Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

19 August 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 19 August 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. To speak at a public forum you must register your details with Council by 5:00pm on the day of the Council meeting at which you will be speaking.  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 (02) 9911 3550.

 

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 19 August 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 - 22 JULY 2019

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

2.       Emergency Services Levy Increase Update

 

Petitions

 

3.       Petition to Extend the Lane Cove Library Opening Hours

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

4.       St Leonards South Update - Outcome of Independent Planning Commission Findings

 

5.       Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement - Public Exhibition

 

6.       Review of Council's Use of Glyphosate

 

7.       Tender for the Head Contractor for the Lane Cove 50m Pool and Grandstand Replacement

 

8.       July 2019 Traffic Committee Meeting

 

9.       Local Government Conference NSW 2019 - Voting Delegates

 

10.     Smart Cities Conference 2019

 

Officer Reports for Information

 

11.     4th Quarter Review of the 2018-19 Delivery Program and Operational Plan

 

12.     Northwood Shops Planning Proposal 29 Update

 

13.     Council Snapshot July 2019  

 

 

          


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 August 2019

Emergency Services Levy Increase Update

 

 

Subject:          Emergency Services Levy Increase Update    

Record No:    SU6479 - 48221/19

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Pam Palmer 

 

 

Executive Summary

                                                              

From 1 July 2019 the NSW Government planned to collect an additional $160 million (in 2019/20) from NSW councils, communities and those paying insurance premiums to provide better workers’ compensation coverage for volunteer and career firefighters.

 

However, the concern from Councils was that sector was at no point advised that it would be required to cover the cost via significant increases to the emergency services levy, or what this cost would be. Councils were sent bills with a letter from Revenue NSW in May 2019, stating that NSW council contributions would increase in 2019/20. The letter also foreshadowed increases in the following year, but not the amount. Lane Cove received an invoice from Revenue NSW for $759,252 for its 2019/2020 emergency services levy contribution (an increase of 11.70%).

 

Council resolved at its meeting held 22 July 2019 to write to the Premier, NSW Opposition Leader and relevant Ministers calling upon the government to fund the 12 months of this extra cost rather than requiring councils to find the funds at short notice when budgets have already been allocated

 

I am pleased to advise that the NSW Government has announced it will fund the first-year increase of the emergency services levy for local councils, meeting the cost of new workers' compensation arrangements for firefighters. This is a great outcome for the sector.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Pam Palmer

Mayor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 August 2019

Petition to Extend the Lane Cove Library Opening Hours

 

 

Subject:          Petition to Extend the Lane Cove Library Opening Hours    

Record No:    SU1705 - 44245/19

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Jennifer Bice 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has received a petition with 331 signatures calling for an increase to Library opening hours and suggesting that the Library be open 12 hours per day seven (7) days per week (84 hours per week). The head petitioner cites the Library’s high usage and popularity as a facility enjoyed by the whole community.

 

After considering the matters raised in the petition and taking into account the impact on Council, the decision to extend library opening hours would ultimately put pressure on Council’s budget and would be out-of-step with neighbouring council library services. In addition, after analyzing the data on the number of library visits during the current opening hours, it was concluded that there would not be a demand for the later trading hours (9pm Fri-Sun).

 

As per Council’s resolution of May 2019, it is recommended that Council consider increasing the Library’s Sunday opening hours by three (3) hours (increasing the total hours to 68.5 hours per week) after the opening of The Canopy. This would mean that Lane Cove Library would be open longer hours than all northern Sydney council main libraries, apart from North Sydney (Stanton) Library.

                                                              

Background

 

In May 2018 Council considered a report that recommended increasing the Lane Cove Library opening hours.  It was recommended that the Library standardise opening times to 9:30am seven (7) days per week and open Wednesday evenings. Overall the proposal meant that the Library would be opened an additional 6½ hours per week.  This was funded within the existing budget. Council supported the recommendation and the new hours were introduced in July 2018.

 

Council also resolved at the May 2018 Ordinary Council Meeting to:-

“2.   Consult the community about extending the Sunday closing time after completion of the Rosenthal Project; and

3.    Consult the community about opening the Library at 9:00am after completion of the Rosenthal Project.”

 

Council has now received a petition that requests the Library open an additional 18.5 hours per week which would have a significant budget impact.

 

Discussion

 

Lane Cove Library is a popular community facility that offers a range of predominantly free services and programs. As the Library makes little income (overdue fines, reserve fees, photocopying, printing and room bookings) and is required to pay operating costs (salaries, electricity, air conditioning/mechanical, cleaning, telephones, etc.) any increase to Library hours will have a financial impact on Council’s budget.


 

Petition

 

The petition presented to Council has been conducted on change.org and includes many non-residents. The petition includes overseas and interstate petitioners and many names from other parts of Sydney. While locations like “Australia” or “Sydney, Australia” make it difficult to identify exact locations it is likely that Lane Cove residents comprise less than 50% of the petitioners.

 

As the Library is funded primarily from Council rates, fees and charges it is reasonable that the financial impact on the wider Lane Cove community be considered.

 

Comparison with Other Northern Sydney Libraries

 

In assessing this petition Council might consider the opening hours of other Northern Sydney libraries that also provide popular facilities:

 

Hornsby

Ku-ring-gai (Gordon)

Lane Cove

Mosman

North Sydney (Stanton)

Northern Beaches

(Dee Why)

Ryde

Willoughby (Chatswood)

Monday

10am - 9pm

9am - 8pm

9:30am - 9pm

9:30am -5:30pm

9am - 9pm

9am - 8pm

10am - 9pm

9am - 9pm

Tuesday

10am - 9pm

9am - 8pm

9:30am - 9pm

9:30am - 9pm

9am - 9pm

9am - 8pm

10am - 9pm

9am - 9pm

Wednesday

10am - 9pm

9am - 8pm

9:30am - 9pm

9:30pm - 5:30pm

9am - 9pm

9am - 8pm

10am - 9pm

9am - 9pm

Thursday

10am - 9pm

9am - 8pm

9:30am - 9pm

9:30am - 9pm

9am - 9pm

9am - 8pm

10am - 9pm

9am - 9pm

Friday

10am - 9pm

9am - 5pm

9:30am - 5pm

9:30am -5:30pm

9am - 6pm

9am - 6pm

10am - 9pm

9am - 6pm

Saturday

9:30am - 5pm

9:30am - 5pm

9:30am - 5pm

10am - 4pm

10am - 5pm

10am - 4pm

9:30am - 5pm

9am - 5pm

Sunday

2pm - 5pm

9:30am - 5pm

9:30am - 2pm

10am - 4pm

10am - 5pm

2pm - 5pm

2pm - 5pm

2pm - 5pm

Hrs per week

65.5 hrs

67 hrs

65.5 hrs

59 hrs

71 hrs

62 hrs

65.5 hrs

68 hrs

 

Please note the following:-

·    Only North Sydney, Willoughby and Ku-ring- gai (that serve larger populations) are open longer hours;

·    Only Ku-ring-gai, North Sydney, Northern Beaches and Willoughby (that serve larger populations) open before 9:30am;

·    Only Ku-ring-gai, Mosman and North Sydney are open longer hours on a Sunday;

·    If Lane Cove was to increase Sunday opening hours (additional three (3) hours) only North Sydney would have longer operating hours;

·    The State Library opens for less hours than Lane Cove (64 hours vs 65.5 hours);

·    No northern Sydney council opens its libraries after 5pm on Saturday or Sunday evenings. Nor does the State Library of NSW; and

·    Lane Cove is the only library that has standardised opening hours seven (7) days per week (i.e. 9:30am).

 

Library Visits

 

Lane Cove Library (excluding Greenwich) had 477,417 visits in 2018/19. On the days when the Library opens until 9pm, approximately:-

·    32% of visits are from 9:30am-1pm;

·    44% visits are between 1-5pm; and

·    24% of visits occur after 5pm.

