panel accepts and understands that the proponent’s of these Planning Proposals have had difficulty in amalgamating all the required lots to achieve the proposed amalgamated patterns.

4.         Nevertheless, Planning Proposal 25 should be allowed to run it’s course and these Planning Proposals 34 and 35 do not conform with such, in a number of respects, as identified in the assessment reports.

5.         The submissions of the residents go to the acceptability of Planning Proposal 25 rather than to these individual Planning Proposals.

6.         The Panel supports the findings contained in the assessment reports in each case and endorses the reasons for the recommendations in those reports.”

 

Conclusion

 

Overall, the proponent’s Planning Proposal 35 is not consistent with the Strategic or Site-specific merit test as it is not consistent with the recommendations of the Draft 2036 Plan nor does it respond adequately to any change in circumstance. However, it also fails to adequately consider the impacts of its proposed changes on the likely uses of surrounding sites as envisaged by Council’s Planning Proposal and supporting documents.

 

It is inconsistent with the PP25 objectives and fundamental urban design elements such as amalgamation patterns, minimum width of green spines, east-west connections, landscape master plan, site specific incentive heights and FSRs and therefore does not and cannot deliver the required inter-connected elements of PP25 to enable the operation of a workable planned precinct.

 

Notwithstanding this, Council’s Planning Proposal 25 has Gateway endorsement to proceed and been the subject of public consultation which gives it legislative status.  Furthermore, the proponent seeks to use Council’s Planning Proposal as part of its justification and foundation. Therefore, the Council sponsored PP 25 must be considered in an assessment of a proposal.

 

The resultant non-compliances of PP35 would have unintended negative consequences for both the subject site and the entire precinct, including setting an undesirable precedent for further relocated public amenities, modified built form which would place at risk the delivery of quality urban design & planning outcomes.

 

PP35 would place at risk the fundamental principles, objectives and desired outcomes of Council’s Planning Proposal 25 for St Leonards South which are to achieve a liveable precinct by implementing site-specific controls which will coordinate development in predetermined and appropriate locations and deliver community infrastructure.

 

A number of the other provisions of the proponent’s Planning Proposal are relatively minor in nature and should be addressed at the more appropriate Development Application stage and should be proposed at the DA stage if PP 25 is adopted.

 

Having regard to the above, the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel, at its 7 May 2019 meeting, recommended that the Greaton Planning Proposal No.35 not be supported and not proceed to Gateway Determination. It is recommended that Council adopted the recommendations of the Panel in full.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.       Having considered the advice from the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel meeting of 7 May 2019 Council rejects Planning Proposal No. 35 in full and such not be forwarded to the Minister for a Gateway Determination, as:

a)      It fails the strategic merit test

Reason

Not consistent with the findings of the Draft 2036 Plan which recommends that the St Leonards South Planning Proposal be referred to the Independent Planning Commission for review. Further, Council’s Planning Proposal and its supporting documents already responds to a change in circumstances.

b)      It fails the site-specific merit test

Reason

The proponent’s Planning Proposal does not consider the potential impacts (i.e. relocating the east-west connection) it will have on the proposed future uses of Areas 18 & 19. It will also significantly disadvantage the owners of properties in Park Road. 

c)      Council’s legal advice confirms that Planning Proposal 25 has the status of a ‘proposed instrument’ and has been the subject of public consultation under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act. The proponent also uses Council’s Planning Proposal as justification yet fails to comply with Planning Proposal 25.

d)      The proposed relocation of the 6m wide east-west connection in the East Quarter is not appropriate.

Reason

The original location of Council’s 6m wide east-west pedestrian pathway is intended to provide a contiguous straight-line pedestrian link and a safe, legible and coherent east-west corridor from Newlands Park to Canberra Avenue and Berry Road.

The bonus FSR and Height is an incentive for Areas 18-20 & 22 to provide site amalgamation and provide the 6m wide east-west pedestrian link in that location. The applicant seeks the bonuses without seeking to satisfy the intent.

e)      In particular, Planning Proposal 35 is inconsistent with the following objectives of Planning Proposal 25:

i.        Amalgamation Patterns

Reason

These were designed and based on achieving specific urban design & planning outcomes while the proposed variations are designed to suit the proponent’s landholdings.

ii.       Proposes to use a site protected from development (i.e. proposed new road between Park and Berry Roads) in order to achieve its development potential in the West Quarter.

iii.      Green Spines

Reason

These are to be 24m wide, but are 18m wide in the West Quarter.  The 24m width is to facilitate the creation of integrated “communal” open space with extensive (50+%) deep soil zones, consistent throughout the precinct.  The resultant Green Spines in the West Quarter are inadequate.

iv.      Landscape Master Plan

Reason

The intent of the Landscape Master Plan is to ensure a consistently high level of landscaping is provided throughout the precinct. While the proponent does provide some elements the missing elements (a continuous north-south and east-west link, children’s play areas, adequate formal seating, BBQ/shelter area and Kickabout lawn) are essential to the vision of a communal open space that welcomes users of all ages and abilities.

v.       Bonus Heights and Floor Space Ratios

          Reason

The intent of Council’s site-specific incentive heights and FSRs is to prevent development in areas identified for public parks, communal open spaces (Green Spines), walkways and roads and provide bonus heights and FSRs in return for identified outcomes. Most of the proponent’s proposed changes are not consistent with overall amenity outcomes.

f)       All other matters raised in the proponent’s Planning Proposal are relatively minor in nature and can be addressed at the Development Application stage. However, Council makes the following comments:

i.        Proposed parking basements are inconsistent with Council’s Draft Development Control Plan which requires deep soil as a minimum of 50% of the Green Spine.  As proposed they intrude into deep soil and Green Spine areas, particularly in the East Quarter.

 

2.       Council accepts and endorses the additional reasons of the Lane Cove Planning Panel for rejection of Planning Proposal 35 being:-

a)      The Panel has assessed both Planning Proposals, both on their individual merits and against the provisions of the Council’s Planning Proposal 25 which, under the Act, is required to be taken into account;

b)      Planning Proposal 25 is at an advanced stage and should be given appropriate weight;

c)      That the Panel accepts and understands that the proponents of these Planning Proposals have had difficulty in amalgamating all the required lots to achieve the proposed amalgamated patterns;

d)      Nevertheless, Planning Proposal 25 should be allowed to run its course and these Planning Proposals 34 and 35 do not conform with such, in a number of respects, as identified in the assessment reports;

e)      The submissions of the residents go to the acceptability of Planning Proposal 25 rather than to these individual Planning Proposals; and 

f)       The Panel supports the findings contained in the assessment reports in each case and endorses the reasons for the recommendations in those reports.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Consultants Compliance Report on PP34 & PP35

21 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Report to Local Planning Panel on Planning Proposal 35

31 Pages

 

AT‑3View

Advice from Panel on Planning Proposal 35 - Minutes

3 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 May 2019

Draft Code of Meeting Practice Post Consultation Report

 

 

Subject:          Draft Code of Meeting Practice Post Consultation Report    

Record No:    SU837 - 24708/19

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Kirsty Beram 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A Draft Code of Meeting Practice (attached at AT-1) was endorsed by Council for public exhibition at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 18 March 2019.  This draft was based on the Model Code of Meeting Practice issued by the Office of Local Government and prescribed by the Local Government (General) Regulation on 14 December 2018.  Council must adopt a new code incorporating the mandatory provisions of the Model Code by 14 June 2019. 

 

Community Consultation was undertaken as per the consultation strategy endorsed by Council.  The aim of consultation was to ascertain the level of community support for the non-mandatory and supplementary provisions proposed in the Draft Code.  44 submissions were received in relation to the Draft Code of Meeting Practice.  Primarily, these submissions object to the introduction of new non-mandatory provisions in relation to the conduct of the public forum held prior to each Council Meeting. Specifically, those provisions that would impose additional requirements on speakers or limit the number of speakers.

 

Amendments to the Draft Code of Meeting Practice have been incorporated in consideration of these views.  These include the non-inclusion of those provisions which impose limitations on the number of speakers able to address Council during a public forum.  However, it will be recommended that Council proceed with a registration process for speakers noting this is in line with standard practice of the NSROC member council’s as well as the best practice principles recommended by the Office of Local Government.  This will allow Council to ensure the public record is accurate and provide an opportunity to keep speakers informed of the progress / outcome of any additional matters raised in during a public forum session, which may not be determined at that meeting. 

 

Therefore, this report recommends that the Amended Draft Code of Meeting Practice be adopted.  

