Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

16 November 2020

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 on Monday 16 November 2020 commencing at 7:00 PM. 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.

 

Council uses the online video conferencing platform Zoom for the Public Forum. A link to the video conference, which will include all Councillors attending the Council meeting, will be made available for community members to participate. All speakers wishing to participate in the public forum must register by using the online form no later than midnight, on the day prior to the meeting (i.e. Sunday 15 November) and a Zoom meeting link will be emailed to the provided email address. Please note that the time limit of three minutes per address still applies so please make sure your submission meets this criteria. Alternatively, members of the public can still submit their written address via email to service@lanecove.nsw.gov.au. Written addresses are to be received by Council no later than midnight, on the day prior to the meeting. (500 words maximum).

 

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 16 November 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

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

 

public forum

 

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

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 19 OCTOBER 2020

 

Mayoral Minutes

 

2.       Mayoral Minute - Vale Councillor Deborah Hutchens.......................... 5

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

3.       Traffic Management Plan for Access to the Pathways Development 6

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

4.       Presentation of Annual Financial Statements - Year Ended 30 June 2020................................................................................................................................... 7

 

5.       Sport and Recreation Precinct Concept Plan - Post Consultation 111

 

6.       Bob Campbell Oval Concept Plan – Post Consultation ................... 246

 

7.       Northwood Shops Residential Care Facility DCP - Post exhibition Report........................................................................................................................ 246

 

8.       Lane Cove Council Annual Report 2019-20................................................. 246

 

9.       Credit Card Management in Local Government Audit ....................... 246

 

10.     Alcohol Free Zones - Parks/Reserves and St Leonards and Lane Cove Central Business Districts............................................................................. 246

 

11.     Alcohol Free Zones - New Years Eve ......................................................... 246

 

12.     Delivery Program and Operational Plan - First Quarter Review 246

 

13.     1st Quarter Review for 2020-2021 Budget.................................................. 246

 

14.     Schedule of Meetings 2021............................................................................... 246

 

15.     Council Nominations for the Sydney North Planning Panel.......... 246

 

16.     Traffic Committee - September 2020............................................................. 246

 

17.     Council Snapshot October 2020.................................................................... 246  

 

 

 

 

           


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 16 November 2020

Mayoral Minute - Vale Councillor Deborah Hutchens

 

 

Subject:          Mayoral Minute - Vale Councillor Deborah Hutchens    

Record No:    SU4924 - 66944/20

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Pam Palmer 

 

 

Executive Summary

                                                              

Councillors, we are all saddened by the recent passing of our colleague, former Mayor, Councillor Deborah Hutchens, who served on this Council since 2012, representing Central Ward.

 

Deb provided great service to the community in so many ways and was Mayor from 2015 – 2017. During this time she was responsible for one of Council’s most significant milestones in recent history – the signing of the contract to build The Canopy. It was fitting that Deb joined us at The Canopy for the topping out ceremony, and that it opened prior to her passing.

 

During her time on Council she was involved with a range of new initiatives including International Women’s Day and Lane Cove Night Out events, supporting the Hold My Hand initiative and establishing the Lane Cove Festival by the River which is enjoyed by thousands of locals each November.

 

During the first Festival by the River, Deb opened the new Tambourine Bay Picnic Area on the foreshore which helped to provide an alternate use for the previous baths which had been closed. The original baths were built by locals following WW2 and it was important to her that locals who had a strong connection to the original baths were part of the opening event, encouraging them to share stories and anecdotes of this piece of local history.

 

Lane Cove was fortunate to have Deb at the helm as both Councillor and as Mayor. She

was a pleasure to work with and was always respectful of the range of views that a single project could bring – her patience and calm demeanour helped lead the way as we navigated the best outcome.

 

Council and the community are most grateful for her commitment to Lane Cove, I know her legacy will live on in a range of projects that came to fruition thanks to Deb.

 

Our thoughts are with her husband, family and friends.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council have a minute silence in memory of Councillor Deborah Hutchens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Pam Palmer

Mayor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

         


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 16 November 2020

Traffic Management Plan for Access to the Pathways Development

 

 

Subject:          Traffic Management Plan for Access to the Pathways Development    

Record No:    SU6893 - 66922/20

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Katherine Morris 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Vehicular access to the Pathways development, once built, from River road coming up past the golf course from Greenwich will have traffic impacts as there is no plan for a right hand turn into the complex. The access planned at present is left turn into the complex and left turn out. Longueville residents are concerned that because of this situation vehicles coming from the east wishing to enter the complex from River road will take a ‘rat run’ through the narrow, steep streets of Longueville, namely Arabella Street, which is narrow and steep, and Woodford which is steep, in order to join Kenneth street to turn right at the traffic lights to enable entry into the Pathways complex on the left.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council, to ameliorate the traffic impacts of the proposed Pathways development, investigate ways in which traffic approaching from the East can be routed to avoid the use of the rat run through Longueville and a report come back to Council.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Katherine Morris

Councillor

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

   


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 16 November 2020

Presentation of Annual Financial Statements - Year Ended 30 June 2020

 

 

Subject:          Presentation of Annual Financial Statements - Year Ended 30 June 2020    

Record No:    SU772 - 64444/20

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Sarah Seaman 

 

 

Executive Summary

                                                              

Following completion of the audit, Council’s Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2020 and the Auditors Report, are presented to Council.  It is recommended that the report be received.

 

Background

 

Section 418 of the Local Government Act 1993, requires that as soon as practicable after a council receives a copy of the auditor’s reports:-

 

a)   It must fix a date for the meeting at which it proposes to present its audited financial reports, together with the auditor’s reports, to the public; and

 

b)   It must give public notice of the date so fixed.

 

The audit of the Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2020 has been completed by Council’s Auditors – Audit Office of NSW, and a copy of their Audit Report is included with the Financial Statements.

 

The 2020 draft audited Financial Statements were presented to the Internal Audit Committee on 8 October 2020.

 

Notice was on our website on 23 October 2020 of the intention to present the Annual Financial Statements at this meeting.  The Statements have been available for inspection on our Council website since 23 October 2020.  Written submissions were invited and at the time of writing this report, no submissions had been received.  The audited financial statements, together with the auditor’s reports, are now formally presented to Council.

 

Since the presentation of the Financial Statements there has been minor changes made in the Notes to the accounts including some reporting adjustments to Note 14 Contract Liabilities and Note 16 Payables. In addition, an amount was removed from current liabilities and current asset for the same value. This did not impact the result for net assets which remained the same.

 

Council’s overall financial result for the for the year was a surplus of $18.5M.

 

Council’s Auditor will be in attendance at the meeting to present the Auditor’s Report.  A Copy of the Annual Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2020 are attached at AT-1.

 

Conclusion

 

The results reflect Council’s ongoing strong financial position established and maintained over several years.  Once again Council significantly exceeded industry benchmarks used in the Fit for the Future program, except the debt service cover ratio as Council has no borrowing.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council receive and note the Annual Financial Reports together with the Auditors Report for the year ended 30 June 2020.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jessica Quilty

Acting Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Annual Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2020

102 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Annual Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 1

Annual Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2020

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 1

Annual Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 1

Annual Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2020

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 1

Annual Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 1

Annual Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 1

Annual Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 1

Annual Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 1

Annual Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 1

Annual Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 1

Annual Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2020

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 1

Annual Financial Statements for the Year Ended 30 June 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 16 November 2020

Sport and Recreation Precinct Concept Plan - Post Consultation

 

 

Subject:          Sport and Recreation Precinct Concept Plan - Post Consultation    

Record No:    SU7396 - 65139/20

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      David Stevens; Sebastian Stivala; Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council has developed a Recreation Precinct Concept Plan for a new facility to be located on the curtilage of the Lane Cove Golf Course. A six (6) week community consultation phase was undertaken in July and August 2020. This report will outline the results of the consultation split into “multi-sport” and “golf course” components. The report recommends, that in response to the community feedback, the “multi-sport” facility progress and further consultation be undertaken of the “golf course” component.

 

Background

 

At the March 2020 Ordinary Council meeting Council considered a report on the Sport and Recreation Precinct – Concept Plan (AT-1) at the Lane Cove Golf Course and resolved :-

 

“1.  Note and receive the report;

 

2.   Undertake consultation as outlined in the report subject to a second option being included which eliminates any changes to the golf course except the first hole, which remains a par 3 hole; and

 

3.   Include in the consultation a request for residents to make suggestions about other concepts that could be considered in the Sports Precinct.

 

4.   A further report be submitted to Council outlining the results of the consultation.”

 

This report outlines the results of the consultation undertaken.

 

Discussion

 

Pursuant to Council’s resolution, community consultation was undertaken on the two proposed redevelopment options for delivery of a Sport and Recreation Precinct:

 

1.   A multi-sport facility (indoor / outdoor courts, gym, professional shop, stage, reception, restaurant with extensive terrace, and a 300-space underground car park) with no change to the golf course (excepting a reduction in length of the first hole only)

2.   A multi-sport facility (per above) that also includes an outdoor driving range and putt-putt golf with a subsequent reduction in par and length (retaining 9 holes) of the golf course.

 

The consultation was conducted between 3 July and 16 August 2020 and included: Advertisement, eNewsletter and Social Media; notification letters to Adjoining Owners; Golf Club; Golf NSW; Local Sporting Groups and adjoining Local Government Areas; website exhibition; online survey; two drop-in centres held on consecutive Saturdays at the Lane Cove Golf Club; and an independent telephone survey conducted by Micromex of 400 households based on the demography of the Council area.

 

 

The consultation resulted in a total of 1,350 online surveys being completed and 240 submissions being received. In addition, an independent telephone survey was conducted by Micromex of 400 households based on the demography of the Council.

 

In terms of gauging the overall community view of the matter, a ‘randomly sample’ method of participants that reflects local demography provides the highest degree of accuracy. Both the online survey process and submissions are ‘self-select’ methods where participants have self-activated to participate.

 

To assist in ease of comparison between the results of the independent telephone survey (AT-2) and the online survey (AT-3), Council engaged Micromex to also undertake the analysis of the online survey which had the same questions prepared by Micromex.

 

The discussion in this report is split into two sections, a discussion on the multi-sport facility and then separately, the future of the golf course.

 

Multi-Sport Facility

 

The Key findings determined by Micromex from the independent telephone survey in relation to the Multi-Sport Facility are:-

 

1.   “95% are at least somewhat support of council addressing the shortfall of indoor sporting facilities

2.   88% are at least somewhat supportive of the proposal to develop a sport and recreational precinct at 180 River Road Northwood

3.   82% indicate that they are at least somewhat likely to use the facility

4.   All suggested inclusions are broadly supported

→   Based on the results of this community research, “Lane Cove Council has strong community support for the development of the proposed Sport and Recreational Precinct”

 

The Key findings determined by Micromex from the online survey in relation to the Multi-Sport Facility are:-

 

1.   “89% are at least somewhat supportive of council addressing the shortfall of indoor sporting facilities

2.   81% are at least somewhat supportive of the proposal to develop a sport and recreational precinct at 180 River Road Northwood

3.   ….

4.   Results obtained throughout this research have indicated that “Lane Cove Council has strong community/stakeholder support for the proposed development of the Sport and Recreational Precinct “

 

A total of 240 submissions were received (a copy of each submission has been circulated separately to Councillors), a summary of the comments is included as (AT-12). Of the submissions 52% made comment on their support or otherwise for a Sport and Recreation Precinct (31% no and 21% yes). The submissions also raised matters including: light and noise pollution; traffic; flora and fauna; impact on tennis capacity, wrong location; and, economic feasibility (including funding of the proposed redevelopment). These issues will now be discussed individually.

 

An Obtrusive Lighting Report (AT-5) was provided by Intrax Projects to assess impact from the proposed upgrade of the existing Lane Cove Golf Course on neighbouring residences (including the nearest property at 6 Stevenson Street) around the development (outdoor courts and golf driving range). The primary objective of this report is to assist Council by assessing the obtrusive lighting against: “Compliance with AS/NZS 4282:2019 – Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting”, calculations are based on “curfew” and “non-curfew” hours. The report found that a green surface complied with curfew and non-curfew requirements, whilst the concrete surface was compliant with non-curfew requirements only.

 

A Noise Impact Assessment (AT-6) was completed by Acoustic Logic to “predict operational noise emissions (from the proposed use) at the nearest residential receivers and assess the predicted noise levels against the relevant acoustic criteria.” With specific regard the outdoor courts, the report found that predicted noise levels at nearby residents are similar to existing environmental noise levels. Further, the use and type of noise generated is generally consistent with the zoning and current land use of the site. Acoustic Logic note that management / time restrictions would generally need to be implemented, e.g. use of the tennis courts after 10pm is not recommended. In terms of the indoor courts, they were assessed against a “background +5 dB(A)” level which is consistent for this type of development and have been compared to the most sensitive time of use (6pm to 10pm). Predicted noise levels at the nearest receiver locations achieved “noise objective”.

 

A Noise Impact Assessment (AT-7) was completed by Acoustic Logic associated with the proposed roundabout at Northwood / River Roads and the Stevenson Street realignment. To accurately determine the environmental noise a 15-20 minute measurement interval is utilised. Over this period, noise levels are monitored on a continuous basis and statistical and integrating techniques are used to determine noise description parameters.

 

Based on the site investigations, the following receivers are those most noise sensitive to the proposed development: existing residences along Stevenson Street; existing residences across River Road from the proposed development; existing residences to the North along Cogan Place, Osborne Road, Osborne Place, and Richardson Street East. Basis a transport study undertaken by TTW that forecasts traffic generation and peak hour vehicle movements to the Sport and Recreation Centre, the highest peak hour traffic volume predicted is 280 vehicle movements per hour (180 in and 100 out). At this level of vehicle movement, noise level at the building line of the nearest residences to the South of the property comply with the Road Noise Policy allowable noise level. With regard any additional traffic noise along River Road, the existing high volumes of traffic will mean the relative increase will be “negligible”. The actual access road will only pass behind one property 196 Northwood Rd (post the round-about construction which requires acquisition of 194 Northwood Rd). Notwithstanding the above, Council can give consideration to constructing a noise acoustic barrier along the boundary of the roadway to provide a level of screening to adjoining residents.

 

Council is working with Transport for NSW (TfNSW) to finalise the design and approval of the roundabout at the intersection of Northwood Road, River Road and Stevenson Street. Council understands final approval is imminent and works are expected to commence in the 2021/22 Financial Year and will include a shared user path from Northwood Rd to the facility. Initial investigations to also link the facility with a shared user path through the 266 Longueville Road site for connection to Longueville are no longer considered viable or desirable in terms of the ability to accommodate the path through the bushland.

 

In terms of transport links Council is confident that increased demand will be accommodated by NSW Buses in the form of additional services to sufficiently meet needs.

 

The initial flora and fauna investigations do not anticipate any impact, any such issue will be addressed and considered through the relevant project approval processes.

 

Concern was raised that there would be a reduction in the number of tennis courts from 5 to 4. The proposed facility includes multi-courts for the outdoor component, which provide flexibility. Multi-courts, however, occupy more space as they cater for the sport with the largest court, being netball. The final mix would be determined in consultation with the operator, noting that the area occupied 4 multi-courts can accommodate 5 tennis courts, and there is significant alternate tennis court capacity in the LGA, although the majority does not have lighting for night use.

 

It was suggested that there are alternative locations for the multi-court facility, in particular at Blackman Park. Staff examined the size of the facility and determined that it would not fit as the depth of the courts and surrounding circulation space prevents the facility being located over the existing carpark as was suggested. In addition, as outlined later in the report, Blackman Park is already heavily utilised and is surrounded by a single lane residential street network, which limits its capacity to have further intensification of use.

 

The economic feasibility of the project was also raised. At this stage Council is not making a commitment to build the project but gathering information as to the scale and inclusions within the project. Like The Canopy project, the Sport and Recreation Precinct will be first and foremost a community asset. With this in mind, the proposed development’s primary intent is to meet the sporting and recreational needs of the community. Pricing (from a consumer perspective) should not be a barrier to entry, however the economic feasibility of the “concept” needs to be clearly understood to ensure the long-term financial sustainability of the precinct. Council will need to undertake the requisite due diligence, including:- facility and program mix utilising the consultation feedback when undertaking further operator engagement; construction costs; and funding models.

 

The consultation results illustrate support for the delivery of a Sport and Recreation Precinct. It is therefore appropriate for Council to continue to progress the matter as this element is not interdependent on what Council decides in respect of the Golf Course component.

 

Golf Course Facility

 

The Micromex independent telephone survey in relation to the Golf Course Facility shows that 80% indicated they are at least somewhat supportive of including a golf driving range and putt-putt even though it will change the course layout and length.

 

The Micromex analysis of the online survey in relation to the Golf Course Facility shows that 66% indicated they are at least somewhat supportive of including a golf driving range and putt-putt even though it will change the course layout and length,

 

Of the 240 submissions received, 184 opposed the inclusion of a golf driving range and putt-putt, primarily due to the impact it would have on the current course configuration and the need to retain green space.

 

The options for the golf facility are essentially: -

 

1.   Retain the golf course and its current par and length with the exception of shortening the first hole;

2.   Reduce the par and length to 29 and 1,410m respectively to accommodate the inclusion of a golf driving range and putt-putt course (AT-4);

3.   Dedicate the golf course to recreation space.

 

The following considers each of these options:-

 

1.   Retain the golf course and its current par and length with the exception of shortening the first hole

 

Golf NSW’s formal mission statement is “To promote and advance the sport of golf in NSW, ensuring a viable and sustainable future for the game”. In relation to the Lane Cove Golf Course they have stated “Based on the club’s current trading status, social golf / membership pricing model I would question the medium to long term viability of the club, without finding additional income streams.

 

The course has since its inception has had various financial sustainability issues. The financial viability has been in decline since 2005. The following provides a brief

 

•     1964 Golf course established with all maintenance and construction by the club, with various loans including from members and Council, later not repaid

•     1983 Council took over golf course operations and maintenance at the request of the club due to financial viability

•     2005 Long term course operator (pre 2000) ASP Golf surrender lease to operate course.