 

The visits from 9:30am-5pm Monday–Saturday vary between 1,150 to 1,200 people.  Saturday is not significantly busier than the other days of the week.

 

On Sundays the visit per hour is 155 people. Sunday visits per hour are lower than 1-5pm Monday - Saturday and less than Saturday mornings. Weekends may seem busier than weekdays due to the number of families visiting the library (groups rather than single visitors). Families are less likely to use the Library in the evenings. On average, 23 people enter the library between 8-9pm. 

 

Traditionally workers, families and students are less likely to visit on a Friday evening as they tend to socialise (spend family time) as projects are not due until Monday. When the community were surveyed in 2018, 80% of respondents indicated that closing the Library 30 minutes earlier on a Friday would not impact on their use of the Library. The Library opened 30 minutes earlier and there was no reduction in Friday opening hours.

 

Council is required to pay staff penalty rates on Saturdays and Sundays and this makes extending the hours on the weekend more expensive than during the week.  It is doubtful whether there would be widespread use of the Library on Saturday and Sunday evenings due to the range of family, social, community and sporting commitments that occur on weekends.

 

The request for the extended hours may relate to HSC students requiring additional hours for study. Lane Cove Library has organised a Free HSC Program this year including:-

 

·        HSC Study Exam Preparation Workshop (6-7:30pm Wednesday 4 September). Andrew Marselos, founder of Think Tuition will provide practical tips to help students organise information and study smarter not harder;

·        Managing HSC Stress and Exam Taking Techniques Workshop (6-7:30pm Wednesday 11 September). Andrew Marselos, founder of Think Tuition will discuss the role of mindset and positive self-talk and examine how to read, interpret and respond to exam questions; and

·        Three HSC Study Nights (5-8pm Friday 27 September, 4 October and 11 October). Students will enjoy exclusive use of the Library and experienced tutors will be available to answer last-minute study queries).

 

The Shorelink Libraries (Lane Cove, Mosman and Stanton) have also agreed to display each other’s HSC program information to provide students with a number of study options across the lower north shore.

 


 

Funding

 

Public library funding has been a concern for NSW councils for many years. NSW public libraries have been receiving the lowest per-capita funding from the State Government compared to all other states in Australia. The percentage of State funding had been falling since the 1980s since there was no indexing to population growth or consumer price index (CPI).

 

In 2018 Council endorsed the NSW Public Libraries Association and Local Government NSW library funding advocacy initiative, Renew Our Libraries. Due to the combined efforts of councils and libraries across NSW, the NSW Government committed an additional $60 million in funding for public libraries over four (4) years from 2019-20.

 

The scope of the increase for northern Sydney libraries is shown below:

 

Population

2018/19 Subsidy and Subsidy Adjustment

2019/20 Subsidy and Subsidy adjustment

Increase

Hornsby

150,752

349,350

$424,933

$75,583

Hunters Hill

14,909

43,826

$92,118

$48,292

Ku-ring-gai

126,046

293,331

$364,403

$71,072

Lane Cove

39,486

95,686

$152,331

$56,645

Mosman

30,877

78,123

$131,239

$53,116

North Sydney

74,172

175,216

$237,312

$62,096

Northern Beaches

271,278

639,267

$720,222

$80,955

Ryde

127,446

290,995

$368,454

$77,459

Willoughby

80,339

189,094

$252,421

$63,327

 

It is important to note that the 2018-19 State Budget delivered a 5% cut to recurrent public library funding.  The increase is being compared to a year when State funding had decreased. Council received less State funding than it had budgeted for in 2018-19 despite population growth.

 

Council will receive the State Government funding in late December 2019. With the additional State funding the State Government will contribute 4.1% of Lane Cove Library expenditure in 2019/20 compared to 2.6% in 2018/19. This funding increase would not fully cover the cost of opening the Library on Sunday afternoons and would not cover any of the costs for opening Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings. Council would need to find an additional approx. $172,000 (operating costs including salaries) in addition to the “increase” in State funding.

 

Security

 

There may also be a need to employ security staff during evening shifts, particularly during the HSC period (as is common at many libraries). Due to the lack of commercial activity on weekend evenings (and without a police station and rangers in the vicinity) staff would be largely on their own to deal with issues including vandalism, drunken customers and aggressive behaviour.

 

Staffing

 

The Library is staffed by a combination of professional librarians (University Degree), Library Officers (TAFE Diploma) and Library Assistants (customer service skills). Like other Australian workers they are entitled to receive pay and conditions as specified in an Award and employment contract. Please note that penalty rates apply to Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays.

 

An extensive change as proposed by the petition would require consultation/negotiation with staff and the United Services Union.

 

Conclusion

 

While increasing the Library opening hours would provide greater access, it is doubtful that most Lane Cove residents would be prepared to contribute additional rates and pay higher fees and charges to open Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights. No northern Sydney council library opens after 5pm on Saturday and Sundays and only three services (that serve larger populations) open Friday nights. Opening Saturday and Sunday evenings would mean that Lane Cove residents would effectively be funding a regional facility with no ability to offset the increased operating costs.

 

For many years NSW public libraries have been receiving the lowest per-capita funding from their State Government compared to all other states in Australia. The percentage of State funding had been falling since the 1980s since there is no indexing to population growth or consumer price index (CPI). Recent increases to State Government public library funding is at most a catch-up and would not cover the proposed increase to opening hours.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.         Council not make any further changes to Library opening hours at this time;

 

2.         Council consider extending the Library closing time to 5:00pm on a Sunday after completion of The Canopy; and

 

3.         The head petitioner be informed of Council’s decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

           


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 August 2019

St Leonards South Update - Outcome of Independent Planning Commission Findings

 

 

Subject:          St Leonards South Update - Outcome of Independent Planning Commission Findings     

Record No:    SU5943 - 48656/19

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Christopher Pelcz 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to advise Council on the findings of the Independent Planning Commission for Council’s draft St Leonards South Residential Precinct Plans.

 

Council’s draft St Leonards South Residential Precinct plans were previously forwarded by the Department of Planning to the Independent Planning Commission for advice on 20 December 2018 with the intention that the IPC consider the matter during the exhibition of the St Leonards/Crows Nest 2036 plan exhibition which ended February 2019. The advice dated 9 July 2019, was released to Council and the public on 24 July 2019 has now been made publicly available.

 

Specifically, the Commission found that the Planning Proposal is inconsistent with a number of elements in the Draft 2036 Plan including the Vision, Guiding Design Principles (design criteria and area-wide design principles) and St Leonards South Design Principles, but acknowledged consistency with other elements. It also considered that overall the scale was excessive, but some elements were acceptable. No findings or advice was provided in relation to housing targets beyond five (5) years and the previous advice from the Greater Sydney Commission in May 2018 remains in place.

 

Since receipt of the advice, the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment have written to Council offering the support of the Government Architect NSW and the Department to work with Council to assist its review of the planning proposal. It is recommended that Council advise the department that they should conduct a review of the IPC’s advice and indicate:-

1.   Council will participate in the process; and

2.   That the NSW Chief Planner should participate.

 

Background

 

Council’s draft St Leonards South Residential Precinct plans were referred to the Independent Planning Commission for advice as part of the Draft St Leonards/Crows Nest 2036 Plan findings. The Minister sought advice from the Commission on:-

·    the consistency of the planning proposal with the overall vision, guiding design principles, and specific design principles of the Department of Planning and Environment’s (Department) draft St Leonards and Crows Nest 2036 Plan (draft 2036 Plan)”;

·    “the scale of residential development contained in the planning proposal and whether the whole site needs to be rezoned to meet housing targets identified by the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC)”; and

·    “whether some staging of the planning proposal is appropriate”.

 

While the Commission heard detailed comments relating to the economics of the planning proposal it stated that this matter was not within the scope of the advice sought by the Minister.