 

Background

 

Council’s current Code of Meeting Practice was last reviewed in April 2012.  A new Model Code of Meeting Practice was prescribed by the Local Government (General) Regulation on 14 December 2018.  The new Model Code sets out a number of mandatory provisions that Council must incorporate into its Code of Meeting Practice along with a range of other non-mandatory best practice provisions.  Council can also incorporate supplementary provisions so long as they are not inconsistent with the mandatory provisions.  The Code will apply to all meetings of Council and committees of Council where all the members are Councillors.  A Draft Code of Meeting Practice was prepared for the Ordinary Council Meeting of 18 March 2019 where Council resolved to adopt the Draft for the purpose of public exhibition. 

 


 

Discussion

 

Community consultation on Draft Code of Meeting Practice ran from 21 March 2019 to 9 May 2019.  The aim of the consultation was to ascertain the level of community support for the non-mandatory and supplementary provisions proposed in the Draft Code. 

 

Consultation methods utilised included:-

·    An advertisement in the North Shore Times;

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

·    An online exhibition;

·    An eNewsletter sent to almost 6,000 recipients; and

·    Notifications to Council Advisory Committees.

 

Public Submissions

 

44 public submissions have been received in relation to the Draft Code of Meeting Practice. Five (5) from local community/neighbourhood associations and 39 from residents (including two (2) late submissions received after the consultation closing date).  Primarily, these submissions raise concerns in relation to the following non-mandatory provisions included in Section 4 of the Code in relation to public forums.

 

Clause 4.3 – Speaking at a Public Forum

 

To speak at a public forum, a person must complete and submit to the council in the approved form, a Public Speaker Information Form. These forms must be submitted by 5:00pm, prior to the commencement of the ordinary meeting of the council at which the individual is speaking, and must identify the item of business on agenda in which the person wishes to speak and whether they wish to speak ‘for’ or ‘against’ the item.

 

Concerns were raised in relation to:-

·    Resident awareness of this process;

·    The feasibility of accessing and submitting forms by this deadline;

·    The potential for this requirement to discourage/restrict resident participation;

·    Inconsistency with Council’s current practice, guiding principles and values and the meeting principles set out in the draft code.

 

As outlined in AT-2 the pre-registration of speakers for Council Meetings is standard practice throughout NSROC councils.  North Sydney, Mosman, Willoughby, Ku-ring-gai, Hornsby, Hunters Hill and Ryde all require speakers to submit their details prior to the meeting.  Council’s current Code does not require the pre-registration of those wishing to address Council.  However, in view of the new Draft Code, the introduction of an information form to capture speakers names and topics has been trialed at recent meetings. 

 


 

It is important to note the purpose of this new requirement is to promote fairness and opportunity, ensure the public forum can be run as efficiently as possible in line with the provisions of the adopted Code of Meeting Practice, that the public record generated is accurate and that Council has reliable contact information for those who speak to allow residents to be updated or contacted in relation to items raised during these forums. 

To that end, and noting Council can develop a protocol that best suits its own circumstance, it is recommended that this clause be amended as follows:- 

 

To speak at a public forum, a person wishing to address the council during a public forum must register their details with Council by 5:00pm on the day of the Council Meeting at which the individual is speaking.  This information includes identification of the matter in which the person wishes to speak and the speakers name, address and relevant contact information.

 

It is noted that this amendment will also allow flexibility to promote a range of registration options for residents including an online form, telephone registration, or submission of a hard copy form.

 

Clause 4.5 – Legal Representatives

 

Legal representatives acting on behalf of others are not to be permitted to speak at a public forum unless they identify their status as a legal representative when applying to speak at the public forum.

 

It was noted that this provision should apply to any consultant or representative speaking on behalf of another individual.  In the interest of transparency, it is recommended that this clause be broadened to this effect.

 

Clauses 4.6 – 4.8 – Limitations on the Number of Speakers

 

4.6       No more than four (4) speakers are to be permitted to speak ‘for’ or ‘against’ each item of business on the agenda for the council meeting. 

 

4.7       If more than the permitted number of speakers apply to speak ‘for’ or ‘against’ any item of business, the general manager or their delegate may request the speakers to nominate from among themselves the persons who are to address the council on the item of business. If the speakers are not able to agree on whom to nominate to address the council, the general manager or their delegate is to determine who will address the council at the public forum.

 

4.8       If more than the permitted number of speakers apply to speak ‘for’ or ‘against’ any item of business, the general manger or their delegate may, in consultation with the mayor or mayor’s nominated chairperson, increase the number of speakers permitted to speak on an item of business, where they are satisfied that it is necessary to do so to allow the council to hear a fuller range of views on the relevant item of business.

 

Almost all submissions received objected to the inclusion of the above provisions.  Residents expressed concern that these provisions would:-

·    Reduce the right to free speech;

·    Limit the range of views being expressed;

·    Place unfair/unfeasible requirements on speakers to nominate delegates;

·    Provide the General Manager with an unreasonable level of authority to determine who may or may not address Council;

·    Create ambiguity in situations where speakers are neither strictly ‘for’ or ‘against’ an item;

·    Ultimately, deter resident participation; and

·    Be inconsistent with Council’s current practice, guiding principles and values.

 

These proposed measures have been identified generally as best practice measures by the Office of Local Government’s Model Code of Meeting Practice.  They were included in the Draft Code to ascertain the level of support for this sort of protocol which is significantly more restrictive than Council’s current practice.  In view of the significant lack of community support for these limitations on speakers, the following clauses are recommended in lieu of draft Clauses 4.6 – 4.8 and 4.10-4.11, providing the community ample opportunity to address Council and without limitations on issues raised:-

4.6       Speakers at the public forum will be invited by the Chairperson, in order of registration, to address the Council.                                                                       [replaces 4.10]

4.7       Each speaker will be allowed a maximum of three (3) minutes to address the Council. This time is to be strictly enforced by the chairperson                          [previously 4.11]

4.8       Speakers who have not registered may be invited to address Council at the discretion of the Chairperson. 

 

Clause 4.9 – Supporting Material

 

Speakers at the public forum are to register with the council any visual or audio material to be presented in support of their address to the council at the public forum, and to identify any equipment needs no less than three (3) business days prior to the public forum.  The general manager or their delegate may refuse to allow such material to be presented.

 

Two (2) submissions raised concerns in relation to the feasibility of providing the required amount of notice regarding registration of visual and audio material. It is noted that the Agenda for a Council Meeting is made available online by 5pm the Thursday prior to the meeting being only two (2) full business days.  As such, it is recommended that the timeframe for the registration of material be extended to midday on the date of the meeting. This would allow sufficient time to consider the feasibility of the request, ensure the display of the proposed content is appropriate for all audiences and arrange the required equipment for presentation.

 


 

Clauses 4.12 – 4.14 – Questions During Public Forum

4.12     A councillor (including the chairperson) may, through the chairperson, ask questions of a speaker following their address at a public forum. Questions put to a speaker must be direct, succinct and without argument.

4.13     Speakers are under no obligation to answer a question put under clause 4.12. Answers by the speaker, to each question are to be limited to one (1) minute.

4.14     Speakers at public forums cannot ask questions of the council, councillors or council staff.

Some queries were raised in relation to the above provisions.  To remove potential ambiguity in relation to these the following amendments are recommended:-

4.10     A councillor (including the chairperson) may, through the chairperson, ask questions of a speaker following their address at a public forum in order to clarify an issue, but will not otherwise question the speaker.  Questions put to a speaker must be direct, succinct and without argument.

4.11     Speakers are under no obligation to answer a question put under clause 4.12. Answers by the speaker, to each question are to be limited to one (1) minute.

4.12     Speakers at public forums may pose questions to the council, councillors or council staff however a question put without notice by the speaker is not required to be answered during the public forum.

 

It is noted that the purpose of the public forum is not to facilitate a question and answer forum but rather to present an opportunity for members of the community to express their views.  The Draft Code does not suggest diverting from the current practice in this respect.

 

Section 3 – Pre-Meeting Briefing Sessions

 

In addition, two (2) submission also raised concerns in relation to the conduct of Pre- Meeting Briefing Sessions as covered in the Draft Code (Clauses 3.34 to 3.38), primarily the exclusion of public participation at such sessions and lack of transparency in relation to these proceedings. 