•     2006 Jason Benham Golf wins tender

•     2008 Contract terminated due to non-payment

•     2008 Orbrey Golf Pty Ltd. temporary operates

•     2009 Orbrey wins tender

•     2011 Contract ends early by mutual agreement

•     2010 Council commences investigations into the Recreation Precinct Concept

•     2011 Bluefit temporary operates on revenue share, ends as not cost effective

•     2012 Sydney Sports Management (tennis centre), operates facility on revenue share basis

 

Since 2005, the annual Council subsidy (net cost) cost to the Lane Cove Community (AT-9) for management and maintenance (excluding capital) of the golf course has averaged circa $213,000 per annum, some $3,600,000. From 2010, the average annual Council Subsidy has increased to $229,000 whilst playing rounds (9 hole equivalent) have fallen from 23,650 to 16,650 in 2019. This is despite the Lane Cove LGA’s population increasing by more than 16% since 2010.

 

In addition, Council is responsible for capital costs, for example the bridge at the 4th hole was replaced in 2017 at a cost of $220,000. Green Options the current course maintenance contractor estimate $500,000 of capital expenditure is required to replace irrigation in the immediate future.

 

The COVID-19 period (April to September 2020) has seen a dramatic increase in public rounds per month with the highest year on year increase of 90.6% occurring in the month of May. The average monthly increase during the period was 71.9% for a total of 3,679 rounds versus the same period in 2019. Put another way, if this became the new normal in terms of patronage it would amount to 24,400 rounds (annualised) inclusive of member competition rounds. This would still not allow the course to break even, with a circa $100,000 subsidy still required, as it is considerably less than the historic average of 30,000 plus rounds (with a high of 39,000) in the early 2000’s.

 

The reduction in playing rounds is also in line with declining Golf Club membership. For many years the Club has experienced a steady decline in membership despite the Club’s best efforts to recruit new members. For example, since 2015 membership has declined by 23.5% (170 members in 2015 to 130 members in 2020). Whilst declining membership pre COVID-19 has been a common occurrence across many clubs in Sydney, Lane Cove is higher than average.

 

In Metropolitan Sydney there are fewer than four golf clubs with a playing membership similar to, or less than, the Lane Cove Golf Club. While there is price sensitivity in the market, this is not considered to be a driver for the declining membership with annual Lane Cove Golf Club subscriptions ($1,000), comparing favourably with other closely located clubs: Castle Cove ($1,950); Cammeray ($1,465); Northbridge (18 hole $1,850); and Balgowlah ($1,365). While there are different inclusions and sub fee structures within the rates, it is noted that the Lane Cove subscription fee of $1,000 is split 60/40, with Council receiving the 40% ($400) in return for member access to the course for competition play on weekends and weekdays. A course round fee is also currently payed by the members which is retained by the Club. The operating model(s) of these four clubs require maintenance, capital and operational functions to be the sole responsibility of the respective clubs, with no assistance received by the local council.

 

The scale of the operational subsidy (net cost) for the golf course can be put in context by comparing to the subsidy provided by Council for other sporting facilities. The subsidy it is greater than all other sporting fields combined. By overlaying patronage levels, the subsidy per participant (excluding all passive recreational use) at Council’s sports fields is $1.17 per participant, whilst golf is $10.94 (per participant per 9 hole round equivalent), based on annual participation numbers of 150,150 and 16,500 respectively. Council does not provide an operational subsidy to tennis and historically when lawn bowls clubs were in decline, Council did not provide an operational subsidy to ensure the clubs survived.

 

Continuation of the current model would see the status quo maintained in terms of the course layout, however with no stimulus initiative to increase golf patronage, the declining patronage is likely to continue requiring an ongoing subsidy by Council.

 

2.   Reduce the par and length to 29 and 1,410m respectively to accommodate the inclusion of a golf driving range and putt-putt course (AT-4);

 

Golf NSW’s official view is “the planned creation of a Leisure Precinct on the current site provides an exciting opportunity to create a ‘cradle to grave’ golf offering, with the addition of a mini golf complex and practice range. Such a facility would be unique to Sydney and provide an opportunity to significantly grow the game of golf in the region.

 

Such a facility would complement the current golf course offering and provide a viable and vibrant golfing hub, and Golf NSW looks forward to providing ongoing support to the concept.”

 

The “golf offering” as it currently stands, was identified as the weak link by prospective operators during the EOI process. Golf can be a viable and long-term component of the proposed Sport and Recreation Precinct in its own right. For example, the Narrabeen Driving Range and Putt-Putt facility is under a license management agreement and nets $400,000 of revenue to Northern Beaches Council annually.

 

The addition of a golf driving range and putt-putt would: deliver a “golf facility” for all ages; assist in creating a family friendly atmosphere; allow people an easier introduction to golf, augment golf teaching (aspiring to a centre of excellence) capability; facilitate new visitor throughput and ultimately ensure golf is financially sustainable.

 

The Driving Range and Putt-Putt facility raised a number of issues in relation to its impact on the current course and amenity.

 

During the consultation, information circulated in the community about the scale of the impact of the Driving Range and Putt-Putt facility on the course that was incorrect. This information variously described the impact as representing a 33% decrease in the course, course length and greenspace. To clarify this issue, the course length is 28% shorter (1960m to 1,410m), the par of the course is a 9% reduction (par 32 to par 29) and the golf course area, if a 200m driving range and a 1200sqm putt-putt are included, is reduced by 19% (86,000sqm to 69,800sqm). The driving range although fenced, would remain natural grass / green space, the putt-putt would not be natural grass.

 

Loss of greenspace was raised as a key issue. Central to this issue was the suggestion that many local residents enjoy use of the public space (Golf Course) for recreational purposes that included exercise and dog walking. To this end, Council engaged contractors to conduct a recreation user survey to determine patronage levels at Blackman Park and the golf course between the hours of 06:00 and 19:30. The findings were as follows:-

 

Date

Location

Primary Sport

Passive / Other

Total

31/10/2020

Blackman Park

887

1842

2729

31/10/2020

Golf Course

96

4

100

4/11/2020

Blackman Park

318

868

1186

4/11/2020

Golf Course

109

11

120

 

While the numbers may vary based on the season, time of day, week, month etc, the order of magnitude in difference indicates that there relatively low-level use of the golf course open space.

 

In terms of the visual impact of a driving range, nets etc will be required for a driving range, however it is noted that there is an existing high mesh fence along River Road, the main public view of the space. There is dense foliage to the East and North and the new indoor facility to the west, which will minimise the visual impact.

 

In terms of any associated lighting, the Intrax Projects’ Obtrusive Lighting Report (AT-5) took calculations from the North and the South of the development per the location of neighbouring properties. The lighting design for the driving range uses 16 LED floodlights mounted at 18m above the ground and is compliant with both the non-curfew and curfew requirements for the driving range at all calculation locations. Ultimately, operational times for these facilities can also be adjusted to minimise any impact from light.

 

A Noise Impact Assessment (AT-10) was completed by Acoustic Logic to predict operational noise emissions at the nearest residential receivers (existing residences along Stevenson Street; existing residences across River Road from the proposed development; existing residences to the North along Cogan Place, Osborne Road, Osborne Place, and Richardson Street East) and assess the predicted noise levels against the relevant acoustic criteria. The “Noise Guide for Local Government” provides guidance to local councils to assist in the management of noise. With regard to sporting facilities, the framework for noise control recommends that assessment be made with reference to the “offensive noise” test. On this basis, Acoustic Logic noted that the predicted noise levels at nearby residents are similar to existing background noise; the use and type of noise generated is generally consistent with the zoning and current land use.

 

Given the concern in relation to noise generated from a Driving Range Council engaged Alpha Acoustics to undertake a further study, which involved field visits to a driving range to independently truth test the outcomes from the predicative modelling above. The report, included as AT-11, reached the same conclusion as Acoustic Logic, that “the proposed golf driving range noise emissions are predicted to comply with the Project Noise Criteria (NSW INP) at all sensitive receivers after noise controls are implemented as described in this report.”

 

Ultimately, operational times for these facilities can also be adjusted to minimise any impact from noise.

 

Ecological Consultants Australia (ECA) prepared a Riparian Constraints Assessment (AT-8) concluded that “the mapped 1st order watercourse located within Lane Cove Golf Course does meet the definition of a river under the Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act). ECA concluded that there is no need for a Controlled Activity Approval prior to any proposed development taking place within 40m of the waterway. Further, “if realignment of the creek is proposed, best practice measures would be to reinstate natural elements of the watercourse (i.e. reduce the amount of piped sections where possible) and allow land for native riparian vegetation to provide shading, filtration and habitat”.

 

Ultimately, there is significant capital cost to establish the golf driving range, putt-putt and subsequent course modifications. The inclusion of the facilities would be subject to the response by the potential operator to the opportunity. The inclusion of these alternative golf related offerings has the potential to ensure golf is financially sustainable at the site.

 

3.   Dedicate the golf course to recreation space

 

A number of submissions reflected “There have been instances in the Sydney metropolitan area in recent times where local golf courses have been determined as totally unviable financially to the point where they have been turned into parkland.”

 

The total area of the golf course cleared area is 86,000sqm, compared to Council’s largest cleared open space Blackman Park, which is 78,000 sqm. Golf courses generally, and as can been seen in the patronage rates above, this golf course, have relatively low levels of use compared to the space that they utilise. The population of the Lane Cove Local Government Area has grown from when the course was established in the mid 60’s from some 26,000 to 40,000 people today, which puts pressure to increase utilisation rates of open space, Blackman Park being an excellent example.

 

The option of converting the golf course into a potential mixture of active and passive open space would introduce new uses and groups to utilise the space more intensively that takes advantage of the natural topography. The following list is not exhaustive, but the scale of the space is such that it could include:, a new sports field in place of the 8th and 9th fairways; outdoor courts; driving range; putt putt; walking and bike tracks; picnic areas; a system of ponds; and off leash dog areas. It is anticipated that the ongoing maintenance costs would be similar to the existing golf course subsidy.

 

The conversion of the golf course to general open space would increase utilisation of the space by the community at a similar ongoing cost to the current golf course subsidy.

 

Conclusion

 

The multi-sport facility has considerable community support and will make a significant contribution to diversifying the sport offering in our LGA. As it is not interdependent with the future of the golf course space, further work on the multi-court indoor facility can progress.

 

There is clearly a lack of support from the existing golf club for the solution that has been proposed to make golf sustainable at the site despite it being supported by Golf NSW. At the same time, a new option has been proposed through the consultation process to explore alternate uses of the space for parklands.

 

This consultation has occurred at the start of the process and therefore there is no urgency to determine a solution at this time. There is an opportunity for further community consultation to identify if there are further options / components to options, and provide further information on all options before ultimately determining the broader community’s preference for the future use of what is the largest piece of open space in the Local Government Area.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.         Proceed with the Multi-Sport Facility as shown in the Concept Design included as AT-1;

2.         Undertake due diligence for the Multi-Sport Facility; including:-facility and program mix utilising the consultation feedback when undertaking further operator engagement; construction costs; and funding models;

3.         In relation to the future of the golf course, undertake further community consultation to identify if there are further golf options / components to options and provide further information on the proposed options before ultimately determining the broader community’s preference for the future use of the space;

4.         Request the General Manager to develop a Community Consultation Plan and the Plan be presented to a Councillor Workshop.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Lane Cove Sport and Recreation Precinct - Concept Design

8 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Micromex Report Presentation Online Survey Responses Sport and Recreation Precinct September 2020

40 Pages

 

AT‑3View

Micromex Report Presentation Telephone Survey Sport and Recreation Precinct August 2020

41 Pages

 

AT‑4View

Lane Cove Concept Course Master Plan 16th March 2020

1 Page

 

AT‑5View

Lane Cove Golf Course Obtrusive Lighting Report Concept (Final)

17 Pages

 

AT‑6View

Noise Impact Assessment - Lane Cove Sports & Recreation Centre

38 Pages

 

AT‑7View

Noise Impact Assessment - Roundabout

38 Pages

 

AT‑8View

Lane Cove Golf Course Riparian Constraints Assessment

19 Pages

 

AT‑9View

Financials - Lane Cove Golf Course 2010 to 2021

1 Page

 

AT‑10View

Noise Impact Assessment - Driving Range

38 Pages

 

AT‑11View

Pre Feasibility Acoustic Study - Lane Cove Driving Range Final

5 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑12View

Data Summary of All Submissions

3 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Lane Cove Sport and Recreation Precinct - Concept Design

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 2

Micromex Report Presentation Online Survey Responses Sport and Recreation Precinct September 2020

 

 



ATTACHMENT 3

Micromex Report Presentation Telephone Survey Sport and Recreation Precinct August 2020

 

 



ATTACHMENT 4

Lane Cove Concept Course Master Plan 16th March 2020

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 5

Lane Cove Golf Course Obtrusive Lighting Report Concept (Final)

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 6

Noise Impact Assessment - Lane Cove Sports & Recreation Centre

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 6

Noise Impact Assessment - Lane Cove Sports & Recreation Centre

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 6

Noise Impact Assessment - Lane Cove Sports & Recreation Centre

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 6

Noise Impact Assessment - Lane Cove Sports & Recreation Centre

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 6

Noise Impact Assessment - Lane Cove Sports & Recreation Centre

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 6

Noise Impact Assessment - Lane Cove Sports & Recreation Centre

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 7

Noise Impact Assessment - Roundabout

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 7

Noise Impact Assessment - Roundabout

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 7

Noise Impact Assessment - Roundabout

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 7

Noise Impact Assessment - Roundabout

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 7

Noise Impact Assessment - Roundabout

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 7

Noise Impact Assessment - Roundabout

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 8

Lane Cove Golf Course Riparian Constraints Assessment

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 9

Financials - Lane Cove Golf Course 2010 to 2021

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 10

Noise Impact Assessment - Driving Range

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 10

Noise Impact Assessment - Driving Range

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 10

Noise Impact Assessment - Driving Range

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 10

Noise Impact Assessment - Driving Range

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 10

Noise Impact Assessment - Driving Range

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 10

Noise Impact Assessment - Driving Range

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 12

Data Summary of All Submissions

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 16 November 2020

Bob Campbell Oval Concept Plan – Post Consultation

 

 

Subject:          Bob Campbell Oval Concept Plan – Post Consultation     

Record No:    SU5606 - 65779/20

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Helen Haigh 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This report outlines the survey and submissions for the Draft Bob Campbell Oval Master Plan community consultation that was undertaken and provide recommendations on changes to the draft Master Plan based on the community feedback.

 

Community consultation was carried out between 17 September concluding 1 November. Two drop-in sessions were held in the Terrace Function Room and one additional session was held on site at the OvalOne hundred and twenty (120) people in total attended the drop-in sessions.

 

A total of five hundred and eighty-seven (587) community members participated in the survey.  62.8% of respondents were “Very Supportive’ of the Sports field upgrade. Two hundred and fifteen (215) submissions were received, 204 from individuals and 11 from groups or associations. The majority of these submission were from people that completed the online survey as well.

 

The 338 survey respondents who chose to leave a comment stated whether they were For, Against or Neutral to the synthetic field upgrade. 181 were Against, 120 For the and 32 were Neutral.

 

From the written submissions received:

·          Twenty-four (24) submissions supported synthetic turf;

·          One hundred and eighty (180) submissions did not support the synthetic turf; and

·          Eleven (11) submissions did not indicate for or against the synthetic turf, by either providing reasons for and against the merits of the proposal or by not stating a view point.

 

Of the groups and associations six (6) were sporting groups; Football NSW (the governing body of football for New South Wales with over 650,000 players in NSW), Northern Suburbs Football Association (membership of 16,800 with 1,793 members from Lane Cove and 4 clubs), Lane Cove Football Club (with over 900 members) Lane Cove Netball Club (16 teams, with 134 members), Greenwich Sports Club Inc (with a membership of over 360), Chatswood Rangers Sports Club (with 1,100 registered players). The five (5) Associations were; Greenwich Community Association Inc (representing the Greenwich community), Greenwich Village Games, Northwood Action Group (representing over 100 households in Northwood), Lane Cove Bushland and Conservation Society and the Friends of Lane Cove (5 members).

 

From the submissions the issues, concerns and comments have been summarised into the following themes:

 

1.         Synthetic field (Environmental Impacts);

2.         Synthetic field (Size and Design);

3.         Synthetic field (Costs and Maintenance);

4.         Synthetic field (Turf Alternatives and Hours of Use);

5.         Greenwich Village Games;

6.         Lighting;

7.         Amenities Building;

8.         Car Park;

9.         Leash - Free Dog Area;

10.       Netball Training Court;

11.       Picnic Area, Playground and exercise equipment;

12.       Fitness Track;

13.       Shared User Path;

14.       Accessibility;

15.       Consultation and Planning;

16.       Finances;

17.       Wildlife (Flora and Fauna);

18.       Disruption to Neighbours.

 

Council is in receipt of a petition shown at (AT-3) with 1,614 signatures requesting that Council preserve Bob Campbell Oval for future generations by rejecting the proposal for a synthetic surface and to undertake works to improve and maintain the natural grass. The petition was received as four submissions, on November 2,5,6, and 9.

 

As well as the petition received from Greenwich Community Association Inc a Change.org petition was received to “Protect the Greenwich Ecosystem Protect our children’s future” with 23 signatures.

 

Having regard to the comments and issues raised by the survey and public submissions, changes have been accommodated in the Master Plan to address concerns and it is recommended the sportsfield proceed to be upgraded with a synthetic surface as Synthetic turf is the only way capacity of the current and projected sportsfield user population can be accommodated. Further, changes be incorporated into the final Concept Plan.

 

Background

 

NSROC Sports Ground Strategy

 

In 2017 Northern Sydney Organisation of Council’s (NSROC) completed a Regional Sports Ground Strategy which found that from 2011 to 2036, the population of the NSROC region will grow by 200,000 (or 36.4%) to 752,600. The strategy further stated that existing sportsgrounds in the region (already over capacity) will not be able to cater for the additional population growth and participation numbers.  Their forecasts have shown that NSROC councils will need to increase the capacity of sports grounds by over 40% (through a range of initiatives and new facilities) to cope with existing and future demands.  