 

A public meeting was held by the Commission on 20 May 2019 and the Commission held separate meetings with the Department of Planning (on 10 May 2019) and Council (on 23 May 2019). Transcripts of all these meetings were made publicly available on the IPC public website.

 

Discussion

 

The IPC’s Advice

 

The Commission found that the Proposal is inconsistent with a number of elements of the Vision, Guiding Design Principles – Design Criteria and Area-wide design principles and St Leonards South Design Principles of the Draft Plan and acknowledged other elements to be consistent.

 

In terms of the Draft 2036 Plan vision the Commission found that the Planning Proposal was inconsistent with the following elements:-

·    Not satisfied that the planning proposal would deliver enough public open space to provide sunny tree lined public spaces and lively and active spaces or provide a net gain in open space for the broader community;

·    While redevelopment of the Precinct is not inappropriate the scale of proposed development would be out of character with the remainder of the St Leonards South Precinct (particularly with the heritage items in Park Road) and surrounding neighbourhoods; and

·    There was insufficient information submitted to demonstrate that a greater mix of homes would be provided to cater for a range of people who would want to remain in the area and people who could move to the area.

 

The Commission did acknowledge that the proposed infrastructure elements included in the Planning Proposal (new open space, multi-purpose facilities, key worker housing, E-W accessible connections) would contribute to providing a vibrant community – one element of the Vision.

 

One matter which requires clarification and explanation in response to the IPC’s advice is in relation to Housing Targets. The Commission’s advice in relation to the role of St Leonards South achieving Council’s Housing Supply Targets only focused on the 0-5 year housing target (2016-2021). It did not provide any advice or comments on the future housing targets for either the 6-10 year or 20 year targets.

 

Council has always stated that St Leonards South was to contribute to and satisfy its 6-10 year housing target as this was consistent with a number of Actions in the North District Plan. This was confirmed by the Greater Sydney Commission in May 2018 in its letter. The Department of Planning also acknowledged that “The exhibited St Leonards South Planning Proposal is not expected to contribute to the initial 2017 to 2021 5 year housing target, simply because the dwellings are not expected to be built before 2021”.

 

Therefore, the advice provided by the Greater Sydney Commission on May 2018 remains in place. Under the North District Plan, Council is still required to demonstrate that it has additional capacity to deliver new housing in the 6-10 year period (2021-2026) as well as contribute to a 20 year housing target. This aspect is required to be addressed in Council’s draft Local Strategic Planning Statement.

 

Next Steps

 

On 1 August 2019, the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment wrote to Council (AT-1) advising that ““I would like to reiterate the Department is committed to working collaboratively with Council and the community to inform a planning framework and infrastructure plan for the area to facilitate its renewal as a highly liveable place.

 

I would like to offer the support of the Government Architect NSW and the Department to work with Council to assist its review of the planning proposal in light of the Commission’s findings.””.

 

While the assistance is welcomed, it was the NSW Government that referred the matter to the IPC for advice as part of their consultation process on the Draft St Leonards / Crows Nest 2036 Plan. It is therefore appropriate the NSW Government as per normal convention review and respond to the advice, not Council. In the conduct of the review, it would be appropriate for Council to participate, but the finding should be delivered by the government. Further, as a number of the issues raised by the IPC also apply to the remainder of the St Leonards / Crown Nest 2036 study area, Council should also suggest that the NSW Chief Planner be involved in the review.

 

Conclusion

 

The Independent Planning Commission found that the St Leonards South Planning Proposal is inconsistent with a number of elements in the Draft 2036 Plan including the Vision, Guiding Design Principles and St Leonards South Design Principles, and acknowledged consistency with a number of other elements.

 

The Commission considered that overall the scale of development in the Planning Proposal would represent an overdevelopment of the site, but some elements were acceptable.

 

However, no findings or advice was provided in relation to housing targets beyond 5 years and the previous advice from the Greater Sydney Commission in May 2018 remains in place as a result.

 

Since then, the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment have written to Council offering the support of the Government Architect NSW and the Department to work with Council to assist its review of the planning proposal.

 

It is recommended the NSW Government as per normal convention review and respond to the advice, not Council. In the conduct of the review, it would be appropriate for Council to participate, but the finding should be delivered by the Government. Further, as a number of the issues raised by the IPC also apply to the remainder of the St Leonards / Crown Nest 2036 study area, Council should also suggest that the NSW Chief Planner be involved in the review.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Receive and note the advice of the Independent Planning Commission; and

2.   Advise the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, that the NSW Government as per normal convention should review and respond to the advice, not Council. In the conduct of the review, it would be appropriate for Council to participate, but the finding should be delivered by the Government. Further, as a number of the issues raised by the IPC also apply to the remainder of the St Leonards / Crown Nest 2036 study area, Council should also suggest that the NSW Chief Planner be involved in the review.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Advice from Independent Planning Commission on St Leonards South Plans

24 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Department's Offer of Support

1 Page

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 August 2019

Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement - Public Exhibition

 

 

Subject:          Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement - Public Exhibition    

Record No:    SU7286 - 35306/19

Division:         Environmental Services Division

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

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to outline Council’s Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement (DLSPS) and endorse it for public exhibition.

 

The Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) outlines the 20 year vision, planning priorities and actions for land use in the Lane Cove Local Government Area. It translates the current visions and strategies expressed in the Community Strategic Plan and related actions in the Delivery Program into specific land use planning priorities and actions. The LSPS aims to ensure growth and change are managed in a way which enables the community to enjoy high levels of amenity, liveability, economic prosperity and a pristine natural environment is maintained.

 

Under Clause 3.8 (3) of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, each Council must review their LEPs and prepare any Planning Proposals that are necessary to “give effect” to the District Plan and implement their actions.

 

Council’s DLSPS (shown attached at AT-1) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, the Greater Sydney Commission’s Greater Sydney Region Plan and North District Plan and based on Council’s adopted Community Strategic Plan, its Delivery Program and other strategies.

 

The document is similar in structure to the North District Plan, with its contents predominantly being taken from Council’s own Community Strategic Plan and Delivery Program, including the Vision, Planning Priorities and Actions. Some additional information has been provided by the North District Plan, other State Government Plans and adopted Council positions.

 

Council is required, under NSW legislation, to publicly exhibit the draft Local Strategic Planning Statement prior to 1 October 2019 and finalised it before 31 March 2020.  However, Council cannot adopt the final version until the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) provides written assurance that they support Council’s LSPS.

 

Having received assurance from the GSC that Council is well progressed in its Draft Plan and is being informed by a range of studies, it is recommended that Council endorse the Draft Lane Cove Local Strategic Planning Statement for public exhibition.

 

Background

 

A report outlining the purpose, process and initial timeline of the Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) was presented for information at the February 2019 Council meeting.

 

Under Section 3.9 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, an LSPS is to include or identify the following:-

The basis for strategic planning in the area, having regard to economic, social and environmental matters,

a)   The planning priorities for the area that are consistent with any strategic plan applying to the area, and (subject to any such strategic plan) any applicable community strategic plan (section 402 of the Local Government Act 1993),

b)   The actions required for achieving those planning priorities,

c)   The basis on which the council is to monitor and report on the implementation of those actions.

 

In detail, Local Strategic Planning Statements sets out:-

·    The 20-year vision for land use in our local area;

·    The special characteristics which contribute to our local identity;

·    Shared community values to be maintained and enhanced; and

·    How growth and change will be managed into the future.

 

The intention of these statements is to assist with the required implementation of all actions in the Regional and District Plans, and Council’s own priorities in the Community Strategic Plan. They will also shape how development controls in the local environmental plan (LEP) evolve over time to meet the community's needs, with the LEP and Development Control Plan the main delivery tools.

 

Once adopted, these statements will be reviewed every seven (7) years, ideally in conjunction with Council’s Integrated Planning Framework (attached at AT-4).