 

The additional provisions included in this section are non-mandatory best practice provisions recommended in the prescribed Model Code of Meeting Practice.  They are designed to provide transparency in relation to the conduct of these sessions.  It is current practice for Council to hold pre-meeting briefings, commonly referred to as Councillor Workshops, on the second Monday of each month.  These sessions provide an opportunity for full and frank discussions on subject matter including that which may be potentially sensitive, such as commercial or legal matters.  It is considered important and necessary to afford a designated forum for these considerations.  However, as is highlighted in the provisions of the Draft Code it is also important to emphasis that these are not to be used to debate or make preliminary decisions on matters.  The provisions also necessitate the appropriate management of conflicts of interests in relation to topics considered at these sessions.  It is recommended that the proposed provisions from the Draft Code be adopted.

 

Conclusion

 

The Model Code of Meeting Practice was prescribed by the Local Government (General) Regulation on 14 December 2018. It is recommended that a new Code, incorporating the mandatory provisions of the Model, be adopted by Council by June 2019

 

A Draft Code of Meeting Practice was prepared for the March 2019 Ordinary Council Meeting and adopted for the purpose of community exhibition.  44 submissions were received. These submissions indicate a high level of dissatisfaction with, and objection to, the introduction the non-mandatory provisions proposed in the Draft Code in relation to the public forum held prior to each ordinary meeting. Particularly those provision that would impose limitations on the number of speakers. 

 

In consideration of this feedback and community expectations, as well as the best practice principles set out by the Model Code and industry practice throughout the NSROC region, amendments to the Draft Code as outlined in this Report are proposed. It is recommended these amendments to the Draft Code of Meeting Practice and highlighted in AT-1 be adopted.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the Amended Draft Code of Meeting Practice dated May 2019 shown attached at AT-1.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Amended Draft Code of Meeting Practice - May 2019

53 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Code of Meeting Practice Comparison

8 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 May 2019

Draft Code of Conduct Post Consultation Report

 

 

Subject:          Draft Code of Conduct Post Consultation Report    

Record No:    SU3942 - 22629/19

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Kirsty Beram 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A Draft Code of Conduct (attached at AT-1) and Procedures for the Administration of the Code (attached at AT-2) were endorsed by Council for public exhibition at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 18 March 2019.  These draft documents were based on the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW and associated Procedures issued by the Office of Local Government and prescribed by the Local Government (General) Regulation on 14 December 2018.  Council must adopt the new Model Code of Conduct and Procedures by 14 June 2019. 

 

Whilst Council may include supplementary provisions and/or impose more onerous requirements than those prescribed under the Model Code of Conduct, it cannot include provisions that dilute the standards prescribed in the Model Code of Conduct.  In its draft documents, Council has not proposed to implement any amendments or supplementary provisions to the Code.

 

Community Consultation was undertaken as per the consultation strategy endorsed by Council.  The aim of consultation was to ascertain the community’s views on the new Draft Code of Conduct, specifically if additional supplementary provisions may be appropriate.  No public submissions were received in relation to the Draft Code of Conduct. 

 

Therefore, this report recommends that the Draft Code of Conduct and Procedures for the Administration of the Code be adopted.  

 

Background

 

Council’s current Code of Conduct was adopted in 2013 based on the Model Code issued by the then Division of Local Government.  A new Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW and associated Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code were prescribed by the Local Government (General) Regulation on 14 December 2018. 

 

The new Model Code of Conduct sets out the minimum standards for staff, Councillors, committee members, volunteers and contractors.  Councils may include supplementary provisions in their adopted codes of conduct and may also impose more onerous requirements than those prescribed under the Model Code of Conduct.  However, councils must not dilute the standards prescribed in the Model Code of Conduct.

 

Key changes include:-

1.   Incorporation of the pecuniary interest provisions previously contained in the Local Government Act 1993 and Regulation;

2.   New standards relating to discrimination and harassment, bullying, work health and safety, behaviour at meetings, access to information and maintenance of council records;

3.   New rules governing the acceptance of gifts including mandatory reporting;

4.   A new ongoing disclosure requirement for councillors and designated persons requiring disclosure of new interests in returns of interests within three months of becoming aware of them; and

5.   Requirements for Councillors to disclose in their returns of interests whether they are a property developer or a close associate of a property developer.

 

A summary of the major changes to the Code is attached at AT-3.

 

A Draft Code of Conduct and Draft Associated Procedures for the Administration of the Code were prepared for the Ordinary Council Meeting of 18 March 2019.  Council did not incorporate into these draft documents any variations or supplementary provisions to those set out in the Model Code of Conduct as circulated by the Office of Local Government. 

 

Council resolved, in part, to adopt for the purpose of public exhibition, a Draft Code of Conduct and Draft Associated Procedures for the Administration of the Code. 

 

Discussion

 

Community consultation on the Draft Code of Conduct ran from 21 March 2019 to 9 May 2019.  The aim of the consultation was to ascertain the community’s views on the new Draft Code of Conduct, specifically if additional supplementary provisions may be appropriate. 

 

Consultation methods utilised included:-

 

·    An advertisement in the North Shore Times;

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

·    An online exhibition;

·    An eNewsletter sent to almost 6,000 recipients; and

·    Notifications to Council Advisory Committees.

 

Public Submissions

 

No public submissions have been received in relation to the Draft Code of Conduct and Draft Associated Procedures for the Administration of the Code.

 

Conclusion

 

The Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW and associated Procedures for the Administration of the Model Code were prescribed by the Local Government (General) Regulation on 14 December 2018.  A new Code and Associated Procedures based on this Model must be adopted by Council by 14 June 2019. 

 

Council has undertaken community consultation on a Draft Code and Associated Procedures in line with the consultation strategy endorsed by Council at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 18 March 2019.  In its draft documents, Council had not proposed to implement any amendments or supplementary provisions to those set out in the Model Code of Conduct as circulated by the Office of Local Government.  The aim of the consultation was to ascertain if the community considered any additional supplementary provisions necessary.

 

As no public submissions were received, it is recommended that the Draft Code of Conduct and associated Procedures for the Administration of the Code be adopted.  Training in the new Code of Conduct will then be provided for all staff, Councillors, committee members, volunteers and contractors.


 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.   Council adopt the Draft Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW and associated Procedures for the Administration of the Code based on the Model Code prescribed by the Local Government (General) Regulation on 14 December 2018; and

2.   Training in the new Code of Conduct be provided for all staff, Councillors, committee members, volunteers and relevant contractors.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Draft Code of Conduct

62 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑2View

Associated Procedures for the Adminstration of the Code of Conduct

54 Pages

Available Electronically

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 May 2019

Financial Assistance Grants to Community Groups 2019/2020

 

 

Subject:          Financial Assistance Grants to Community Groups 2019/2020    

Record No:    SU7356 - 25436/19

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Jane Gornall 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report discusses the 2019/2020 Financial Assistance Grant application process and recommends various grants. Under Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council may grant Financial Assistance to Community Organisations. Each year Council calls for applications for financial assistance from community groups either based in the Lane Cove Local Government Area (LGA) or those whose assistance addresses the identified needs of people within the LGA.

 

The 2019/2020 Financial Assistance Grants program was promoted through The Village Observer, Council’s Website and through an extensive mailout during January 2019. Applications closed on 4 March 2019. The 2019/2020 budget includes a provision of $507,673 for Financial Assistance to Community Groups. Council has received a total of 26 applications requesting funds to the value of $580,140. One application was received from Cancer Fit Australia for $54,835.27 but is not included in this report as is not a not-for-profit organisation and therefore ineligible.

 

 

Background

 

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

 

Financial Assistance Grant Applications Received for 2019/2020

 

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

·        Arts and Cultural Services;

·        Services for Youth;

·        Services for people with disability; and

·        Community Development and Support.

 

Applications are assessed against the criteria provided in the Guidelines attached as AT-1.  Applicants are required to show how their application meets the needs of Lane Cove by referring to Council’s Plans. It is noted that following the development of the Disability Inclusion Action Plan (DIAP) additional criteria and questions regarding inclusion have been added to the Financial Assistance Grants processes to ensure people living with disability are considered and included in the projects.

 

The commitment for Council based on the recommendations from the Council Selection Committee of 13 May 2019 is $ 430,433A copy of these recommendations has been circulated separately to Councillors in a Confidential Memo.

 

Recurring commitments to community organisations total $36,104 and are listed in AT-2. The majority of these are longstanding commitments relating to Council’s contributions to rate payments, or the waiving of payments and other costs. The estimated cost of the Grant Presentation Ceremony in August is $3,500, the advertising costs for the public exhibition and next year’s promotion is $2,000.  This has been allocated within the Financial Assistance budget.

 

Two community groups have taken up the opportunity of the Cultural Venue Performance

Hire Subsidy Funds for the 2019/2020 financial year of $2,290.

 

An amount of $11,600 has been set aside for Council to manage funds for the Lane Cove Art Award.