 

The impacts of not increasing sports ground capacity in Northern Sydney will lead to increasing numbers of participants being turned away from sport which will lead to:

·          Increasing physical inactivity, sedentary leisure behaviour and related health and disease impacts

·          Reducing benefits brought about by participation in sport and physical activity

·          Increased costs to participate and accessibility of facilities will create inequity in participants and associated benefits

·          Access to sport may become based on the capacity to pay and which may create a greater barrier to participation for lower income households

NSROC also developed a Regional Plan for Synthetic Sportsfields which states most grounds are overused in winter, and playing surfaces are sometimes poor, particularly in wet weather. To meet existing and projected demand more sports fields are required and/or existing fields must be developed with substantially increased usage capacity. Substantially increasing use can only be achieved by constructing synthetic turf surfaces.

 

Under optimal conditions natural turf sports fields should be able to accommodate up to 30 hours usage per week and start to deteriorate after they receive more than 20 hours use per week. While a synthetic field can accommodate over 60 hours a week no matter the weather conditions.

Bob Campbell Oval currently gets less than 25 hours usage per week in winter which results in the field becoming sub-standard. With the projected 40% increased demand for sports fields increasing the capacity of Bob Campbell Oval is required as recommended in Council’s 2008 Recreation Action Plan, the 2017 NSROC Sports Ground Strategy and the 2017 NSROC Regional Plan for Synthetic Sportsfields.

 

The NSROC Regional Sportsground Strategy also emphasised that State Government agencies should take responsibility to actively facilitate the acquisition and/or embellishment of land or facilities to cope with the increased demand brought on by population growth. These facilities should be provided for as essential infrastructure and State Government agencies need to share responsibility for planning and funding them in a similar manner to other essential infrastructure. In this regard Council has received funding for the project from the Precinct Support Scheme linked to the St Leonards/Crows Nest 2036 plan.

 

Key stakeholder engagement and past grant applications

 

In 2018 Council commenced discussions on upgrades for Bob Campbell Oval with the Greenwich Sports Club. Following these discussions, an initial draft Master Plan was developed. The matter was not further progressed at the time as funding options were not available.

 

In 2019, Council unsuccessfully applied for a grant to implement the draft Master Plan under the NSW Department of Planning, Environment and Industry (DPEI) Precinct Support Scheme linked to the St Leonards/Crows Nest 2036 plan. The Scheme is designed to fund upfront, infrastructure to accommodate the future needs of the precinct.

 

In 2020 Council again applied for a Precinct Support Scheme grant with an updated Master Plan that included a Shared User Path connecting Bob Campbell Oval to St Leonards along River Road. Council was ultimately successful in being awarded $3,623,023.

 

A report was presented to Council (AT-1) at the July 2020 Council meeting recommending the endorsement of the Draft Bob Campbell Oval Master Plan for community consultation.

 

Consultation

 

Consultation commenced as outlined in the resolution from the July Council meeting. Subsequently at the October meeting Council further resolved to undertake an additional drop-in session and extend the consultation period. The consultation went from 17 September to 1 November and included the following as resolved by Council (AT-2);

 

·          Two drop-in sessions held in the Terrace Function Room, Tuesday 6 and 13 October from 3pm – 7pm. One additional session was held on site at Bob Campbell Oval, Friday 23 October from 3.30pm – 6.30pm. 

·          The area of the Synthetic field was marked on the Oval (as close as practical) during the consultation period).

·          The Draft Master Plan incorporated design features to ensure that the infill material remains on the field.

 

BCO consultation was included in 3 eNewsletter publications 17, 20 and 30 October and 4

facebook posts. The facebook posts reached 3.7K on 17/9, 1.1K on 1/10, 1.1K on 20/10, and 1.7k on 21/10. A letter box drop of 365 adjacent residents was carried out on Monday 15 September.

Notification signs were installed at access point to BCO. The information boards from the Drop-in sessions were installed onsite at BCO on the 24 October.

 

Discussion

 

Survey Results

Below is a summary of the survey results with the full survey shown at (AT-4) this includes the final question for any further comments.

 

Survey results show that visits to BCO were relatively evenly spread between at least once a week, several times a month and only during the sporting season.

 

 

Thirty nine percent (39%) of respondents live 1km – 5km away, 16% living within 400m and 12% living over 5km away.

 

The table below is a summary of how supportive respondents are of the proposed Master Plan elements. Over 60% of respondents are supportive or very supportive of all the proposed elements except the Enclosed Off-Leash Dog Areas. The Enclosed Off-Leash Dog Areas was supported by over 50%.

 

68% of respondents were either very supportive, supportive or somewhat supportive of upgrading the field and 32% were either not very supportive, not supportive at all of upgrading the sportsfield.

 

 

Playground

Fifty three percent (53%) responded yes to visiting BCO with children and would prefer the playground to be fenced (53% for fencing with 47% against). Swings and climbing equipment followed by natural element (such as sandstone and timber) and slide were the preferred play equipment. Forest/bushland was the predominate theme choice.

 

Dogs

55% responded no to walking a dog at BCO. Of the 248 respondents who answered yes to walking a dog, the preference of type of dog agility equipment was evenly spread. Not all respondents thought it was necessary to have agility equipment for dogs.

 

Other facilities

The majority of respondents said ‘Yes’ to including a basketball hoop with the netball court and ‘No’ to using moving exercise equipment in addition to the current static equipment.

 

At the foreshore respondents were asked to select elements to be installed alongside the playground, the results were evenly spread between the BBQ’s seats, picnic tables and shelters.

 

Amenities Building

Following the requirements for the accessible toilets, respondents chose change rooms as the next highest priority. Other comments included regular cleaning and corporate boxes.  See full survey results for all suggestions.

 

 

 

 

Transport 

Driving followed by walking were the most common modes of transport to access BCO.

 

 

Age

The majority of people who took part in the survey were 46-60 years of age.

 

 

The final question of the survey allowed space for free text, resulting in 338 additional comments. These were sorted into the same categories as the separate written submissions and responded to as part of that section.

 

A few further questions and comments from this survey section are noted below and responded to accordingly; Can the Netball court on top of the Amenities Building? Can the Fitness Track be soft material? Can the synthetic be used for yoga and Pilates and is there provision for other sports?

 

A number of comments were made about injuries sustained from holes dug by dogs and a few comments that ‘dogs already go into the bush and a fence would be good to stop this’

 

Comment

The synthetic field is for everyone, anyone can book the field or use it when it has not been booked. Yes, the field can be used for Yoga and Pilates.

 

The Amenities Building is not large enough to host a Netball Court.

 

The provision for a soft material to be used on the Fitness Track can be investigated in the detail design phase.

 

Holes dug by dogs in ovals is a common problem on ovals where off-leash dogs are permitted.  Council provide soil at these ovals for people fill in the divots left from dogs digging.  On a synthetic field dogs will not be permitted.

 

Written Submissions

 

A summary of concerns raised from the public submissions is included below, followed by a comment. All groups and association submissions are shown at (AT – 5) and individual submissions are shown at (AT- 6).

 

Overall Master Plan

Overall submissions were generally supportive of the elements in the proposed Master Plan and were similar to the survey results. Most submissions were not supportive of the synthetic turf. Concerns were raised over the design apparently benefiting only one user group, reducing the ‘mixed-use’ aspect of BCO and only benefiting ‘non-locals’ rather than ‘locals’. There was also concern of misinformation and misleading information on the Master Plan, consultation and survey. Specific comments on the proposed elements are addressed below.

 

Synthetic field upgrade

 

Twenty-four (24) written submissions supported the upgrade of the sportsfield.  This included 5 group submissions.  The groups represent memberships of 2,287 residents from Lane Cove and a further 17,900 from outside the Lane Cove LGA. With one commenting “Synthetic pitch is superior as field is undulating and uneven and many have retained injures at BCO.”

 

180 submissions did not support the proposal’s upgrade of the oval from turf to synthetic for a variety of reasons.  These are summarised below in topics with responses from Council.  A petition of 1,571 signatures was received by Council not supporting the upgrade of the sportsfield from turf to synthetic.

 

Eleven (11) submission were neutral in that they did not specify if they were supportive or unsupportive of the sportsfield upgrade from turf to synthetic.  Greenwich Village Games Organising Committee (GVG OC) remained neutral but commented the GVG could proceed with proposed design after addressing a few concerns.  GVG OC also commented that as a community organisation with a passion for sustainability we urge the Council to look at alternative options to the proposed synthetic solution so close to the harbour”. Council has also received individual submissions from some GVG members.

 

Many of the submission comments were addressed in the FAQ’s included in the exhibition.  Misinformation that the public received via other parties referring to previous versions of the BCO Master Plan lead to confusion in the public.

 

From the submissions the issues, concerns and comments have been summarised below;

 

1.         Synthetic field (Environmental Impacts)

A number of environmental impact concerns were raised. These included; potential impacts on biodiversity (i.e. wildlife, fauna and flora, soil biodiversity supporting insects and birds); microplastics and rubber getting into the waterways either by water or from attaching to players shoes; sustainability of synthetic turf ‘carpet’, i.e. can it be recycled at end of life?;  the lifespan of synthetic turf and asking ‘Is the infill made from recycled car tyres? ‘

 

Health concerns were raised for the players such as ‘Synthetic is hard and painful to fall on’, ‘Rouge balls could injure public walkers’ and the potential of heat, smell/fumes and glare from the synthetic were also raised.

 

Comment:

 

Many of the questions raised about the environmental impacts were covered by the Frequently Asked Questions provided as part of the the consultation.  These are shown at (AT-8) for information.

 

Synthetic turf is not a natural product and therefore it will not offer any opportunities for soil biodiversity, therefore there will be an overall reduction in biodiversity in the area. The scale of the reduction is not anticipated to impact the ecology.  Council will undertake a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) as part of the approval process which will provide Council with recommendations to mitigate any environmental impacts.

 

Council has researched the following design and management approaches to reduce the probability of increased micro-plastics finding their way into the surrounding natural environment and waterways from a synthetic field including;

i.          Embrace synthetic yarn tape systems or a mix of monofilament and tape yarn system that encapsulates the infill, reduces ball splash and infill migration across and off the field

ii.          Design a plinth for the fence line to fit into which is approximately 200mm above the pile height, to reduce the probability of the infill migrating from the field of play

iii.         At pedestrian and vehicle gates ensure that there is a brush carpet that is large enough (two strides) for people and vehicles that leave the field to capture infill from boots etc.

iv.        Drains should be designed so that they are under the synthetic surface to prevent the infill entering them. To reduce the probability further Council will consider fitting filters where practical to capture any infill before it progresses to the storm water outlets.

v.         Regular maintenance of the field of play and the areas surrounding the field to reduce the level of migration off the field of play.

The synthetic carpet can be recycled in Europe and Asia, but there are no such machines yet in Australia, they are expected in the next five years. An important consideration as part of the procurement process is to ensure that the backing is 100% recyclable.

 

The infill material has not yet been determined.  The options are;

 

Economical infill: The majority of synthetic sports fields use recycled car tyres as the performance infill, commonly known as SBR3. This is a hard-wearing surface and is the chosen infill at Blackman Park, since installation over 6 years ago. Due to the black colour of the infill, the field can stay warmer longer. Blackman Park has encapsulated grass finish which marginally reduces heat and does not have ball splash because it encapsulates the black infill and the UV radiation which means the heat isn’t absorbed by the green grass as much as the black infill.

 

Premium infill: Non-recycled rubber infills are made from either EPDM rubber (ethylene propylene diene monomer) or Thermo Plastics (TP), and are normally coloured (green or brown), to assist the heat reflection. These types of surfaces can be seen at Chatswood High School. Council’s commitment to community health on the playing fields will ensure that the premium infill chosen will have been tested and certified against Europe’s international standard for toy ingestion.

 

Natural infill: Natural infills have been tried and tested over the past decade in Sydney and most recently with the City of Ryde at ELS Hall Park and Christie Park. It is more expensive and requires considerably greater maintenance but produces the highest quality fields. The durability of the fields is not as strong as the rubber or TP options.

 

Council’s maintenance schedule at Blackman Park has not resulted in any glare issues. If the yarn on sportsfields fall over due to lack of maintenance or too little infill, the surface can be seen as potentially producing glare across the field.

 

The smell from the black recycled rubber infill is stronger on the days when the sun and UV radiation is high. EPDM or organic infill will not create odour.

 

Synthetic fields include a shock pad under the service which generally reduces the impact of falls. Council will ensure that the field, when designed and procured, will be to the sports international federation performance standards to reduce risk of injuries for community usage. 

 

Given the relevant benefits of Premium infill, subject to Budget, at this stage it is proposed to use EPMD for BCO.

 

2.         Synthetic field (Size and Design)

There were a number of questions relating to the final design and size of the synthetic field area.  The questions included; Why is the field being raised by 1.4m higher than the track? Will there be a bank around the field used to address the levels? Can the size of the field be adjusted and shape the field swiveled to fit the space better? Can the corners of the field be cut to make ‘pinch points’ wider? Can the field be made smaller? Will there be a bank around the field used to address the levels? How will spectators use the space?

 

Statements included; ‘opposed to retaining wall around the field’ ‘various organisations should sign off on the plans to ensure they are to standard’, 3m runoff is not to NSW soccer standards’, ‘Extend the synthetic surface to an oval shape and connect it all the way to the surrounding walking tracks.’

 

There was concern over running into the fence surrounding the synthetic field and taking a corner kick with no space.

 

A suggestion was made to extend the perimeter Fitness Track across the creek, and cantilever the track off the sandstone rock, at the southeastern ‘pinch point’ therefore eliminating a tight corner between the creek and field.

 

Comment:

 

Council has not provide information to allow a person to make a statement that the field is being raised to be 1.4m higher than the track. The surface height of the synthetic field will be raised to accommodate the 1% grade required on the field and eliminate the current undulations. During the final design development, a solution such as adjusting the heights around the field, of the natural turf and Fitness Track, can occur to ensure accessibility to all areas and make the entire generally level.

 

Council have not finalised the size and design of the synthetic area.  The total area of synthetic field will be approximately 5400m2. There are 2 options for the size of the synthetic field that can be further explored. The original size, 50m x 90m, a standard full-size pitch as approved by Football NSW. The second option of 52m x 83m, which is not a standard size but creates a wider field that meets the request of soccer users for a wider field, while maintaining space for the fitness trach. Further discussions will be held with the soccer clubs to establish their preference. Council’s preliminary analysis shows that both options work with all the other proposed facilities. It should be noted that both options will include a further 3m ‘runoff’ area as required by Football NSW standards, this is the same as Blackman Park.

 

‘Pinch points’ at the corner of the field can be widened by rounding the corners of the synthetic field, this will provide added amenity and allow service vehicles to access the northern end of the reserve. A minimum of 2.5 metres width (the width of a Shared User Path) will be provided at the corners.

 

The proposal put forward to cantilever the Fitness Track on the other side of the creek has been investigated and this options only gains 1m extra width to the field and is not considered a cost effective option.

 

3.         Synthetic field (Costs and Maintenance)

Two submissions included a costing, carried out by a professional turf company for the re-construction on the field with subsurface drainage and new turf plus an annual maintenance cost.  The company quoted the cost of the re-construction would be in the vicinity of $181,550.00 + gst and the annual cost to maintain the fields is approximately $60,000.00 + gst.

 

Questions were raised with regard to the costs of ongoing maintenance of the synthetic and whether volunteers could be asked to maintain the surface. Also, if the synthetic field will have to be cleaned regularly to remove bird faeces, seeds and berries.

Comment:

 

Regular maintenance of the synthetic surface will include fortnightly mechanical sweeping/cleaning of the field and rubbish collection at a cost of approximately $14,000 per annum.

 

In 2011-2012 Council also took advice from turf experts and upgraded the sand slit drainage system, irrigation and re-laid the turf which cost $165,000 in today’s money.  This figure equates to the figures supplied in the submissions. This system is a subsurface drainage that is used on sporting grounds around the country. It is considered to be best practice for sports fields and is used at Pottery Green and Blackman Park to great success, it is also used at the Sydney Swans training ground at Moore Park and Kogarah Oval among others. Despite these works, as shown in the photos included in the exhibition, upgrading the oval to improve natural turf does not assist in maintaining an adequate an adequate turf surface over the long term.

 

Council’s average maintenance spend has been approximately $51,000 per annum since the turf was last re-laid. This again indicates that the amount Council is currently spending is equivalent to that quoted by the turf consultants in the submissions.

 

4.         Synthetic field (Turf Alternatives and Hours of Use)

Clarity was sort by a few submissions regarding turf alternatives.  Asking, can you re-turf with a superior type of grass?

Some of the submissions asked if Council could restrict users to only children and not adult games to reduce foot traffic or limit the hours of play to protect the natural turf.

Comment:

 

In 2012 Council then re-turfed the field with Conquest Couch and since then tried Windsor Green Couch, Winter Green Couch, Greenless Park Couch and Santa Anna Couch. All have eventually failed. The other option for turf would be Kikuyu; this turf does not wear as well as Couch, it is estimated that it would last half the amount of time of Couch. Some residents have suggested using Bermuda Grass which is the American name for Couch.

 

Council’s contractor used for our turf supply and installation is a very experienced contractor. They provide professional advice, supply and install the turf for the SCG, ANZ Stadium Homebush, Giants Stadium Homebush, the GABBA, Metricon stadium on the Gold Coast and Adelaide Oval. They have consistently told Council that Bob Campbell Oval does not get sufficient sun light during winter and it will never be able sustain turf coverage during the soccer season.

 

The oval is aerated and top dressed yearly; fertilised, weeded and mown regularly to try to maintain the durability of the turf. Council gets regular advice from green keeping consultants about the best fertiliser and chemical applications.

 

In 2016 Council installed a new irrigation system which provides coverage of the entire playing surface. The irrigation system is automatic and is controlled remotely from the Depot.

 

Council’s Manager Civic Services is a trained green keeper and has over the years consulted with our golf course green keeper to try and get the most out of the turf at Bob Campbell Oval.

 

In relation to the questions; limiting or restricting the sporting players, this will not accommodate the current demand or growth of the area that is expected and does not address the 40% increase capacity of sports fields forecast in the 2017 NSROC report.

 

Currently BCO is booked by soccer during the winter season for approximately 18-23 hours a week, with no use on Sunday’s due to the wear factor, and cricket for 16 hours a week during the summer season.  The maximum number of hours of use a week that the natural turf can handle is 30 hours. Synthetic fields can endure 60 hours per week playing/training time whereas natural turf begins to deteriorate after 20 hours of playing/training time per week. The population of the Lane Cove Local Government Area has grown by 16% in the past 5 years and with the population increases expected over the next 15 years Council needs to increase the capacity of sporting fields and keeping a natural turf sports field will not achieve this goal. There are no plans to extend the hours the field can currently be used. The synthetic surface will provide a durable and consistent surface for the current allowable booking times.