 

NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment have also prepared a frequently asked questions sheet about these statements (attached at AT-2), as well as an updated fact sheet on the roles of the LSPS (attached at AT-3) and their relationship with Council’s Integrated Planning Framework (attached at AT-4).

 

Discussion

 

Council has been preparing its draft Local Strategic Planning Statement since December 2018.  The initial draft was presented to the Greater Sydney Commission and other Government agencies in March 2019 for review.

 

Based on the feedback, the Draft LSPS must address the matters (priorities and actions) discussed in the relevant District Plan. Council’s draft LSPS document has since been amended and organised into the four (4) key planning themes of the North District Plan: Infrastructure, Liveability, Productivity, and Sustainability.

 

Overview

 

Council already has a number of existing (or draft) plans which align with the Region Plan and District Plan.  In particular, Council’s recently adopted Community Strategic Plan and Delivery Program and Operational Plan contain strategies and actions which ‘give effect’ to the North District Plan. These have been translated into Council’s Planning Priorities and supporting actions in the DLSPS.

 

Other new actions have been created in the DLSPS in order to give effect to the plans listed above. They have been adapted from the relevant priorities and actions of the North District Plan, Draft St Leonards and Crows Nest 2036 Plans and supporting documents as well as adopted Council positions.

 

In total, Council’s DLSPS has 12 Planning Priorities with 60 supporting actions relevant to Lane Cove, covering all four (4) planning themes of the Region Plan and District Plan as follows:-

 

·    Three (3) Infrastructure Planning Priorities (with 10 supporting actions);

·    Three (3) Liveability Planning Priorities (with 20 supporting actions);

·    Three (3) Productivity Planning Priorities (with 14 supporting actions); and

·    Three (3) Sustainability Planning Priorities (with 16 supporting actions).

 

A range of potential indicators have also been included, based on those used in the North District Plan, as well as relevant community indicators contained in Council’s Community Strategic Plan. However, it is understood that the Greater Sydney Commission is currently developing its own set of standard performance indicators. Therefore, the final performance indicators may be confirmed at a later stage. 

 

Consistent with the Region Plan and District Plan, Council’s Planning Priorities are arranged under the four (4) key themes, and within each theme, each Priority is addressed along with the rationale for theme and proposed Actions.

 

Theme 1: Infrastructure and Collaboration

 

Council’s infrastructure priorities aim to provide for Lane Cove the open space, recreation, community facilities, transport, education and other needs, delivered by local and State governments for both the existing and growing population. For example, the Major Projects Plan aims to deliver improved community facilities in the short-to-medium term. Other Actions relate to Council’s Local Infrastructure Contributions Plan, the Program of Works for Infrastructure and Facilities, and the ongoing option to consider the use of Voluntary Planning Agreements for new developments to provide public benefits.

 

Actions for Infrastructure and Collaboration mirror those in the Lane Cove Delivery Program and Operational Plan under Our Built Environment (for asset management and funding) and Our Society (for community facilities and for new schools).

 

Theme 2: Liveability

 

Council’s liveability priorities address housing, infrastructure and services that meet people’s needs now and into the future. This includes the provision of a range of housing types in the right locations, with measures to improve affordability. This enables people to stay in their neighbourhoods and communities as they transition through life.

 

Based on advice received from the Greater Sydney Commission and Department of Planning, Industry and Environment, the DLSPS must identify appropriate areas for new housing growth and diversity which have the capacity to satisfy the potential 6-10 year LGA-wide housing target (2021-2026), as well as contributing to the District’s 20 year housing target. This housing potential for the 6 – 20 year horizon must also have regard to the feasibility of development, the capacity of existing or proposed infrastructure, and recent development activity. This aspect will also be included in any future Draft Local Housing Strategy.

 

In keeping with North District Plan Priority N5 to “provide housing supply, choice and affordability, with access to jobs, services and public transport”, other Councils have established principles to ensure that potential new housing is provided in the right locations, particularly around centres. This approach is considered to be a minimum requirement of the Draft LSPS.  

 

It is important to note that the Draft LSPS, along with the Draft Local Housing Strategy, will form the basis for Council’s 6-10 year housing target for the entire LGA. However, Council has already received advice from the Greater Sydney Commission in this regard and will incorporate this into both its DLSPS and its Draft Local Housing Strategy. Council’s statement must also have regard to the draft findings of the St Leonards Planned Precinct plans and studies.

 

Other Actions for Liveability mirror those in the Lane Cove Delivery Program and Operational Plan under Our Society, Our Culture and Our Built Environment.

 

Theme 3: Productivity

 

Council’s productivity priorities seek to capitalise on new opportunities for the local and broader economy, while protecting its foundational elements. They are based entirely on broad strategies in Council’s adopted Community Strategic Plan (especially those deemed priorities by the community) that address the 10 Directions for a Greater Sydney, A Metropolis of Three Cities objectives and the North District Plan’s priorities and actions.

 

For example, Productivity Priorities aim to encourage a diverse range of retail, commercial and industrial businesses to locate in Lane Cove. They seek to create a smart and sustainable transport system that meets the current and future needs of the area, to foster partnerships between business land owners, community and businesses to identify local economic opportunities. Also to explore opportunities to revitalise local shopping village precincts in the area, and to ensure unnecessary barriers to business set-ups are removed.

 

The Actions for Productivity mirror those in the Lane Cove Delivery Program and Operational Plan under Our Local Economy and Our Built Environment.

 

Theme 4: Sustainability

 

Council’s priorities seek an integrated approach to improving sustainability in Lane Cove. They are based entirely on broad strategies in Council’s adopted Community Strategic Plan (especially those deemed priorities by the community) that again address the Region Plan’s and District Plan’s priorities and actions.

 

For example, Sustainability Priorities seek to improve the management and quality of our waterways, our bushland, and our urban tree canopy. They address recreation facilities in open space, sustainability measures, and waste management initiatives.

 

Actions for Sustainability mirror those in the Lane Cove Delivery Program and Operational Plan under Our Natural Environment, Our Built Environment (for open space and resilience to climatic events) and Our Society (for recreation).

 

Timeline

 

The Minister for Planning and Public Spaces has granted an extension of the initial 1 July 2019 public exhibition deadline up to 3 months and the finalisation date has also been pushed back. With the Minister’s announcement the following changes have been made to the timetable for this Statement:-

·    Metropolitan Council’s will now have until 1 October 2019 to commence public exhibition of their Draft Local Strategic Planning Statements; and

·    Council’s must now have their LSPS’ finalised before 31 March 2020.

 

Following public exhibition, the draft LSPS document must be submitted to the Greater Sydney Commission for review and to provide their written assurance to Council before it can be finalised. Any comments from the Commission are to be incorporated into the final LSPS and endorsed by Council. This is to ensure that all statements are consistent with the Greater Sydney Region Plan and relevant District Plan.

 

As stated in AT-3, the priorities and actions of Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement cannot be contrary to the relevant Regional Plan or District Plan. If this occurs then the LSPS is unlikely to be supported by the Greater Sydney Commission and Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

 

In order to meet the required timelines once the exhibition period concludes that comments will be collated and the LSPS reported back to Council’s November 2019 meeting. This must then be forwarded to the Greater Sydney Commission for review and written assurance. It is anticipated that the final approved LSPS will be provided to Council at its February 2020 Ordinary meeting.

 

Consultation Strategy

 

Consultation Statement of Intent

 

The key themes and Priorities found in this Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement find their origin in the consultation that was undertaken in 2018 for the Community Strategic Plan. Subsequent actions in Council’s Delivery Program are reviewed every year with community engagement to ensure they remain relevant and reflect the highest priority issues raised by Council and the community.

 

The consultation is designed to obtain community feedback on priorities and actions within the DLSPS align with Council’s Community Strategic Plan and Delivery Program. Comments received will help refine the plan’s content.