 

The total amount of the Financial Assistance Grants Program recommended in this Report is

$485,927

 

Discussion

 

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

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

·    Support to projects that can be successfully completed within the 2019/20 financial year.

 

Sydney Community Services and Galley Lane Cove + Creative Studios

 

In the 2016/17 Financial Assistance program a 5-year Service Agreement was made with Sydney Community Services and a 3-year Service Agreement was made with Gallery Lane Cove + Creative Studios to support the organisations in times of change and development.

 

Sydney Community Services are now in their 4th year of this 5-year Agreement.

 

In the 2018/2019 Financial Assistance Program the 3-year Service Agreement with Gallery Lane Cove + Creative Studios was extended for another year to further support the organisation and provide time to consolidate new models of service delivery and programs. The 2019/2020 funding will mark the final year of this agreement

 

Receipts of greater than $20,000

 

Three groups are recommended to receive $20,000 or more in funds for 2019/2020. They are Centrehouse, Meeting House and Sydney Community Services.

 

As outlined in the funding guidelines, organisations which receive over $20,000 will be asked to enter into Service Agreements. The Service Agreements outline the mutual obligations between Council and the organisation and stipulates how the organisation will use the funds against performance measures. The Service Agreements are to be revised to ensure that Council funds provide best value for the community.

 

Working with Children Checks

 

Since 2018/2019 applicants who work with children were requested to submit a

Statutory Declaration stating compliance to the requirements outlined by the Office of the Children’s Guardian. It is now an ongoing requirement for the Financial Assistance Grants Program.

 


 

Online Application Forms

 

2019/2020 marks the first year in which applications for both the Financial Assistance Grants and the Cultural Venue Performance Hire Subsidy Funds were managed through an online process.  Despite a few issues with the software all applicants managed to submit their applications using this process.  With updated software for future years, providing the facility to limit word/character numbers and to attach supporting documentation the process will be even more streamlined. 

 

Managing Applicant Expectations

 

Through the language used in some applications in previous years it has become apparent that quite a number of community groups and organisations consider the Financial Grants program to be an ‘annual grant’ and have the expectation that they will receive funding each year.

 

In order to dispel this misconception, the 2019/2020 Application Form asked three questions at the beginning of the form to which all applicants had to acknowledge as having read or understood before they could proceed to the next questions.  The first questions was to indicate they had read the Guidelines and Information for Applicants, the second was to indicate  understanding of the following statement, ‘Receiving a Financial Assistance Grant in a previous year does not mean that you will necessarily receive funds for the 2019/2020 program, or that you will receive an equivalent amount’ and the third was to indicate understanding of the final statement ‘Council will not normally provide funds for refreshments, salaries, administration costs of the project / organisation or insurance costs’

 

Financial Assistance Grants Comparisons with Other Areas

 

It is difficult to compare what occurs in other Council areas because

·    Each Council is different as there is a mix of community based and local government services

·    In some areas organisations can apply for funds under the ClubGRANTS program

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

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

 

Historically Lane Cove Council has provided the most funding per capita to their residents and this year is no different with a funding rate of $15.00 per person

 

Community Grants Presentation

 

Council, over the past eleven (11) years has invited all funded groups to a Presentation Ceremony in August. This provides the opportunity for Council to showcase its Grants Program and for local groups to receive recognition for the work they do in a wider forum. It is suggested that the practice be continued, and the ceremony take place on Wednesday 7 August 2019.

 


 

Community Consultation

 

Council will give six (6) weeks Public Notice of the Financial Assistance to Community Groups following the adoption of this report, using the method of consultation outlined.

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Open

Target Audience

Lane Cove Community

Lane Cove Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement and eNewsletter

Public Exhibition and Website Exhibition

Indicative Timing

May - June

May - June

 

 

Conclusion

 

Council’s Financial Assistance Grants Program assists in the development of a range of

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

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.   Give consideration to Financial Assistance Grants and the Cultural Venue Performance Hire Subsidy Funds to Community Groups for 2019-2020; and

 

2.   Give Public Notice of the proposed Financial Assistance Grants to Community Groups in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in this report, and receive a further report on the results of the consultation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Financial Assistance Grants - 2019/2020 - Guildelines and Information for Applicants

4 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Standard Rates and Contributions - 2019/2020

1 Page

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 May 2019

Lane Cove 2019 Bike Plan

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove 2019 Bike Plan    

Record No:    SU1330 - 24059/19

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Sashika Perera 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The 2019 Bike Plan is a five (5) year strategic plan that outlines the delivery of cycling infrastructure and promotional programs for the community.  While the 2019 Bicycle Plan caters for cyclists of all ages and abilities, one of the main objectives of the 2019 Bicycle Plan is to set an action plan which will target the population who are ‘enthused and confident’ and ‘interested but concerned’ in cycling, which is in line with Council’s Community Strategic Plan. 

 

Council engaged consultants ptc. to review the 2013 Bicycle Plan for the Lane Cove Local Government Area (LGA), which had originally prepared by GTA Consultants .  A Draft 2019 Bicycle Plan has been attached at AT-1 along with short term (AT-2) and long-term (AT-3) maps.

 

It is recommended that the Draft 2019 Bicycle Plan be endorsed for the purpose of public exhibition.

 

Background

 

The 2019 Bicycle Plan focused on the following nine (9) specific routes identified by Council based on its strategic importance. 

 

1.       Pacific Highway

2.       Longueville Road

3.       Burns Bay Road

4.       Centennial Avenue/Burns Bay Road – (south of Epping Road)

5.       River Road

6.       Greenwich Road

7.       Northwood Road

8.       Tambourine Bay Road

9.       Lane Cove Business Park

 

These local routes are consistent with the 2013 Bicycle Plan.  Each of the routes was audited and reviewed by ptc. which resulted in a series of recommendations for each strategic bicycle route:-

 

Additionally, Council undertook a separate review of Mowbray Road and Centennial Avenue (between Mowbray Road and Epping Road), details of which have also been included in the Draft 2019 Bicycle Plan.

 

Discussion

 

The following routes have been developed by ptc. in consultation with Council. Council’s Bicycle Advisory was consulted on the proposed routes at its meeting on Tuesday, 26 March 2019. The routes have been altered accordingly based on feedback received from the Committee.

 


 

Route 1: Pacific Highway

 

·    Short-term option

 

The short-term option is to utilise the local road network parallel to the Pacific Highway.

 

·    Long-term option

 

The long-term option is to provide a Shared User Path (SUP) on the southern side of the Pacific Highway in conjunction with the bike lanterns to connect to the proposed SUP on the northern side of Pacific Highway which Willoughby Council is currently developing.

 

Willoughby Council has consulted with Council regarding the provision of connection points into the Lane Cove LGA. Bike lanterns are proposed at the following signalised intersections along the Pacific Highway:-

 

·    Mowbray Road;

·    Longueville Road;

·    Osbourne Street;

·    Greenwich Road; and

·    Hebert Street.

 

Route 2 – Longueville Road

 

·    Epping Road to Austin Street – Mixed traffic route which will encourage cycling to the Lane Cove shops.

 

·    Austin Street – River Road –Bi-directional bicycle path along the eastern side with a physical separation with traffic lane.

 

·    Kenneth Street – Bi-directional bicycle path along the western side.

 

·    Stuart Street – Bicycle lane on the southern side and a mixed traffic route on the northern side.

 

Route 3 – Burns Bay Road (Longueville Road to Centennial Avenue)

 

·    The proposed treatment is to divert cyclists away from Rosenthal Avenue and into Birdwood Avenue and Rosenthal Lane.

 

·    Between Tambourine Bay Road and Figtree Street –Bicycle lane with a door opening clearance along the northern side of Burns Bay Road and mixed traffic route for eastbound travel.

 

·    Figtree Street and Centennial Avenue - Bi-directional bicycle lane along the southern side with cyclists to utilise the existing refuge near Figtree Street to cross to the southern side.

 

Route 4 – Centennial Avenue and Burns Bay Road

 

·    Short-term option

 

Short-term solution is to utilise the local road network parallel to Centennial Avenue.

 

·    Long-term option

 

Centennial Avenue between Epping Road and Burns Bay Bridge - SUP

 

Route 5 – River Road

 

·    River Road between Burns Bay Road and Pacific Highway- SUP

 

Route 6 – Greenwich Road

 

·    Between Pacific Highway and River Road – SUP along both sides.

 

·    River Road and Wardrop Street - SUP on the western side.

 

·    Wardrop Street and Manns Avenue – The proposed treatment for this section is to provide a bicycle lane along the western side with a door opening clearance.