 

 

 

5.         Greenwich Village Games (GVG)

A few questions and statements were raised specifically regarding logistics for the Greenwich Village Games from individual submissions. ‘Raised synthetic field will cause OHS issues with GVG’. Will the GVG be able to run all of its events? Where will the food trucks go and how will trucks and cars navigate around the site? Can an ambulance get to the Games? Where will the bus park? Will the fence effect the Games?

 

The Greenwich Village Games Organising Committee (GVG OC) also submitted their keys concerns for Council to consider: 

·          Picket fence will need to be demountable to enable up to 2000 attendees open access

·          Hob design as proposed will create a significant tripping hazard during games and we request options be considered including: 1. Grass at height of hob 2. curved hob 3. both pitch and grass to be at same height as top of hob 4. Ramps to ease access

·          3 corners represent significant egress/access issues that will need to be addressed to meet OHS requirements. Fence being demountable and hob resolution combined with temporary wider walkways will address these issues.

·          Pitch configuration is very tight to perimeter and we would recommend moving the pitch (or reducing its size) combined with some level of land reclamation on the eastern side of BCO

·          LCC support to overcome heat issues relating to synthetic turf during summer months – provision of cooling tents

 

Other items we would like to be included:

·          Basketball hoop (edge of car park), wide steps for kayak access, Power point design for each side of pitch, cutback of shrubs on cliff face, permanent stage in amenity building.

 

Comment:

 

Council has been working with the (GVG OC) to facilitate logistics of the Games and how the design will incorporate the functions of the Games. The GVG OC undertook “a fact-finding process to establish whether the GVG could be held on the new surface as proposed by LCC. The overall conclusion is that the games are able to be held on the proposed surface assuming the key concerns outlined in the attached presentation are addressed.” The “attached presentation” is shown at (AT-7). “The GVG OC is not a political body with a view one way or another on the issue. Our only concern with regard to the GVG is whether the proposed changes will continue to allow the GVG to be held at BCO. Every individual as a resident of the local council area is entitled to write to the LCC and express their support or opposition to the proposed changes to BCO and we encourage you to do that.”

 

An ambulance can access the oval, a maintenance gate will be installed at the southern end of the field adjacent to the carpark for this purpose.

 

The perimeter fence of the synthetic field can be designed as a removable fence to allow access during the GVG. In relation to the kerb/hob during detail design this will be addressed to minimise disruption to the GVG while retaining the infill on the field.

 

A Basketball hoop will be included as part of the Netball Training Court area.

 

Kayak access will be explored as part of the detail design and REF recommendations. 

 

A permanent stage as part of the Amenity building will be explored as part of the detailed design for the building, other spectator areas will also be considered.

 

 

 

6.         Lighting

Concern was raised about increase of light into bushland and increase in light pollution shining into neighbouring properties. There was one objection to the increase of light pole height by 7m.

 

Comment:

 

The proposed new lighting design will reduce the light pollution for neighbours and minimise light spill into bushland.  The angle of the lights will allow for safer play and reduce light spill. The height of the poles will assist in angles to direct light downward onto the field reducing light spill. The current lighting does not meet AS/NZS 4282:2019 for lighting.

 

7.         Amenities Building

Many comments were supportive of the upgrade for the Amenities Building. Concern was raised over the increased footprint of the proposed building and a suggestion that the current amenities building could be cleaned instead of replaced.

 

Comment:

 

The survey reflects the support for the upgrade of the Amenities Building. The amenities will be designed to accommodate the desired facilities.

 

8.         Car Park

Comments were received about the proposed carpark being ‘too big’ and observation that the ‘proposed carpark reduced when netball is in play’. A suggestion was made to ‘Include more parking on the water side of the aqueduct’

 

Comment:

 

The carpark is not proposed to be extended onto the water side of the aqueduct as this area has high amenity and better served for passive recreational activities. The Netball Training Court will reduce the size of the proposed car park from Mon-Fri.  The number of car spaces will be similar to what is currently available. The proposed carpark has been designed to cater for over 50 spaces to accommodate user needs demand once the upgrade is complete.

 

9.         Leash -Free Dog Area

The majority of concern about the leash-free dog area was the size. There was also confusion over the actual space allocated to leash-free area.

 

Suggestions included; ‘a small off-leash area for big dogs’; ‘Council should hire an Animal Behavioral consultant to design off-leash areas’, ‘fence Shell Park for off-leash dog area’. ‘allow dogs on the synthetic field’, ‘restrict dogs to east-west side of pitches to improve linear access for seniors’, allow dogs on to the Synthetic field like Northbridge Oval’ and ‘maintain access for dogs to foreshore’.

 

Comment:

 

The total area of Leash-free dog area is approximately 4800m2, this is the approximate equivalent to 8 average house blocks. The northern area is 1700m2 and 50m at the widest point which is further than the average person can throw a tennis ball.  The area is not proposed to be divided into separate areas for different sized dogs.  To divide the area would limit each space to approximately only 850 m2, as a comparison, the Blackman Park leash free area is divided into two areas of approximately 1000 m2 and 2000 m2.

 

There are 3 off-leash dog areas in Greenwich, these include; Manns Point, Shell Park, and Greenwich Park. Newlands Park is also nearby in the suburb of St Leonards. Dogs are not permitted onto the synthetic field for health and hygiene reasons but are permitted in all the space around it.   Northbridge Oval is a Synthetic Field but is not a designated leash free area.

 

10.       Netball Training Court

 

In general submissions were supportive of this proposed element, this was also reflected in the survey. Questions asked included; ‘Can a Basketball hoop also be included?’ ‘What are ‘on peak’ and off-peak’ times for the court to be used?’ ‘When Netball training is on Mon-Fri, BCO parking will be reduced to 34 spaces, this is worse than what’s there now.’ ‘Location poses liability issues for personal injury and vehicular damage’. ‘On soccer training nights, presumably the court will give way to parking.’ ‘Netball court is not needed as there will be Netball courts included in the golfing precinct.’

 

Lane Cove Netball Club are generally supportive of the idea but have raised concerns over the following; the type of playing surface due to shared area with vehicles; the court size and the availability of the training court due to Greenwich Sports Club hiring oval 4 nights a week. Further details on vehicle access were requested to ensure users will be protected while using the court.

 

Comment:

 

There are currently no public netball courts available in the Lane Cove LGA. The survey respondents were supportive the idea of including a basketball hoop with the Netball Training court. Detail design will address the concern over safety (such as surface type and vehicle movements) for the Netball Court users. At this stage it is anticipated that the Netball Court will be appropriately segregated from Monday to Friday, with full parking capacity available on weekends for matches. The court would be available for use while the oval is in use on weekdays. 

 

The Lane Cove Sport and Recreation Precinct Concept Plan do propose multi-courts which Netball could potentially utilise.

 

11.       Picnic Area, Playground and exercise equipment

In general, the proposal to upgrade the picnic area, playground exercise equipment was supported. Concerns were raised about the location of the playground in proximity to the carpark, water and sandflies. Other comments included that the area is too shady and separated from the oval, that there is ‘too much playground and fitness equipment proposed’ and asked ‘Why is the playground getting upgraded?’ One submission asked to ‘install a mini skateramp’. One submission asked for the fitness equipment to be relocated back to the 2014 location on the other side of the viaduct and another for the fitness equipment to be ‘located elsewhere’.

 

Comment:

 

Generally, the proposed foreshore design was supported.  Final detailed design for the playground will proceed taking into consideration the survey and submissions. Key outcomes were a fenced playground, bushland theme, swings and static fitness equipment.

 

12.       Fitness Track

 

Comments were made that the location next to cliff edges is dangerous as it encourages children to climb the cliffs; the track proposed to go along the other side of the creek should not go into natural areas. One suggestion was the track not be concrete or ‘petroleum based’. A request was made for more information on heights and widths and whether a bike path be included?

Comment:

 

Final design details will determine the height and widths for the Fitness Track, it will have accessible gradients with a minimum width of 2.5m wide. This width is the same as a Shared User Path (SUP) which pedestrian and bicycles successfully share. Council will explore options for a more permeable hard surface for the Fitness Track. Children already have access to the cliff to climb.

 

13.       Shared User Path (SUP)

There were a number of questions and comments in relation to the proposed SUP as follows;

The SUP has been proposed before and rejected why is it proposed again? Can the SUP go in a different location to proposed? How many trees will you be taking out to install the SUP? What purpose does the SUP serve? Where will I put my garbage bin on River Rd? Can a bike path be included?

The following statements were also made;

The SUP is in a dangerous location for drivers backing out of their driveways; Greenwich Rd and River Rd is a top 10 accident blackspot; Need improved lighting down St Vincents Road to Oval and speed bumps;

Comment:

 

The SUP has been created to encourage active transport and increase accessibly to BCO. A SUP is typically 2.5m wide where possible, the width may vary where trees are retained. The proposed location for the SUP has been chosen as it is the most direct route to connect with a regional bicycle network on the Pacific Highway.  A detail design will be carried out and address concerns such as driveway crossings and lighting down St Vincents Road.

 

Council regularly undertakes assessment of Traffic NSW crash data and applies for funding under the Safeer Roads Program to address blackspots.

 

A SUP from BCO up towards River Road has not been proposed before. Garbage bins can still be placed on the SUP just like they are placed on the footpath now.

 

14.       Accessibility

A number of questions were raised about the accessibility of the field and other proposed elements. Can the bush track and tunnel access be improved as part of the BCO Master Plan? How is the design catering for disabled users? Will an ambulance be able to get access down to BCO? Will Oscar and Gore St be upgraded?  comment was made that ‘the upgrade will encourage more traffic’.

Comment:

 

Yes, there will be an increase in use and therefore traffic.  The SUP will provide safer access for pedestrians, prams and cyclists.

 

Council has made an application under the NSW Public Spaces Legacy Program, with part of the funding ($0.75mill) proposed for upgrades to trail linkages through bushland. Consideration can be given to bush track and tunnel access when Council determines priorities for spending the funds.

 

Ambulance access is provided on all sportsfields in Lane Cove. Access onto the oval will be via a maintenance gate adjacent to the carpark.

 

The synthetic field will be constructed to be accessible for all in line with Council’s vision for an inclusive community.

 

Oscar St and Gore St footpaths will be upgraded as scheduled in the regular footpath maintenance program.

 

Vehicle access from Gore St down St Vincent Rd to BCO will be designed to cater for 2-way traffic and this will include at least 3 parallel car parks near the oval.

 

15.       Consultation and Planning

Questions were asked about the consultation process; Why was public not informed about grant application plans when submitted in May? Why was community not engaged before grant application? Why was community consultation run near HSC and Uni exams? Why were the sporting groups consulted and not the community prior to the grant application? Why are we building a synthetic field so close to Gore Hill Oval? Will you be approving an alcohol license at BCO to cater for senior members drinking after a game? Is BCO in Riparian Land?

Statements were made in relation to planning, such as; ‘Bob Campbell Oval is planned so Canberra Ave development can satisfy its green space ratio.’, ‘The Master Plan goes against the Sustainability Action Plan.’, ‘No Geotech report has been done.’ ‘Aboriginal Heritage sites have not been mentioned.’ ‘BCO is a Heritage item’.

Suggestions were raised about other locations for the synthetic field, such as the Golf Course, 266 Longueville Road, Greenwich Primary School, Pottery Green, purchasing land at Lane Cove West business park for indoor/outdoor space and exploring other areas to ‘add to the stock of open space’.

Comment:

Consultation was carried out for a period of just over 6 weeks, which happened to include some of the HSC and Uni exams but provided sufficient time for engagement.

Council received $3.6m for the Master Plan to be implemented at BCO, which was report to Council in May 2020. Council will be contributing to the funding of the playground upgrade as part of the Playground Strategy. Council received the funds as part of the St Leonards/Crows Nest Precinct Plan 2036 through the Precinct Support Scheme to address the need to increase the accessibly and capacity of green space.

 

The Master Plan is addressing the overall future accessibility to open space for a growing population as directed in the NSW Government’s North District Plan. The synthetic field will also help address the forecast 40% increase in sports field capacity required for the North Sydney region as identified in the NSROC 2017 report.

A Geotechnical Report and a Soil Report (for contamination and acid sulphate soils) have been carried out. Council is in receipt of draft copies and will post final copies on the website for public availability. Recommendations from the reports will be followed for all construction works.

Council’s Local Heritage Register identifies that the stone embankment walls of the perimeter creek line were built during the depression in the 1930’s. Council will be engaging a heritage consultant to assess these items and generate a report informing Council of the best plan of management to preserve these items.

The Northern Sydney Aboriginal Heritage Office (AHO) has been consulted and have advised there are no significant sites located in the immediate vicinity of the proposed works. A review of Environmental Factors will be completed by an external consultant before any construction works commence and a full assessment of the area will be conducted by the AHO as part of this process.

A Riparian Zone is defined as the area adjacent to a water course, in this case Gore Creek. Council will be engaging an Environmental Scientist to ensure the riparian land is managed appropriately.

There are no plans for Council to apply for an alcohol license for BCO.

Council persists in seeking opportunities to increase open space. Alternative locations were unable to be accommodated.  266 Longueville Road is currently under DA for a seniors housing development and is not of sufficient size and topography to accommodate a full size sporting field. Greenwich Primary School can not accommodate a full size sporting field and is managed by Department of Education. There is not suitable land within the Lane Cove West business park to convert to a sporting field.

16.       Finances

 

Can the money from the grant be used to improve the amenities of the field without building a synthetic field? Why is ratepayer money being used for this project? Are St Leonards South developers benefitting from this project? Is it expensive to remove turf when replacing?

The following statements were received; ‘no cost benefit analysis of the Synthetic vs turf to justify’ ‘Money only for Synthetic turf – Council should return money to state as Community do not want synthetic – or put in a request to reallocate money after proper community consultation.’ ‘The grant should be used to install an irrigation system to the field.’

 

Comment:

 

Council has applied for the Grant in line with its long term planning to accommodation the recreation needs for the current and future population. Council’s aim was to complete the upgrade in time for the GVG December 2021.

 

A cost breakdown is provided in this report in Section Synthetic field (Costs and Maintenance).

BCO has an irrigation system, this was installed in 2016. 

 

17.       Wildlife (Fauna and Flora)

Concerns raised over the environmental impacts of the synthetic turf crossed over to general comments and concerns on the impact of the overall proposal on the natural environment. These concerns included how the development will affect the Powerful Owl population, mircofauna and the loss of trees.  Other concerns were that, ‘the creek and aqueduct have leaks in it’ and the ‘perimeter fencing unnecessary, better if ‘edges were blurred” between built up and natural environments’

 

Comment:

A preliminary flora and fauna study has been carried out and a comprehensive study of the surrounding bushland and foreshore has been commissioned.  This study will also be contained in the REF before construction commences to asses impacts on fauna and flora.

 

Yes, some trees will be removed to accommodate the design, the exact number is to be determined.  Trees will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. Approximately 4-5 trees along the proposed SUP will be lost, this includes a sapling box tree, a self-sown sapling Eucalyptus on the road edge and 1-2 pittosporums. Sections of the SUP will be reduced in width to accommodate other larger Eucalyptus trees.  The trees in the carpark will also need to be removed to accommodate the increase in parking spaces. 

 

 

18.       Disruption to Neighbours (lighting covered in 9. Lighting)

 

Concerns were raised about the increased noise from the increase in sporting teams using the synthetic field and the disruption to neighbours when synthetic field is being constructed.

 

Comment:

 

Construction will be carried out during working hours. There could be increased noise from the users of the field as there is a predicted increase in use of the field.

 

Proposed Changes to Master Plan

 

Based on the community feedback the following changes are proposed. The physical layout changes have been incorporated into an updated proposed Master Plan for Bob Campbell Oval shown as (AT-9);

 

·          The corners of the synthetic field be rounded in order to reduce the pinch points and ensure service vehicles can access the northern end of the reserve.

·          Determine the proposed field dimensions of the soccer field. ie. 90m x 50m or 83m x 52m.  

·          Relocate paths in the main off-leash area to provide maximum uninterrupted open space.

·          Make the entire Oval and surrounds generally level.

·          Make the areas adjacent to the synthetic oval level with the base of the surrounding fence.

·          Add basketball hoops to the netball court.

·          Provide steps from the foreshore area.

·          Consider the use of a premium infill material for the synthetic oval.

·          Change the south-western corner of the reserve, an open area for free play.

 

Conclusion

 

Overall the community is supportive of the proposed Master Plan to upgrade this reserve. While there is a section of the community that does not support the installation of the synthetic field, it is necessary to enable Council to provide a sports field that can accommodate the current and future demands for sports fields in the Lane Cove Local Government Area and Northern Sydney.

 

The impacts of not increasing sports ground capacity in Northern Sydney will lead to increasing numbers of participants being turned away from sport which will lead to:

·          Increasing physical inactivity, sedentary leisure behaviour and related health and disease impacts

·          Reducing benefits brought about by participation in sport and physical activity

·          Increased costs to participate and accessibility of facilities will create inequity in participants and associated benefits

·          Access to sport may become based on the capacity to pay and which may create a greater barrier to participation for lower income households

The NSROC Regional Sportsground Strategy also states that State Government agencies should take responsibility to actively facilitate the embellishment of facilities to cope with the increased demand brought on by population growth. In this case the Precinct Support Scheme Grant for the upgrade of Bob Campbell Oval is achieving this goal.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.         Council receive and endorse the revised Bob Campbell Oval Master Plan, AT-9;

2.         The head petitioners be notified.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Terescenko

Executive Manager - Open Space and Urban Services

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

July Council Report Bob Campbell Oval Masterplan and Grant Funding

6 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑2View

July Council Minutes for Bob Campbell Oval

2 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑3View

Petition From Greenwih Community Association Inc

119 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑4View

Online Survey Results

76 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑5View

Written submissions (groups and associations)

74 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑6View

Written submissions (individuals)

209 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑7View

Greenwich Village Games Operational Assessment

7 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑8View

Frequently Asked Questions

16 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑9View

Revised Masterplan Bob Campbell Oval

1 Page

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 9

Revised Masterplan Bob Campbell Oval

 

PDF Creator


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 16 November 2020

Northwood Shops Residential Care Facility DCP - Post exhibition Report

 

 

Subject:          Northwood Shops Residential Care Facility DCP - Post exhibition Report    

Record No:    SU6464 - 63639/20

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Terry Tredrea; Christopher Pelcz 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to outline the results of community consultation for a proposed amendment to the Lane Cove Development Control Plan (DCP) for land at 4-18 Northwood Road and 274 and 274A Longueville Road, Lane Cove, known as the Northwood Shops or Northwood Neighbourhood Centre. The amendment aims to ensure that any development applications lodged for the land are consistent with the amended design that has resulted from the gazettal of the LEP clause relevant to the site (on 20 May 2020), including reduced height, rear storeys, street setbacks. Further, the DCP reflects other changes made as a result of submissions by agencies and Council’s urban design consultant, and by the community. These submissions were made during the 2018 consultation (see Report from 2018 – AT-1), and the recent September/October 2020 consultation.  These include such items as a 10m rear buffer, protection measures for local vegetation, and bushland protection measures. The attached amended DCP (AT-2) reflects these matters.