 

Methods

 

Level of Participation

Inform

Inform

Consult

Form of Participation

Open

Targeted

Open

Target Audience

General community

Government Agencies and adjoining Local Government Areas

Lane Cove Community and community groups

Proposed Medium

Advertisement,

eNewsletter and Social Media

Notification letters

Public Exhibition and

Website Exhibition

Indicative Timing

6 weeks

(September to October 2019)

 

Conclusion

 

Currently, relevant Council strategies from its Community Strategic Plan and supporting actions from its Delivery Program and Operational Plan are consistent with the Region and District Plan. These have already been incorporated into the Draft LSPS as Planning Priorities and actions, where relevant.

 

Other new actions included in the draft Statement have been adapted from the relevant priorities and actions of the North District Plan, Draft St Leonards and Crows Nest 2036 Plans and supporting documents as well as adopted Council positions.

 

The draft Local Strategic Planning Statement is now ready for public exhibition. In order to meet the required timelines, a post-consultation report will be reported to the November 2019 Council meeting and then sent to the Greater Sydney Commission for final review.

 

Once written assurance has been provided, the final version will be reported to the February 2020 Council meeting for adoption and finalisation.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.    Receive and note the report;

 

2.    Endorse the Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement for public exhibition; and

 

3.    Undertake community consultation for a period of six (6) weeks as per the Consultation Strategy outlined in the report.

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Draft Local Strategic Planning Statement

63 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑2View

Frequently Asked Questions - Local Strategic Planning Statements

6 Pages

 

AT‑3View

Fact Sheet - Role of Local Strategic Planning Statements

2 Pages

 

AT‑4View

Local Strategic Planning Statements and Their Relationship to the Integrated Planning Framework

2 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 August 2019

Review of Council's Use of Glyphosate

 

 

Subject:          Review of Council's Use of Glyphosate    

Record No:    SU7246 - 46697/19

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Martin Terescenko 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report outlines Council’s use of Glyphosate in regard to potential safety risks for the community and staff.

 

The current assessment of Glyphosate by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine Authority (APVMA) is that products containing glyphosate are safe to use according to the label instructions.

 

Recent court cases in the United States have received a lot of media attention but are related to the improper mixing and application of Glyphosate. There is no evidence to suggest that the community is in any danger of being adversely affected by Glyphosate use in public spaces.

 

Glyphosate has been approved for use in Australia by the APVMA and Council’s use of it follows their guidelines. Council actively tries to minimise the use of all chemicals including Glyphosate by using many alternative techniques for weed control. These alternate methods include manual weeding, mechanical weeding, flame weeding, increased grass cutting cycles and mulching. When using Glyphosate, Council staff follow all the best practice safety procedures.

 

While the APVMA approves the use of Glyphosate, it is appropriate for Council to continue to use it ensuring that best practice safety procedures are followed. Glyphosate is one of a number of weeding options used by Council and removing this option would compromise Council’s weed management.

 

Background

 

Increased scrutiny for Glyphosate commenced in 2015 when the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released a report that classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

 

It should be noted that the IARC also lists the following as “probably carcinogenic to humans”:-

·    Burning wood in a fireplace;

·    High temperature frying of food;

·    Shift work that varies sleep patterns;

·    Eating red meat; and

·    Hot drinks - (served above 65 degrees Celsius) - this includes coffee, tea, latte, cappuccino etc.  A normal latte is served between 60 and 70 degrees.

 

The IARC also classifies the following as “carcinogenic to humans”:-

·    All alcoholic beverages;

·    Consumption of processed meat;

·    Sunlight (UV Radiation);

·    Diesel engine exhaust;

·    Outdoor air pollution;

·    Occupational exposure to paint fumes; and

·    Soot and wood dust.

Subsequent to the IARC report, a United States court awarded $289 million (reduced to $39 million) to a grounds keeper who claimed his cancer was caused by Glyphosate. Although he admitted his use and application was done on numerous occasions involving unsafe practices, the lawsuit was predicated on “poor warning labelling for application” in the United States.

There have been two further court cases in the United States that have been awarded against Bayer (the owners of Glyphosate) and it appears that in all three cases the plaintiffs were not following safety procedures.

 

There have been no international court proceedings or evidence to suggest that a third party, that is the community is in any danger of being adversely affected by Glyphosate use in public spaces. All court proceedings and commentary regarding Glyphosate use, refer to its preparation for use and its application. 

 

In Australia, the approval of pesticides is managed by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). They are an Australian government statutory authority established in 1993 to centralise the registration of all agricultural and veterinary chemical products into the Australian marketplace. 

 

In 2016, (after the IARC report) the APVMA reviewed Glyphosate and they concluded that Glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic risk to humans and that there are no grounds to place it under formal reconsideration. 

 

The current assessment by the APVMA is that products containing glyphosate are safe to use according to the label instructions.

 

The following table lists a number of international chemical regulators along with their positions on the use of Glyphosate:

 

Regulatory Authority

Position on Glyphosate

Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA)

Safe to use according to the label instructions.

European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Not carcinogenic

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans

European Commission

Renewed the approval of glyphosate till 2022

Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) 

Unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans

New Zealand Environment Protection Agency (EPA)

Unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans

United States Environment Protection Agency (EPA)

Do not support a carcinogenic process for glyphosate

French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES)

 

Withdrawn authorisation for the sale of products that contain the combination of Glyphosate and POEAs

Swedish Chemicals Agency (KEMI)

Planning to tighten the rules on the private use of pesticides in Sweden

Netherlands Government

Banned Glyphosate for non-commercial use

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)

Probably carcinogenic to humans

 

The United Services Union (USU) which represents Council’s outdoor staff, have accepted the APVMAs guidance on this matter, allowing their members to use Glyphosate.

 

Currently Council is following the guidance of the APVMA and uses a limited amount of Glyphosate for weed control.

 

Discussion

 

Council manages 156ha of open space which includes 90 parks and reserves plus the Lane Cove Plaza, five community shopping precincts and 140km of footpaths. All these areas required weed control.

 

Without appropriate weed control measures these outdoor areas would be overrun by weeds. As such, a large proportion of Council’s open space maintenance works are dedicated to weed control.

 

All these areas use different weed control techniques based on their physical location, ease of access and adjacent vegetation. Council currently uses the following weed control measures:-

·    Grass cutting and lawn edging;

·    Hand weed removal;

·    Mechanical weed removal;

·    Mulching;

·    Herbicide spray – including Glyphosate; and

·    Flame weeding.

 

When used by Council, herbicide sprays are used as per label guidelines and in accordance with Council’s own Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS). These SWMS are developed to follow best practice safety measures and ensure that the use of these herbicides is undertaken in a controlled and safe manner to protect both staff and the community. Herbicide sprays are only used where alternative options are not viable.

 

An audit of Council’s herbicide use indicates that less than 100 litres of Glyphosate was used by Council over the past 18 months.

 

Review of Council’s Notification Plan

 

Last year, Council updated its Pesticide Notification Plan. The plan allows members of the community to take action to avoid contact with herbicides, if they wish.

 

The plan sets out how Council notifies the community of herbicide applications in public places and describes:-

 

·    What public places are covered by the plan;

·    Who regularly uses these public places and an estimate of the level of use;

·    How and when Council will provide the community with information about its pesticide applications in public places (i.e. what notification arrangements will be used);

·    How the community can access this plan and get more information about Council’s notification arrangements;

·    Contact details for anyone wanting more information on the plan; and

·    How future reviews of the plan will be conducted.

 

The Pesticide Notification Plan states that Council will only provide notification of herbicide spraying where quantities used are greater than those readily available at retail outlets to the general public for the control of pests/weeds for which they are registered.

 

For example: small quantities (less than 20 litres of “ready-to-use” spray mix) of Glyphosate applied by a hand-held applicator, or by cut-and-paint or stem injection techniques will not be notified as the quantities used in these situations are the same as any home gardener would use.

 

Council has undertaken a review of several surrounding Council Pesticide Notification Plans and they follow the same principles for small quantities of herbicide use.