 

·    Southbound travel (towards Manns Avenue) will be provided with a mixed traffic route, which is considered appropriate as it is downhill.

 

·    Manns Avenue and Greenwich Wharf – Mixed traffic route in both directions.

 

Route 7 – Northwood Road

 

·    Between River Road and Wyndarra Place – Bike lane on the western side of Northwood Road and mixed traffic route along the eastern side for southbound traffic.

 

·    Wyndarra Place and Point Road – SUP on the western side and mixed traffic route along the eastern side.

 

·    Point Road and Northwood Wharf – SUP on the western side and mixed traffic route along the eastern side.

 

 

Route 8 – Tambourine Bay Road

 

·    Between Burns Bay Road and River Road West – Mixed traffic route for southbound travel and SUP on the western side.

 

·    River Road West and Riverview Street – SUP on the western side and mixed traffic route on the eastern side.

 

·    Riverview Street and Tambourine Bay Park- Mixed traffic route on both sides.

 

 

Route 9 – Lane Cove Business Park

 

 

·    Utilising local streets parallel to Centennial Avenue for the connection from Burns Bay Road.

 

·    For northbound/ eastbound travel, from Mars Road to Epping Road, a mixed traffic cycleway route is recommended given that cyclists will be travelling downhill. Cyclists will be able to access the footpath on the western side via a proposed cyclist ramp, close to the Epping Road/ Sam Johnson Way intersection.

 

·    For westbound/ southbound travel, from Epping Road to Mars Road, a bicycle path (with a 0.5m wide concrete separator) is recommended along the southern side.

 

Community Consultation

 

Statement of Intent

 

The consultation is designed to provide the community with the opportunity to comment on the proposed initiatives and actions in the plan, prior to Council adopted.  The methods of consultation proposed are outlined below.

 

Method

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Open

Target Audience

Whole Community

Whole Community

Proposed Medium

Advertisement,

eNewsletter and Facebook

Public Exhibition,

Website Exhibition and

Social Pinpoint (see below for details).

Indicative Timing

June to July

 

Social Pinpoint

It is proposed that Social Pinpoint be utilised as a means of consultation in relation to the 2019 Bicycle Plan.  Social Pinpoint is a community engagement software tool which allows the community to pin point their concerns on an interactive online map.  Residents can mark out existing and proposed cycleways, crossings, signage or pavement markings wherever they deem necessary.  Residents will also be able to view suggestions put forward by other members of the community.  These suggestions will then be reviewed by the project team and will be addressed accordingly.  The online mapping tool can be accessed via the have your say page on the Council’s website.

 

Conclusion

 

The 2019 Bicycle Plan builds on the previous 2013 Bike Plan and aims to provide a safe, accessible and connected bicycle network in the Lane Cove LGA. The document provides an action plan which will assist Council to deliver its improvements over the next five (5) years.  The Plan requires regular monitoring for progression tracking and is designed to be reviewed and updated in a five (5) year period.


 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.         Council adopt the Draft 2019 Bicycle Plan for the purpose of public exhibition;

 

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

 

3.         Following public exhibition, the Draft 2019 Bicycle Plan together with a report on any submissions received, be considered at a subsequent Council meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Terescenko

Executive Manager - Open Space and Urban Services

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Draft 2019 Bicycle Plan

179 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Short Term Map

1 Page

 

AT‑3View

Long Term Map

1 Page

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 May 2019

Burns Bay Road / Penrose Street Pinch Point

 

 

Subject:          Burns Bay Road / Penrose Street Pinch Point    

Record No:    SU1326 - 24060/19

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Sashika Perera 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The NSW Government has committed over $825 million to fixing pinch points across Sydney’s road network. The Pinch Point Program aims to reduce traffic delays, manage congestion and improve travel times on Sydney's major roads, particularly during weekday peak periods.

 

The Burns Bay Road/Penrose Street intersection has been identified as a main pinch point in the local road network as it is subject to congestion and delayed travel times during peak hours.  This intersection provides a connection between two (2) major road corridors that run through the Lane Cove Local Government Area (LGA).

 

The report recommends that Council for funding to upgrade the subject intersection under the NSW Government’s Pinch Point Program.

 

Background

 

The River Road/Penrose Street corridor is the main east-west link through the Lane Cove LGA. The corridor connects to the Centennial Avenue/Burns Bay Road corridor which is the main arterial route running north-south across the LGA.

 

The two (2) corridors meet at the signalised intersection of Penrose Street and Burns Bay Road. The eastern approach of the intersection (Penrose Street) currently comprises of a designated left turn lane and a shared left, through and right lane.

 

The main movement is the left turn from Penrose Street into Burns Bay Road whilst the through and right turn movements are minor. As such, the current lane designation delays the left turn movement into Burns Bay Road causing congestion and increased travel times.

 

Discussion

 

The subject intersection, under the Pinch Point Program can be upgraded to introduce an additional lane with dual left turn lanes and one shared through and right turn lane.  These modifications would optimise the operation of the signals and improve the turning path for the left turn from Penrose Street into Burns Bay Road.  Currently there is only one left turn lane from Penrose Street into Burns Bay Road and during peak periods this road experiences extensive traffic congestion.

 

During the consultation undertaken by the RMS for the Epping Road/Centennial Avenue intersection upgrade works, one of the key matters raised by the community was regarding the congestion issues at the Burns Bay Road/Penrose Street intersection.  RMS response to the concern was that there are no current plans to undertake improvements at the intersection of Burns Bay Road and Penrose Street. Further consultation with the RMS revealed that there is currently no funding allocated for the project, and it is not a priority for ‘Pinch Point’ funding as it is not a State Road, unlike Burns Bay Road. 


 

Conclusion

 

Given the on-going community concerns and that the Burns Bay Road/Penrose Street intersection provides a key connection between two major road corridors within the Lane Cove LGA, funding should to be allocated to upgrade the subject intersection under the NSW Government’s Pinch Point Program.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.       Write to TfNSW requesting the allocation of funding for the upgrade of the Burns Bay Road / Penrose Street intersection under the NSW Government’s Pinch Point Program; and

2.       Write to the local member, The Hon. Anthony Roberts MP, Member for Lane Cove, requesting his support.

 

 

 

 

 

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 20 May 2019

Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Determination for Councillor Fees

 

 

Subject:          Local Government Remuneration Tribunal Determination for Councillor Fees    

Record No:    SU839 - 23593/19

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Simon Cole 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report details the recent 2019 determination of the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal (the Tribunal)  for Councillors Fees.

 

Background

 

The Tribunal is responsible for categorising councils and determining the minimum and maximum fees paid to mayors and councillors in each category. The Tribunal reported to the Minister for Planning and Public Spaces on 15 April 2019 in accordance with Sections 239 and 241 of the Local Government Act, on its review and determination of annual fees.

 

Consistent with the NSW Government’s wages policy, the Tribunal determined an increase in annual fees of 2.5% effective from 1 July 2019.

 

The following table below shows the current annual fees to be paid to the Mayor and Lane Cove Councillors, as well as 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)

$43,150

$19,580

$44,230

Councillors

$19,790

$9,190

$20,280

 

It is noted that Council’s Draft Budget for 2019/20 provides for a 2.5% increase.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council determine the appropriate fee to be paid to the Mayor and Councillors for 2019/2020.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 May 2019

3rd Quarter Review of the 2018-19 Delivery Program and Operational Plan

 

 

Subject:          3rd Quarter Review of the 2018-19 Delivery Program and Operational Plan    

Record No:    SU238 - 23718/19

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Kirsty Beram 

 

 

Executive Summary

This report outlines the 3rd Quarter progress towards achieving the projects listed in the adopted 2018-19 Delivery Program and Operational Plan.  It is recommended that the report be received and noted.

 

Discussion

Council’s adopted 2018-19 Delivery Program and Operational Plan details the projects proposed to be undertaken during the financial year in order to meet the goals and objectives of Community Strategic Plan, “Liveable Lane Cove: 2035”.  Council reports quarterly on the progress towards completing the projects and achieving the targets for the adopted performance measurements. The 3rd Quarter Review of the 2018-19 Delivery Program and Operational Plan is shown attached as AT-1

 

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

 

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

Highlights for the 3rd quarter include:-

·    Sunset in the Village program including Australia Day and Lunar New Year celebrations, Kaleidoscope events and Sunset Artist Markets (January to March);

·    Results of the Plastic Straw Reduction Program, which was launched to assist local businesses transition from single use straws to more sustainable alternatives were assessed (January);

·    Specialty Leasing Agent for The Canopy Food and Beverage Precinct appointed (January);

·    New Street Libraries installed at Kimberley Playground (Kimberley Avenue, Lane Cove), Stringybark Creek Reserve (Centennial Ave, Lane Cove North), Ludowici Reserve (Penrose Street, Lane Cove) and Lloyd Rees Park (Northwood) (January to March).