 

A public exhibition of the planning proposal was held for 6 weeks from 3 September 2020 to 15 October 2020. Council also coordinated a notification process for the Development Application which has been received for 4 Northwood Road. This was concurrently assessed as a result of the State Government’s Planning System Acceleration Program, and awaits the adoption by Council of the DCP.

 

A total of forty-five (45) submissions were received. Thirteen (13) of the submissions incorrectly opposed the proposal to develop this site for a residential care facility at all -  which was gazetted in 2020, along with changed building height, FSR and land uses (as in LEP Clause 6.9). For discussion of this, see Council Report and resolution 15 June 2020 (AT-3 & AT-4). This amendment simply addresses the detail of an envelope and location of any development proposed for the site. Thirty (30) submissions did not oppose a residential aged care facility, but raised DCP-relevant concerns. Two (2) submissions unreservedly favoured the DCP. Two community groups submitted. The Environment, Energy and Science Branch of the Dept of Planning, Industry & Environment (EES) made submission on bushland protection matters. Transport for NSW made submission on traffic matters, which are being addressed by the D.A. The proponent of the DA for the site submitted comment on the draft DCP.

 

Nine (9) Issues were raised by community submissions (No. in brackets) that are relevant to the proposed DCP amendment:-

 

1.   Parking rate (20)

2.   Bushland protection (incl. solar access, stormwater,"plants", etc) (14)

3.   Street wall height (3rd floor setback) (5)

4.   Commercial uses (6)

5.   Deep soil boundaries (3)

6.   Street trees (1)

7.   Through-site link (1)

8.   Measure of Height (1)

9.   Landscaped area (1)

 

Six (6) issues are only of relevance to the DA113/2020 and were referred to that assessment process:

1.   Traffic impacts (25)

2.   Traffic entry/egress (12)

3.   Definitions (1)

4.   Dedicated bus lane (1)

5.   Public interest benefit (1)

6.   Lobby in active frontages (1).

 

Three (3) issues are only of relevance to the 2020 LEP decision including setting of a building height and FSR, use as a residential care facility and provision of ground floor commercial/medical use (Clause 6.9) They are no longer matters for discussion:

1.   Height of Building (2-storey only) (1)

2.   Removal of (any) trees (1)

3.   Proposed residential aged care facility in this location (1).

 

Six (6) issues are not of relevance to this DCP level of control, nor the LEP, nor a DA:

1.   Precedent (1)

2.   Public transport (1)

3.   Competition with 266 Longueville facility (1)

4.   Supervision/safety of residents (1)

5.   Walkway in bushland reserve (1)

6.   Scope of this DCP (1).

 

Changes resulting from exhibition of DCP

 

All public and agency submissions have been reviewed, and the exhibited DCP amendment has been further amended to take into account several concerns raised by the community and the EES.  the following summarises the intent of specific changes to the DCP post-exhibition (AT-2). These are:  

 

·    In response to concerns that B4 commercial uses may be permitted, the DCP objectives as exhibited have been further amended to support commercial uses that primarily cater to the needs of people who live and work in the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

·    In response to concerns that sustainability measures may be “considered” but overlooked, the DCP as exhibited has been further amended to “incorporate” sustainability measures.

 

·    In response to a concern for clarity regarding removal of indigenous trees onsite, the DCP as exhibited has been further amended to require that Council be satisfied that removal of any indigenous trees on site is unavoidable [before] those trees be offset and replaced at a ratio of 2:1. Further, they must be able to “grow to maturity”, and the proponent must demonstrate how the offsets for tree removal can be managed and protected in perpetuity on site.

 

·    In response to a concern for clarity regarding “rear” setback, the DCP as exhibited has been further amended to define Rear Setback as a “buffer” measured from the rear boundary into the site (see Indicative landscaped open space areas map).

 

·    In response to concern regarding the nature of the “indigenous trees” to be planted the DCP as exhibited has been further amended to specify a diversity of locally provenanced native plant species sourced from near the site.

 

·    In response to concerns for protection of retained and removed native vegetation, the DCP as exhibited has been further amended to require remaining trees be fenced, and salvaged trees be re-used to enhance habitat.

 

·    In response to concern that impacts on vegetation be minimised, the DCP as exhibited has been further amended to introduce “minimise” into Bushland Protection Objectives and Provisions.

 

·    In response to concern that “local species” be regarded as more than only trees, the DCP as exhibited has been further amended to require “appropriate tree, shrub and groundcover selection”, to avoid weed species.

 

·    In response to a need for clarity in definition of building height, the DCP as exhibited has been further amended to remove “Underside of top of Ceiling” from diagram p4.

 

·    In response to the community view that seeks to ensure consistency with the apparent streetscape of two-storey buildings in the neighbourhood centre, to primarily “reduce the appearance of mass from the footpath”, the third-floor additional 5m setback is retained.

 

Fundamental matters of disagreement

 

The Development Application which is being concurrently assessed for 4 Northwood Road gives some indication of the land owner’s intentions. These have been apparent from the beginning of discussions on this development. They signal matters of potential disagreement between Council’s DCP and the applicant’s DA. Council needs to establish a clear position on these matters:

 

Council DCP

Land Owner

Council’s response

Street frontage 3rd floor additional 5m setback

Street frontage 3rd floor no additional setback

Council’s design intention has always included an upper floor setback, primarily “to reduce the appearance of mass from the footpath”, consistent with the character of a neighbourhood centre. For further discussion, see below under #3 Street Wall Height.

10m setback of building to rear boundary.

Less than 10m setback of building from those “rear” boundaries that are parallel with side boundaries.

“Rear” is not separately defined. Reference is made to the need for a “buffer” zone.

A maximum height of 5 storeys at the rear of the site. This equates to a maximum height of RL 66.25.

Potentially 6 storeys at the rear of the site. This equates to a maximum height of RL 66.25.

Will depend on maximum height of RL 66.25 being achieved.

 

Other DCP-specific matters mentioned above under Changes resulting from exhibition of the DCP, such as replanting of ‘indigenous’ plant species, or sustainability measures, are less likely to ultimately result in disagreement with the applicant. For further design matters, such as direction of stormwater towards the front of the site, refer to the D.A. assessment when it becomes available.

 

As a result of public submissions and agency submissions, the draft/altered DCP amendment has a similar environmental impact by comparison with that exhibited. Accordingly, it is recommended that Council adopt the DCP amendment, and such be inserted under ‘Locality 2’ in Part D: Commercial Development and Mixed Use Localities, with site specific controls under Northwood Neighbourhood Centre.

 

Background

 

·    3 November 2017:- original DCP submitted in response to Gateway conditions for Planning Proposal 29.

·    March-April 2018:- public exhibition.

·    18 June 2018:- PP29 refused by Council.

·    20 May 2020:- PP29 gazetted. Height reduced to RL 66.25 = 3 storeys above street, (applicant sought RL 70.25), FSR reduced to1:1.85 (applicant sought 1:1.98). Residential care facility permitted in B4 rezone, plus  0.35:1.FSR for commercial/medical land use.

·    15 June 2020:- Council resolved in response to the gazettal of Planning Proposal No 29, to prepare a draft Development Control Plan for consideration by the Council, prior to public exhibition, and to I indicate its preference for the setbacks to the bushland to be as per 2018 resolution.

·    17 August 2020:- Council resolves that:

 

1.   Council endorse the draft Development Control Plan (attached at AT-2) for purposes of public exhibition and undertake community consultation for a period of six (6) weeks in accordance with the consultation strategy outlined in this report subject to amending the “Setback “Provisions b) to read ‘Basement parking may encroach into side setback areas, provided sufficient deep soil is retained to permit the setback area to be replanted with native indigenous plants’

2.   A further report be submitted at the conclusion of the exhibition.             (AT-9 & AT-10)

 

The attached and subsequently exhibited DCP recommended the following changes to the original 2017 DCP provided by the applicant:

 

1.   Reduce maximum building height to RL 66.25 metres;

2.   Reduce maximum number of storeys along Northwood Road to 3 storeys;

3.   Reduce maximum street wall height along Northwood Road to 2 storeys;

4.   Reduce maximum number of storeys at the rear of the site to 5 storeys;

5.   Reinstate rear setback of 10 metres. (However, 6 metres is considered where it would allow an appropriate amount of space for established trees, offset native indigenous plants, and drainage that “adequately protects” the adjoining bushland);

6.   Replace on-site all indigenous trees removed by development;

7.   Replace site entry mid-block off Northwood Road with egress further south with a limit of one entry/egress at the southern end of the site;

8.   Provide in the basement a seniors’ entry separate from commercial /retail use, ensuring uncompromised emergency service vehicle access into the site;

9.   Add through-site links and view corridors of width 4.5m, but a preference for 6m width;

10. Add to inactive edges and blank walls the provision of screening, public art or `green' walls;

11. Require adequate soil depth along the side and rear boundaries to permit tree planting;

12. Consideration of other measures such as drainage protection of the downslope soil and landscape in the adjacent reserve. Also, sustainability measures such as solar panels and natural ventilation;

13. Provide new street trees and permeable paving to the existing Northwood Road verge and within the 3m setback to the proposal, and require that street front awnings do not compromise street trees;

14. Increase the area of the roof garden; and

15. Updated plans and elevation.

 

The purpose of this DCP amendment is to ensure that community concerns regarding the bulk and scale and overall impact of the residential care facility on the site inform assessment of any Development Application for the site.

 

In response to issues raised by Council with the applicant, the applicant has submitted with the concurrent D.A a Statement of Environmental Effects (AT-5), Compliance Tables (AT-6) and Letter (AT-7). These address specific issues raised of concern.

 

To this end, the attached DCP amendment (AT-2) is recommended for inclusion in Council’s DCP under ‘Locality 2’ in Part D: Commercial Development and Mixed Use Localities – Northwood Neighbourhood Centre.

 

Public Exhibition

 

Consultation ran from Thursday,27 August 2020 to Wednesday, 7 October 2020, in accordance with planning regulations and Council’s Consultation Policy, and included the following:-

 

·    E-newsletter distributed to over 6,000 registered residents;

·    Notice of the proposal (via 2,340 letters) was distributed to:

Affected property owners;

Dept of Health & Aging;

Transport for NSW

NSW Roads & Maritime Services

NSW Office of Environment & Heritage

Adjoining Local Government Areas (x2); and

·    On-line exhibition on Council’s website.

 

Note that due to COVID-19 restrictions Council was unable to include:

 

·    Advertisement in the North Shore Times;

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

 

In total forty-five (45) public submissions were received.

·    13 were opposed to any development on the site – which was the subject of the 2020 rezoning decision, not this proposed DCP amendment;

·    30 were not outright opposed to the residential care facility concept, but had questions and concerns about the form – the subject of the DCP amendment;

·    2 were in total favour of the DCP amendment;

·    2 submission were from agencies/councils;

·    2 submission were from community groups;

·    5 were effectively a petition.

 

Regarding the issues raised:

·    Nine (9) issues were of relevance to this DCP amendment

·    Six (6) issues are only of relevance to the DA113/2020 and were referred to that assessment process.

·    Three (3) issues are only of relevance to the 2020 LEP decision made earlier this year.

·    Six (6) issues are not of relevance to this DCP level of control, nor the LEP, nor a DA.

 

Consultation with Government Agencies

 

In accordance with the Gateway determination, Council forwarded the planning proposal to:-

§ Dept of Health & Aging;

§ Transport for NSW

§ NSW Roads & Maritime Services

§ NSW Office of Environment & Heritage

§ Adjoining Local Government Areas (x2).

 

Transport for NSW Response to Referral:

 

All issues raised by Transport for NSW were relevant to the detailed design stage of the concurrent D.A. and were forwarded to the assessing officer for DA20/113-01.

 

City of Ryde Response to Referral:

 

The City of Ryde raises no objection to the proposed DCP amendment.

 

Environment, Energy and Science (Planning, Industry & Environment) Response to Referral:

 

The Environment, Energy and Science Branch of DPIE provides its recommendations and comments to the proposed DCP amendment (AT-8). In summary they are:

 

1.   Site Planning Objectives aimed at protecting native vegetation and encouraging sustainability measures.

2.   Strengthen setback replanting measures.

3.   Clarification of the 10m rear setback However, it is considered inconsistent to mandate a minimum of 10m if some reduction is possible elsewhere under strict conditions.

4.   Requirement for a variety of locally provenanced species for replacement planting.

5.   Including advanced and established native trees.

6.   Clarify measures to protect existing Turpentine trees.

7.   Measures to protect or appropriately re-use native trees.

8.   The need to protect adjoining bushland.

9.   Require appropriate tree, shrub and groundcover of indigenous local species.

 

Submission from the Applicant for site development

 

During exhibition, the applicant for development of the subject site (DA113/2020) submitted comment on the draft DCP (AT-5 to AT-7). While expressing “general support for the draft DCP”, the applicant argues that the draft DCP is “inconsistent with the intent of the recently gazetted FSR controls in the Lane Cove LEP”. In particular, by requiring an additional 5m top floor front setback, the DCP renders it impossible to achieve the gazetted FSR of 1.85:1. The reasons given for this conclusion are listed here in summary:

1.   Street Wall Height. The DPIE’s finalisation report for the Planning Proposal envisaged “three storeys at Northwood Road”. Secondly, a 3-storey street wall height is considered “consistent with that anticipated in the B4 Mixed Use Zone”. Thirdly, the proposed development seeks to “minimise impacts on adjoining properties”.

 

2.   Setback to Northwood Road.   On 27 April 2016, Council approved a development at 16 Northwood Road, for a 3-storey mixed use development with a nil setback for the first 2-storeys and 3.5 metre setback for the 3rd storey.

 

3.   Anticipated development outcome. The DPIE Finalisation Report states that a 3-floor street wall height, “is consistent with the character of similar higher density development in the local area.”  Further, it is claimed that the gross floor area would be reduced by approximately 421m2 which will mean the development will be “unable to achieve the permissible FSR, and require the removal of 17 bedrooms, essentially making the development unfeasible.”

 

4.   Need for Acceleration.  In a similar vein, it is noted that, “this Planning Proposal formed part of DPIE’s Tranche 1 acceleration program”, and that “the proposed DCP controls as recently exhibited have the potential to impact its viability.”

 

These reasons are addressed below under Topic 3 – Street Wall Height.

 

Discussion

 

Separate from the above matters raised by Transport for NSW and to be addressed at the DA stage, a summary of the main issues of concern raised in the public submissions is included below, followed by a staff comment. These six issues respond to the purpose of the amendment, which is to address community concerns regarding any environmental impacts a proposed residential care facility might have on the site.   

 

1.   Parking Rate

 

It is submitted that the applicant’s Traffic report was prepared in August 2020 and takes into consideration the 2,051sqm of commercial space to be developed.

 

In relation to parking provision, two components are addressed by the proposal:

a.   For residential aged care facilities (RACF) (“in accordance with the requirements outlined in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004") = 35 car spaces.

b.   For commercial space on the subject site (“the Lane Cove DCP 2010 (Part R)” = 1 space per 40sqm = 51 car spaces.

Total on-site parking = 86 car spaces.

 

In general, submissions follow the line that “Northwood does not have any carparks so all parking is on-street in Kenneth St, Woodford St, Northwood Rd and Longueville Rd…”  [86 on-site spaces] “might be sufficient if the development were in the heart of Lane Cove, but this is an isolated neighbourhood location where there is no Council owned carparks and limited public transport. The Diddy only has a few car spaces which are used by the staff and even then there are still not enough spaces.” 

 

In relation to a. (the RACF), “The DA for Pathways only has 20 staff car spaces for 40 full time staff and 15 spaces for 143 residents and visitors… This has “met the minimum requirements under Seniors SEPP (2004) but that is a minimum and the SEPP does not apply to commercial uses on the site.”

 

In relation to b, “the Pathways site requires a ratio of 1 space per 25 sqm for commercial use and 1 space per staff member or else Council will find that all the surrounding streets in Lane Cove East, Longueville and Northwood will be parked out during construction and once the development is completed… We feel a rate of 1 space per 25sqm is more appropriate for this site and request that Council adopt this rate for commercial uses in the 'Proposed DCP for Northwood Shops Facility'. It will also remove any ambiguity about what is the applicable rate for commercial uses on the site.”

 

Comment

 

Council has no authority to change the "Pathways" RACF provision (35 spaces) as this is set by the Seniors SEPP.  

 

The 1space/40m2 "commercial" rate is set by Table 1 of Lane Cove DCP Part R, which applies within all "Commercial & Mixed Use development' (except within 400m of St Leonards rail station). This rate applies across all B (commercial) zones, including B1 (neighbourhood shops) up to B4 Mixed Use. It is therefore considered appropriate to all commercial zones, including neighbourhood centres. Any change to this rate would have implications for all commercial zones, and falls outside the scope of this application. However, any D.A. would be assessed on merit giving consideration to the impact on the area in which it is situated.

 

The site appears to be no more isolated than other neighbourhood centres such as the Greenwich shops or Yorks Corner, which also lack the car parks and public transport service of busier centres.