 

While reviewing Council’s Pesticide Notification Plan it has come to light that Council can improve the notification signage that is placed around our parks and reserves both prior and during herbicide spraying. Previously, A4 size signs were being placed around our parks which on some occasions were not conspicuous enough to be noticed by the community. Council has revised this signage strategy and is in the process of developing more prominent A-frame based and larger signage strategy, that will not be more obvious to the community.

 

Alternatives to Glyphosate

 

As stated previously, Council uses a number of methods for weed control with the use of herbicides as our least preferred option. There are several alternative herbicides that can be used in place of Glyphosate in certain situations, but there is no one herbicide that can replace Glyphosate in all situations where it is used. Council has reviewed a number of alternative options to Glyphosate, but they are all chemicals with a similar or stronger toxicity to Glyphosate. 

 

At present, Pelargonic Acid (commercially known as Slasher) is being put forward as a replacement for Glyphosate. Pelargonic Acid is the only alternative that Council has found which is a natural chemical. It is a substance found in almost all species of animals and plants. It is already found at low levels in many of the common foods we eat and is readily broken down in the environment. When applied to plants, Pelargonic Acid works by burning the foliage of the plant but does not always penetrate into the roots of plants and therefore needs to be reapplied on multiple occasions to completely kill weeds.

 

Council has been trialling Pelargonic Acid and has confirmed that the initial dieback is on par with Glyphosate, however reapplication is necessary to ensure the weeds have been neutralised. The mixing rates of Pelargonic Acid is also substantially higher than Glyphosate. For example, Glyphosate requires 10mL per litre of water whereas Pelargonic Acid requires 70mL per litre. In order for Pelargonic Acid to replace Glyphosate Council would need to reapply this chemical at least 5 or 6 times per year as opposed to the 2 applications of Glyphosate that Council currently undertakes. Should Council switch to using Pelargonic Acid, it would need to purchase around 1,750 litres per year as opposed to the 100 litres of Glyphosate we currently purchase. 

 

Council will continue to search for alternative chemical options to Glyphosate, ensuring that any alternative chemicals have the same level, or a lower level of toxicity as Glyphosate.

 


 

Non-chemical Alternatives to Glyphosate

 

Council has also been researching non-chemical alternatives.  The main non-chemical alternatives use heat to kill the weeds.  When plants are heated over 65 Co degrees, the plant’s cells burst and the plant begins to die. Council has found three main options that use heat to control weeds: flame weeding, steam weeding and foam steam weeding. These heat-based systems work in a similar process to the Pelargonic Acid, as they only kill the foliage of the plant but do not necessarily penetrate into the roots of plants, and therefore need to be revisited on multiple occasions to completely kill weeds.

 

Council’s Bushland Team already use flame weeding and have been doing so for over five years. Flame weeding is mainly used in sensitive areas such as creek lines. This option uses a blow torch and is reasonably portable as you only need the torch and gas cylinder. There are obviously a number of safety concerns that need to be taken into account when using naked flames in bushland, but Council’s Bushland Team will investigate the likelihood of increasing the use of flame weeding.

 

Steam weeding and foam steam weeding as the name suggests use steam to heat the plant cells. These systems use a boiler and compressor that is either located on the back of a ute or trailer. The units are large and the initial capital outlay to purchase these units is tens of thousands of dollars. Council has seen demonstrations of these systems and they are quite effective however their lack of portability is a major drawback. As they are either ute or trailer-based systems and they can only access weeds in close proximity to their boiler.

 

Council also uses another mechanical technique known as a Tree Popper which is a mechanical device that prises woody weeds and small trees out of the ground. This system has been used for a couple of years by our Bushland Team.

 

The technology in the non-chemical weeding space is constantly evolving and in time there will be systems developed that are practical to use as well as cost effective. Council will continue to review these non-chemical alternatives for weed control.

 

 

What Other Sydney Councils Are Doing

 

Fairfield City Council

 

When the latest media reports regarding the court cases in the United States came out, Fairfield Council determined that they would stop using Glyphosate and look for alternative weed control measures. They have trialled a number of different herbicides along with steam weeding. So far, they have not found a satisfactory solution and are continuing to search for and trial alternative pesticides and non-chemical solutions.

 

Some of the chemicals they have trialled include:-

 

·    Weed Terminator is a two-part chemical that requires 1 litre of Part A and 1 litre of Part B mixed with 5 litres of water. This final mix can be further diluted if required and the staff do this additional dilution when possible. Council staff find this pesticide works reasonably well, when weeds are completely doused in order for it to penetrate into the roots. It also has a strong odour that the community has commented on. Due to the volume of herbicide required, Fairfield is finding it difficult to adequately store this volume of chemical and it is substantially more expensive than Glyphosate. The fact that it is also a two-part chemical, Council staff find Weed Terminator very awkward to use.

 

·    Exonerate has been trialled for the past six weeks and Fairfield has been using it in their larger reserves, as it is a more cost-effective solution to Weed Terminator. So far, they are satisfied with the results of this trial however our research has found that Exonerate is more toxic than Glyphosate.

 

·    Pelargonic Acid has also been trialled and Fairfield found that it doesn’t work effectively, and weeds come back quickly, and it needs to be reapplied regularly. They also found that the plants need to be completely coated in the mix in order for it to work.

 

·    Steam Weeding has also been trialled by Fairfield. They found that it worked satisfactorily, but due to the size and bulk of the ute-based system, it was impractical for them to use due to lack of available parking and its limited range.

 

 

Georges River Council

 

Council has tried to contact Georges River Council on a number of occasions, but they have failed to respond to our enquiries.

 

Central Coast Council

 

Central Coast Council uses Glyphosate and have published the following statement on their website:

 

“Council applies herbicides containing glyphosate for the purpose of weed control within the Central Coast Local Government Area. Weed control is essential for the management of our local waterways, biodiversity, property and assets, and our natural and built environments. Glyphosate is registered for use in Australia by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). The APVMA advise that products containing glyphosate can be used safely in accordance with directions on the label.”

 

Conclusion

 

While there has been recent debate in the media regarding the potential for Glyphosate to be carcinogenic to humans, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) has stated that Glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic risk to humans and that products containing Glyphosate are safe to use according to the label instructions.

 

While ever the responsible federal authority approves of its use, it is appropriate Council follow the guidelines of the APVMA and use Glyphosate as per the label and follow best practice safety measures. 

 

Council can improve the signage used for notifying the community when using herbicides, by ensuring that signage is of a large enough size and located in prominent areas. This will allow members of the community to take appropriate action to avoid contact with herbicides, if they wish.

 

Council uses a number of methods for weed control, with the use of herbicides the least preferred option. Council will continue to search for alternative chemical options to Glyphosate, ensuring that any alternative chemicals have the same level, or a lower level of toxicity as Glyphosate.

 

The technology in the non-chemical weeding space is constantly evolving and Council already uses a number of non-chemical methods for weed control. Council will continue to review these non-chemical alternatives for weed control.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Continue to use Glyphosate while it is registered for use in Australia by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) in accordance with directions on the label;

2.   Update the signage used for notifying the community when using herbicides by ensuring that signage is of a large enough size and located in prominent areas;

3.   Continue to search for alternative chemical options to Glyphosate ensuring that any alternative chemicals have the same level, or a lower level of toxicity as Glyphosate; and

4.   Continue to search for additional non-chemical alternatives for weed control to find a practical and cost-effective method for weed control.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 19 August 2019

Tender for the Head Contractor for the Lane Cove 50m Pool and Grandstand Replacement

 

 

Subject:          Tender for the Head Contractor for the Lane Cove 50m Pool and Grandstand Replacement    

Record No:    SU7255 - 46077/19

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Jane Gornall 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has recently tendered for a head contractor to oversight the replacement of the 50 metre outdoor pool and also build the new Grandstand and Youth Centre.  The decision was made to undertake the tendering process for a head contractor in two (2) stages.  Expressions of Interest were called from interested builders in March 2019.  Council proceeded to invite five (5) contractors to Tender for the works in June.