·    Lane Cove Seniors Festival held offering a range of activities for locals 55 years and over (February)

·    Completion and grand opening of Stage 1 of Mindarie Park upgrade, an inclusive playspace which provides a place where people of all ages and abilities can come together and connect (February)

·    Commenced demolition of Lane Cove Olympic Pool (February) and Development Application for replacement of the 50m pool approved (March);

·    Obtained RMS approval to proceed with the installation of a pedestrian refuge island on River Road at the Lane Cove Golf Course and pedestrian crossing on Central Avenue at Longueville Road to improve pedestrian safety (February);

·    Expanded the solar powered bin program to the Plaza with 10 new bins installed (February);

·    Submission lodged in response to the State Government’s St Leonards and Crows Nest Draft 2036 Plan package (Feburary);

·    Awarded tenders for the maintenance of the Lane Cove Golf Course and for appointment to Council’s Legal Services Panel (February);

·    Supported the Move More in March wellness program (March);

·    40+ space temporary car park opened at Birdwood Lane (March);

·    Hosted a Clean Up Australia Day event at Manns Point where 60 volunteers collected over 50kg of waste (March); and

·    Commenced community consultations in relation to the Draft Delivery Program, Budget and Fees and Charges for 2019, Draft Code of Conduct and Draft Code of Meeting Practice (March).

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the 3rd Quarter Review of the 2018-19 Delivery Program and Operational Plan be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

3rd Quarter Review of the 2018-19 Delivery Program and Operational Plan

70 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 May 2019

Greenwich Library - Results of Opening Hours Survey

 

 

Subject:          Greenwich Library - Results of Opening Hours Survey    

Record No:    SU1709 - 24091/19

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Jennifer Bice; Jillian Yau 

 

 

Executive Summary

Council recently reviewed the Greenwich Library operating hours with a view to better facilitate the demand for greater use of the library by the community.  Based on the feedback received via a survey to all residents, it is recommended that the following changes to hours of operation be implemented.

 

Current Opening Hours

Proposed Opening hours

Monday Closed

Monday 1pm-5pm

Tuesday 2pm-7pm

Tuesday 1pm-5pm

Wednesday 1pm-5:30pm

Wednesday 2pm-7pm

Thursday 10am-7pm

Thursday 2pm-7pm

Saturday 9am-1pm

Saturday 9:30am-2pm

 

This review also assumed that there would be no budget increase or additional staff resources incurred as a result of making changes to the opening hours. This report recommends standardising opening times to afternoons and spreading the hours over five (5) days. This proposal also includes opening the Library until 7.00pm on Wednesday and Thursday evenings.  The Library conducted a survey to measure the users’ support for proposed changes to Library hours. This report discusses the responses which were received.  Generally, the community support the changes.

 

Background

 

Library services, collections and programs are reviewed on an ongoing basis. However, Greenwich Library opening hours have not been reviewed for many years and over those years Library users’ requirements and usage patterns have changed.

 

Greenwich Library is an 85m² space with a total stock of approximately 10,000 items, with new and rotated stock being added on a weekly basis. Greenwich Library is open 22.5 hours per week -there are no plans to change the total opening hours.

 

In 2017-2018, Greenwich Library lent 10,569 items which included 5,685 adult items and 4,884 junior items. The year to date (July 2018 - April 2019) shows an increase of 1,704 loans on the 2017-18 figures. The current active membership at Greenwich Library is total 1,141, with 863 adults and 278 children and young adults.  The Library has two (2) public computers with free access to the Library catalogue, the Internet, email, Excel, Word and PowerPoint. WIFI and a photocopier/printer are also available.  The Library subscribes to the Saturday edition of the Sydney Morning Herald.  A monthly Crafternoon Tea for adults is held on Tuesdays at 2pm.

 

The current opening hours were designed to accommodate storytelling sessions for the local preschool on Wednesday mornings and Thursday afternoons. However, KU Preschool Greenwich has not required storytelling for more than four years. Due to this change the Library introduced an open storytime (11.00am Wednesdays during school terms) that serves the entire Greenwich community.

 

Other changes in usage patterns include an increase in library computer use, more people accessing WiFi on their own devices and more interest in school holiday programs e.g. 14 children attended the Easter Craft Session in April 2019.

 

The response to the survey suggests that some revision to opening hours would be welcomed by the community.

 

Discussion

The Greenwich Library Opening Hours Survey was available online and printed copies were made available at Lane Cove and Greenwich Libraries (survey attached). The survey was open for six weeks commencing mid-March and closing at the end of April 2018.

 

About Respondents

 

The survey was completed by more females than males:

 

This is not unusual for Library surveys and may reflect Greenwich Library usage.

 

The largest group of survey respondents were in the 35-49 years and 75+ years age groups. However, when added together, the 65+ age groups total 40% of respondents.

 

 

It is worth noting that most respondents were regular Library users with 78% visiting the library at least every 3 weeks (or more frequently).

 

 

 

Response to Opening Hours Questions

 

1.   Do you find the current Library hours convenient?

 

The majority of respondents did not find the current Library hours convenient. It is possible that the response was quite high because respondents preferred the proposed hours that preceded this question on the survey form.

 

2.   Do you agree with the proposal to spread opening hours over five days?

 

There was overwhelming agreement (84%) that the Library hours should be spread over five days.

 

3.   Would opening the Library on Monday afternoons enable you to make greater use of the Library?

 

There was strong agreement (73%) that opening the Library on Monday afternoons would allow them to make greater use of Greenwich Library.

 

If this change was approved the current Wednesday 11.00am Storytime (that was introduced in 2015 when KU Preschool Greenwich advised the Library that they no longer required storytelling) would be moved to Monday 11.00am. Junior Library staff would be better able to support Greenwich Library’s Storytime on a Monday as this time does not coincide with Baby Bounce, Toddler Time or Storytime at Lane Cove Library.

 

4.   Would closing the Library at 5:00pm on Tuesday afternoons impact on your use of the Library?

 

68% of respondents indicated that closing the Library 2 hours earlier would not impact on their use of the Library. It is worth noting that under the proposed hours, the Library would be opening one hour earlier on a Tuesday.

 

This suggested change would also standardise opening hours at Greenwich on Mondays and

Tuesdays.

 

5.   Would opening the Library at 2:00pm on Wednesday and Thursday afternoons impact on your use of the Library?

 

68% of respondents felt that opening the Library one hour later on Wednesday and three hours later on Thursday would not impact on their use of the library. These changed would allow opening the Library until 7pm on Wednesday and Thursday evenings. This would also enable the Library to introduce Monday afternoon opening hours.

 

6.   Would opening the Library until 7:00pm on Wednesday evenings enable you to make greater use of the Library?

 

65% of respondents answered that they would be able to make greater use of the Library if it were open on a Wednesday night. In 2018 Lane Cove Library increased Wednesday opening hours and staff would now be able to offer reference support to Greenwich on a Wednesday evening.

 

This change would also standardise the Greenwich Library opening hours for Wednesdays and Thursdays.

 

7.   Would extending the opening hours by 30 minutes on Saturday afternoons enable you to make greater use of the Library?

 

The majority (76%) of respondents felt that extending the Saturday hours by 30 minutes would enable them to make greater use of the Library.

 

 

Comments About Opening Hours

 

There were 38 surveys that included additional comments that were generally very supportive of the Library service and the proposed changes to Library hours.

 

Five (5) respondents (5%) requested retaining a morning opening while another five (5%) wanted the library to open longer hours in general. This would have a significant budget impact and is not recommended at this time.

 

Two (2) respondents (2%) requested purchasing the Sydney Morning Herald more frequently – currently only available Saturday mornings. The current subscription cost for SMH Saturday edition is $188.72, while a weekly subscription would be $787.23. To accommodate this request the Serials Budget would need to be increased by approximately.

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

Greenwich Library recently conducted a survey about changing Library operating hours with a view to better serving the requirements of the Greenwich community. The proposed opening hours assumed that there would be no change to the total number of opening hours.

The survey asked the community whether they supported standardising weekday opening times to afternoons as well as spreading the hours over more days.