Commercial use of the site is nominally proposed as “community wellbeing”. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed commercial element of the site requires more on-site commercial parking than other local suburban centres.

 

2.   Bushland Protection

 

As stated above, the EES in its submission (AT-8) has identified measures aimed at protecting and replanting locally indigenous, mature, native vegetation and encouraging sustainability measures both on-site and to protect adjoining bushland. These measures have been introduced into the draft DCP. The EES recommends a minimum 10m rear buffer setback.

 

Comment

It is considered inconsistent to mandate a minimum of 10m where some reduction is possible elsewhere under strict conditions. I.e. Bushland protection provision of the DCP:

 

a.         Buildings and structures are permitted on the site no closer than 10m from the rear boundary, subject to obtaining an ecological report confirming the site’s suitability (see Indicative landscaped open space areas map).

 

However, Council has declared a climate emergency, and therefore strongly supports increasing the canopy cover wherever possible. Council supports the establishment of a bushland buffer zone within the rear of the site, separating the built form from the adjoining E2 Environmental

Conservation zoned land.

 

Other suggested bushland protection measures are subdivided into sub-headings and addressed under each:

 

·    Bushland protection – solar access.

It is stated that, “should this [development] shadow bushland, it will be detrimental to that bushland in multiple ways. All consideration of solar access, shadowing etc should look equally at impacts on the bushland.”

Response: The applicant’s shadow analysis shows that the adjacent bushland is not shaded until approx. 1.30pm, mostly to the south-east of the site. Development cannot be expected to not cast some shadow, but the impact is restricted to 1.30 to 3.00pm.

 

·    Bushland protection – stormwater.

It is stated that, “directing all stormwater away from bushland downslope can be as damaging to bushland by causing drought conditions for that bush, as too much funneled into one location that gouges out and erodes the slopes or creates very wet conditions harming natives and fostering weeds.  Developments on sites above bushland must include more sophisticated approaches to stormwater   management…”

Response: Provision j) under Open Space and landscape areas states, “Seek to direct stormwater towards front of the site.” There is some allowance here for a solution which satisfies the objective of protecting bushland without mandating all stormwater to the site frontage. 

 

·    Bushland protection – specific trees.

Several trees are identified as warranting particular protection.

Response: The Open Space and Landscape areas Provision g) has been strengthened by words provided by the EES. Council must rely on the Arborists Report and Council’s own arborist at the DA stage.

 

·    Bushland protection – minimised impact.

Several submissions state, “there is considerable latitude in the term ‘minimise’”.

Response: As stated above, it is reasonable to expect “to protect and minimise impacts to neighbouring bushland” rather than mandate no impacts, which would prevent development of any substance.

 

·    Bushland protection – locally indigenous species.

It is recommended that planting should nominate locally indigenous species.

Response: Clauses in this regard have been strengthened by words provided by the EES.

 

·    Bushland protection – light spillage.

It is stated that, “night time light shedding into the adjacent bushland is also an issue that needs to be addressed.”

Response: Submissions by the Office of Environment & Heritage (2018) and the EES (2020) make no mention of light spillage. Nor does Council’s DCP Part H – Bushland Protection.

Council’s policy on this issue is beyond the scope of this single DCP, and has yet to be formalised.

 

3.   Street wall height

 

Five submissions explicitly reiterated support for the additional 5m third floor front setback over and above the 3m two-storey street setback. It was supported on the grounds that a 2-storey apparent street frontage is ”in character” with a neighbourhood centre. No submissions other than by the applicant for the DA opposed the third-floor setback.

 

The applicant has provided reasons for opposing the upper floor 5m setback, which are addressed below.

 

Comment

 

In the June 2018 Report to Council, Council’s independent urban design analysis (Review of Urban Design Issues, 2018, Annand & associates, Part 2 Section 4.3) supported the applicants proposed DCP control of a 5 m setback to the upper floor and 3m setback to the front. The street setback of 3m was and is in response to the heavy, noisy traffic of this portion of Northwood, by further separating residents from the roadway.

 

A diagram was provided in that Report as below titled “Summary of Built Form recommendations”, and supported by Council:

 


The reason for this was and remains to ensure consistency with the apparent streetscape of two-storey buildings in the neighbourhood centre.

 

In documents submitted to the D.A. exhibition (AT-5 to AT-7), the applicant gives five reasons for opposing the third floor 5m setback. Each is addressed individually:

 

·    Street Wall Height. The DPIE’s finalisation report for the Planning Proposal envisaged “three storeys at Northwood Road”, which was deemed appropriate. In response, this does not mandate three storeys without setback at Northwood Road, only that the building fronting Northwood Road is three storeys high.

 

Secondly, a 3-storey street wall height is considered “consistent with that anticipated in the B4 Mixed Use Zone”. It is suggested that, “the proposed street wall provides a scale and form that reinforces the street edge on a highly visible intersection”.

 

While a B4 Mixed Use Zone may support elsewhere commercial buildings of a much greater bulk and scale than here, the rezoning was only supported for the specific uses and scale proposed for this site. The appearance of three storeys is inconsistent with the context of a neighbourhood centre.

“As discussed in the SEE the proposed building does not result in any adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of visual privacy and overshadowing. Therefore, the proposed 3 storey street wall assists in creating a defined neighbourhood centre in a key location on Northwood/Longueville Road.” (CityPlan)

 

While the proposed development does seek to “minimise impacts on adjoining properties”, this does not of itself result in a built form consistent with one and two-storey residences.

 

In support of a 3-storey street wall height, the proponent’s Statement of Environmental Effects in Section 6.3.1 quotes the Dept of Planning’s PP finalisation report which concludes:

 

“… the amended controls would result in an appropriately scaled development being three storeys at Northwood Road and five storeys at the rear. This is consistent with the character of similar higher density development in the local area, while being sympathetic to the surrounding predominately low density residential properties.”

 

However, this conclusion, by the DPIE, is based on Council’s DCP, Section 8. Design Strategies, which notes:

 

The design strategies for the Northwood Centre [include]:

m)        Allow residential uses above the ground floor to Kenneth Street potentially up to 3 - 4 storeys high.

n)         Setback the upper floor by 3 metres to reduce appearance of mass from the footpath.

 

It can therefore be more reasonably concluded that Council’s design intention includes an upper floor setback. Therefore, a street front setback is supported, primarily “to reduce the appearance of mass from the footpath”.

 

·    Precedent setback to Northwood Road.   On 27 April 2016, Council approved a development at 16 Northwood Road, for a 3-storey mixed use development with a nil setback for the first 2-storeys and 3.5 metre setback for the 3rd storey. This draft DCP, with a 3m street setback is regarded as a “far superior outcome,” providing public domain benefits. This is the case; however, the 2016 proposal is for a smaller width of building, while community opinion has moved further against such bulk and scale.

 

·    Anticipated development outcome. The DPIE Finalisation Report is quoted as stating that a 3-floor street wall height, “is consistent with the character of similar higher density development in the local area.” However, unlike other neighbourhood centres, this subject site has the potential to conflict in scale with the Lane Cove Village and, at three storeys without further setback, threatens the commercial built form hierarchy of the area.

 

It is claimed that the gross floor area would be reduced by approximately 421m2 which will mean the development will be “unable to achieve the permissible FSR, and require the removal of 17 bedrooms, essentially making the development unfeasible.” The loss of 5m along an approximately 70m frontage appears closer to a loss of 350m2. However, an alternative (complying) design has not been presented to demonstrate that a financially viable design is impossible to achieve. And regardless of the loss of FSR, financial viability is not a planning reason to justify built form.

 

·    Need for Acceleration.  In a similar vein, it is noted that, “this Planning Proposal formed part of DPIE’s Tranche 1 acceleration program, as it has the potential to stimulate the economy, provide a substantial number of construction and operational jobs, during this uncertain economic time.” Council is therefore asked to “avoid delaying the delivery and assessment of this important project, as the proposed DCP controls as recently exhibited have the potential to impact its viability.”

 

4.   Commercial uses

 

It is claimed that the B4 Mixed Use zoning may allow commercial uses not appropriate to the context of a B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone.  It is suggested that the DCP state that all businesses should primarily cater to the needs of people living/working in this neighbourhood being served by this B4 zoning.

 

 

 

 

Comment

 

The first objective of the Site Planning section is amended to add at the end of this objective after ‘neighbourhood centre’ the words, “including commercial uses that primarily cater to the needs of people who live and work in the surrounding neighbourhood”.

 

5.   Deep soil boundaries

 

It is submitted that rear and side setbacks should provide landscaped open space for resident amenity, as well as to ensure the integrity of the vegetation here. “…this setback must be complete i.e. retaining its full soil beneath with no excavation for basements of carparking below – to enable adequate drainage and deep soil planting of trees adjacent to the bushland.”

 

Comment

The objective of the deep soil requirement – to permit replanting and growth of mature indigenous trees - is protected under the Setbacks Provisions b and c.

 

6.   Street trees

 

It is supported that, “the Provisions for ‘Active Frontage’ (p5) include the space for trees on a busy Northwood road: Design of the awnings shall be integrated into the design of the ground floor and not compromise street trees”.

 

Comment

Noted.

 

7.   Through-site links

 It is felt that any through-site link, “must exclude access to a bicycle path or SUP on adjoining non-road land as this would destroy bushland; indicative diagram on p6 appears unfinished and open to manipulation. Due to gradient of the site, an accessible pathway will not be possible without environmental damage.”

 

Comment

Protection of bushland is addressed elsewhere in the DCP, which will control the impact of any through-site link.

 

8.   Measure of "Height"

 

It is recommended to remove the words “Underside of top of Ceiling” [from diagram p4] – this is inconsistent with LEP building Height RL66.25 which is to top of building roof, not underside of ceiling and includes any structures forming part of roof gardens.”

 

Comment

The Seniors SEPP allows that where development is permissible under an LEP, the Seniors SEPP is not required and the LEP applies. Advice from Council’s solicitor confirms that the height of building nominated in Clause 6.9 of the LEP must be defined by the LEP, which is “the vertical distance from the Australian Height Datum to the highest point of the building.”     Height is therefore not measured according to the Seniors SEPP. Accordingly, “Underside of top of Ceiling” is removed from diagram p4.

 

9.   Landscaped area

 

The Landscaped area of 24% is considered inadequate. Also amend e) so landscape space in diagram p8 becomes deep soil planting in the buffer zone.

 

Comment

 

No reason is given for this conclusion of “inadequate”. The so-called landscaped area will be mostly deep soil.

 

The following three issues raised are related to the 2019 LEP amendment No29 which rezoned the site from B1 Neighborhood Shops to B4 Mixed Use, with a building height of RL66.25 and FSR of 1.85:1 (permitting residential care facility and 0.35:1 commercial/retail). These issues are not relevant to the DCP (which relates to the building envelope of the proposed building). More detailed Council responses can be found in the Council Report of 15 June 2020 (AT-3 & AT-4) and 18 June 2018 (AT-1):

1.   Building height above 2 storeys (1)

2.   Tree removal (none) (1)

3.   Use of site for residential care facility (1).

 

The following six issues raised are more appropriately addressed in relation to the Development Application DA113/2020 and were referred to that assessment process:

1.   Traffic impacts (24)

2.   Traffic entry/egress (12)

3.   Definitions (1)

4.   Dedicated bus lane (1)

5.   Public interest benefit (1)

6.   Lobby in active frontages (1).

 

Because these issues are not the subject of this DCP amendment being reported upon, interested readers are referred to the Report of the DA assessment.

 

Finally, six issues were raised which are not relevant to this DCP amendment, nor the 2020 rezoning, nor necessarily a future D.A.:

 

1.   Precedent (1) -  this DCP will encourage further residential care facilities in the area.

2.   Public transport (1) – this DCP does not address a “lack of additional public transport” required in the area.

3.   Competition with 266 Longueville facility (1) 

4.   Supervision/safety of residents (1) – “no planned restraint / cannot get out arrangement for those who become disorientated, and wander…”

5.   Walkway in bushland reserve (1) – “Establish a pedestrian through way/walkway from River Road/Northwood Road via the Gore Creek Natural Reserve to the Golf Course/Sports Facilities Precinct.”

6.   Scope of this DCP (1) – the DCP “should address the entire Neighbourhood Centre (Clauses 1-7) – beyond the scope of this DCP. Also some phrases not clearly defined: “the centre”; a “mature landscape”; “Land to which this Section applies”. - these terms are understood at the D.A. stage, and refer to commonly understood concepts.

 

Conclusion

 

The exhibited DCP amendment aims to ensure that any development applications lodged for the land at 4 Northwood Road are assessed against community and agency wishes regarding the bulk and scale and overall impact of the residential care facility proposed on the site.

 

Many issues raised belong to the 2018 decision to rezone the site – from B1 Neighborhood Shops to B4 Mixed Use to a permit residential care facility -  which was gazetted in 2020, along with changed building height, FSR and land uses (as in LEP Clause 6.9). These issues are not relevant to this proposed amendment which simply aims to ensure that community concerns regarding the bulk and scale and overall impact of the residential care facility on the site inform assessment of any Development Application for the site. Other issues were raised that are appropriately addressed at the D.A. design stage. Six issues were not of relevance to this DCP level of control, nor the LEP, nor a D.A.

 

During public consultation, six issues relevant to the DCP were raised and have been discussed above. In response, the DCP is amended to take account of ten public concerns:

 

·    In response to concerns that B4 commercial uses may be permitted, the DCP objectives as exhibited have been further amended to support commercial uses that primarily cater to the needs of people who live and work in the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

·    In response to concerns that sustainability measures may be “considered” but overlooked, the DCP as exhibited has been further amended to “incorporate” sustainability measures.

 

·    In response to a concern for clarity regarding removal of indigenous trees onsite, the DCP as exhibited has been further amended to require that Council be satisfied that removal of any indigenous trees on site is unavoidable [before] those trees be offset and replaced at a ratio of 2:1. Further, they must be able to “grow to maturity”, and the proponent must demonstrate how the offsets for tree removal can be managed and protected in perpetuity on site.

 

·    In response to a concern for clarity regarding “rear” setback, the DCP as exhibited has been further amended to define Rear Setback as a “buffer” measured from the rear boundary into the site (see Indicative landscaped open space areas map).

 

·    In response to concern regarding the nature of the “indigenous trees” to be planted the DCP as exhibited has been further amended to specify a diversity of locally provenanced native plant species sourced from near the site.

 

·    In response to concerns for protection of retained and removed native vegetation, the DCP as exhibited has been further amended to require remaining trees be fenced, and salvaged trees be re-used to enhance habitat.

 

·    In response to concern that impacts on vegetation be minimised, the DCP as exhibited has been further amended to introduce “minimise” into Bushland Protection Objectives and Provisions.

 

·    In response to concern that “local species” be regarded as more than only trees, the DCP as exhibited has been further amended to require “appropriate tree, shrub and groundcover selection”, to avoid weed species.

 

·    In response to a need for clarity in definition of building height, the DCP as exhibited has been further amended to remove “Underside of top of Ceiling” from diagram p4.

 

·    In response to the community view that seeks to ensure consistency with the apparent streetscape of two-storey buildings in the neighbourhood centre, to primarily “reduce the appearance of mass from the footpath”, the third-floor additional 5m setback is retained.

 

Furthermore, as a result of public submissions, the DCP built form does not have an increased environmental impact by comparison with that exhibited, and does not therefore require re-exhibition. The DCP as amended remains sound strategic town planning.

 

As a result, it is recommended that Council adopt Development Control Plan amendment for ‘Locality 2’ in Part D: Commercial Development and Mixed Use Localities, with site specific controls under Northwood Neighbourhood Centre.

 

In summary, the exhibited Development Control amendment for this part of the Northwood Neighbourhood Centre, as amended, is appropriate and Council is recommended to adopt it.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt Development Control Plan amendment for ‘Locality 2’ in DCP Part D: Commercial Development and Mixed-Use Localities, with site specific controls under Northwood Neighbourhood Centre attached as AT-2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Council Report 18 June 2018

36 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑2View

DCP Amendment

11 Pages

 

AT‑3View

Council Report 15 June 2020

4 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑4View

Council Minutes15 June 2020

1 Page

Available Electronically

AT‑5View

Statement of Environmental Effects (CityPlan)

60 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑6View

Compliance Table (CityPlan)

40 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑7View

Letter (CityPlan)

4 Pages

 

AT‑8View

Letter from Environment, Energy and Science Branch of DPIE

4 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑9View

Council Report 17 August 2020

5 Pages

 

AT‑10View

Council Minute 17 August 2020

1 Page

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 2

DCP Amendment

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 7

Letter (CityPlan)

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 9

Council Report 17 August 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 10

Council Minute 17 August 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 16 November 2020

Lane Cove Council Annual Report 2019-20

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove Council Annual Report 2019-20    

Record No:    SU245 - 65345/20

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Jessica Quilty 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Local Government Act requires all NSW councils to prepare an Annual Report for the previous reporting period by 30 November each year. Lane Cove Council’s Draft Annual Report for 2019 -20 has been produced and this report recommends that Council adopt this document as the finalised Annual Report and send a copy to the Minister for Local Government as required by the Local Government Act.

 

Discussion

 

Council’s Draft Annual Report for 2019-20 is attached electronically as AT-1 and covers all of the matters listed in the Local Government Act to be addressed, in particular the financial information included in the Audited Financial Statements and the progress on achieving the projects and activities listed in the 2019-20 Operational Plan.

 

In order to maintain consistency amongst Council’s Corporate Planning documents, the Draft Annual Report is organised into Council’s Six Strategic Planning Themes in the same way as the Liveable Lane Cove: 2030 Plan  and the annual Operational Plan. This helps to reflect Council’s achievements across the key themes rather than by Council’s internal organisational structure.

 

The Draft Annual Report contains an introduction by the Mayor and General Manager for this reporting period. The highlights for 2019-20 as described in their introduction has been reproduced below for the Councillors and community’s information:-

 

“This year, 2020, marks 125 years since Lane Cove Council was established. It has also been one of the busiest years in this Council’s history. In the past 12 months Lane Cove Council has opened four new parks, the new Cameraygal Park, The Canopy, Mindarie Park and 552 Mowbray Road

Pocket Park.