 

This report provides details on the tender process conducted.  Upon consideration of the submissions it became evident that there is need for further discussions regarding the building works and to clarify tender submissions and proposed innovations that could result in better outcomes and/or savings for the project.

 

It is recommended that no tender be accepted and Council enter into negotiations with three (3) short-listed tenderers.

 

Background

 

In March 2019, Council called for Expressions of Interest from builders for undertaking these works with the expression of interest closing on the April 2019.  Eleven (11) builders replied to the advertisement.   These submissions were assessed in line with Council’s tendering procedures.  Of the eleven (11) companies who submitted expressions of interest, five (5) were invited to submit detailed tender submissions for the work.  

 

A tender specification was prepared detailing the schedule of work, hours of work, safety requirements and reporting requirements.  The specification outlined that the tender submissions would be assessed based on the following weighted criteria: -

 

Price (45%)

 

Based on the Tender Price and schedule of rates provided in the mandatory schedules.

 

Programme (25%)

 

The assessment for this requirement was the demonstration by the tenderer that they could achieve practical completion of the project by the 31 August 2020 at the latest.

 

Programmes were assessed on the sequencing of tasks and overall durations.

 

Project Understanding and Methodology (15%)

 

The tenderer was required to provide that had a complete overview of the project which demonstrated their project understanding and explained their proposed delivery methodology.

 


 

Project Personnel  (10%)

 

This criteria required the tenderer to list their relevant experience and the experience of the key personnel and the skills /qualifications of the people who will be engaged to carry out the contractors obligations under the contract.  This includes a description of the tenderers technical expertise, resource and financial management skills.

 

Point of Difference (5%)

 

This criteria required the tenderer to list any value management propositions and relevant points of difference.

 

Discussion

The invitation to submit for the tender was sent (via Tenderlink) on the 17 June 2019 to the following five (5) short-listed companies:-

1.   Adco Constructions Pty.Ltd;

2.   Avant Constructions Pty.Ltd;

3.   Erilyan Pty.Ltd;

4.   Icon (SI) Aust. Pty.Ltd; and

5.   Lahey Constructions Pty.Ltd.

A pre-tender meeting was held on 25 June 2019 with tenders closing at 2.00pm on Monday 29 July 2019.

Council received submissions from each of the above companies.

 

The Tender Evaluation Panel consisted of the following Council staff:-

·    Executive Manager, Human Services;

·    Manager, Facilities;

·    Facilities, Infrastructure Planner; and

·    Manager, Commercial Operations. 

 

There was also input from the Project Manager and from the architect working on the project.

A confidential memorandum has been circulated separately to Councillors detailing the prices submitted by each tenderer, how each of the weighted criteria was assessed and details of the reference checks undertaken of the short-listed tenderers. 

None of the tenders are within Council’s budget for the project.  As Council will recall, the pool was originally planned to be replaced in approximately two-years time.  Due to sudden closure, detailed scoping and budgeting was not undertaken pre-tender.

Given the new pool will be in use for more than 50 years, it is not suggested that Council reduce the scope of the project to match the existing budget.

As part of the Tender, each tenderer was requested to suggest innovations or changes that could result in better outcomes and / or savings for the project. 

This will achieve some savings within the existing scope, however it will require Council to increase the overall budget for the project.

It is therefore proposed that Council commit existing Reserve funds currently set aside for any future works to the Market Square complex, to fund the works.  Should further funds be required they can be made available from Council’s normal capital works funding stream. 

The tenderers identified by the Tender Assessment Panel as having suggested the best alternate solutions for the project are:-

1.   Avant Constructions Pty.Ltd;

2.   Icon (SI) Aust. Pty.Ltd; and

3.   Lahey Constructions Pty.Ltd.

 

It is therefore proposed to enter into direct negotiation with these firms.

Conclusion

Council received five (5) tenders in relation to the selective tender for a Head Contractor to oversee the replacement of the 50 metre outdoor pool and build the new Grandstand and Youth Centre.  Due to the need to reduce the cost of the project within the existing scope, it is recommended that Council rejects all tenders and interview the following three (3) short-listed tenderers, who the Tender Assessment Panel have identified as proposing the best alternate solutions for the project:-

1.   Avant Constructions Pty.Ltd;

2.   Icon (SI) Aust. Pty.Ltd; and

3.   Lahey Constructions Pty.Ltd.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.       Reject all of the submitted tenders for the appointment of the head Contractor for the Lane Cove 50 metre pool and grandstand replacement;

2.       Not call fresh tenders as the tender process has identified a suitable field of Contractors who can complete the project but require further clarification to eliminate all inconsistencies, exclusions and identify opportunities for savings within the existing scope;

3.       Enter into direct negotiations with Avant Constructions Pty. Ltd, Icon (SI) Aust. Pty. Ltd. and Lahey Constructions Pty. Ltd. for the appointment of the Head Contractor for the Lane Cove 50 metre pool, grandstand replacement;

4.       Delegate authority to the General Manager to negotiate with the three contractors, finalise the contract value and enter into a contract with the preferred contractor; and

5.       Increase the 2019/20 Budget to provide additional funding, including the funds within the Market Square Reserve, to fund the project.

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 August 2019

July 2019 Traffic Committee Meeting

 

 

Subject:          July 2019 Traffic Committee Meeting    

Record No:    SU1326 - 47123/19

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Hassaan Zafar 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday, 16 July 2019. The Agenda is included as AT-1. The Traffic Committee recommendations are shown in the Minutes of the Meeting, included as AT-2.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopts the recommendations of the Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday, 16 July 2019.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Terescenko

Executive Manager - Open Space and Urban Services

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Agenda - Traffic Committee - July 2019

24 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Minutes - Traffic Committee - July 2019

12 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 August 2019

Local Government Conference NSW 2019 - Voting Delegates

 

 

Subject:          Local Government Conference NSW 2019 - Voting Delegates    

Record No:    SU7373 - 46327/19

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Craig Dalli 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 22 July 2019, Council resolved to endorse four (4) voting delegates for the motions at the October Local Government Conference.  This was based on previous years voting entitlements. 

 

Council has since received advice that the number of voting delegates Council is entitled to has been reduced to three (3). This is due to current population data and the need to the balance representation from Rural/Regional councils and Metropolitan/Urban councils and to changes in membership of Local Government NSW.

 

It is recommended that Council nominate three (3) voting delegates for the Conference.

 

Discussion

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 22 July 2019, Council resolved to Appoint the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Councillors Brooks Horn and Zbik as Council’s four (4) voting delegates for motions before the Conference”. 

 

The recommendation to appoint four (4) voting delegates was based on previous years voting entitlements.  Council has now received advice from LGNSW that the number of voting delegates Council is entitled to has been reduced from four (4) to three (3) for this years conference.

 

This is due in part to current population data used and the need to balance representation from Rural/ Regional councils and Metropolitan/Urban councils.  The population data required, as per rule 23 of the LGNSW rules, is the latest ABS population data as at 1st March (the “calculation date”) immediately preceding the Conference.  The ABS population data in existence on 1 March this year was published by the ABS on 31 August 2018.  For Lane Cove this was estimated at 38,742.  The LGNSW rules require an equal number of voting delegates representing Rural/Regional councils and Metropolitan/Urban councils.  Even if a council’s population is stable voting entitlements can still be affected by changes in population at other councils. 

 

Another factor that can impact on voting entitlements is changes to membership of LGNSW.  Two councils in rural/regional NSW have withdrawn from LGNSW since 2018.

 

Conclusion

 

Due to changes to Council’s voting entitlements for the 2019 Local Government NSW Conference, it is recommended that Council reconsider it’s previously appointed voting delegates and reduce this number from four (4) to three (3) voting delegates.