Generally, the community support the changes with a number of respondents making suggestions that could be considered at a later date if additional resources became available. It is worth noting that Council will be providing a Library space at St Leonards in a few years’ time – there may be opportunities to schedule complementary hours at the two libraries to increase community benefit.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council authorise the following changes to the Greenwich Library operating hours:-

1.   Change opening hours to 1.00pm – 5.00pm Monday and Tuesday;

2.   Change opening hours to 2.00pm – 7.00pm Wednesday and Thursday; and

3.   Change opening hours to 9.30am – 2.00pm Saturday.

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Greenwich Library Hours Survey

2 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 May 2019

3rd Quarter Review 2018 - 19 Budget

 

 

Subject:          3rd Quarter Review 2018 - 19 Budget    

Record No:    SU757 - 24296/19

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The 3rd Quarter 2018 - 19 Budget Review involves a variety of variations in both income and expenditure. It is recommended that the Budget be varied in terms of the report.

 

Background

 

Council is required to prepare a Budget Review Statement each quarter, in accordance with Clause 203 of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005. This report is prepared in accordance with the clause for the period ending 31st March 2019. The Office of Local Government has issued a prescribed format for reviews which is included as an attachment to this report. The purpose of these reviews is to ensure that the impact of financial variations is reflected in the forecast of Council’s global budgetary position to 30 June 2019, and the adopted Budget adjusted accordingly.

 

Discussion

The following is a summary of Council’s adopted Budget for 2018 – 2019 and the revised Budget following the adjustments for the September 2018 and December 2018 quarterly reviews and further adjustments proposed for the period ending 31 March 2019 and outlined in this report:-

 

 

Original Budget

000’s


1st Quarter Adjustments

000,s

 

2nd Quarter Adjustments 000,s

 

3rd Quarter Adjustments

000,s

 

 Revised Budget

000,s

Expenditure

$44,180

$124

$66

$105

$44,475

Income

$96,762

$142

$100

$130

 $97,134

Surplus/ (Deficit)

$52,582

$18

$34

        $25

$62,659

Surplus/(Deficit) before

Capital           Grants/Contributions

$31,063

$18

$34

 

        $25

 

$31,140

 

Operating Expenditure

 

There are a number of changes to Operating Expenditure recommended for 3rd Quarter Review. The major changes recommended are additional costs for corporate legal and valuation fees and expenses relating to the new customer request and telephone systems which will enhance customer experience. In addition, there was a minor increase in Civic Events and design fees for road design in Sera Street.

 

Operating Income

Adjustments recommended in Operating Income that offset additional expenditure are higher than expected fees for construction zones and crane permits.

Capital Expenditure

Capital Expenditure changes for the 3rd Quarter were for the demolition and upgrade of the Lane Cove Aquatic Centre outdoor pool and grandstand. Also, additional funds were required for network design changes in IT having regard to the upcoming upgrade of Authority computer system.

Capital Income

 

Capital Income adjustments was the Transfer from Reserve to fund the upgrade of the Aquatic Centre.

 

Conclusion

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

It is my opinion that the quarterly Budget Review Statement for Lane Cove Council for the quarter ended 31 March 2019 indicates that Council's projected financial position will be satisfactory at year end 30 June 2019, having regard to the projected estimates of income and expenditure and the original budgeted income and expenditure.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the 2018 – 2019 Budget be varied as follows:-

 

 

Original Budget

000’s


1st Quarter Adjustments

000,s

 

2nd Quarter Adjustments 000,s

 

3rd Quarter Adjustments

000,s

 

Revised Budget

000,s

Expenditure

$44,180

$124

$66

$105

$44,475

Income

$96,762

$142

$100

$130

$97,134

Surplus / (Deficit)

$52,582

$18

$34

$25

$62,659

Surplus / (Deficit) before Capital Grants / Contributions

$31,063

$18

$34

 

$25

 

$31,140

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

March Review 2019

7 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 May 2019

Local Planning Panel Delegation to Conduct Appeal Matters

 

 

Subject:          Local Planning Panel Delegation to Conduct Appeal Matters    

Record No:    SU4720 - 24581/19

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Rajiv Shankar 

 

 

Executive Summery

 

This report outlines the role and options for the Local Planning Panel (LPP) in the event a determination or decision of the Panel is subject to an Appeal in the Land and Environment Court. 

 

Background

 

Determinations or decisions made by the Lane Cove Local Planning Panel are, on occasion, subject to an Appeal in the Land and Environment Court.  Under such circumstances the EP&A Act 1979, Section 8.15 requires the LPP to be respondent to the Appeal.  The LPP is able to delegate this role to Council staff.  Therefore, for administrative efficiency, it is proposed to seek the delegation for all appeals against determinations made by the LPP.

 

Discussion

 

When an Appeal is lodged against a determination by the LPP, Council is obliged to advise the Panel of such an Appeal and seek guidance as to its position and/or direction whether to defend the Appeal or ascertain if the Panel members wish to participate in the Appeal process.

 

Such participation may include input into the preparation of Facts and Contention, a wish to participate in any Section 34 or 34AA Conference.  Alternatively, Council’s Local Planning Panel may delegate the conduct of such matters as permitted by Section 2.20(8) of the Act to Council, through the General Manager. 

 

Generally, the intention of the Panel is made clear at the time of the determination.  However, there are occasions where the Panel may determine an application differently to that of the recommendation of the Council staff report, include additional conditions, or delete draft conditions as part of its consideration and determination of an application.

 

In these circumstances Panel members are considered public officials (EP&A Act 2.20(9) and may seek to participate in the Appeal.

 

The Lane Cove Planning Panel operates on a rotating membership taken from a pool of three (3) Chairpersons, experts and community stakeholders.  Panel members are rotated on a random basis to ensure diversity of view and consistency of approach.

 

Any legal proceedings taken by or against a Panel determination are taken in the name of the Panel (LCLPP) not individual Panel members.

 

In respect of Appeals the Pane may:

 

1.   Delegate to the General Manager the role of responding to an Appeal, having regard to their determination and reasons for their decision.

 

2.   Seek to actively participate in the Court process by wishing to address the Court or to instruct Council’s legal team on the position to be taken in any Appeal.

 

3.   Delegate to the General Manager the role of responding to all Appeals as he or she judges appropriate.

 

For administrative efficiency, it is proposed to seek from the panel a delegation to the General Manager to respond to all Appeals as they see fit and keep them advised of the appeals process.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:-

1.       The General Manager seek from the Local Planning Panel a delegation to the General Manager to respond to all Appeals as they see fit, and keep them advised of the appeals process; and

2.       Subject to the Local Planning Panel granting the delegation, the General Manager be authorised to accept the delegation.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


 

Ordinary Council   20 May 2019

1 Sirius Road, Lane Cove West.

 

 

Subject:          1 Sirius Road, Lane Cove West.    

Record No:    SU7401 - 25432/19

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Christopher Shortt 

 

 

Property:                                 1 Sirius Road Lane Cove West

 

No:                                          SSD 9741

 

Cost of Work:                          $216,465,700.00

 

Owner:                                    Rove Estate Pty Ltd

 

Applicant:                                Greenbox Architecture

 

Executive Summary

 

The Minister for Planning is the Consent Authority and written submissions on this State Significant Development proposal will be accepted until 31 May 2019. (Extended from the original date of 13 May 2019.)  This report highlights aspects of the proposed development, issues and concerns that Council may wish to include in a submission to the Department of Planning.

 

Discussion

 

State Significant Development

 

As per State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 (SRD SEPP) Schedule, Part 12 (1), the proposal is classified as State Significant Development (SSD) as the Capital Investment Value (CIV) for the proposed Warehouse and Distribution Centre exceeds AU$50 million. The NSW Department of Planning and Environment (Minister for Planning) is the consent authority for State Significant Development proposals.

 

Site

 

The site is located at 1 Sirius Road Lane Cove West and is legally known as Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 1151370. The site is located within the Lane Cove West Business Park precinct andhas a total area of 39,453 sqm. It is currently undeveloped and contains no built structures. A portion of the non-vegetated part of the site contains deposits of excavated material which is subject to a

contamination investigation by the Environmental Protection Authority. The topography of the site is generally grading towards the Lane Cove River at 4-5%.

 

Industrial warehouses fronting Siruis Road and Apollo Place are located east and south of the site. West of the site are sensitive land uses within the E2 Environmental Conservation zone (Lane Cove National Park) containing Riparian Lands and Watercourses and Coastal Wetlands bushfire prone land.

 

 

 

Figure 1: Location plan.

 

Proposal

 

The proposed development seeks consent to develop the site for the purpose of a Data Centre, operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Data Centre would provide storage and management facilities for the electronic information of large technology companies.

 

·    The Data Centre will comprise two main halls, main office, substation, loading docks, plant equipment, car parking and road access.