 

More than 100 street trees have been planted to help in reducing the, ‘heat island effect’. The completed Epping Road Azalea Bed Rejuvenation project installed a tree sculpture in Central Park and added almost 2,000 trees into our new online mapping tool.

 

There have been numerous other digital projects, including preparing for electronic lodgements via the Planning Portal, developing online services and forms, as part of our new customer experience strategy and rolling out online events in lieu of face to face activities. These activities included hosting an online children’s Storytime, creating our first digital ANZAC Day service, digital bushwalks and a Wild About Lane Cove Instagram competition.

 

Council is extremely proud that its response to the COVID-19 pandemic has gone beyond simply adapting existing services. We have reached out and called our local residents to see if they needed help, partnered with a local pharmacy to provide hand sanitiser to residents at cost price during the initial shortage and developed a new ‘Shop Lane Cove’ website that highlighted the different delivery options our local businesses could provide.

Prior to the pandemic, Council had helped many other communities in need. These included raising more than $17,000 for the towns of Gunnedah and Cobar through a Christmas drought fundraiser as well as transporting 225,000 litres of much needed water from our outdoor pool construction, to the people of Armidale.

 

While construction continued on the outdoor pool, building works wrapped up nearby at The Canopy.

 

After 3 years of construction, The Canopy opened in June. The cover photo highlights the architectural entrance to this unique space which compliments the many features of the Lane Cove Village. This is the largest infrastructure project ever undertaken by Council. Delivered on time and on budget, it was fitting that it was completed in our 125th Anniversary year.

 

The facility includes a new park, playground, 500 space car park and supermarkets. The final much anticipated stage of Eat Street along Birdwood Lane, will be completed later in the year. This visionary project is one to be celebrated with its brand new open space, stage, BBQ and picnic area, two playgrounds and new amenities that will further transform the heart of Lane Cove. The Canopy is also home to the lower North Shore’s first and very popular ‘Changing Place’ Adult Change Facility. Continuing with our commitment to accessibility, Council has been installing and upgrading our bus shelters to improve undercover space and meet any requirements set by the Disability Discrimination Act. Making Lane Cove a more open and accommodating living environment for all.

 

The Canopy is also home to the most sustainability features of any Council project, so it is fitting that in this same year, we have also committed to further extend Council’s overall sustainability achievements by setting even more ambitious targets, for reduction in energy and water usage. This year we have also progressed future projects such as the ambitious St Leonards Over rail Plaza project, with a terms sheet signed and plans related to, St Leonards Library now underway.

 

Whilst ensuring Council has a strong financial future that is supported by appropriate infrastructure and open space, we have also been making sure that we provide services that strengthen the real life enjoyment of those living in todays Lane Cove. We have established our first Dementia Café, hosted the ‘Wisdom in Focus’ exhibition, adopted a new Bicycle Plan and installed a new pedestrian crossing in Central Avenue.

 

125 years ago, it would have been unimaginable that Lane Cove Council would offer all the services and facilities that it does today. And while our predecessors may not have imagined many of these activities, they were certainly in tune with Lane Cove’s future as in the 1920 Annual Report Town Clerk, Arthur Marshall, had prophetically declared ‘So here is Lane Cove after its twenty-five years of Municipal life. We peep into the future and can see it the same beautiful spot on the map but environing some 40,000 happy souls…’.

 

Conclusion

 

The Draft Annual Report has been prepared to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act.  Upon adoption of the Report, a copy will be forwarded to the Minister as required by the Act and will be publicly accessible via the Popular Documents section on Council’s website www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

 

1.  Council adopt the Draft Annual Report at AT-1 for 2019 -20;

 

2.  The adopted Annual Report be forwarded to the Minister for Local Government; and

 

     3.  The Annual Report be published on Council’s website.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jessica Quilty

Acting Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Annual Report 2019-20

150 Pages

Available Electronically

 

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 16 November 2020

Credit Card Management in Local Government Audit

 

 

Subject:          Credit Card Management in Local Government Audit     

Record No:    SU739 - 65148/20

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Jessica Quilty 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Audit Office (AO) of New South Wales performance audit on Credit Card Management in Local Government 2019 was released on 3 September 2020 and provided a high-level overview of credit card management across the sector. The audit aimed to assess the effectiveness of credit card management practices in six councils: Dubbo Regional Council, Junee Shire Council, Lane Cove Council, Nambucca Valley Council, Penrith City Council and Shellharbour City Council.

 

Overall, the audit determined certain ‘gaps’ in the effectiveness of policy, systems and processes to manage credit cards in the selected councils. The majority of AO recommendations to Council consisted of low-level policy and procedural changes which have been accepted. It is recommended that the report be received and noted.

 

Background

 

The audit commenced in August 2019 and examined transactions from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2019.

 

The audit referenced the NSW Treasury's Policy and Guidelines Paper TPP17–09 'Use and Management of NSW Government Purchasing Cards', as its principles and recommendations for NSW Government agencies are relevant for councils.

 

Discussion

 

The overall aim of performance audits is to determine whether State or local government entities carry out their activities effectively, and do so economically and efficiently and in compliance with all relevant laws.

 

This credit card audit used the following criteria against the audit objective:

1.       Do councils have an effective governance framework for credit cards including but not limited to the following:

·     clear criteria for eligibility to hold a credit card

·     clearly defined roles and responsibilities relating to credit card use and management

·     defined delegation limits and restrictions on use

·     clear requirements for approval, acquittal, authorisation of expenditure, reconciliation of transactions and segregation of duties?

2.       Do councils have effective controls to prevent and detect misuse within its credit card management framework?

3.       Do councils effectively educate their staff on credit card use and management?

4.       Do councils have effective record keeping?

 

The audit concluded that “All six audited councils had important gaps in their credit card policies and procedures. Their reconciliation of credit card transactions needs to be enhanced to enable detection of potential misuse or fraud”

It should be noted that no evidence of fraud or inappropriate use of Council funds was identified. The volume and value of transactions are also extremely low (six credit cards in total) with Council preferring to use credit cards as a last resort, which inherently reduces risk and impacts the administrative systems required.

The majority of recommendations for Lane Cove as a result of the audit were around updating policies and procedures. Council’s response to each recommendation can be found at (AT-1)

 

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) also follows up progress on implementing accepted recommendations one year after the report is tabled.

 

Conclusion

 

The audit identified areas where Council can make improvements in its current policies and documentation. It is pleasing to note that no evidence of fraud or inappropriate use of Council funds was identified.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jessica Quilty

Acting Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Letter to Audit Office regarding Performance Audit Credit Card Management Recommendations

2 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Letter to Audit Office regarding Performance Audit Credit Card Management Recommendations

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 16 November 2020

Alcohol Free Zones - Parks/Reserves and St Leonards and Lane Cove Central Business Districts

 

 

Subject:          Alcohol Free Zones - Parks/Reserves and St Leonards and Lane Cove Central Business Districts    

Record No:    SU3530 - 65140/20

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      David Wilson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At its meeting of 21 September 2020, Council resolved to place on exhibition a proposal to declare all parks and reserves in the Lane Cove LGA, Lane Cove Plaza/Canopy and St Leonard’s Central Business District as Alcohol Free Zones/Alcohol Prohibited Areas.

 

Consultation has been undertaken with the community and Local Area Command (LAC), in accordance with the Department of Local Government’s Guidelines for Establishing Alcohol Prohibited Areas (APA’s) and Alcohol-Free Zones (AFZ’s).  Three (3) submissions have been received and no objection has been raised by the Local Area Command.

 

It is recommended that APA / AFZ’s be established in all parks/reserves as listed in the report, Lane Cove Plaza/Canopy with the exception of approved alfresco dining areas, and the

St Leonards Central Business District effective from 31 December 2020 to the 1 January 2025.

 

Background

 

Between 2012 and 2020, Council has had Alcohol Free Zones (AFZ) established in the following areas;

·    All Harbour foreshore parks & Kingsford Smith Oval for New Year’s Eve (6pm-9am)

·    Kingsford Smith Oval, Pottery Green, Central Park and Birrallee Reserve (8pm-8am)

·    Commercial areas of St. Leonard’s and Lane Cove Plaza and surrounding streets (24 hours)

In reviewing the effectiveness of the AFZ’s at Kingsford Smith Oval, Pottery Green, Central Park and Birrallee Reserve (8pm-8am) and the commercial areas of St. Leonard’s and Lane Cove Plaza (24 hours), very few incidents of anti-social behaviour have been reported over the past 4 years, since the establishment of these AFZ’s.

Council’s Parks Section and waste contractors have advised that there has been evidence of underage drinking and anti-social behaviour in several our parks that aren’t declared as AFZ’s that have resulted in late-night noise, lighting of fires and vandalism of park assets and discarded alcohol bottles /littering.

Whilst the incidence of drinking and anti-social behaviour is not a regular occurrence in our parks, anti-social behaviour is generally undertaken after dark in areas that are poorly lit and in locations in proximity of licensed premises or where alcohol can be purchased.

 

Consultation

 

The proposal to establish APA’s and AFZ’s was placed on public exhibition for six (6) weeks and has undertaken the following public consultation to obtain feedback and input into the proposal to establish APA’s and AFZ’s in the Lane Cove LGA: -

·    An advertisement in the North Shore Times newspaper

·    A website exhibition on Council’s website

 

 Council placed on public exhibition the following proposal to establish AFZ’s;

·    All parks and public reserves – 8.00pm to 8.00am

·    Commercial areas of Lane Cove CBD and St Leonard’s, excluding licensed on street dining areas and premises with a liquor license. (24 hours per day)

·    AFZ’s would apply for 4 years from the time of adoption and then may wish to review and continue.

·    Exemptions would be granted for Council approved community events where alcohol maybe provided.

Following this consultation period, 3 submissions were made to Council (2 in favor and 1 against), other than the feedback from the LAC, who confirmed that they supported the proposal and continued use of AFZ’s in the locality.

In support of the proposal – the comments made were;

-     “Please include Tambourine Bay Park, Warraroon Reserve and Hodgson Park”

-     “Disturbances caused by young people gathering at night in Tambourine Bay Park/Warraroon Reserve has been increasing in 2020.”

-     “anti -social behaviour (near the Sea Scouts building) , noise and appalling language, urinating by the sea wall and bottles discarded in the bushland.”

Against the proposal:

-     “Too many rules impacting upon our lives, especially in 2020, why introduce more.”

-     “If a person is drinking while underage or littering or creating nuisance there are existing powers available.”

Discussion

With the increase in population of the Lane Cove LGA and an increase in visitations, a more strategic approach to our AFZ’s is suggested to ensure potential anti-social/after dark gatherings is not passed on from one park to another  i.e. members of the community engaging in anti-social behaviour in a park that is regulated as a declared AFZ and then moving on to a park or public place that is not regulated as an AFZ .

 

The Police have advised that in the past, Pottery Green, Central Park and Kingsford Smith Oval were frequented by underage persons drinking in the park after dark. Police advised that where AFZ’s have been declared with improvements in the lighting and regular patrols, these location incidents reduce significantly from a policing perspective, and the areas no longer require regular Police patrols, and as such it is desirable to maintain these AFZ’s.

 

Council’s Parks Section and waste contractors have advised that evidence of drinking and anti-social behaviour is present in several of our parks and is observed in the form of vandalism and the presence of alcohol bottles and littering. The declaration of AFZ’s in all parks would be an effective strategy in minimising after dark vandalism and littering, that potentially can cause harm to children using playgrounds and other park facilities i.e. broken glass and damaged equipment.

 

Lane Cove’s parks and reserves are well patronized and are used by many members of the community as well as many visitors. Of concern are parks that are in close proximity of licensed premises or where alcohol can be purchased.

 

It is also appropriate for Council to waive these restrictions for special events that may occur on an infrequent basis, where alcohol may wish to be served in a responsible manner by organizers of an event.

 

Council’s and the Police’s current regulatory powers are limited in relation to moving people on that are drinking in parks after dark, as the majority of parks in the LGA aren’t declared as AFZ’s, other than on NYE.

 

The following areas in the Lane Cove LGA are proposed to be established as APA’s and AFZ’s in accordance with Section 632A and Section 644 of the Local Government Act 1993:

Parks & Reserves

 

Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas (between the hours of 8pm and 8am)

 

·        Bayview Park: 12 Bay Street Greenwich

·        Brickhill Playground: 66 – 70 Ronald Ave Greenwich

·        Carlotta St Playground: corner of Evelyn and Carlotta Street, Greenwich

·        Coronation Viewpoint: 300 – 310 Pacific Highway Greenwich

·        Bob Campbell Oval: end of St Vincent’s St, Greenwich

·        Greenwich Baths: O'Connell St Greenwich

·        Henningham Playground: 30 – 32 Kingslangley Rd Greenwich

·        Leemon Reserve: 7 Robert St Greenwich

·        Manns Point Park: O’Connell St and Prospect St Greenwich

·        Shell Park: 205 Greenwich Rd Greenwich

·        St Vincent’s Road Playground: 95 River Rd Greenwich

·        Best St Reserve: 25 Penrose St Lane Cove

·        Charlish Park: 86 – 90 Centennial Ave Lane Cove

·        Coxs Lane Playground: 25 Coxs Lane Lane Cove

·        Finlayson Playground: 42 Centennial Ave Lane Cove

·        Kimberley Playground: Kimberley Ave Lane Cove

·        Nichols Reserve: 125 Burns Bay Rd Lane Cove

·        Osborne Park: Osborne Place Lane Cove

·        Pottery Green Oval: 1 Phoenix St Lane Cove

·        Sydney Cowell Reserve: Marsh Place Lane Cove

·        Turrumburra Park: cnr Centennial Ave and Epping Road Lane Cove

·        552 Mowbray Road: 552 Mowbray Road Lane Cove North

·        Goodlet Reserve: 73 – 75 Helen St Lane Cove North

·        Helen Street Reserve: 27 – 37 Helen St Lane Cove North

·        Mindarie Park: Corner of Mindarie St and Kullah Parade Lane Cove North

·        Stringybark Reserve: 59 Murray St Lane Cove North

·        Tantallon Oval: Tantallon Road Lane Cove North

·        Alder Ave Playground: end of Alder Ave Lane Cove West

·        Blackman Park: Lloyd Rees Drive Lane Cove West

·        Penrose St - Blackman Park: Penrose St Lane Cove West

·        Tennis courts - Blackman Park: Lloyd Rees Drive Lane Cove West

·        Cullen St Reserve: 20 Cullen St Lane Cove West

·        Henley Playground: 33 Henley St Lane Cove West

·        Aquatic Park: Mary St Longueville

·        Central Park: Kenneth St Longueville

·        Griffith Park: 1 Dunois St Longueville

·        Kingsford Smith Oval: Kenneth Street Longueville

·        Longueville Park: Stuart Street Longueville

·        Shaw Playground: New Street Longueville

·        Cunningham’s Reach: Loop Road Linley Point

·        Garrawi Lookout: The Crescent Linley Point

·        Linley Point Reserve: Linley Lane Linley Point

·        Endeavour Playground: between 5 and 7 Fleming St Northwood

·        Lloyd Rees Park: end of Northwood Road Northwood

·        Woodford Bay – Bicentennial Reserve: Kelly’s Esplanade Northwood

·        106 Tambourine Bay Rd: Riverview

·        Burns Bay Reserve: Kooyong Road Riverview

·        Marjorie York Playground:  corner of Sofala Road and Tambourine Bay Road Riverview

·        Tambourine Bay Park: Tambourine Bay Road Riverview

·        Newlands Park: River Road St Leonard’s

·        Propsting Playground: River Road St Leonard’s

 

Commercial (24 hours, excluding those premises that have an outdoor dining license and a liquor license) 

 

Alcohol Prohibited Areas (Public Spaces, Public Parks and Reserves):-

·       Lane Cove Plaza and the area known as The Canopy, Lane Cove, with the exception of approved alfresco dining areas and Council authorised events; and

·       Open Space Area at the intersection of Pacific Highway and Canberra Avenue, St. Leonard’s.

 

Alcohol Free Zones (Streets, Car Parks and Footpaths):-

·     Area adjacent to Lane Cove Plaza and the area known as The Canopy, bounded by Longueville Road, Burns Bay Road, Birdwood Lane, Rosenthal Avenue and Austin Street;

·     Pacific Highway between Oxley Street and Greenwich Road, St Leonard’s; and

·     Canberra Avenue, (between Marshall Avenue and Pacific Highway) St Leonard’s.

 

Legislation

 

Council is able to establish Alcohol Free Zones (AFZ’s) for roads, footpaths and car parks in accordance with Section 644 (4) of the Local Government Act, 1993 (the Act) that states: -

 

(4)The proposed alcohol-free zone may comprise either or both of the following:-

(a) a public road or part of a public road,

(b) a public place that is a car park or part of a car park.

 

The primary purpose of this Section is to prohibit the drinking of alcohol on public streets.

 

In addition to regulate the consumption of alcohol in public parks and reserves, Council is able to establish Alcohol Prohibited Areas (APA) in accordance with Section 632A (4) that states;

 

(4) A council may declare any public place (or any part of a public place) in the council’s area to be an "alcohol prohibited area" for the purposes of this section. However, an alcohol prohibited area cannot be established in relation to a public place that is a public road (or part of a public road) or car park.

 

The primary purpose of this Section is for police to have the power to seize, confiscate and dispose of alcohol where persons are found to be consuming alcohol in a public park.

 

Regarding both Sections of the Act, public consultation is required and approval from the Local Area Command (Police) prior to adoption by Council.

 

Budget

 

In declaring an AFZ’s, the NSW Government Guidelines on Alcohol Free Zones, specific and clear signage installed defining the AFZ.

Council has over 50 parks in the LGA and with these proposed AFZ’s, park signs would be required to adequately sign post these areas at a cost of approximately $20 per sign (manufacturing costs + installation costs) or a total cost of up to $10,000 to undertake these works. These costs would be reduced, where the signage for an AFZ can be incorporated into the overall park usage/conditions - general signs.

 

Conclusion

 

Addressing anti-social behaviour linked to the consumption of alcohol can be challenging for both the Council and the Police where it impacts our community.

 

Feedback from the Police, Parks staff and Council’s Waste Contractor suggest that where it occurs in Lane Cove, the problem is localized and has been dealt with by the Police in ‘moving people on’ and can be managed more formally by implementing AFZ’s in locations that are in close proximity to premises where alcohol can be purchased.