 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:-

1.   Rescind its decision of 22 July in relation to the nomination of voting delegates for the 2019 LGNSW conference; and

2.   Nominate three (3) voting delegates for Board Elections and Motions before the conference.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 August 2019

Smart Cities Conference 2019

 

 

Subject:          Smart Cities Conference 2019    

Record No:    SU2520 - 47054/19

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Simon Cole 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Smart Cities 2019 event will be held in Sydney on 3 September 2019.  This report recommends that all interested Councillors be authorised to attend.

 

Background

 

This conference is the third in a series held annually by the Public Sector Network and KPMG which aim to provide an update on best practice use of data and digital technology in the delivery of government services.

 

Discussion

 

The conference will look at a number of current projects that are deploying ‘smart city technology’ in the cities and regions while examining some of the challenges associated with new business models and governance.

 

Funds are available for attendance by Councillors as part of their Councillor Professional Development.  The cost of registration for this half day event is $195 (second release – limited availability) and $295 (third release). 

 

The event will be held at the KPMG Offices, Level 38, Tower Three, International Towers, 300 Barangaroo Avenue Sydney NSW on 3 September 2019.  Further event details can be found at https://events.publicsectornetwork.co/events/smart-cities-series-2019/.

 

Conclusion

 

This event provides a learning opportunity for Councillors to better understand the way government and councils can improve their services to the community through the use of data and digital technology.   It is recommended that interested Councillors be authorised to attend the event.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That interested Councillors be authorised to attend the Smart Cities 2019 event in Sydney on 3rd September 2019.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Dalli

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

  


Ordinary Council Meeting 19 August 2019

4th Quarter Review of the 2018-19 Delivery Program and Operational Plan

 

 

Subject:          4th Quarter Review of the 2018-19 Delivery Program and Operational Plan    

Record No:    SU238 - 44994/19

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Kirsty Beram 

 

 

Executive Summary

This report outlines the 4th 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 to meet the goals and objectives of Liveable Lane Cove 2035 - Community Strategic Plan. Council reports quarterly on the progress towards completing the projects and achieving the targets for the adopted performance measurements. The 4th 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 demonstrates the progress towards completion. The Review also includes a comment on the status of each project.

 

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

The highlights of the projects either commenced or completed for the 4th quarter include:-

·    New dog park opened at Blackman Park (April);

·    Crystal Pools have been engaged to construct the new 50 metre Outdoor Pool at the Lane Cove Aquatic Leisure Centre with construction commencing in mid-2019 (April);

·    Council’s new Facebook page was launched early in 2019 and in April reached a milestone of 2066 followers (April);

·    Naming competition for Rosenthal project conducted and ‘The Canopy Lane Cove’ was announced as the official new name (April);

·    Council partnered with Ku-ring-Gai, Mosman, North Sydney, Northern Beaches, Ryde and Willoughby Council’s to present the Shoreshocked Music Festival, a free all ages music festival held at St Leonard’s Park, North Sydney (April);

·    $10,000 in funding under Round 17 of the Sustainability Small Grants Program was endorsed for two (2) community groups, FoodFaith Pty Ltd and Greenwich Public School (April);

·    New pedestrian refuge constructed on River Road, at the Lane Cove Golf Course (May);

·    A new Code of Conduct and Code of Meeting Practice were adopted (May);

·    21 recipients were recognised at the Annual Citizenship Awards including two (2) recipients of the new Neighbour Day Awards (May);

·    A Delivery Program and Operational Plan for 2019-2021 along with a Budget that supports the actions included in the Plan was adopted (June);

·    Council resolved to extend the Greenwich Library Operating Hours (June);

·    Council endorsed the key principles of new Shared Service Agreements with Hunters Hill Council which aim to increase efficiency and streamline operations; 

·    Council was awarded at the Small Business Friendly Councils Conference 2019 for its support of and participation in the NSW Government’s Small Business Friendly Council Program (June);

·    Successful Business Breakfast event featuring co-founder and CEO of Glasshouse Fragrances, Nicole Eckels, was held (June);

·    Council’s annual ‘Captured’ Photography Awards Night was held with over 180 submission received for this year’s “This Makes Me Happy” theme (June);

·    Refugee Week breakfast with guest speaker Professor Munjed Al Muderis was held and attended by 120 people (June); and

·    HarbourCare program attracted 74 volunteers to its kayak event during this quarter and resulted in 167.8 kgs of litter being collected from waterways throughout Lane Cove (June).

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the 4th 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

4th Quarter Review of 2018-19 Delivery Program and Operational Plan

69 Pages

 

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 August 2019

Northwood Shops Planning Proposal 29 Update

 

 

Subject:          Northwood Shops Planning Proposal 29 Update     

Record No:    SU6464 - 48471/19

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Christopher Pelcz 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the Northwood Shops Planning Proposal 29.

 

Council previously refused this Planning Proposal at its 18 June 2018 meeting on a number of town planning and urban design grounds. Part of Council’s response included a call rezone the entire site to B4 Mixed Use, to reduce the built form to be compliant with 1:1 floor space ratio (with only a 0.5:1 bonus only to apply for seniors housing) and a height of 2 levels at the street with a maximum of 3 storeys (further setback).

 

This request was sent to the applicant and the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment. On 1 August 2019, the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment requested to meet with Council and the applicant to discuss the previous Planning Proposal.

 

The Department is now considering whether to finalise the applicant’s Planning Proposal.

 

Background

 

A Rezoning Review was lodged by the applicant on 27 February 2017 against Council’s refusal of the Northwood Shops Planning Proposal at its 20 February 2017 Meeting. Not withstanding Council’s submissions, the Sydney North Planning Panel determined that the Proposal demonstrated strategic and site-specific merit and that it should be submitted for a Gateway Determination, along with a draft Development Control Plan.

 

Planning Proposal 29 was conditionally approved for exhibition by NSW Planning and Environment on 26 September 2017, subject to the applicant updating the Proposal to respond to Council’s concerns. The applicant has been addressing the Gateway conditions and cannot proceed to public exhibition until such has been undertaken. The applicant submitted a range of amended plans, however Council refused the Planning Proposal on the town planning and urban design grounds outlined at its 18 June 2018 meeting which were:-

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Write to the proponent and request a new Planning Proposal and supporting documents be submitted to:-

 

a)   Rezone the entire subject site to B4 Mixed Use with a minimum commercial FSR (to be determined);

 

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

 

c)   Establish a single height control limit of 9.5m across the site, with an Incentive Height of RL 66.25 metres only if the site is developed for Seniors Housing with vehicular access to be contained along the south eastern setback area;

 

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

 

e)   Require a minimum 10m rear buffer as per Council’s DCP Part H be strictly adhered to, that the 10m be measured from the zone boundary not from the remnant bushland as commented by the OE&H and that the buffer area be replanted with native indigenous plants;

 

f)    Every effort be made to retain as many turpentine trees as possible on the site in accordance with the request of OE&H and should more than two (2) turpentine trees be removed, that these be replanted on the site in proportion to the number removed;

 

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

 

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

 

i)    Give consideration at the development application (DA) stage to other issues raised in this Report, such as an appropriate contribution to a roundabout at the intersection of Northwood/River Road as proposed by the applicant of the previous planning proposal, which Council and the community favours to alleviate the impact of traffic resulting from this proposal.

 

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

 

Discussion

 

On 1 August 2019, the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment requested a meeting with Council and the applicant to discuss the previous Planning Proposal.

 

Council re-iterated the points in its resolution stated above and the Department is now considering the next stages in the finalisation of this Planning Proposal.

 

Conclusion

 

There was general agreement about changing the zoning to B4 Mixed Use, moving the egress to the southern end of the site and generally complying with the 10m setback to bushland.  There was no agreement on the different views on the height and FSR controls for the site.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 August 2019

Council Snapshot July 2019

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot July 2019    

Record No:    SU220 - 43456/19

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 July 2019.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Council Snapshot - July 2019

46 Pages