·    The halls are proposed to be a maximum 3-storeys in height with plant equipment above and 1 level of basement below.

·    The proposed total gross floor area is 34,282 sqm.

·    A total of 76 car parking spaces are proposed to be provided.

·    The Data Centre is anticipated to accommodate approximately 80 - 100 employees.

·    The proposal includes earthworks and site infrastructure works across the site.

·    Access to the site is proposed via Sirius Road via a proposed entry / exit point accompanied by turning loops within the site.

·    Infrastructure and services are proposed to the site where necessary including potable water, electricity, gas, waste water and telecommunications.

 

Figure 2: Proposed site plan.

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3: Existing site aerial view facing south.

 

Figure 4: Proposed site aerial view facing south.

 

 

Proposal Data / Policy Compliance

 

Local Environmental Plan 2009

 

Zoning:           IN2 Light Industrial

 

Site Area:       39,453 sqm

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

Floor Space Ratio

0.87:1

1:1

Yes

Height of Buildings

24m

18m

No

 

Comprehensive DCP

 

A desktop review of the proposed development reveals the following issues and concerns.

 

Part E Industrial Development

 

 

Proposed

Control

Complies

E.4 Site layout objectives

 

(1). To minimise any adverse environmental effects through planning of the site’s layout

No

 

The proposed development could improve its layout to reduce impacts on adjoining endangered ecological areas.

E.5 Building setbacks

10m setback

Minimum front setback = 8m.

 

Minimum side and rear adjoining non-industrial uses = 4m.

Yes

E.6 Cut and Fill Provisions

 

(a)  All development to relate to existing topography of the land

No

 

Cut and fill is acceptable in terms of reducing the overall building envelope.

However excessive cut and fill which would unnecessarily disturb the site should be minimised.

 

 

E.7 Building design and appearance.

 

(a)III Rear boundary walls to be treated aesthetically 

(m) All rooftop or exposed structures including lift motor rooms, plant rooms, etc, together with air conditioning, ventilation and exhaust systems, are to be integrated with the building design in order to ensure interesting and high quality appearance

Capable of complying subject to:

 

 soft vegetated batters should be incorporated rather than hard retaining walls.

 

And

 

The rooftop condensers should be screened to soften their visual impact;

 

Site specific DCP -locality 1 Land off Sirius Road

 

E.13 Objectives

 

(1). Provide development which is compatible with the environmentally sensitive nature of the area

 

(2). Encourage the design of buildings which will maintain the bushland character of the site when viewed from surrounding public lands, foreshore bush tracks, the Lane Cove River and Stringy Bark Creek.

No

 

Greater consideration is required to

E.14 Provisions (a)

10m from boundary

Buildings shall be set back a minimum of 10m from any boundary which adjoins an open space and minimum of 20m from Stringy Bark Creek

Capable of complying.

Need further detail/clarification that site is that setback 20m from Stringybark Creek

E.14 Provisions (d)

 

Building and work shall not be undertaken within areas shown as ‘bushland’ on DCP Map T05/36.

No.

Proposed development appears to encroach into area marked as bushland in northeastern corner of the site.

The proposed parking appears to encroach into area marked as bushland in southeastern corner of site.

 

E.14 Provisions (h)

 

Applications shall be accompanied by a statement as to the means by which the bushland on the DCP map shall be protected at all times.

No

 

A clear commitment to protect on site bushland would be welcome in this ecologically sensitive area.

 

Figure 5: Site specific DCP plan.

 

 

 

 


 

Referrals

 

The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Tree Officer, Bushland Management, Development Engineer, Traffic Engineer, Environmental Health, Building Surveyors, Strategic Planners, and statutory planners, with the following issues being identified for being in need of further consideration or information.

 

Issues and Concerns

 

Environmental Concerns:

 

·    The proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of bushland and tree canopy. The proposed removal of 125 trees or 73.1% of all trees on site. This is contrary with the relevant objectives of SEPP 19, Lane Cove LEP 2009, Lane Cove DCP 2010, and Planning priority N19 of the North District Plan;

·    The proposed development would potentially have a detrimental impact on the environmentally sensitive areas adjoining the site. These include Coastal Freshwater Swamp Forest, Estuarine Swamp Oak Forest, and Estuarine Saltmarsh;

·    The proposal would result in significant cut and fill of the site. Cut and fill could be considered acceptable in relation to lowering the height and visual profile of the development when viewed from Lane Cove River and the public domain; and

·    However, the proposed total cut volume of 132,200 cubic metres, and total fill volume of 38,520 cubic metres would result in an excessive amount of disturbance. The amount of cut and fill should be revised to reduce the impact on adjoining environmentally sensitive areas.

 

Visual Impacts:

 

·    Soft vegetated batters should be incorporated rather than hard retaining walls. In particular, the retaining walls adjacent to the north road should be reconsidered to ensure the proposal better blends with the natural setting of the site;

·    The rooftop condensers should be screened to soften their visual impact.

·    The 3-storey plant building north of the lower access road should be relocated to the southern end of the site where it would be less visually prominent; and

·    Consider adding fill externally to the building to reduce the visual impact of the building.

 

Traffic Impacts:

 

·    The application proposes 76 vehicle spaces. The proposed number of vehicle spaces does not comply with Part R of the DCP. A minimum of 123 vehicle spaces is required for a development. The applicant is required to clarify and justify their position for reduced parking on site, including initiatives to encourage the use of alternative modes of transport such as public transport and bicycle.

 


 

Stormwater Runoff:

 

·    The proposal would result in approximately 74% of the site becoming impervious. This would dramatically increase runoff and directly affect the quantity and quality of groundwater flowing into Stringybark Creek, Lane Cove River and associated sensitive areas; and

·    To mitigate stormwater runoff and loss of groundwater flows its impacts on bushland Onsite Stormwater Detention (OSD) and a dispersion system that evenly spreads the water runoff should be incorporated as part of the stormwater management of the site.

 

Lane Cove Council Site Specific DCP - Location 1 - Land off Sirius Road:

 

·    The key objectives and principles of the DCP have not been addressed by the applicant in the statement. In particular: -

Clause E14 (a) requires that all buildings be setback a minimum of 20m from Stringybark Creek. It is not clear in the documentation if the built form encroaches the 20m buffer area.

Clause E14 (d) requires that no buildings or works be undertaken on any area shown as ‘bushland’ in the site specific DCP Map (Figure 5). The proposed buildings and carparking areas both appear to significantly encroach into areas earmarked as bushland.  Consideration of this environmental habitat needs to be a primary element by the building footprint.

Height:

 

·    Under Clause 4.3, Height of Buildings in the Lane Cove LEP 2009, the site is subject to a maximum building height of 18m. The development proposes a maximum building height of 24m which exceeds the control by 6m or a non-compliance of 33.3%. It is recommended that an alternate building envelope be explored to meet the objectives of the height controls.

·      A clause 4.6 variation statement was lodged. It is the position of Council that the proposed development does not meet all the objectives of the IN2 Light Industrial Zone and further design considerations are necessary to justify any variation.

 

Further Information:

 

Council calls for further information, analysis and consideration to be submitted to allow a more comprehensive understanding of the environmental, traffic and site management issues. It is requested that the following information be submitted to the NSW Department of Planning for consideration:

·    An amended Tree Protection Plan which shows additional protection measures and the impacts on proposed trees to be retained;

·    An amended Sediment Control Plan with consideration being shown to adjoining endangered wetland vegetation and other bushland vegetation;

·    A Loading Management plan is required for the site; and

·    A study on the overall impacts of the collecting, piping and redirecting a large percentage of the catchment area to adjoining Ecologically Endangered and Sensitive Vegetation.

 


 

Conclusion

 

Council acknowledges that the addition of the proposed Data Centre would be beneficial to the economy of the state and the local area. The proposed high-tech industry would also provide employment opportunities to the Lane Cove West Business Park.

 

However, Council does not support the proposed development in its current form. Primarily Council does not support the level of tree loss, excavation, impacts on groundwater flows, especially in relation to environmentally sensitive areas adjoining the site.

 

It is recommended the design be altered to allow the retainment of a larger percentage of canopy trees in line with the DCP controls. The extent of cut and fill to the site be reduced and the design should be adapted to better fit the topography of the site.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council make a submission to the Minister detailing the concerns and Council’s suggestions outlined in the report to minimise the likely environmental impacts of the current design

to strike a better balance between economic benefits and adverse environmental impacts.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 20 May 2019

Council Snapshot

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot    

Record No:    SU220 - 25266/19

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 April 2019.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Council Snapshot April 2019

38 Pages