 

The strategic approach of prohibiting the consumption of alcohol in all parks after 8.00pm until 8.00am the next day, seeks to provide our community with a greater level of consistency in relation to the use of our local parks and maintaining the amenity of those that reside in proximity of parks, reserves and playgrounds.

 

It is therefore proposed that the AFZ’s be extended for a further 4 years from 31 December 2020 to 1 January 2025 and that all parks be included as AFZ’s, other than for approved Council endorsed events where Council may approve the consumption of alcohol or where a premise operates with a liquor license.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 632A and Section 644 of the Local Government Act, 1993 the proposal to declare the areas listed in the report as Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas be adopted from 31 December 2020 to 1 January 2025.

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Alcohol Free Zones - Parks  & Reserves

1 Page

 

AT‑2View

Alcohol Free Zones - Lane Cove CBD

1 Page

 

AT‑3View

Alcohol Free Zones - St Leonards

1 Page

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Alcohol Free Zones - Parks  & Reserves

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 2

Alcohol Free Zones - Lane Cove CBD

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 3

Alcohol Free Zones - St Leonards

 

PDF Creator


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 16 November 2020

Alcohol Free Zones - New Years Eve

 

 

Subject:          Alcohol Free Zones - New Years Eve     

Record No:    SU3530 - 64994/20

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      David Wilson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

At its meeting of the 21 September 2020, Council resolved to place on public exhibition the proposal to extend Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas from 31 December 2020 to

1 January 2025.

 

Following community consultation and with representatives of the Local Area Command, three (3) submissions have been received and no objection has been raised by the Local Area Command  to establish Alcohol Prohibited Areas (APA) and Alcohol Free Zones (AFZ) for the period of 31 December and 1 January. 

 

It is recommended that the APA’s and AFZ’s be established from 6.00pm on 31 December 2020 to 9.00am on 1 January 2025, in the parks and streets as listed in the Report.

 

Background

 

In 2011 a number of councils in the vicinity of Sydney Harbour implemented APA and AFZ’s across their Local Government Area’s (LGA) to assist in managing the increasing number of people that were gathering in public areas to participate in the New Year’s Eve celebrations. In recent years the level of alcohol consumption and unruly behaviour lead to a greater number of public areas being declared as APA and AFZ’s.

 

With the adoption of APA and AFZs in North Sydney LGA in 2011, the Manns Point location became a more attractive location for those looking to consume alcohol whilst participating in NYE celebrations in and around the Harbour foreshore. As a result, approximately 2000+ people attended this location, with anecdotal reports that a large number of heavily intoxicated persons were present, some sections of the crowd were unruly and with some people requiring medical assistance.

 

The following morning (1 January 2012) Council was in receipt of a large number of complaints regarding the amount of waste that was covering the Manns Point Reserve. The waste comprised of significant amounts of bottles, litter and camping furniture.

 

Additional waste bins and additional temporary toilet facilities were provided at Manns Point consistent with the resources that were provided in the previous years, but with the number of people gathering at this location, these facilities were inadequate to cope with such an increase in numbers at this location.

 

Since the adoption of AFZ/APA’s in 2012, no reports of unruly behaviour have been received from the Police, with annual post event debriefs, confirming that those gathering to celebrate New Year’s Eve, have done so in a well-behaved manner.

 

 

Discussion

 

In consultation with the Local Area Command, the following parks and roads in the Lane Cove LGA were previously established as APA’s and AFZ’s from 6.00pm on 31 December 2012 to 9.00am on 1 January 2020 in accordance with Section 632A and Section 644 of the Local Government Act 1993:

 

Alcohol Free Zones (streets, car parks and footpaths):-

·    Prospect Street Greenwich;

·    O’Connell Street Greenwich;

·    Albert Street Greenwich;

·    George Street Greenwich;

·    Victoria Street, Greenwich;

·    O’Connell Street, Greenwich;

·    East Street, Greenwich;

·    Mitchell Street, Greenwich;

·    Dunois Street, Longueville;

·    Wharf Road, Longueville;

·    Wilson Street, Longueville;

·    Arabella Street, Longueville;

·    Nott Lane, Longueville;

·    Stuart Street, Longueville;

·    Mary Street, Longueville;

·    Northwood Road (to Point Road) Northwood;

·    Kellys Esplanade, Northwood;

·    Kallaroo Road, Riverview; and

·    Karingal Road, Riverview.

 

Alcohol Prohibited Areas (public parks and reserves):-

·    Manns Point Reserve, Greenwich;

·    Greenwich Point Reserve, Greenwich;

·    Shell Park, Greenwich;

·    Aquatic Park, Longueville;

·    Griffith Park, Longueville;

·    Longueville Park, Longueville;

·    Wharf Road Reserve, Longueville;

·    Woodford Bay – Bicentennial Reserve, Northwood;

·    Lloyd Rees Park, Northwood; and

·    Tambourine Park, Riverview.

 

A Map of the proposed AFZ’s and APA’s is attached as AT-1

 


By incorporating Public Reserves and surrounding streets into an AFP/AFZ Police can control and enforce this precinct and assist in the management of crowd behavior within the area and surrounding streets. The Police have advised that by establishing APA’s and AFZ’s it will allow them to manage and control these areas more effectively, where groups of people gather and consume alcohol that may result in the general amenity and safety of an area being negatively impacted upon.

 

Legislation

 

Council is able to establish Alcohol Free Zones (AFZ’s) for roads, footpaths and car parks in accordance with Section 644 (4) of the Local Government Act, 1993 (the Act) that states: -

 

“(4) The proposed alcohol-free zone may comprise either or both of the following:

 (a) a public road or part of a public road,

 (b) a public place that is a car park or part of a car park.”

 

The primary purpose of this Section is to prohibit the drinking of alcohol on public streets.

 

In addition to regulate the consumption of alcohol in public parks and reserves, Council is able to establish Alcohol Prohibited Areas (APA) in accordance with Section 632A (4) that states: -

 

“(4) A council may declare any public place (or any part of a public place) in the council’s area to be an "alcohol prohibited area" for the purposes of this section. However, an alcohol prohibited area cannot be established in relation to a public place that is a public road (or part of a public road) or car park.”

 

The primary purpose of this Section is for police to have the power to seize, confiscate and dispose of alcohol where persons are found to be consuming alcohol in a public park.

 

In regard to both Sections of the Act, extensive public consultation is required along with the approval from the Local Area Command prior to adoption by Council.

 

Community Consultation

 

A Public Notice was published on Council’s website for a period of 6 weeks. In addition, Council wrote to the Local Area Command seeking their comment on the proposal to extend the AFZ/APA’s by a further 4 years.

 

Following this consultation period, 3 submissions were made to Council (2 in favor and 1 against) , other than the feedback from the LAC, who confirmed that they supported the proposal and continued use of AFZ’s in the locality.

In support of the proposal – the comments made were;

-     “Please include Tambourine Bay Park, Warraroon Reserve and Hodgson Park”

-     “Disturbances caused by young people gathering at night in Tambourine Bay Park/Warraroon Reserve has been increasing in 2020.”

-     “anti -social behaviour (near the Sea Scouts building) , noise and appalling language, urinating by the sea wall and bottles discarded in the bushland.”

Against the proposal:

-     “Too many rules impacting upon our lives, especially in 2020, why introduce more.”

-     “If a person is drinking while underage or littering or creating nuisance there are existing powers available.”

As a result of the submissions, Warraroon Reserve and Hodgson Park will be added to the list of AFZ’s for NYE.

  In regards to the submission opposing the AFZ’s, unfortunately the experience of the Police and Council, is that inappropriate behaviour that is associated with excessive consumption of alcohol is very challenging to regulate, and as such the strategic approach of managing alcohol consumption in parks and reserves after sunset (8pm), is considered as meeting the needs of the broader community in maintaining the amenity of the area.

Conclusion

 

The establishment of APA/AFZ’s in 2012 for New Year’s Eve celebrations at Manns Point Reserve and the surrounding streets has ensured that for the past eight (8+) years that there is a safe environment that the community can enjoy, and an area where NYE fireworks can be viewed from without being impacted by intoxicated persons.

 

Since the establishment of the APA/AFZ’s for New Year’s Eve, Council and the Police have not encountered any significant issues and have received positive feedback from the community about these restrictions.

 

Accordingly, it is proposed to extend the APA/AFZ’s for a further four (4) years until 2025 and declare all parks in the Lane Cove LGA, where NYE celebrations can be viewed from, as APA’s and the streets that adjoin these public parks as AFZ’s from 6.00pm on 31 December until 9.00am on 1 January each year.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That pursuant to Section 632A and Section 644 of the Local Government Act, 1993 declare the areas listed in the report as well as Warraroon Reserve and Hodgson Park, Riverview as shown in AT-1, as Alcohol Free Zones and Alcohol Prohibited Areas from 6.00pm on 31 December 2020 until 9.00am on 1 January 2025.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Mason

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Map of Alcohol Free Zones - New Year's Eve 2020-2025

1 Page

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Map of Alcohol Free Zones - New Year's Eve 2020-2025

 

PDF Creator


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 16 November 2020

Delivery Program and Operational Plan - First Quarter Review

 

 

Subject:          Delivery Program and Operational Plan - First Quarter Review    

Record No:    SU238 - 64606/20

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Simon Cole 

 

 

 Executive Summary

This report outlines the First Quarter 2020 progress towards achieving the projects listed in the adopted 2020-2021 Delivery Program and Operational Plan.  It is recommended that the report be received and noted.

 

Discussion

Council’s 2020 – 2021 Delivery Program and Operational Plan details the projects proposed to be undertaken during the financial year and the performance measures required to meet the goals and objectives of the Community Strategic Plan: Liveable Lane Cove: 2035.   The First Quarter Review of the 2020 – 2021 Delivery Program and Operational Plan is attached at AT-1.  The report indicates the responsible work area and includes a short progress report and action status.

 

Some highlights for the First Quarter 2020 include the:-

·    Completion of The Canopy;

·    New outdoor pool and grandstand completed in readiness for the summer swim season;

·    Gazettal of the St. Leonards South Local Environmental Plan Amendment; 

·    St Leonards and Crows Nest 2036 Plan implemented by NSW Government;

·    Awarding of tender for Waste, Recyclables and Garden Organics Collection & Recycling Processing;

·    Sand redistributed at Greenwich Baths to make the beach for safe swimming;

·    Library commenced providing services to Hunters Hill residents;

·    Library continued to extend visiting hours, while still maintaining COVID-19 restrictions;

·    Finalisation of the Draft Playground Strategy;

·    Cultural team worked on a range of online presentations including Get that Gig and Friday Fun; and,

·    Completion of a number of upgrades to shared user paths and footpaths.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the 1st Quarter Review of the 2020-2021 Delivery Program and Operational Plan be received and noted.

 

 

Stephen Golding

Manager - Risk and Corporate Safety

Corporate Services Division

 

Jessica Quilty

Acting Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2020 - Quarterly Review Q1

149 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Delivery Program and Operational Plan 2020 - Quarterly Review Q1

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 16 November 2020

1st Quarter Review for 2020-2021 Budget

 

 

Subject:          1st Quarter Review for 2020-2021 Budget    

Record No:    SU757 - 66056/20

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Sarah Seaman 

 

 

Executive Summary

                                                              

The First Quarter 2020 - 2021 Budget Review involves a variety of variations in both income and expenditure. Taking into consideration the variations from the First Quarter Budget Review the projected 2020/21 overall result has been revised to a surplus of $14M, with the operating result before grants and capital contributions forecast to be a deficit of $4.4M. 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. The purpose of these reviews is to ensure that the impacts of financial variations are reflected in the forecast of Council’s global budgetary position to 30 June 2021, and the adopted Budget adjusted accordingly.

 

Discussion

A summary of Council’s revised Budget for 2020 - 2021 and a summary of budget movements have been included in this report:-

 

 

Original Budget

(000’s)

1st Quarter Adjustments

(000’s)

Revised Budget

(000’s)

Expenditure - Operating

$52,985

$314

$53,299

Income - Operating

$48,785

$56

$48,841

Surplus/(Deficit) before

Capital Grants/Contributions

($4,200)

($258)

($4,458)

Income - Capital

$18.225

$400

$18,625

Surplus/ (Deficit)

$14,025

$142

$14,167

 

Summary of Budget Movements

 

Operational Expenses

-     $314K Increase in Materials and Contracts and Other Expenses which is made up of:-

-      $56K Increase, Design of Northwood Roundabout.

-      $72K Increase in carryovers for unexpended Grants from 2019/20

-      $150K Increase additional consulting work in Development Assessments

-      $36K Increase in carryovers for Sustainability Levy from 2019/20

 

Operational Income

-     $56K Increase, contribution for Northwood Roundabout

-     $72K Increase, carryovers of unexpended grants (No impact on operating result)

-     $77K Increase, carryover from Sustainability Levy 2019/20 (No impact on operating result)

 

 

Capital Income

-     $1.6M Increase in transfer from Capital Works for the Completion go the Lane Cove Pool

-     $400K Increase in Grant from Department of Sport & Rec for Lane Cove Pool

-     $508K Increase in carryover for unexpended Grants from 2019/20

 

Capital Expenditure

-     $2.99M Increase Capital Expenditure which is made up of:

-      $2.4m Increase for Lane Cove Pool

-      $509K Unexpended Grants

§ $12K Local Special Projects and Library Development Grant

§ $46K Carisbrook Cistern

§ $451K Tantallon Oval Upgrade

-      $40K Increase for completion of amenities block and café at Blackmore Park

-      $41K Increase in carryovers for Sustainability Levy from 2019/20

 

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 30 September indicates that Council's projected financial position will be satisfactory at year end 30 June 2021, having regard to the projected estimates of income and expenditure and the original budgeted income and expenditure.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the 2020 -2021 Budget be varied as follows:-

 

 

Original Budget

(000’s)

1st Quarter Adjustments

(000’s)

Revised Budget

(000’s)

Expenditure - Operating

$52,985

$314

$53,299

Income - Operating

$48,785

$56

$48,841

Surplus/(Deficit) before

Capital Grants/Contributions

($4,200)

($258)

($4,458)

Income - Capital

$18.225

$400

$18,625

Surplus/ (Deficit)

$14,025

$142

$14,167

 

 

 

 

 

Jessica Quilty

Acting Executive Manager

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Budget Review for Quarter Ended 30 September 2020

11 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Budget Review for Quarter Ended 30 September 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 16 November 2020

Schedule of Meetings 2021

 

 

Subject:          Schedule of Meetings 2021    

Record No:    SU1915 - 63697/20

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Simon Cole 

 

 

The Ordinary Council Meeting Schedule for 2021 is proposed as follows:-

 

Monday, 15 February 2021

Monday, 16 August 2021

Monday, 15 March 2021

Monday, 20 September 2021

Monday, 19 April 2021

Monday, 18 October 2021

Monday, 17 May 2021

Monday, 15 November 2021

Monday, 21 June 2021

Monday,   6 December 2021

Monday, 19 July 2021

 

 

There is no Council meeting in January 2021. Easter commences April 2, 2021. NSW schools are back from holidays on Monday, 19 July 2021. The LGNSW Annual Conference is scheduled to be held between 16 and 18 November 2021. The September 2021 meeting has been scheduled normally however this is pending the declaration of elected Councillors following the NSW local Government elections on 4 September 2020.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Council Meeting Schedule for 2021 be adopted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stephen Golding

Manager - Risk and Corporate Safety

Corporate Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 16 November 2020

Council Nominations for the Sydney North Planning Panel

 

 

Subject:          Council Nominations for the Sydney North Planning Panel    

Record No:    SU1787 - 67031/20

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

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

 

Background

 

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

 

In June 2009 the NSW Government established a number of Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPPs) to determine development proposals of regional significance.  Each Panel established was comprised of 3 members appointed by the then Minister for Planning and 2 members appointed by the relevant Council to reflect its position in respect of applications in the Council area.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Council’s current nominated representatives are:-

 

Mr Eugene Sarich

Ms Deborah Sutherland

Ms Vivienne Albin (Alternate)

 

As this is an external Panel, the role and function is governed by the Minister for Planning. Under the Panel’s rules an appointment must be reviewed after four years. Council has been advised Mr Eugene Sarich’s 4 year term has expired and Council must renominate him if he is to continue. Mr Sarich has an extensive planning and assessment background. His reappointment is supported.

 

With the recent departure of Council’s former Executive Manager – Environmental Services, Mr Michael Mason from Council, it provides an excellent opportunity for him to serve on the panel given his 15 years experience with planning and development assessment in Lane Cove and has previously served on the Parramatta Council IHAP, It is proposed to include him as a representative, and Ms Sutherland remain on the panel as an alternate

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

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

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

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 16 November 2020

Traffic Committee - September 2020

 

 

Subject:          Traffic Committee - September 2020    

Record No:    SU1326 - 65878/20

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Sashika Perera 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Thursday, 24 September 2020. 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:-

 

That Council adopts the recommendations of the Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Thursday, 24 September 2020.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Terescenko

Executive Manager - Open Space and Urban Services

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Agenda - Traffic Committee - September 2020

9 Pages

 

AT‑2View

Minutes - Traffic Committee - September 2020

11 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Agenda - Traffic Committee - September 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 1

Agenda - Traffic Committee - September 2020

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 1

Agenda - Traffic Committee - September 2020

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 1

Agenda - Traffic Committee - September 2020

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 1

Agenda - Traffic Committee - September 2020

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 1

Agenda - Traffic Committee - September 2020

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 1

Agenda - Traffic Committee - September 2020

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 1

Agenda - Traffic Committee - September 2020

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 2

Minutes - Traffic Committee - September 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 2

Minutes - Traffic Committee - September 2020

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 2

Minutes - Traffic Committee - September 2020

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 2

Minutes - Traffic Committee - September 2020

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 2

Minutes - Traffic Committee - September 2020

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 2

Minutes - Traffic Committee - September 2020

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 2

Minutes - Traffic Committee - September 2020

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 2

Minutes - Traffic Committee - September 2020

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 2

Minutes - Traffic Committee - September 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 16 November 2020

Council Snapshot October 2020

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot October 2020

Record No:    SU220 - 66155/20

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 October 2020.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1View

Snapshot October 2020

38 Pages

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 1

Snapshot October 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator