Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Ordinary Council Meeting

19 July 2021

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 on Monday 19 July 2021 commencing at

7.00 PM. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.   To coincide with the messaging from the NSW Government and in the interests of public health, the July meeting will be conducted online.  Councillors will be attending and participating in the meeting via video conference and the meeting will be webcast.   Members of the public who wish to address Council about items on the Meeting Agenda please refer to the below Council Meeting Procedures.

 

Yours faithfully

Craig - GM

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 (Sunday, 18 July) 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).

 

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. Should you require assistance to participate in the meeting due to a disability; or wish to obtain further information in relation to Council, please contact Council’s Executive Manager – Corporate Services on (02) 9911 3550.   


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 July 2021

Notice of Motion - Bob Campbell Oval 

 

 

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 - 21 JUNE 2021

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Notices of Motion

 

2.       Notice of Motion - Bob Campbell Oval........................................................... 3

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

3.       Tender for Construction and Installation of Synthetic Sports Field and landscape works - Bob Campbell Oval.............................................. 31

 

4.       St Leonards Over Rail Plaza Project - Post Exhibition....................... 59

 

5.       Lane Cove Community Panel Report.............................................................. 93

 

6.       Golf Course Alternate Operating Model................................................ 132

 

7.       Draft Local Housing Strategy - Post Exhibition.................................. 138

 

8.       Infrastructure Contributions System - State Government Proposed Changes..................................................................................................................... 153

 

9.       NSW Government Waste Strategy - Food Organics............................. 165

 

10.     Traffic Committee - June 2021.......................................................................... 168

 

11.     Love Where You Live Event Sponsorship Request................................ 205

 

12.     Council Snapshot June 2021............................................................................. 208

 

 

 

Subject:          Notice of Motion - Bob Campbell Oval      

Record No:    SU8412 - 43058/21

Division:         Lane Cove Council

Author(s):      Councillor Frances Vissel 

 

 

Executive Summary

                                                              

This Notice of Motion seeks Council support for a pause on the current Synthetic Turf Project in light of resident’s concerns and the recent AgEnviro Solutions Amendment to Bob Campbell Report, dated July 2021 (AT-1).  The proposed Motion also requests that Council undertake a comprehensive investigation of a natural turf alternative for Bob Campbell Oval.

 

Background

Councillors received copy of a report written by AgEnviro Solutions (Dr Mick Battam) which details an alternative for Bob Campbell Oval composed of real grass.  I understand the report was commissioned by a group of Greenwich residents who were concerned about the use of synthetic grass for the environmentally sensitive area of Gore Creek Reserve in which Bob Campbell Oval is sited.

This report addresses the two most contentious issues which Council has consistently raised, i.e. the perceived lack of sun (page 11) and the additional hours of play i.e. up to 60 hours (page 13).

Discussion

Taking into account the great concern among many, many residents about the use of synthetic grass, even by those who support an upgraded oval, but have noted their preference for grass, and the fact that Council has revoked its Part 5 approval, this gives us an opportunity to call a pause to the synthetic turf project and to undertake a detailed investigation into a natural grass alternative, with a view to meeting the requirements of all users.

This comprehensive report is written by Dr. Mick Battam PhD Soil, Soil Scientist and Sports Turf Specialist, who is one the most recognised experts in the field.

The following are links to two videos which show the great satisfaction that Mosman Council is experiencing as a result of the composting method of the Middle Harbour Sporting Oval.

1.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DrRfEVOzYw

2.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_xg0gzYATo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council pause the current Synthetic Turf Project and undertake a comprehensive investigation of a natural turf alternative as outlined in Dr. Mick Battam’s report, to allow Councillors to make an informed decision as to the optimal surface of Bob Campbell Oval to meet the demands of all users.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Councillor Frances Vissel

Councillor

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Amendment to Bob Campbell Oval Report July 2021

10 Pages

 

  


ATTACHMENT 1

Amendment to Bob Campbell Oval Report July 2021

 

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 19 July 2021

Tender for Construction and Installation of Synthetic Sports Field and landscape works - Bob Campbell Oval

 

 

Subject:          Tender for Construction and Installation of Synthetic Sports Field and landscape works - Bob Campbell Oval    

Record No:    SU8412 - 42304/21

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Helen Haigh; Ted Webster; Martin Terescenko 

 

 

Executive Summary

Council called for tenders in accordance with Councils Tender and Quotation Procedure for the Construction and Installation of Synthetic Sports Field and associated infrastructure at Bob Campbell Oval of Lane Cove, Greenwich. The Request for Tenders to procure this work was made via TenderLink on 24 May 2021 and closed on 28 June 2021. Council received three conforming submissions and Synergy Turf Manufacturing Pty Ltd are the preferred tenderer. The report also provides an update on the approval process for the works, and measures included in the design to minimise the project’s impact on the environment.

Background

Council at its meeting of 16 November 2020 adopted the Bob Campbell Oval Masterplan. Procurement for implementation of the Master Plan has been divided in to four stages, with all works to be completed by the end of 2022:-

·          Stage 1 - Construction and installation of synthetic sports field, associated infrastructure, and surrounding pathways and landscaping. 

·          Stage 2 – Shared User Path (SUP) providing safe pedestrian and cycle access to the oval from Greenwich Road.

·          Stage 3 – Construction of Amenities Block and Car Park

·          Stage 4 –Works for a new playground and foreshore area.

 

This report outlines the procurement process for Stage 1.

 

Discussion

 

Tender Process

 

A tender specification was prepared for Stage 1, detailing the schedule of work, hours of work, safety requirements and reporting requirements.  Council advertised the tender through TenderLink and on Councils website. Tenders closed at 5pm on Monday, 28 June 2021 and Council received three conforming submissions.  The request for tender called for suitably qualified and experienced contractors/suppliers for the construction and installation of synthetic sports field and associated infrastructure including drainage, lighting to sports field and surrounding pathways, perimeter path to the sports field, perimeter fencing to the park, perimeter circulation path, electrical, plumbing and sewer services

 

The specification outlined that the tender submissions would be assessed based on the following weighted criteria: -


 

Criteria 1:       Price

Weighting:       25%

 

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

The bids were scored based on a pro rata difference in prices submitted, with the lowest price receiving 25 points. 

 

Criteria 2:                   Capability and Capacity

Weighting:                   25%

 

Capability & Capacity Assessment refers to the experience of the tenderer and its personnel, including management and supervision, the experience of any sub-contractors to be used, the capability of the tenderer to work within relevant policy frameworks and applicable legislation, and any initiatives for change and improvement. 

 

To achieve the maximum score the tenderer is to have  past record and/or demonstrated ability to provide goods/services, technical expertise; resource and financial management skills including, proposed methods of service delivery/ detailed management systems, demonstrated continuous improvement practices,

Criteria 3:                   Experience

Weighting:                   20%

 

Refers to the demonstrated ability of the tenderer and its personnel, including management and supervisors and the experience of any sub-contractors to be used. 

To achieve the maximum score the tenderer is to have provided the relevant experience of the Respondent and key personnel and the extent of skills/qualifications of the people who will be engaged to carry out the contractor's obligations under the Contract, structure of the Organisation, Contracts of similar nature with other NSW Councils.

Demonstrated financial capability to provide the Work/Services at both a financial and operational level with a clearly identifiable management structure, experience of Sub-Contractors, referees responses.

Simply providing a list of qualifications / certifications will not be accepted as experience relation to a particular area of work

 

Criteria 4:       Availability and Starting Time / Program:

Weighting:                   10%

Availability and Starting Time / Program refers to the timeliness of supply of Work. 

 

To achieve the maximum score a program must be provided showing the earliest start date, the order in which the Work is intended to be carried out, the estimated time to complete each element, significant milestones and hold points for the Work, show lead times for items which will require to be ordered more than one week in advance of being required, time for obtaining approvals / registration (where required) etc. The timeline must provide sufficient detail in order to assess the Work which is planned to be carried out Tenderers should be aware that following the award minor alterations to the submitted program may be requested by Council.

 

 

 

 

 

Criteria 5: Risk Management, Workplace Health and Safety and Environmental Factors

Weighting:                   15%

 

Risk management and Workplace Health and Safety refers to the tenderer’s commitment to and compliance with the Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 and Occupational Health & Safety Regulation 2001.

 

To achieve the maximum score the tenderer is to  and will be assessed based on completed applicable Returnable Schedules

 

Sustainability and Environment Assessment refers to the manner in which environmental issues are to be appropriately addressed, including commitment to due diligence and the principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD) in regard to environmental legislation and documentation outlining past performance in regard to environment protection and enhancement initiatives.

 

            To achieve the maximum score the tenderer is to assessed based on completed applicable Returnable Schedules

Criteria 6: Product Technical Information and Details, Maintenance Services and Warranties provided.

Weighting:                   10%

            Product Technical Information and Details, Maintenance Services and Warranties relates to the provision of these Returnables in the submission.

Tender Evaluation

The three submissions were assessed and evaluated by the following panel members, comprising relevant staff from Council and an expert consultant. The Tender Evaluation Panel (TEP) consisted of;

Martin Sheppard – (expert consultant - non-scoring member)

Martin Terescenko (TEP Chair) – Executive Manager – Open Space and Urban Services (scoring member)

Ted Webster - Manager – Open Space (scoring member)

Alex Cuthbertson – Manager - Facilities (scoring member)

The TEP’s Report is Confidential and has been circulated separately to all Councilors. In summary the assessment of the tenders was as follows.

 

Company

Price (25%)

Capacity & Capability

(25%)

Experience (20%)

Availability and Starting Time / Program (5%)

Risk Management, Workplace Health and Safety and Environmental Factors

 (15%)

Product Technical Information and Details, Maintenance Services and Warranties provided. (10%)

 

 

Rank

Greenplay Australia

Pty Ltd

Preferred

 

 

Equally preferred

 

 

3

Polytan Asia Pacific

Pty Ltd

 

 

 

Equally preferred

 

 

2

Synergy Turf

Manufacturing Pty Ltd

 

Preferred

Preferred

Equally preferred

Preferred

Preferred

Preferred


Funding

 

Council received a Precinct Support Scheme Grant from the DPIE to the value of $3,623,023 to deliver the Bob Campbell Oval Master Plan. $3,091,448 of this grant is for the delivery of the synthetic oval, surrounding park infrastructure, amenities building and car park. The successful tenderers price for the synthetic oval and surrounding park infrastructure is $3,293,692.33. The main reason for the cost increase over the original estimates provided in the grant submission are that the grant submission estimates were undertaken in 2018 by an experienced industry consultant. Since that time there has been cost escalation above inflation and a newer generation 4G synthetic grass system is proposed, which was not included in the original estimates.

 

Given the considerable research and innovation proposed in the project to date, there are, and will be learnings for the local government sector which will require monitoring, testing and documenting. Council also has identified the opportunity to work with universities and industry to develop end-of-life opportunities for the recycled material.

 

Given the above, Council has had preliminary discussions with DPIE to provider more grant funding and they have indicated Council will need to formally request same for consideration. The NSFA have indicated that they will contribute a minimum of $125k to the project and will finalise their level of contribution in the coming weeks.

 

If the DPIE is unable to provide additional funding then Council can ask the DPIE whether the scope of the grant can be reduced. The remaining works would be funded through Council’s annual Capital Works Program in the same way that Council is funding the playground and foreshore area of the Bob Campbell Oval Master Plan. This program includes a park amenities improvements program which has seen upgrades to the amenities buildings at Blackman Park, Helen Street Reserve and in part Kingsford Smith Oval and the facility currently under construction at Tantallon Oval.

 

Approval Process for the Works

 

The approval process for infrastructure projects on Council property is governed by the State Environmental Planning Policy Infrastructure (SEPP). For the Bob Campbell Oval Master Plan the SEPP states that the approval process for this project requires a Part 5 Assessment under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to be undertaken which in turn requires a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) for the project. Examples of other recent projects undertaken using this process are The Canopy park components, Tantallon Oval Amenities Building, Blackman Park Amenities Building Upgrade (also for the original synthetic field project) and Traffic Lights at Burns Bay Road and River Road.

 

On 25 May 2021 Council completed the Part 5 Assessment process and issued an approval for the works.  Subsequently, Council's attention was drawn to the REF's requirement for a Remediation Action Plan (RAP) to be developed for consideration as part of the Part 5 Assessment. This RAP was not produced but was scheduled to be prepared prior to commencement of construction. On this basis for avoidance of doubt in process, Council has revoked the Part 5 Approval ​and will prepare a RAP and review the original REF, prior to making a fresh decision on the matter.

 

The contract documentation for the project will, like the Design and Construct process used for The Canopy, require further design refinement and the contractor submitting information for the Part 5 Assessment process.

 

Prior to the assessment process Council will also engage an Environmental Consultant to undertake a review of the REF to ensure that all issues have been appropriately addressed and whether any additional measures are appropriate to minimise any potential environmental impact, including in relation to the following matters.

Lighting

Currently, Bob Campbell Oval is illuminated by four light poles. Based on the information the consultant Zumbotel and Lighting, Art and Science (LAS) provided, the existing lighting scheme does not adhere to the recommended Australian standards. Results of initial testing are shown on LAS Obtrusive Lighting Assessment – drawing number CL-02 dated August 2020 where the exiting lighting failed numerous illuminance and luminosity tests, including light spill into adjacent bushland in certain areas.

 

Zumbotel provided the initial concept lighting design for Bob Campbell Oval in August 2020. Their concept drawings were then analysed and adapted by LAS in their Obtrusive Lighting Assessment. Both of these documents were provided to the public throughout the consultation phase. Upon reviewing these documents while developing the draft REF it was clear that more design action could be undertaken to further reduce the light spill from the field to reduce the impact on surrounding bushland and neighbours of the site.

 

Council then engaged LAS to provide a revised design that also allows the lighting levels to be adjusted to suit both play and training. With this flexibility, in addition to controlling the lighting lux levels, the lighting spread can be adjusted to fall further within the fence line, further reducing light spill into the surrounding bushland. The Australian Standard (AS 2560) for sports lighting recommends that the minimum lighting required for sports fields ranges from 50 to 100 lux. Council proposes 50 lux will predominately be used for training purposes and 100lux would only be used for evening games. As a result, the following operational measures will apply to Bob Campbell Oval:

 

·          The use of part-night lighting (PNL), dimming, directed lighting, and motion-sensitive lighting on carpark lights and amenities building that may have more beneficial consequences for light-averse species.

·          Retain the existing hours of illuminance to no later than 9pm.

·          Reduce the area of lighting for training at the edges of the field to reduce light spill.

·          Field lights to be turned off when not in use.

 

Water quality, in-fill and leachates

There has been much concern in the community about microplastics and the risk to the environment, in particular the waterways.

The new 4G synthetic field systems further improve the environmental performance of synthetic turf in this regard.  Council therefore chose to utilise a 4G system, because it has no loose performance infill product. Utilising this product eliminates leachates from crumb rubber as there is none of this material present.

The recommended product is a fully woven grass which has tuft lock to also significantly reduce the migration of particulates (including microplastics) from the field. Further to this, as an additional precaution, all drainage pits have sumps to remove particulates and mats are provided at the entrances to remove any fibres in case a grass fibre does become loose.

This decision to use this superior product occurred during the preparation of the REF. The REF does not always reflect the decision to use 4G synthetic turf with no infill. As an example, in section 12.3.5 it uses the term leachates, referring to leachate from crumb rubber, which no longer applies. Also in the Summary, crumb rubber is referenced as if it is part of the project by reference to scientific research papers relating to car tyres and rubber.  The reference to leachates in this context is only relevant in that they provide information about background impacts from the upstream catchment.  The REF is now supplemented with a report (AT-1) that notes leachates have been further addressed through the Standard for Synthetic turf and a compliance statement for the manufacture of synthetic fibre supplied by the preferred tenderer.

In summary the documents provide evidence that the plastic used for the field does not leach into the environment.  This is consistent with the requirement of the European REACH Regulations developed by the European Chemicals Agency designed to ensure plastics do not have serious effects on human health and the environment (REACH stands for Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals). This will be updated in the REF prior to any further Part 5 assessment.

Further modelling to include the synthetic field area has been carried out by Council engineers using MUSIC modelling (software used to model stormwater pollutants) when assessing the Swale and Raingarden.  Water flow, suspended solids, phosphorus, nitrogen and gross pollutants are greatly reduced for the proposed synthetic field compared to a natural grass field.

Geotechnical and Soil Contamination

The site is generally filled with natural materials from the site and therefore the presence of contaminants is minimal. All sites have matters to be addressed, in this case the main issue is the presence of a small area of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and potential for Acid Sulphate soils. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) will be developed before the Part 5 Application is reassessed. The RAP will outline the measures to remediate and validate the site. A project Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will consider the findings of the following project plans; Acid sulphate soil management plan (ASSMP); Remediation Action Plan (RAP); Soil and Water Management Plan (SWMP); and include appropriate hold points for further geotechnical assessment.

 

Zoning

Concern has been raised about the zoning of the northern end of the proposed Master Plan as it is mapped as an E2 Zone in the LEP. The Infrastructure SEPP does not consider zoning, while the REF has regard to the proposed use. The specific area in question at AT – 2, shows the area identified currently used for a playground with picnic settings in a grass area, rather than Bushland. The 1943 aerial photo (AT - 2), shows no bushland in this area from at least this period. The space has been used as a recreation space, is currently an approved off-leash dog area and the Master Plan does not propose to increase the footprint of the recreation space, nor does it propose the removal of any trees in this area.

 

The actual E2 Zone boundary in this location will be investigated as there is a discrepancy when it is ground truthed on site. Such discrepancies have been highlighted since Council's original hand-drawn zone boundaries were converted to digital format and overlaid on aerial photos. Other similar instances of this have been recognised as a broader issue by Council and will be investigated.

 

Mitigation Measures Generally

 

Council will implement the following environmental protections and mitigation measures during the project.

 

Design measures

·          Removal of performance in-fill has negated the potential negative impact of rubber tyre leachates and reduces the heat island effect, as black rubber is a significant contributor to heat retention.

·          Fully woven synthetic turf system selected to ensure retention of plastic fibres to stop migration of particulates.

·          Synthetic turf utilising a single polymer that is 100% recyclable at end of life.

·          Stormwater Management Plan addressing overland water flows and includes Water Sensitive Urban Design measures (bio retention swale, raingardens), decontamination mats at gate entrances, pollution traps (sumps) in the drainage system to remove any particulates and ongoing monitoring.

·          Revised LED Lighting Design greatly reduces light spill to bushland and allows Council to have control over the light levels and areas illuminated.

·          Levelling of the sports field and level transition with surrounds to ensure fully accessible access to the oval

Construction measures

·          CEMP to incorporate findings from the RAP, SWMP, ASSMP and Blue Book, including hold points for geotechnical assessment

·          Implement all actions in the RAP, SWMP contained in the CEMP as and when required

·          Sediment control measures during the construction period

·          Implement the Tree Protection Plan

·          Contamination protocols

·          Eliminate or reduce impact of dust and noise pollution

·          Reduce impact of construction traffic by maintaining movements within work hours, not obstructing roadways and following a Traffic Management Plan

·          Pedestrian access across the field, to the foreshore and private residences will be maintained during construction.

·          Maintain visual amenity by stockpiling in designated areas and restoring areas as work is completed

·          No aboriginal heritage items are within the construction area. If they are discovered all works will stop.

Operational measures

 

·          Implement annual water quality monitoring after the installation.

·          Maintain safe access along roadways and Shared User Path

·          Visual amenity will change due to surface changes – schedule maintenance to keep area tidy, dispose of waste appropriately.

·          Follow synthetic turf best practice maintenance and monitoring for wear.

·          Replace turf at end of life and recycle following best practice

·          Lighting operational measures:

o    The use of part-night lighting (PNL), dimming, directed lighting, and motion-sensitive lighting on carpark lights and amenities building that may have more beneficial consequences for light-averse species.

o    Retain the existing hours of illuminance to no later than 9pm.

o    Reduce the area of lighting for training at the edges of the field to reduce light spill.

o    Field lights to be turned off when not in use.

 

Option for a Natural Grass Field

 

On Monday 12 July 2021, Council was provided with a report, refer AT 4, prepared by Dr Mick Battam of AgEnviro Solutions proposing a Natural Grass field in lieu of a Synthetic Field.

 

The NSFA commissioned a report in respect of Bob Campbell Oval by the same company in 2016 to upgrade natural turf field to meet the current usage levels at the time. The current proposal is similar to that previous version, using Santa Anna Couch as the turf cultivar with improved drainage, irrigation and maintenance techniques, including periodically relocating the field (rotation).

 

Staff have had limited time to evaluate the report, however as it is essentially the same as previous, with the techniques understood by staff. Council’s recent upgrades (2018) to fields 3 and 4 at Blackman Park involved similar works, including the same turf, but did not include compost.  Staff have, as per Council’s previous resolutions also discussed his solution with Dr Battam. It is noted, however that:-

·          the previous report recommended the use of Rye Grass to replace bare patches, which the current report rejects strongly,

·          The use of compost provides increased nutrients for the turf but retains moisture, which impacts surface moisture levels (discussed later in the report) and

·          requires invasive kikuyu grass to be manually removed 2-3 times per year;

The Santa Anna Couch essentially performs well on sportsfields during winter because, although the leaves brown off and leaf coverage is reduced (with reduced aesthetics), the thatch remains with a strong root system which works to reduce bare patches.

 

A key aspect to winter wear is drainage and the ability for the field to dry out to maintain surface quality. The proposed use of compost in the soil layers will retain additional moisture.  In order for wear to be minimised in terms of excessive moisture, the field needs access to sunlight. The examples provided do not experience the level of shadowing that Bob Campbell Oval does. To provide a comparison Council has prepared aerial photos of Bob Campbell Oval on 26 June 2021, refer AT 5, which shows how some parts of the field receive no sunlight at all.

 

The Sunspot Solar Mapping website provides an independent tool to show the amount a sunlight an area receives to assist the public in seeing how much sunlight their property receives for solar panel design. This site was used to analyse Bob Campbell Oval. The tool shows that in winter only one third of the oval is red (highest available sunlight) and the remainder of the oval is shown as orange or yellow. The Solar Mapping tool states that in winter the red areas have approximately 2.0 hours of sunlight a day while the orange and yellow areas have 1.6 hours and 1.1 hours per day respectively.

 

When using the Solar Mapping tool to compare the available sun light to the other two ovals mentioned in the AgEnviro Report it shows that both the Middle Harbour Oval and Renown Park fields receive the maximum sunlight available, refer AT 6.

 

Dr Battams report acknowledges this issue in this report “Although the turf requires minimal light when dormant, it is beneficial for drying out the surface. “He does not quantify the impact but it is unrealistic to expect that a field will dry out effectively without access to sunlight during the winter months and therefore surface quality is expected to deteriorate in areas. This is evidenced in an aerial photo of Renown Oval, which is the top left show a high wear area, refer AT 7.

 

It is also noted that Middle Head is located at the top of a hill and therefore benefits from greater exposure to wind, which increases evaporation to dry the field out quicker and good natural drainage with underground seepage moving away from the oval.

 

Unlike Bob Campbell Oval, none of the example ovals permit off leash dog use which has significant impacts on surface condition. Off leash dog use leads to greater intensity in usage by dogs than those fields which only permit on-lead access. Council’s own experience is that for ovals such as Kingsford Smith Oval where Council seeks to maintain a higher quality of field, dog digging and urine burn impact grass quality and ultimately lead to dirt areas where patching is required. Unfortunately, patching is difficult to achieve during Winter as turf is essentially dormant. As an example of scale, Council in June/July this year used two tonnes of soil to fill holes at Bob Campbell Oval created by dogs, with no turf replaced.

 

The new Battam Report includes some commentary on potential carrying capacity of the field once the new solution is implemented.  Council has contacted Mosman Council to discuss the Middle Harbour Oval. While the oval does have bookings for up to 65 hours (10 hours is group fitness) since the upgrade was completed the oval has not been fully tested for an entire winter season. The renovation was completed prior to the 2018 winter season which was relatively dry and mild and the 2020 and 2021 seasons have both been interrupted by COVID. For the 2021 season the oval was beginning to show signs of wear but the recent COVID lockdown has allowed the field to begin to recover. An inspection of the field was carried out by Lane Cove Council staff, which confirmed the current condition of the field is showing signs of high wear, refer AT 8.

 

Furthermore, the use breakdown of the Middle Harbour Oval shows that it is not directly comparable to the amount of use Council expects a synthetic field to accommodate. While it does have 65 hours of winter bookings per week, only 17 hours (26%) of these bookings are for senior soccer. Junior AFL use is 30.5 hours per week (46.5%), the remainder of the hours are used by junior soccer, school groups and fitness training.

 

Bob Campbell is currently 100% used for football other than weekday school use which causes minimal wear as the primary aged school children wear joggers. The field wear pattern of AFL varies considerably compared to football, as the games have very different patterns of play. Football is played in the middle of the field, which is demonstrated in Dr Battam’s original report in the following graph with the varying wear rates.

 

Source AgEnviro Solutions - Northern Suburbs Football Association: Playing field assessments August 2016

 

The weather, age/weight and general activity of players (Football has more changes of direction, twisting which rips the turf) also impacts wear rates. This is evident by Council having to regularly returf Football fields but not Tantallon Oval which is used for Rugby. Returfing is also highlighted as a requirement in Dr Battam’s new report, including every year (mid-season preferably) shifting the playing surface up to 5 metres to allow the field to recover from wear. It is noted that such an arrangement is not possible because of the constraints of the site and would mean the perimeter fitness track in the Masterplan is not possible, refer AT 9.

 

It is acknowledged that despite synthetic fields having an unlimited capacity, ultimately there are only certain hours where there is demand. The Blackman Park Synthetic fields regularly exceed 55 hours use per week during winter, and weekend play usage extends from 8am to 9pm Saturday (13hours) and 10am to 7pm (9 hours), a total of 22 hours per field. In total, each field is used for 30 hours of adult sport per week, training and games. This equates to nearly double the total adult sport use for football at Middle Head, 17 hours (8 hours training and 9 hours of games). The usage of Middle Head is not comparable to the level of use contemplated in the future for Bob Campbell Oval.

 

The proposed natural turf option will increase capacity, however not to the same extent as is possible with synthetic. The intention of the upgrades is to maximise capacity as there is no option to provide new sports fields. Based on the 2018 NSROC Sportsground Strategy – “there is a need to increase the current supply capacity (fields) by around 26% to 2026”. Within the NSROC region, Lane Cove has the 2nd lowest number of sportsfields per capita, exacerbating the need for additional capacity. Lane Cove’s population has increased by 19.4% since 2011 and based on DPIE population projections, a further increase in population of 10.6% by 2026 is forecast, after allowing for the impacts of COVID-19. This level of population growth and the growing demands for sport within the Lane Cove LGA generally, require the capacity of Bob Campbell Oval to be maximised and be more flexible for future users.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Having recorded the highest score across the weighted criteria and received positive reference checks about the quality and reliability of their work, the Tender Panel recommends that the tender from Synergy Turf Manufacturing Pty Ltd be accepted for the provision of Construction and Installation of Synthetic Sports Field and associated infrastructure at Bob Campbell Oval.

 

Given the considerable research and innovation proposed in the project to date, the result will be the nation’s most environmentally sensitive synthetic playing field. There are, and will be, learnings for the local government sector which will require monitoring, testing, evaluation and documenting as a case study. Council also has identified the opportunity to work with universities and industry to develop end-of-life opportunities for the recycled material.

 

Council will engage suitably qualified contractors to provide a RAP and undertake a review of the current REF and update where necessary. Once these tasks are complete, a new Part 5 Assessment will be undertaken and if approved, works will commence onsite after the Greenwich Games in December 2021.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.         The tender for the provision of Construction and Installation of Synthetic Sports Field and associated infrastructure at Bob Campbell Oval be awarded to Synergy Turf Manufacturing Pty Ltd for an amount of $3,293,692.33 ex GST;

2.         The General Manager enter into contract for the work, such contract to ensure Council has no obligation to proceed should the future Part 5 assessment not result in approval of the project;

3.         Council request the DPIE to consider provision of additional funding of $500,000 to cover the additional cost of the project due to inflationary cost escalation and innovations to create the nation’s most environmentally sensitive synthetic playing field;  and

4.         In the event DPIE and NSFA funding does not cover the full cost of the project, Council fund the balance of the project in the 2022/23 Budget under its Capital Works Program.

 

 

 

 

Martin Terescenko

Executive Manager - Open Space and Urban Services

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Letter from Applied Ecology

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Zoning clarification images

3 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

REF mitigation measures table

6 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

Bob Campbell Oval - AgEnviro Solutions Natural Turf Option

25 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑5 View

Bob Campbell Oval Aerial Photos Winter

2 Pages

 

AT‑6 View

Solar Mapping of Sports Fields

1 Page

 

AT‑7 View

Renown Oval Wear 1 September 2019

1 Page

 

AT‑8 View

Middle Harbour Oval Condition

1 Page

 

AT‑9 View

Review of Alternate Locations for Soccer Field

1 Page

 

  


ATTACHMENT 1

Letter from Applied Ecology

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 2

Zoning clarification images

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 3

REF mitigation measures table

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 5

Bob Campbell Oval Aerial Photos Winter

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 6

Solar Mapping of Sports Fields

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 7

Renown Oval Wear 1 September 2019

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 8

Middle Harbour Oval Condition

 

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 9

Review of Alternate Locations for Soccer Field

 


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 July 2021

St Leonards Over Rail Plaza Project - Post Exhibition

 

 

Subject:          St Leonards Over Rail Plaza Project - Post Exhibition    

Record No:    SU8495 - 40166/21

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      Sebastian Stivala; Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the progress of the St Leonard’s Over Rail Plaza Project, post the consultation undertaken on the open space design and naming suggestions. In addition, the report outlines that contract documentation with the NSW Government is complete, approvals are in place, constructions estimates confirm the project is viable and well within available funding. It is recommended that Council commit to construction of the project with a view to completion by the end of 2022; refer the results of the consultation in relation to the design for consideration in finalisation of the design; and receive a further report with a short list of suggested names for the open space.

 

Background

 

The proposed St Leonards Plaza seeks to create a green space in the heart of the St Leonards CBD in line with the NSW Government’s new strategic approach in Planned Precincts to focus on people, places, public spaces and the environment. This project will meet the open space demands for workers and urban growth, by providing public open space that is accessible, active and vibrant. This new urban landscape will involve construction of a bridge above the railway corridor, has been designed to connect with St Leonard’s Rail Station, new commercial and retail shopping spaces and is part of a pedestrian link through to the Crows Nest Metro, separated from the Pacific Highway.

 

Council at its Meeting of 17 May 2021 resolved:-

 

“That:-

1.   The report be received and noted.

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

3.   Following the exhibition period a report on the suggestions for the permanent naming of the project, together with a report on any submissions received and any proposed amendments, be submitted to Council for consideration.”

 

This report outlines the results of the consultation and provides an update on progression of the Plaza.

 

In addition Council at its meeting of 15 June 2021 resolved, in part that Council:-

 

4.   Receive a further report at the appropriate time to determine as to whether Council proceed with the Construction of the Plaza; and”

 


 

Discussion

 

Outcomes of Consultation on Design of the Open Space

 

The Plaza is a focal point linking; St Leonard’s Station, the Forum and the new Crow Nest Metro Light-Rail via the commercial retail precinct and beyond through Friedlander Place.  The open green space has been developed by Arcadia Landscape Design and will adopt best practice in landscape urban design and safety in design providing; accessibility, improved lighting, occasional seating, a village green with deep soil planting and tree cover at the edges and a regional scale adventure playground. A detailed flythrough  of the proposed plaza has been produced to allow easier visualisation of the proposal.

 

The consultation was undertaken as outlined in the consultation strategy and ran from Friday 21 May 2021 to Sunday 11 July 2021. The consultation included a presentation AT-1 by the Landscape designer Arcadia Landscapes which was attended by approximately 50 people.

 

A total of 5 submissions were received, and 44 survey responses which raised the following matters for consideration. These have been circulated separately to Councillors.

 

Issue

Response

Management and Maintenance of the Space

Council will provide all ongoing management and maintenance of the space as it will retain a stratum lot for the portion of the Plaza over the JQZ carpark and have a long-term lease with TfNSW for the main deck over the rail corridor. Council is currently negotiating with the lessees of the underpass (a strata within The Forum development) to consolidate management and maintenance with the rest of the Plaza.

“Need a nice place to sit and view the city”. Viewing platform also for adult

There an existing viewing area on the south western side of the space where planting has been minimised which is designed to be a viewing area back to the city (Subject to TfNSW safety requirements). The Art Play structures are designed to allow adults and children to visit the first level of the structures, which will provide further viewing opportunities. 

Provision of shade

Advanced large trees are not possible due to the bridge structure not providing enough soil depth. There are shade structures within the design, a review will be undertaken to determine if additional structures are warranted. All grass on the site will be natural grass.

A cycle track within the site  for children

An informal small cycle path is available in and around the main Art Play structure.

Include more swings

The play space will provide a range of swings for all ages and abilities hanging from the multi-storey play structure. These are proposed to be distributed across the different aged play spaces

Include low slippery dips

There are a range of heights and types of slippery slides proposed for the various age groups to provide a mixture of experiences for all.  Like the swings these are located in age appropriate part of the plat spaces.

Steppers and logs require parent supervision

Like all playgrounds there are a variety of items which appeal to different age groups. Steppers and logs are popular elements.

Less Climbing nets / things thrown down

Like all playgrounds there are a variety of items which appeal to different age groups. Climbing nets are a popular element.

Ensure enough seating for workers having lunch

Through the space the design allows for a range of seating typology that is distributed evenly and across the various spaces of the plaza.  These include formal bench seating, seating with tables, incidental seating edges and sculptural seating.  There is circa 195lm of the various seating typologies in total. This can accommodate for say 200 - 220 people in various seating applications.

Rainwater water collection and reuse, solar lighting, etc?

Unlike other parks and buildings there is no ability to capture rain water above the level of the park for gravity feed to rainwater tanks for reuse. Also in this project it is further complicated by not being able to utilise underground storage as the structure is over rail corridor. In relation to lighting, LED lighting will be used to reduce energy use. Solar lighting is not suitable as in public spaces it can not reliably generate and store sufficient energy to last through the night, which will be a requirement in this location for security. A review of available lighting options will be undertaken as part of procurement to determine if there are any innovations which would make solar lighting suitable.

Include Public Art

The inclusion of the Banksia inspired play structures are an innovative way of integrating Public Art into the space. There are additional opportunities for smaller Public Art pieces throughout which can be added over time.

Off leash area for Dogs

Prioritising use of the space means not all uses are possible. The only opportunity for a small fully enclosed off leash dog area would be in the grassed area behind the bus shelters, be enclosing it with fencing. The size of the space is such that it is likely to struggle to retain grass which such a use, decreasing the amenity for other uses. Newlands Park in Canberra Avenue, is only approximately 200m from the space and provides an off leash dog area.

Concerns about anti-social behavior / Need CCTV

All light poles within the space will include CCTV, as will stairs, the underpass and lifts, maintained by Council. The area will be activated well into the night with the presence of the Coles Supermarket and other retail to further discourage unsociable behavior.  Skateboard deterrents will be included in the specification as will anti-graffiti coatings and the like.

Too child focused - Too focused on office workers,

As outlined in the design package the spaces have been divided into areas to cater for a variety of uses. This include separated quiet areas and active spaces such as the playground. Additional open spaces are available at Friedlander Place, Gore Hill Oval and Newlands Park, all within 200m of the Plaza. The latter two, provide greater expanses of space for more active recreation activities.

Concerns space should not be considered open space, More Green Space less paving

The space has approximately 55% soft landscaping (2800sqm). This combined with the pathways typically found in open space, meets the definition of open space. The design incorporates various areas and has been zoned and sized to reflect the uses.

Solar Access

The site is within an existing built-up urban area that is impacted by overshadowing during the am and pm periods, however, the location generally receives good solar access, as per the solar diagrams included in the information Pack include as AT-1. The green space layout has been designed to maximise solar access.

Once this space is created, any future developments will have need to have regard to the impacts on the space. The St Leonards Crows Nest 2036 Plan states ““The solar access controls protect these key places by requiring that new development in the area does not produce substantial additional overshadowing during specific hours in mid-winter (21 June)”. (page 37). This refers to a map where this site is identified as “Potential Open Space”. The design of The Forum with its separated twin tower configuration will ensure the space will always have good solar access given it is located in the middle of a built-up urban area. The development itself will not result in any significant overshadowing.

Effects of Wind on the Space

Based on the outcome of a wind study analysis for the proposed development, the comfort conditions in the plaza will predominantly be rated as Pedestrian Standing or better (level 4 of the 6 point Lawson Scale, 6 being uncomfortable) on the worst days of the year.

Accessibility

The site is elevated however is designed to be fully accessible. There are three lifts, one in Lithgow Street (SE corner) maintained by JQZ, one in Canberra Avenue (SW corner) maintained by Council and one in proximity to Pacific Hwy (NE corner) maintained by Council. This lift services the highway level, Plaza deck level, and underpass level (the existing underpass ramp does not comply with accessibility standards and will be replaced). In addition, there are accessible grade ramps to Pacific Hwy (NW and NE corner).

Cycle connections

The design provides access to Pacific Highway from the southwest via a ramp (or lift) and from the south east via a ramp (or lift) and via new Christie Lane/ Nicholson Street through the various connections through the precinct. While a more gradual ramp access to the Plaza from Canberra Avenue is desirable, due to the constrained width (the existing ramp and car spaces are actually within the rail corridor and will be replaced with structure for the bridge/plaza) and the need to provide vehicular access with appropriate turning circles under the building at 2-2 Pacific Hwy, it is not possible.

It is further noted that Willoughby Council has received a NSW Government Grant to create a shared user path along the Pacific Highway from Lane Cove to St Leonard’s terminating at Herbert Street, which can be accessed from the project site. The space is a destination and was never designed to provide a separate direct link West to East for bicycles.

Upgrades are required to the Underpass

The underpass while not part of the project will be upgraded, including being made accessible via a lift from the plaza level.  Council is currently securing arrangements with the lessees of the under pass (a strata within The Forum development) to allow the works. The works will include fully lining the space to improve the look and feel of the walkway, improved lighting and provision of CCTV to monitor the space.

Traffic Arrangements with Canberra Avenue Drop Off

The Drop off will be access via Marshall Lane. This will provide opportunities for departing vehicles to head East via Duntroon Avenue or Berry Road/Pacific Hwy. Traffic heading West can also use Berry Road/Pacific Hwy, or alternatively the proposed road in the St Leonards South Precinct between Berry Road and Park Road to access River Road.

Lack of Safe Pedestrian access to St Leonards Plaza at River Road - With suggestion for lights and pedestrian crossing

Council as part of the St Leonards South Precinct Planning identified also identified the need for better north/south connectivity at this location. Council’s Cumulative Transport and Accessibility Study for the precinct recommended that traffic lights be installed at the intersection of Canberra Avenue/River Road for pedestrian and cyclist connectivity. This outcome was included in the St Leonards and Crows Nest 2036 Plan and will be funded by the NSW Government’s Special Infrastructure Contribution (SIC).  In the interim North Sydney Council are undertaking works on the south eastern side of the rail corridor to provide an additional pedestrian island.

Indented bays for the buses

Council originally envisaged indented bus bays similar to those opposite in front of the Form. TfNSW have rejected this arrangement as the buses would need to pull out into traffic before the lights. Impacting on safety. Both the existing bus stop and The Forum bus stops are after the lights which facilitates the indented bay arrangement.

Kiss and Ride at existing Bus Stop

One the bus stop is relocated from the existing position, there is the option for a Kiss and Ride at the existing Bus Stop. Council will need t seek the approval of TfNSW (RMS) as the Pacific Highway is a State Road. One possible issue TfNSW may have is that a drop off vehicle would temporarily lock the lane that buses travel in.

'Flagpoles' at the back of the proposed bus shelters, parallel to the Pacific Highway for marketing purposes.

This suggestion can be incorporated into the bus shelter design. The bus shelter design does incorporate a mixture of standing and seated undercover space.

 

Permanent Naming of the Project

 

Council is undertaking the same naming process as that used for the Canopy, being:-

1.   Community Input: The Community will be invited to suggest place names in accordance with the adopted Rosenthal Project Brand Values.

2.   Name Shortlist: Council will review the names and develop a shortlist of (say) five names

3.   Community Consultation: Of the five names shortlisted, the community is asked to nominate the two least preferred.

4.   Name Selection: Council chooses a name from one of the three most preferred names

Council has now completed Stage 1, with a total of 18 names submitted. These have been circulated separately to Councillors on a confidential basis.  A number of the names require comment as they refer to an Aboriginal name or derivative and therefore will need to be sent to the Aboriginal Heritage Office for advice. A short list will then be prepared for discussion at a future Councillor workshop before being the subject of a report to Council. Stage 2 of the Consultation can proceed as outlined above.

 

 

Progressing the Project

 

During the consultation period Council was able to finalise the Project Delivery Agreement (PDA) for the project with the NSW Government. This was the last step in establishing the legal documentation to permit Council to use the airspace for the purposes of open space.

 

Preparation of the PDA also required a draft design, approval under the Infrastructure SEPP and a construction project plan to demonstrate how the project will be built. These elements are now complete. The Project Plan set a proposed completion of December 2023, which will coincide with completion of the final stages of the adjacent JQZ development and meet the requirements of a grant Council has received under the Public Spaces Legacy Program (detailed below). Building in and over the rail corridor can only occur during railway shutdowns (track possessions), typically weekends which are pre-arranged by Sydney Trains. Based on the proposed shutdown dates between now and 31 December, 2022 approximately twenty six (26) days are available for construction activities. A Construction Program has been developed which demonstrates that this is possible, however this necessitates Council commencing works on 4 and 5 September 2021 when a rail shutdown occurs, to commence site preparation on the western side of the rail corridor.

 

The nature of this project is such that once the project commences, there will be long periods between shutdowns where no physical on-site work can occur, which may make the public perception be that the project is delayed, however it will be as per the construction program.

 

As construction in and over the rail doors is highly regulated, particularly in regard to safety, there are only a limited number of contractors which have the necessary accreditations to undertake the work. Council will therefore utilise the NSW Government Contract Panel of Accredited Engineering Organisations (AEOs) and Contractors for the works, with the General Manager awarding a contract for the works.

 

The Design has got to a stage where accurate cost estimation can be undertaken and therefore Council has prepared Quantity Surveyor estimates, which have been circulated separately to Councillors on a confidential basis so as not to confer an advantage to a prospective contractor. The estimates are well within the available funding outlined below and Council has committed an initial $20M  in the 2021/22 Budget to commence the project.

 

With all the preliminary tasks now complete, it is appropriate for Council to formally commit to construction of the project.

 

Funding the Project

 

Since 2014, Council has entered into four Voluntary Planning Agreements as a means of funding the proposed Plaza. The Voluntary Planning Agreement with the 88 Christie Street development provides for the Developer to construct the section of the plaza over Lithgow Street in conjunction with the new library. Council will need to fund a bridge and landscape wprks over the rail corridor. The following outlines the sources of funds for the project:-


 

Address

VPA

Received

S7.11

Received

Status

1

500 - 504 Pacific Highway St Leonards

$21,150,000

$21,150,000

$7,342,963

$7,342,963

Under construction

2

472 - 494 Pacific Highway St Leonards

$16,947,598

$16,947,598

$8,697,527

$8,697,527

Completed

3

75-79 Lithgow St and 84-90 Christie St, St Leonards

Works in Kind

N/A

$13,850,768

Est.

Under construction

4

1 -13A Marshall Avenue St Leonards

$7,967,700”

$7,967,700

$4,842,000

$3,776,900

Competed

Total

 $46,065,298

  $46,065,298

$34,733,258

$19,817,390*

 

* A large proportion of s7.11 funds already received have be used on other projects. The balance and any funds still to be paid are available for the project.

 

In addition, Council has been successful in obtaining grant funding of $4.7M under the Public Spaces Legacy Program, the largest grant in Lane Cove’s history. Under this program Council was required to implement planning efficiency measures, including implementation of the NSW Government’s Planning Portal. A specific measure was a 15% improvement in Median Development Application processing times over a 12 month period.  Council during the period had a target to reduce the Median Processing Time from 62 days down to 52 Days but achieved a reduction down to 27 days. This was excellent result from all staff involved.

 

Conclusion

 

After a long gestation period the St Leonards Over Rail Plaza Project has reached the stage where construction can commence. Quantity Surveyor estimates confirm the project is viable for Council to undertake well within the funding available for the project. Council will utilise the NSW Government Contract Panel of Accredited Engineering Organisations (AEOs) for the works with the General Manager awarding a contract for the works.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.   The report be received and noted;

2.   The feedback from submissions on the open space design be considered in finalising the design;

3.   A Shortlist of names for the permanent name of the open space be prepared and be discussed at a future Councillor Workshop, prior to a further report being submitted to Council;

4.   Council commit to construction of the project and allocate funding as required; and.

5.   Council congratulate all staff involved in improving development application processing times over the 2020/21 financial year, resulting in Council obtaining funding of $4.7M under the Public Spaces Legacy Program.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Community Presentation Over Rail Plaza Design

25 Pages

 

  


ATTACHMENT 1

Community Presentation Over Rail Plaza Design

 



























 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 July 2021

Lane Cove Community Panel Report

 

 

Subject:          Lane Cove Community Panel Report     

Record No:    SU8408 - 36331/21

Division:         Corporate Services Division

Author(s):      Steven Kludass 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Over the past decade, Council has been exploring ways and means of meeting the sport, recreation, health and lifestyle needs of current and future residents. With respect to the green space currently occupied by the Lane Cove Golf Course, a Community Panel, comprising 35 local residents of the Lane Cove community, was formed to address the following remit:

 

What is the best use of the outdoor areas on the Lane Cove Golf Course site to meet our community needs now and in the future?

 

In addressing the remit, the Community Panel was asked to develop an overarching vision for the site and establish a set of criteria that would be used to inform future decision making about uses.

This report recommends that Council acknowledge the Community Panel’s Report, including the vision and criteria as outlined within the Report, and proceed to prepare a formal Response Document.

 

Background

 

Council at its 15 February 2021 Meeting, resolved:

 

“That Council endorse the proposal to proceed with a Stage 1 deliberative democracy / engagement process with a remit that seeks to determine what the best use(s) of the outdoor areas on the (Lane Cove Golf Course) site would be to meet community needs now and in the future”.

 

It is important to reflect on the proposed Strategic Engagement Plan which was referenced in the 15 February 2021 report to Council.

 

The proposed Strategic Engagement Plan contemplates two (2) distinct stages, noting that a report will come to Council at the conclusion of each stage. This will ensure that Council is not only adequately informed of the progress and outcome of the engagement but has ultimate discretion as to whether to the engagement proceeds from Stage 1 to Stage 2.

 

Stage 1 - The Community Panel provides an overarching vision for the site and a set of criteria that will be used to inform future decision making about uses.

 

Output: Vision (including the future of the Golf Course site) and Criteria, to be completed by the end of May/June 2021.

 

Stage 2 - would commence in late 2021 and is conditional on the Community Panel recommending alternative uses for the site. In the event alternative uses are recommended, Council would prepare feasible, specific use options for the Community Panel to test against its own criteria.

 

Output: Community Panel response to options, including preference.

 

The strategic engagement plan also make reference to scope. In particular, the Community Panel can influence:

·          The future of the Lane Cove Golf Course site, excluding the new proposed Sport and Recreation Facility.

·          Whether any change needs to occur on the site.

·          Priority community needs and interests that the site can meet within the current zoning.

 

The Community Panel cannot influence:

·          The new proposed Sport and Recreation Facility.

·          The zoning of the site – it must remain open space.

·          The strategy for other open spaces in the LGA.

·          The bushland area – it is to be retained as is.


Discussion

 

Community Panel Recruitment and Selection

 

To ensure independence from all stakeholders, Sortition Foundation was commissioned to recruit local members of the Lane Cove community to the Community Panel. The Sortition Foundation is a not-for-profit social enterprise dedicated to promoting fair, transparent, inclusive and effective deliberative assemblies.

 

Sortition Foundation sent approximately 7,000 invitations to households throughout the Lane Cove local government area with invitations open for a 3 week period. The invitation included details of the remit and the time commitment required for the assignment. Sortition Foundation received 267 expressions of interest which is considered a good response rate.

 

Sortition Foundation, in endeavouring to ensure the Community Panel was a stratified representation of the Lane Cove demographic profile, applied age, gender, address and ratepayer/tenant filters to then randomly select 35 local residents that would ultimately form the Community Panel. The following diagram illustrates the demographic comparison of the Community Panel to the Lane Cove general demographic profile.

 

 

 

Expert Deliberative Engagement Facilitators

 

Consultants, MosaicLab and Gauge Consulting, with requisite knowledge and experience in deliberative engagement assignments were commissioned to facilitate a deliberative engagement process that would purposefully consider the assignment. The assignment included the following:

 

1.   The need to respond to the remit: “What is the best use of the outdoor areas on the Lane Cove Golf Course site to meet our community needs now and in the future?”

2.   The need to articulate a vision for the site, and

3.   The need to establish a set of criteria that would be used to inform future decision making about uses on the site.

 

MosaicLab and Gauge Consulting developed a facilitation plan that outlined a range of coordinated activities designed to assist the Community Panel address their assignment and progress deliberations. Included in this facilitation plan was the following defined Panel Sessions:

 

a.   Thursday 25 May 2021 – a physical tour of the Lane Cove Golf Course site and a physical ‘meet and greet’ evening designed to familiarise panelists with one another, the subject site and the assignment before them.

b.   Tuesday 1 June 2021 – a virtual session designed to clarify information provided, hear from expert speakers and identify other sources of information the panel felt they required in order to progress their deliberations.

c.   Tuesday 15 June 2021 – a virtual session designed to further progress deliberations, culminating in a series of draft visions that would be ultimately crafted in to a single final vision.  

d.   Saturday 26 June 2021 – a virtual session designed to finalise the vision and establish supporting criteria, culminating in a Community Panel Report for Council’s consideration.

 

It should be noted panelists had access to their own collaborative portal, enabling conversations, collaborations and deliberations to continue outside of the defined Panel Sessions.

 

For more information relating to the deliberative engagement process, please refer to the Community Panel Process Report, produced by MosaicLab and appended to this report as AT-1.

 

This Report includes:-

·    An overview of the process;

·    An outline of the recruitment process;

·    Information inputs;

·    Panel outputs; and

·    Information relating to panelist feedback on the process

 

Community Panel Report - Vision and Criteria

 

The Community Panel developed an overarching vision for the site which is supported by ten (10) criteria. The Community Panel Report (Vision and Criteria) is appended to this report as AT-2.

 

In summary, the Panel’s vision for the site reads:

 

“Lane Cove Golf Course provides an accessible, sustainable golf and greenspace for the current and evolving community to enjoy for generations to come”.

 

This vision received more than 80% support (known as a ‘super majority’) from the Panelists.

 

A Minority Report (a report authored by more than 3 individual panelists) was included in the Community Panel Report. The vision articulated in the Minority Report reads:

“[River Road Reserve], preserved as a sustainable green space for the evolving community to enjoy for generations to come”.

 

Next Steps

 

Now that Council has a Community Panel Report, it is appropriate that Council prepare a ‘Response Document’. The purpose of the ‘Response Document’ is for Council to check-in with the Community Panel its understanding and interpretation of the Vision and Criteria. More specifically, the Response Document will outline:

 

1.   What Council understands the vision and criteria to mean;

2.   How Council would use the criteria in the testing of future use options;

3.   Potential measurements for each of the criteria (qualitative and/or quantitative); and

4.   Other criteria Council feels might add value in considering and testing future use options

 

This Response Document would be forwarded to the Community Panel together with an invitation to attend a ‘Recall Day Session’ to test the final criteria and associated measurements. The ‘Recall Day Session’ would be a single day exercise, facilitated by an independent deliberative engagement expert.

 

These next steps to finalise Stage 1 of the Strategic Engagement Plan have been recommended by MosaicLab and Gauge Consulting and are consistent with best practice community consultation collaborations. 

 

Conclusion

 

Following a rigorous deliberative engagement process, the Lane Cove Community Panel has drafted a Vision and established Criteria that can be used to inform future decision making about uses on the Lane Cove Golf Course site. It is now appropriate for Council to draft a Response Document that articulates its understanding of the Vision and Criteria, how Council intends using the criteria to test future use options (including potential measurements), and other criteria that Council feels would add value in considering and testing future use options.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

 

1.    Acknowledge the Community Panel Report;

 

2.    Thank the panelists for their contribution towards the Community Panel Report; and 

 

3.    Prepare a Response Document and commit to a Recall Day Session with the Community Panel to finalise Stage 1 of the Strategic Engagement Plan 

 

 

Steven Kludass

Executive Manager - Corporate Services

Corporate Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Lane Cove Community Panel - Process Report - July 2021

21 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Lane Cove Community Panel Report - Vision and Criteria

14 Pages

 

  


ATTACHMENT 1

Lane Cove Community Panel - Process Report - July 2021

 

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 2

Lane Cove Community Panel Report - Vision and Criteria

 

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 19 July 2021

Golf Course Alternate Operating Model

 

 

Subject:          Golf Course Alternate Operating Model    

Record No:    SU2893 - 42605/21

Division:         General Managers Unit

Author(s):      David Stevens 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council staff including the General Manager met members of the Lane Cove Golf Club Committee on three (3) occasions in March, May and June 2021 to receive and review their proposal(s) for alternate operating models for the golf course, with a view to making golf activities sustainable on the site. The meetings were collaborative, and a variety of options were discussed. The Lane Cove Golf Club (LCGC) proposed assuming all operational responsibilities including the engagement of a new Golf Professional team, a new revenue sharing agreement, reduced blocked booking times and taking responsibility for course maintenance. After several iterations, the Golf Club decided not to proceed and requested Council continue to operate the course with the same changes that were to feature if they were to operate the course. This report outlines the proposed model to be implemented with a view to improving the sustainability of golf activities on the site.

 

Background

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting 15 February, a Notice of Motion - Improving the Financial and Social Sustainability of Golf in Lane Cove and resolved:-

“That subject to receipt of a formal proposal from the Golf Club for the future operations of the course, that:-

1.   The General Manager meet with the Club to discuss a strategy for implementation of the above changes; and

2.   A report come back to Council with the details of the proposal, the results of the meeting outlining the structure, including but not limited to, changes in revenue sharing arrangement, public booking times and the proposed start date of the new arrangements.”

 

The purpose of this report is to summarise Council’s discussions with the Lane Cove Golf Club (LCGC) in considering their proposal(s) for the management of the golf operations.

 

Discussion

 

The report in relation to the Sport and Recreation Precinct to the 16 November 2020 Council Meeting included detail of the historical operation of the Lane Cove Golf Course. In summary, prior to COVID-19, the course utilisation was in steady decline as was the membership of the golf club. This has resulted in Council’s, (except for COVID year) subsidy for course operations increasing and the Golf Club recording 5 years of operational losses.

 

The intent of all Council’s proposals to date has been to determine the best way to make golf activities sustainable at the site. Further to Council’s resolution, Council staff met to work collaboratively with the Golf Club board with a view to improving the golf course operational financial performance.

 

Council and LCGC met on 10th March to review the first management proposal, which outlined a proposal for the club to assume full responsibility for operation of the course, with financial information provided for one year. In line with Council’s resolution LCGC were requested to expand their proposal to demonstrate financial sustainability over a longer period.

 

A meeting was held between the parties on 6th May to review a second proposal, which outlined a budget for the club having full responsibility for operation of the course having regard to the three phases associated with the proposed indoor sports centre: pre-construction; construction; and, post construction.  Council highlighted that this proposal did not accurately split golf operations and golf clubhouse expenditure items, resulting in Council potentially funding clubhouse activities. It also outlined that Council would be required to underwrite any loss, circa $99,964

 

A third proposal was presented to Council by LCGC on 24th June, which provided an updated and higher budget for golf course operations only, with the club having full responsibility for operations. Council highlighted that golf operating expenses, including the proposed Golf Course operator costs, exceeded those that are already in place between Council and the current operator, which impacted financial sustainability.

 

On 2nd July Council received a letter from advising that the Club no longer wished to pursue management of golf operations, but instead “look to pay the Council more money in a similar fashion to our proposal to you dated 3rd February 2021”. The letter confirmed important financial matters that had formed the basis of prior discussions between the parties:

·    LCGC to increase annual member subscription fees from $1,000 to $1,400 with $100 retained by the Club as a members’ bar tab;

·    LCGC to pay Council an additional $300 from the subscription increase of $400, meaning that (a) Council receive $755 per annum (b) the $100 bar tab be absorbed by Council; (Note this was subsequently altered by LCGC to Council receiving all the additional $400).

·    LCGC to pay Council $5 from the members’ 18 hole golf competition fee equating to approximately $24,000 p.a.;

·    LCGC surrender the Sunday Medley Block Booking Time slots to Council for social play for potential revenue of $21,000 p.a; and

·    LCGC  “would be happy to work with the current operator or a new operator”

·    Note in earlier discussions it was agreed that members will be required to book competition tee times one week in advance, and if any vacancies are available prior to competition day, those tee (block booking) times shall be released (competition time compressed) to the public for social play.  Members will still able to play in the completion outside of the compressed time, subject to availability.

 

Council accepts LCGC’s budget and proposed arrangement as being suitable to trial. The changes to the subscription fees are a significant step in normalising the contribution from member subscriptions towards maintenance of the course, compared to casual golfers utilising the course. Council currently receives $455 from the $1000 annual member subscription. Based on a member playing 48 rounds per year, this equates to a 75% ($29) discount per round compared to the price paid by social players. The proposal from the LCGC would see Council receive $855 from the new $1400 annual subscription paid by members. Based on a member playing 48 rounds per year, this equates to a 40% ($15) discount per round compared to the price paid by social players.

 

It is acknowledged that in any market a discount is offered to secure bulk purchase and/or annual commitments, as is the case with golf subscriptions. The current 75% subsidy and proposed 40% subsidy is unsustainable and remains a significant discount when measured against the price paid by social players and other sporting pursuits delivered by Council for the benefit of the community. It is therefore a priority to be addressed in ongoing discussions with the Club to further increase over the next few years the component provided to Council from the annual member subscription, bringing the model in line with other golf clubs. This means annual subscriptions need not rise, but the annual subscriptions would not be used to subsidise golf club operations. A barrier to this occurring is that, based on the LCGC’s annual accounts they have made an operational loss for the last 5 years, which the Club is seeking to address. It should be noted, if the Indoor Facility proceeds the food and beverage offer will not need to be provided by the Club, reducing LCGC’s cost base. To provide better information to both Council and LCGC, it is proposed to introduce a membership card system that would enable precise information on player participation by members to be retained, with the option of providing additional targeted benefits.

 

Council has prepared a Budget (AT-2) to understand what the future years hold from a financial perspective based on the LCGC’s model. The assumptions made discount the current high golf participation numbers as a result of COVID – 19 but are higher than historical pre – COVID conditions. Depending on the final position in relation to increased funds flowing to Council from annual member subscriptions over the next 4 years, forecasts indicate that by year 4 (without consideration for re-development of the site), golf operations could deliver a net zero operating result, as opposed to requiring subsidy. When compiling this information, it was noted that there has been a discrepancy in recent years between membership numbers in the LCGC’s Annual Statements and the calculation of contributions received by Council, which will be raised with the Club, as it impacts Budget projections.

 

In terms of the management of the course, over a long period of time there has been a lack of alignment between LCGC, the operator and Council. To address this, it is proposed to formalise a Management Committee with LCGC, the Operator and Council to oversee operations during an initial 12-month trial with a new operator (proposed by LCGC), subject to suitable financial arrangements. This will allow all the changes to be trialed and any other new concepts proposed by the new operator to be assessed prior to any changes resulting from the Indoor Facility.

 

Conclusion

 

For Golf to be sustainable at the site, it is important that changes be made to the current operating model for the course. Council has worked with the LCGC to understand what they believe to be the best model. While they have ultimately decided not to take full responsibility for managing the golf operations, they have proposed a series of changes which are worthy of trialing, including an alternative operator. To achieve this, in the short term there will be additional costs compared to the existing model. Ultimately, this will allow Council to understand the impact of various new measures to make golf activities sustainable in the site.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.   Receive and note the report; and

2.   endorse the alternate operating model outlined in the report; and

3.   receive a further report at the end of the 12-month trial on the results from the alternate operating model.

 

 

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

LCGC - Proposal to Council - 2nd July 2021

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Golf Operations - Projected Income vs Expenditure

1 Page

 

  


ATTACHMENT 1

LCGC - Proposal to Council - 2nd July 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 2

Golf Operations - Projected Income vs Expenditure

 

PDF Creator


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 July 2021

Draft Local Housing Strategy - Post Exhibition

 

 

Subject:          Draft Local Housing Strategy - Post Exhibition    

Record No:    SU7615 - 38347/21

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Lara Fusco 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this report is to outline and consider the results of the community consultation of Council’s Draft Local Housing Strategy (AT-1).

 

This Draft Local Housing Strategy was prepared by HillPDA on behalf of Council.

 

Council’s meeting of 17 May 2021 endorsed the Draft Local Housing Strategy for public exhibition. The Draft Local Housing Strategy was publicly exhibited for 6 weeks from 19 May 2021 to 30 June 2021. A total of seventeen (17) submissions were received.

 

Having regard to the comments, concerns and issues raised by the public submissions, modifications have been made to the exhibited Local Housing Strategy. These amendments are recommended for adoption by Council. Accordingly, Council must also submit the final Local Housing Strategy to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for endorsement, and to be published on the e-planning portal website.  

 

Background

 

Action 17 of the North District Plan, prepared by the Great Sydney Commission (GSC), states that all Councils must complete a Local Housing Strategy (LHS) with the following considerations:

 

Prepare local or district housing strategies that address the following:

a.   the delivery of five-year housing supply targets for each local government area

b.   the delivery of 6–10 year (when agreed) housing supply targets for each local government area

c.   capacity to contribute to the longer term 20-year strategic housing target for the District

d.   the housing strategy requirements outlined in Objective 10 of A Metropolis of Three Cities that include:

i.    creating capacity for more housing in the right locations

ii.    supporting planning and delivery of growth areas and planned precincts as relevant to each local government area

iii.   supporting investigation of opportunities for alignment with investment in regional and district infrastructure

iv.  supporting the role of centres.

 

To deliver coordinated outcomes within the NSW State policy context, housing strategies must be aligned with councils’ community strategic planning, local strategic planning statements and local environmental plans. Housing strategies are to be prepared by councils for their local government area and given effect through amendments through the Local Environmental Plan.

 

Council’s Draft Local Housing Strategy

 

This LHS provides an evidence-based framework with recommendations to guide the delivery of housing in the Lane Cove LGA to meet the needs of a growing and diverse population for the next 20 years. Council’s LHS will achieve the following:

 

·    Consider and identify the housing needs of the current and future population;

·    Review and offer guidance regarding statutory planning responses to guide the preparation and assessment of future development applications; and

·    Evaluate the current policy positions of State and Council authorities regarding housing, offering a range of policy and other non-statutory planning responses to support the delivery of housing that is affordable, accessible, sustainable and well serviced by infrastructure.

In the case of both the 0-5 year and 6-10 year periods, these targets have already been set by the Greater Sydney Commission (GSC). When combined, Lane Cove has an initial 10 year target (from 2016 – 2026) of between 4,900 – 5,400 new dwellings. It is anticipated that the 0-5 year target of 1,900 new dwellings will be exceeded by approximately 500 dwellings (totaling approximately 2,400 dwellings). For the 6-10 year period, the GSC required Council’s LHS to demonstrate that between 3,000 – 3,500 new dwellings could be delivered. Due to the strength of the existing approved development pipeline (i.e. approved but not yet completed housing applications), and availability of other theoretical capacity across the LGA (i.e. unused or underutilized medium and high-density lands), Council is well placed to meet and exceed the 6-10 year target.

 

For the 11-20 year period, Council’s LHS must identify its capacity to contribute more new dwellings to achieve a District-wide target. However, DPIE has projected limited growth for housing in the LGA (after 2026). Therefore, the Strategy concludes that no upzoning of land for housing is needed for the Lane Cove Local Government Area. The 9 recommendations of the LHS are as follows:

 

1.   No future upzonings are required for Council to meet the housing targets

2.   Prioritise growth in centres and St Leonards South

3.   Develop affordable housing strategy

4.   Encourage (existing) medium density housing

5.   Continue to prioritise the delivery and improvement of infrastructure

6.   Broaden universal and adaptable housing delivery

7.   Preserve and enhance character and heritage

8.   Incorporate sustainable design outcomes

9.   Monitor and review, as part of Council’s annual reporting process.

 

Public exhibition

 

The consultation period was conducted from Wednesday 19 May 2021 to Wednesday 30 June 2021, in accordance with planning regulations and Council’s Community Participation Plan, and included the following: -

·    E-newsletter distributed to over 6,000+ (approximately) registered residents;

·    Notification Letter sent to DPIE

·    Notification Letters sent to the adjoining Local Government Areas (North Sydney Council, Willoughby Council)

·    Online exhibition on Council’s website

·    Online exhibition via Council’s social media platforms.

 

A total of sixteen (16) written submissions were received during the exhibition period; an additional submission was received late. From the submissions received (approximately):

·    five (5) submissions supported the strategy and its contents

·    five (6) submissions were opposed to the strategy and its contents

·    Six (6) submissions did not state their position or provided reasons for and against the strategy and its contents

 

Submissions were received from:

·    Lane Cove residents

·    Community groups

·    Government agencies

·    Planning agencies 

·    Non-for-profit organisations.

 

A detailed summary of submissions is attached to this report (see AT-2). Issues submitted are addressed more broadly in the Discussion below.

 

Discussion

 

State agency and organisation consultation

 

Submissions from Government agencies and organisations were generally in favour of the proposal, suggesting minor refinements and recommendations on identified issues.

 

Transport for NSW (TfNSW)

 

TfNSW made the following comments in their submission:

 

“Council’s position to investigate for the delivery of additional housing, potentially in the form of affordable housing and medium density housing post 2026 is noted.”

 

“Given the significantly higher public transport use by residents in this LGA and the new services that will be available when the Crow Nest Metro station is completed there are opportunities for Council to justify for the provision of lower car parking rates in new developments, such as enforcing reduced maximum rates.”

 

“It is also recommended that Council potentially undertake traffic modelling in the future to determine the performance of the existing road network and the spare capacity at a precinct level to determine if the existing road network can support the uplift with minimal infrastructure.”

 

The submission also encouraged Council to work with TfNSW to identify Travel Demand Management measures and improvements to walking and cycling infrastructure, bus, and rail networks, and to protect existing freight corridors (in close proximity to new high rise developments) as reflected in the North District Plan.

 

Comment: All modelling has already been done as part of Council’s St Leonards South Precinct and the St Leonards/Crows Nest 2036 Plans. Although no further rezonings are recommended, these recommendations are noted and any investigations would be undertaken collaboratively with TfNSW.

 

 Community Housing Industry Association NSW (CHIA NSW)

 

CHIA NSW “supports the draft Strategy’s commitment to develop an affordable housing policy. This will provide an opportunity for Council to clearly articulate its principles and priorities for affordable housing delivery in the LGA, and explore mechanisms that will be used to secure new supply.”

 

Several recommendations were made to assist in the development of an Affordable Housing Policy including the adoption of planning mechanisms such as:

 

·    SEPP 70 Affordable Housing Revised Schemes

·    an LGA wide affordable housing contributions scheme policy and delivery framework (including possible exemption from Section 7.11 Contributions)

·    Voluntary Planning Agreements policy that complies with the requirements of recent Ministerial Directions regarding affordable housing contributions

·    Review of current DCP controls including Height or floor space bonuses, reduction in parking requirements near transport nodes

 

Criteria for future affordable housing planning proposals and partnerships with affordable housing providers were also addressed to assist in the monitoring and implementation of Council’s future affordable housing policy.

 

Comment: As stated in the Strategy, any planning proposal for increased residential densities must be consistent with Council’s additional housing principles specified in its Local Strategic Planning Statement. However, the recommendations above are noted and will from part of future analysis for the development of Council’s Affordable Housing Policy. 

 

Northern Sydney Local Health District

 

In their submission to Council, the Northern Sydney Local Health District supported Council’s Housing vision in the LHS:

 

“We commend the Council’s Housing vision which recognises the importance of walkable neighbourhoods that cater to all ages, abilities and backgrounds. Furthermore, the vision recognises the importance of placemaking through connectivity, scale, land use, amenities, public domain and sustainability. It is pleasing that new housing will be focused in and near centres, so that residents can easily access public transport and walk or cycle to shops and services.”

 

They also raised several recommendations including:

 

·    The inclusion of a context map of Lane Cove LGA that includes periphery services/infrastructure in adjoining LGAs

·    the importance of walkable neighbourhoods that cater to all ages, abilities and backgrounds

·    Supporting children in Higher Density Environments through encouraging the location of schools within walking distance to reduce car dependence

·    Universal Housing Design which allows people to ‘age-in-place’

·    Incorporating housing for climatic extremes, especially for lower socio-economic groups.

 

Comment: As most of these recommendations are already included in Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement and Draft Local Housing Strategy these are noted.

 

Rezoning requests

 

Council received two (2) submissions for two (2) different sites requesting changes to the existing zoning to achieve greater overall densities, heights and FSRs.  

 

 

Subject property

Summary of proposal

Council response

84, 84a, 84b Centennial Avenue, LANE COVE

“… we are open to having the three properties re-zoned for apartments similar in zoning to the apartments that adjoin them, or others on Centennial Ave of higher density in order to cater for growth. The total parcel of land combined is 1,800 sqm…. The properties adjoin the bowling club and Charlish Park so do not affect neighbours on that side.”

 

Not supported.

 

The proposed rezoning request does not meet the following criteria specified in the ‘Principles for the Location of Housing’, in Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement:

 

·    Consolidate housing around Strategic (St Leonards train station) and Local (Lane Cove Village/Plaza) centres to achieve transit orientated development,

 

·    The subject site is further than 800 metres away from the Lane Cove Village, which means that any rezoning for increased densities in these areas are to be avoided, and

 

·    It is located near a smaller (neighbourhood) centre with limited transport and service access, which, again, means that any rezoning for increased densities in these areas are to be avoided.

 

2-4 William Edward Street and 2-10 River Road West, LONGUEVILLE

 “The Site provides seven (7) separate allotments with an approximate total area of 5,309m². … It is highlighted that Longueville and, in particular, redevelopment opportunities such as those presented at the Site provide an appropriate response in a post-covid planning model of choice which will enable localism, social connectedness, decentralized working and increased quality of life for residents within the locality.”

 

Not supported.

 

The proposed rezoning request does not meet the following criteria specified in the ‘Principles for the Location of Housing’, in Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement:

 

·    Consolidate housing around Strategic (St Leonards train station) and Local (Lane Cove Village/Plaza) centres to achieve transit orientated development, and

 

·    The subject site is further than 800 metres away from the Lane Cove Village, which means that any rezoning for increased densities in these areas are to be avoided.

 

 

 

Issues raised

 

Public submissions were generally favourable towards affordable housing actions but were largely opposed to housing targets and population projections. There was a mixed response towards increased dwelling densities across the LGA. 

 

Most submissions raised more than one key issue, e.g. ‘housing targets’ AND ‘affordable housing’ (see AT-2 - Submission Summary). The key issues raised included:

 

1.   Housing targets

2.   Affordable housing

3.   Density

4.   Environment

5.   Accessibility

6.   Heritage, character and amenity

7.   Infrastructure

8.   Traffic and transport

 

Suggestions from the public consultation have been incorporated where appropriate into the Draft LHS.

 

1.   Housing targets

 

The submissions raised concern with regards to housing targets. The submissions included both support for Council’s position of no further upzonings beyond 2026 (to meet housing targets) and objected to the housing targets set for the LGA from 2016 – 2036:

 

“We understand that Council is preparing this Strategy to respond to NSW State Government requirements to plan for increased housing over the next 20 years in accordance with targets, which, as stated, can be met without upzoning. We support this approach and trust that it will be acceptable to the State planning authorities.”

 

“This Local Housing Strategy (Draft) document appears to be comprehensive and evidenced-based. It tries its best to say to GSC “No more increased housing density. Thank you.”. However, the document needs to make a much stronger case – I believe.”

 

"… whether Council needs to totally and submissively abide by the directions of the State Government in terms of housing or whether Council can do more to change what the State Government asks for. The Draft includes this statement; “The NSW Government has identified in 2016 that 725,000 additional homes across Sydney will be needed by 2036 to meet demand”. How questioned is “demand”? Who is demanding it? It’s not as if the NSW Government is obliged to follow some body which demands more houses. Isn’t Sydney big enough?"

 

Comment: The enactment and implementation of housing targets is legislatively required under Section 3.8 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 which states that all strategic plans (including District Plans) must be implemented.

 

As part of its approval for the Local Strategic Planning Statement, Council’s draft Local Housing Strategy was also required to demonstrate that a housing target range of 3,000-3,500 new dwellings could be met between 2021 – 2026.

 

The Strategy confirms that no further rezonings are required for Council to achieve the required housing targets, as there is existing zoned capacity in the development pipeline to achieve this. Based on capacity analysis, Council is also able to contribute new housing to the 10-20 year period (2026-2036) without the need for further rezonings.

 

2.   Affordable housing

 

The submissions raised multiple considerations with regards to affordable housing.

 

·    Submissions supported the delivery of an Affordable Housing Policy, given the limited amount of affordable housing within the LGA:

 

“I would like to encourage council to formulate a policy for greater numbers of affordable and social housing, in particular in any south St Leonards Development. This is particularly important in the light of the increasing number of essential workers in lower paid jobs required to service the area. These people are effectively priced out of the rental market. It is noted in the LHS for the medium and long term plan there is provision to adopt and implement an Affordable Housing Strategy for Lane Cove.”

 

“As mentioned in the LHS there is not much social housing in the Lane Cove LGA- 1.9% in Lane Cove compared with 4.9% in Greater Sydney. Within the northern suburbs zone which Lane Cove LGA is a part there is a waiting list of 1393 general applications and 377 priority applications for social housing. These can take 10 to 20 years to fill. Some of those people on the waiting list have physical and mental disabilities and the proximity to the hospital would be a huge bonus. It is noted are that there currently 40 dwelling set aside in the St Leonard’s precinct for affordable housing. This is a very small proportion of the total number of dwellings and well short of the SEPP 5-10%. A greater number could and should be set aside for affordable housing.”

 

Comment: Council recognises the limited amount of affordable housing in the LGA. An Affordable Housing Policy is a recommendation of the LHS (recommendation 2). As per St Leonards South affordable housing, these numbers were subject to feasibility testing which determined that the maximum number of dwellings that could be given to Council in perpetuity within the scheme is 43 dwellings.

 

·    Submissions were also against the inclusion of affordable housing within the LHS:

 

“Attempting to squeeze yet more affordable housing into Lane LGA is a fallacy. Lane Cove has always been in the upper percentile of household income (Figure 35: Weekly household income, Lane Cove LGA and Greater Sydney, 2016 on page 50), it was never intended to accommodate "affordable rental housing…. In 6.2.3 Develop an affordable housing policy section, author needs to tell it like it is - Lane Cove is an expensive suburb to live in. Creating more affordable housing here is physically and economically unsound.”

 

Comment: Council acknowledges the limited quantity of affordable housing in the LGA. Feasibility and delivery of future affordable housing will be addressed as part of any future Affordable Housing Policy.

 

·    Submissions also encourage a collaborative approach with the state government and agencies to deliver affordable housing, as well as the planning mechanisms that could be adopted and implemented in the future policy:

 

“The State Government has reported recently that it is committed to increasing the stock of affordable and social housing so this may be an opportunity to partner with them to allay some of the cost to the Council of these types of housing. It would also set an example of best practice to other councils.”

 

Undertake a review of its planning controls to ensure they support the feasibility of affordable housing. This should include:

-       Height or floor space bonuses in exchange for affordable housing provision

-       Review LEP height controls to ensure floor space bonuses available under the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP can be accommodated

-       A reduction in car parking requirements for affordable housing development (support viability)

-       Exempting all types of affordable housing development from local development contributions (support feasibility and reduce the amount of subsidy needed to deliver affordable housing)

-       Controls could be targeted to specific areas of the LGA.

Comment: The above considerations are noted. Council will collaborate with relevant agencies to deliver recommendation 2 of the LHS, to develop an affordable housing strategy.

 

Height, Floor space bonuses and car parking requirements are controlled by the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing). Affordable housing dwellings have already been included in the St Leonards South Precinct. All other matters can be considered in the formation of an Affordable Housing policy.

 

3.   Density

 

The submissions raised a number of concerns with regards to proposed high density development in the LGA.

 

·    Those that opposed any increase to residential densities in general:

 

“Lane Cove is punching well above its weight when it comes to the provision of high-density housing.”

 

“In view of the very high percentage of high-density dwellings in the Lane Cove LGA, [we are] opposed to any wholesale changes to the density levels in the LGA generally.”

 

Comment: This is noted. However, the Strategy does not recommend any changes to any approved densities or built form.

 

·    Those that supported higher density encouraged its location and growth in centres, such as St Leonards South:

 

“Prioritise locating future growth in centres which have “good access to public transport services and in the St Leonards South precinct. This precinct will have excellent access to public transport services” (i.e. North Shore rail line and Crows Nest Metro station).”

 

“Perhaps the solution to add more dwellings is to increase the height around St Leonards Station. Increase the height and the number of rooms in apartments to cater for families (3 and 4 bedroom Apartment blocks).  Double the height of the buildings and ensure they are built out of robust products like precast concrete.”

 

“We note that the LSPS has identified that the Lane Cove LGA has limited vacant land. Therefore in order to provide additional housing and meet housing targets, increasing density (in the right context) is the most feasible option. Higher density environments combined with mixed land use, proximity to public transport, pedestrian-friendly street networks and high-quality pedestrian/cycling infrastructure can make a neighbourhood liveable, providing more opportunities for active travel and physical activity”.

 

Comment: St Leonards South has previously been rezoned with greater heights and densities (see Planning Proposal 25). The dwelling mix as suggested is already featured as part of the planned precinct, which includes a minimum 20% 3/3+ bedroom units in each building.

 

·    Submissions also raised concern with the increasing percentage of families and children living in higher density environments across the LGA:

 

“The emphasis on higher density living in Lane Cove needs to consider the changing demographics and needs of its residents. Both the LSPS and the Draft LHS (page 62) has highlighted the increasing trend of families with children choosing to live in higher density housing, such as townhouses and apartments.”

 

“Development controls should ensure housing types are family friendly, providing appropriate apartment designs, communal spaces for use by residents, acoustic sound proofing, bicycle storage and parking. Pedestrian infrastructure and traffic calming features around housing can help reduce the perception of and actual traffic danger, which can discourage parents allowing their children to mobilise independently.”

 

“Table 18 shows that couples with children is still the largest category in the area which require houses as compared to units and thus more houses need to be developed not units which are in over supply in the area and not suitable to children and families.”

 

Comment: This is noted. The measures described are already included in various sections of Council’s Development Control Plan (DCP). Apartment designs are also governed by the NSW Apartment Design Guide (see page 30 of LHS for further details).

 

Council’s Community Strategic Plan and Local Strategic Planning Statement found that “We are seeing an increase in the number of residents living in units, particularly more families with children, single person households and 30 – 45 year olds”. Table 18 in the LHS confirms that the biggest increase for couples with children is for High Density dwellings (i.e. units).

 

·    Some submissions question the Strategy’s assertion that there is no available vacant land in the LGA:

 

“The LHS makes a clear assumption that there is no vacant land in the Lane Cove LGA. The basis of this statement is not clear since there are a number of vacant sites in the LGA including sites in existing residential areas and also substantial undeveloped sites in the Western part of the LGA and some in central part of the LGA. Also recent Council “adjustments” to some areas have given rise to high density developments on sites which are vacant (eg 266 River road).”

 

Comment: Both the LSPS and LHS correctly state that there is no vacant land in the LGA because it is an existing, developed location i.e. there is no more greenfield land to develop – this is highlighted in Figure 4 of the LHS.

 

Under-utilised land and remaining high density land is also addressed in the LSPS and again in Sections 4.6.7 Remaining capacity & Section 5.3.1 Remnant high density lands maybe difficult to develop in the LHS.

 

Notwithstanding, clarification will be included in the LHS to more clearly define ‘vacant land’.

 

·    Further, the submissions also raised the concern to incorporate sustainable building design practices and climate resilient housing, especially within higher density development precincts:

 

“Disadvantaged groups in the community, such as people on low incomes, may have fewer resources and options in terms of adapting to some of the effects of climate extremes. Well-designed housing which heat and cool efficiently can protect its residents from weather extremes and also minimise costs associated with cooling and heating. Integrating more green infrastructure into the urban environment would have multiple benefits, including urban heat mitigation…Align with the Lane Cove Sustainability Action Plan to raise the prominence of urban heat in LEPs and DCPs related to housing through the LHS as recommended on page 80.”

 

“Sustainability is not addressed in a comprehensive way by the proposed LHS given that the proposed developments being put forward dot not fully comply with required solar access, are being built using non-sustainable material and not sufficient green water absorbing space.”

 

Comment: Council’s approach to urban cooling has been to increase tree canopy cover (see LSPS), this along with other measures have already been implemented in the St Leonards South precinct. Other measures are also discussed in Section 6.2.8 of the LHS. The Strategy is therefore aligned with the current Sustainability Action Plan. However reference to Council’s Draft Climate Resilience Policy will be included in the LHS.

 

Council has already implemented a range of sustainability measures and with the formation of Council’s Design Review Panel (with Sustainability experts) the quality of buildings is expected to improve. Specific sustainability measures have been implemented in the St Leonards South precinct which is based on the principles of transit-orientated development. This type of development has been demonstrated to deliver sustainable development outcomes.

 

4.   Environment

 

The submissions raised concern with the LHS’s content and actions regarding the natural environment. Submissions sought to increase the profile of the natural environment in the LHS’s content, including the importance of protecting, maintaining and enhancing the natural environment across the LGA. Submissions also raised concern with the need to balance future development without burdening the existing natural environment:

 

“…the need to ensure greater emphasis on preservation of the special environmental and visual quality of Lane Cove within the document. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the document be reviewed to make sure that future planning decisions support the need to protect, maintain and enhance the characteristics that make Lane Cove special, including its bushland reserves, foreshore areas, and leafy quality.”

 

“It is difficult to foresee how new residential development of the type proposed will be able to ‘harmonise with our natural landscapes’ without further pressure on its viability. We understand that this statement was drawn from the Local Strategic Planning Statement (LSPS) as indicated in Section 3.2.2. However, we consider that the vision statements in this strategy should be reinforced by reference to the special environmental and scenic qualities of Lane Cove... These qualities should be conserved and enhanced and not eroded by inappropriate uses that potentially will destroy or diminish these natural landscapes.”

 

Comment: Council’s ‘Principles for the location of housing’ are stated in the Local Strategic Planning Statement and outline that bushland is high value environmental land and high bushfire risk. It is therefore unsuitable to accommodate increased residential areas in such close proximities to bushland areas.

 

Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement also incorporates and characterises the ‘natural leafy environment’ of Lane Cove and seeks to retain it through urban tree canopy cover for new developments. However, further clarification can be added to the Strategy.

 

5.   Accessibility 

 

Submissions raised concern with the accessibility of dwellings, including the need to provide disabled access for all (new) development and ‘aging in place’:

 

“Universal design principles create homes that work well for older people and remove the need for a move to assisted living facilities. Home modifications can address the individual needs of older people who want to age well in their existing home.”

 

“Ageing in place means people can live in their home safely, independently and comfortably, regardless of age or ability level. This enables residents to increase or decrease the size of their dwelling as they move through important stages in their lives. Further, it allows people to stay in their preferred suburb and maintain important social contacts.”

 

“It is imperative that all new housing be built to accommodate the disabled. … it is a basic human right to be able to enter a home through a doorway or passageway and have use of a bathroom.”

 

Comment: Council’s Development Control Plan (Part F) already include mandatory requirements for accessible (visitable) and adaptable housing. The differences between the two types are explained in our DCP as:

 

-       Adaptable Housing: “requires siting consideration – including access within the site, building location, landscaping, security, carparking, letterboxes and signage”. It also requires “design consideration – including floor levels, entrances, doorways, circulation space, sanitary facilities, kitchens, bedrooms, living areas, laundries, floors, lighting, fixtures and fittings”.

-      Visitable Housing: “is to provide a continuous path of accessible travel from the property frontage or carparking area to the living area and to a toilet that is either accessible or visitable and common areas within the building”.

 

Basically, adaptable housing is far more extensive than visitable and creates good variety of housing typologies. This is why Council has a 80% visitable and 20% adaptable housing split (making up 100%) anything else would create a single homogenous apartment product which is not a desirable outcome and against State Government housing diversity policies.

 

Our draft Local Housing Strategy (LHS) supports this two-pronged approach and recommends keeping both adaptable and visitable housing requirements (i.e. 20% & 80% respectively) as they are (see Section 6.2.6).

 

However, the Strategy has highlighted that some of Council’s controls need to be updated. This is Recommendation 7 - Broaden universal and adaptable housing delivery of the LHS, “[a]mend the Lane Cove DCP visitability requirements to reference the Liveable Housing Guideline’s silver requirements for all apartments (or more relevant best practice if identified by the Design and Place SEPP” to ensure best practice is achieved.

 

6.   Heritage, character and amenity

 

The submissions raised concern that the LHS does not prioritise preserving the heritage, character and amenity of the Lane Cove LGA, and that new (higher density) development does not support the existing lower density ‘village atmosphere’:

 

“We generally support Council in the strategy objective to preserve and enhance character and heritage in Lane Cove. However, we consider that this objective has not been as clearly spelled out in the LHS as it warrants, particularly in the Vision Statement, the accompanying analysis, and subsequent recommendations.”

 

“The DLHS will increase exposure of the urban edge and contribute to urban sprawl which is a major concern to the community. Many of the residents in the area are committed to preserving the sense of place and community as well as heritage aspects.”

 

“The Strategy doesn’t encourage a village atmosphere across the whole LGA which is what residents want and what Council in some literature has as an aim.”

 

Comment: The vision for the LHS has been taken from Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement, that provides clear priorities for where housing will be located, the form it will take, how it will integrate with the Lane Cove culture and the infrastructure required to support it. Both the LHS and LHS support a diverse housing typology. Areas listed under section 2.6 of the LHS (Character and Heritage), including the Lane Cove Village, “will be preserved into the future, with minor changes reflecting the preferences and best practices of the day”.

 

Both the Local Strategic Planning Statement and LHS aim to consolidate new residential development around large centres (i.e. St Leonards Strategic Centre and Lane Cove Village) and retain the remaining R2 low density character.

 

Council also has detailed design controls in the Development Control Plan (Part B – General Controls) that seek to minimise any detrimental impacts to heritage items and heritage conservation areas by new development, including built form considerations.

 

7.   Infrastructure

 

The submissions raised concern with regards to increased housing density burdening existing infrastructure and the need to develop new services prior to the rezoning of more housing:  

 

“The Strategy only considers housing targets but does not take into account the availability of infrastructure and cumulative effect on traffic of each development, traffic in the area is already at capacity”.

 

“All community facilities and services should be in place before any plans for new high density are even proposed. It is imperative that before any density is added better plans for services and infrastructure should be allotted so that the community can have a say in its delivery. The DLHS should also take a view as to what is the maximum level of population for the area. That is how much more can be squeezed into the area before it comes unmanageable given the constraints that exist.”

 

Comment: Council’s approach to creation, delivery and implementation of infrastructure is detailed extensively within the Local Strategic Planning Statement under ‘Infrastructure and Collaboration’ (Planning priorities 1, 2, and 3). Council’s recommendations for population and housing are noted throughout the LHS. Council has since 2010 delivered significant infrastructure to cate for the increased population.

 

8.   Traffic and transport

 

The submissions supported reduced parking rates in centres, creating a modal shift away from private car use, and encouraged additional sustainable transport initiatives:

 

“Given the significantly higher public transport use by residents in this LGA and the new services that will be available when the Crow Nest Metro station is completed there are opportunities for Council to justify for the provision of lower car parking rates in new developments, such as enforcing reduced maximum rates.”

 

“Mode shift away from private vehicle travel and diversification in travel behaviours are required to cater for any future growth in the area, as there is a limit to providing additional capacity and infrastructure on the Pacific Highway, Epping Road, Mowbray Road, Burns Bay Road, Lane Cove Road.”

 

“An integrated and staged approach is required to achieve sustainable outcomes including mode shift from cars to public transport; increased active transport; internal trips; lower parking supply; and increased car-occupancy.”

 

Comment: Noted. Council’s Development Control Plan (Part R) includes mechanisms that allow an applicant to provide lower car parking rates under certain circumstances (i.e. within an area with good public transport access).

 

A number of these comments have been included in Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement, Council will continue to work collaboratively with TfNSW on the matters raised.

 

Amendments

 

Based on the Discussion above, a series of amendments have been incorporated into Council’s DLHS (see AT-1). The amendments do not change Council’s vision for Lane Cove, nor policy positions of Council. The reasons for the changes have been categorised into three groups:

 

A.  Provide additional information about existing Council programs, projects and plans, or those intended to be undertaken;

 

B.  Identify collaboration and advocacy that is undertaken by Council, and future opportunities, such as with Government agencies, neighbouring councils and others; and

 

C.  Improve clarity of the document, for example, minor wording changes to improve sentence structure, new map labelling, and simplification of monitoring and reporting measures.

 

The proposed amendments to the DLHS are summarised in the table below. The reason given in the fourth column of the table corresponds with A, B or C noted above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part

Proposed amendment to DLHS

Reason (A, B, C)

FRONT COVER NOTE - Before the document can be implemented, it must be approved by NSW Department of Planning, Industry & Environment. After this has occurred, the document will be put into a Council Plan template with a new frontpage image.

 

1.0  Introduction

 

1.1 Background

More explicit references to collaboration with State agencies and organisations on state government led projects (i.e. Education, Health, Transport).

B

 

1.2 Purpose

No changes proposed

N/A

 

1.3 Housing vision

No changes proposed

N/A

 

1.4 Document structure

No changes proposed

N/A

 

2.0 Lane Cove LGA

 

2.1 Location context

Figure 18: Lane Cove Structure Plan will be brought forward into the document to assist readability and clarity. 

C

 

2.2 The people

No changes proposed

N/A

 

2.3 Employment

No changes proposed

N/A

 

2.4 Transport

No changes proposed

N/A

 

2.5 Social infrastructure

No changes proposed

N/A

 

2.6 Character and heritage

No changes proposed

N/A

 

2.7 Natural environment constraints

Outline further implications/consequences of locating greater housing density in close proximity to existing bushland in the LGA.

C

 

2.8 Liveability

Clarification regarding the exclusion of bushland as a metric in the Liveability analysis.

C

 

3.0 Planning policy and context

 

3.1 State Policy

No changes proposed

N/A

 

3.2 Local Policy

Figure 18: Lane Cove Structure Plan will be brought forward into the document to assist readability and clarity.

 

Table 7: LSPS planning priorities, actions and implications to use an alternative definition for “vacant land”, consistent with Council’s Local Strategic Planning Statement.

 

Council’s Draft Climate Resilience Plan to be included within Table 8: other relevant Council strategies.

C

 

 

B

 

 

 

A

 

3.3 Overview of local planning controls

No changes proposed

N/A

 

4.0 Housing supply and demand

 

4.1 Population

No changes proposed

N/A

 

4.2 Place of birth and language spoken at home

No changes proposed

N/A

 

4.3 Employment

No changes proposed

N/A

 

4.4 Housing supply

No changes proposed

N/A

 

4.5 Housing demand

Future housing trends in figures 42 and 43 only show until 2026, not 2036 as stated in the text.

C

 

4.6 Development history and pipeline

No changes proposed

N/A

 

5.0 Planning review

 

5.1 Review of current controls

No changes proposed

 

 

5.2 St Leonards South

No changes proposed

N/A

 

5.3 Planning issues

No changes proposed

N/A

 

6.0 Housing priorities

 

6.1 Housing objectives

More explicit reference to preserve, maintain and manage bushland within the Housing Objectives.

A/C

 

6.2 The Local Housing Strategy Priorities

No changes proposed

N/A

 

6.3 Monitor housing delivery, review strategies and improve tools

No changes proposed

N/A

 

7.0 Action and implementation plan

 

Action and Implementation plan

Recommendation to be changed to Develop affordable housing Strategy.

A / C

 

 

Submissions also raised additional issues that are not relevant to the context or intent of the DLHS, including:

·    Road upgrades

·    State Government transport infrastructure, i.e. Crows Nest Metro

·    Property values

·    The St Leonards South Planning Proposal, including reference to the Independent Planning Commission

·    Strategic employment and commercial development.

 

These issues been noted in the Submission Summary (AT-2) or noted as addressed in previous studies and reports relating to the subject.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Council’s Draft Local Housing Strategy (DLHS) has been prepared in accordance with the relevant strategic planning documents and local policies.

 

Submissions received during the public exhibition period have been collated and addressed and incorporated into the document, where appropriate. It is recommended that Council endorses the amended LHS and submit the document to NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for approval.

 

The document will also be stylized post-exhibition in accordance with Council’s formatting requirements once Council receives endorsement from DPIE.

 

Next steps

 

Once Council endorses the final LHS, the document will be submitted to DPIE for their review. Based on the experiences of other Metropolitan Sydney Councils, DPIE will provide Council with a letter of conditional approval – this may contain recommendations for further edits to the document (e.g. updated feasibility analysis; confirmation of dwelling numbers; wording changes, etc). Once this letter is received from DPIE, a report will be submitted back to Council before any changes are made to the final LHS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

 

1.   Receive and note the report;

 

2.   Endorse the Draft Local Housing Strategy (LHS) subject to the amendments outlined in the report.

 

3.   Submit the endorsed Local Housing Strategy to the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment for endorsement, and upload to the e-planning portal website.

 

4.   Report back to Council once letter of conditional approval is received from Department of Planning, Industry and Environment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark Brisby

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

 

 

Christopher Pelcz

Coordinator - Strategic Planning

Environmental Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Post consultation Local housing strategy - July 2021

98 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑2 View

Local Housing Strategy submissions summary - FINAL

15 Pages

Available Electronically

  


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 July 2021

Infrastructure Contributions System - State Government Proposed Changes

 

 

Subject:          Infrastructure Contributions System - State Government Proposed Changes    

Record No:    SU6136 - 39789/21

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Terry Tredrea; Christopher Pelcz 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The purpose of this Report is to explain the current State government changes taking place to the Section 7.11 Developer Infrastructure Contributions system in NSW, and to support the Northern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (NSROC) and Local Government Association of NSW (LGNSW) (AT-2) in the campaign for a fairer system.

 

In 2020, the NSW Productivity Commission provided a review of the infrastructure (developer) contributions system in New South Wales (AT-1) with 29 recommendations. The State government adopted all 29 recommendations (AT-3) and are currently implementing these changes (AT-4). All changes are expected to be established by 1 July 2022 and apply to new developer contributions plans and draft plans that have not yet been publicly exhibited.

NSROC has co-ordinated analysis of the reforms which highlights concerns that some of the proposed changes have been shown to have negative impacts on Council’s revenue and administration of an efficient developer contributions system.

 

The Productivity Commission were of the view that  any reduction in funding from development contributions to Council should be offset by an increase in rates revenue under the population growth factor. NSROC research on these proposed changes has found this not to be the case.

 

Due to the potential negative impacts on councils, there will be a Parliamentary Upper House enquiry into the proposed legislative changes. The current Upper House enquiry closed on 11 July 2021, to which NSROC has submitted concerns on behalf of the member councils. It is recommended Council continue to support NSROC in seeking changes to the proposed reforms.

 

Background

 

In 2020, the NSW Productivity Commission conducted a holistic review of infrastructure funding in NSW (AT-1). This covers reform of two elements:

 

1.   The S7.11 Developer contributions system in general, and

2.   Rate pegging in respect of population growth.

 

Despite opposition from councils, regional organisations of councils and LGNSW, the State Government accepted all 29 recommendations from this review and developed a roadmap to implement them by the end of 2022.

 

In March 2021, the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) released an issues paper seeking submissions on the NSW Government proposal to align the rate peg with population growth. Submissions on this subsequent report close 6 August 2021.

 

In addition to the above, the State Government is (initially) seeking to take more decision-making power from local government through the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Infrastructure Contributions) Bill 2021.

 

Infrastructure Contributions Bill 2021

 

This Bill has recently entered the Upper House and includes the following elements:

 

·    That the cost of providing public amenities or public services "be calculated in accordance with the regulations and relevant Ministerial directions".

·    A requirement that a local infrastructure condition or local levy condition is "imposed in accordance with the regulations and relevant Ministerial directions".

·    That the regulations can define when and how monetary contributions must be paid more than currently. This was previously documented by councils in their contributions plans.

·    That the Minister will be able to issue a direction about "the matters that must be considered when preparing a contributions plan, including matters relating to the efficient design of infrastructure". Note: all these matters are already controlled in Section 26 & 27 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

This is effectively enabling legislation; and once the legislation is passed, the details of the new system is expected to be implemented and in place by 1 July 2022. These detailed changes are currently being released as:

 

Planning Agreements Practice Note.

Section 7.12 Fixed Development Consent Levies Practice Note.

Amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

DPIE’s Reform Roadmap covers an 18-month period from 2021 to the end of 2022. After the State Government passes the relevant legislation (at the start of 2022), these reforms will then be progressively implemented by Council’s.

 

It is expected that Council will have an opportunity to respond to exhibited regulatory amendments, policy instruments and Practice Notes throughout 2021 and 2022.

 

 

Discussion

 

Priorities of concern   

 

Out of the 29 Recommended changes issued by the Productivity Commission (AT-1), the following are considered to have the most significant impact on Council. The discussion below is taken in part from NSROC, LGNSW, and several councils including Willoughby, North Sydney and Mosman

 

·    Allow councils’ general income to increase with population [Rate pegging]

 

The Office of Local Government is progressing changes to the calculation of the rate peg that will allow councils’ general discretionary income to grow with population. This will increase councils’ capacity to service a higher population. Councils’ maximum rate revenue from this change is estimated to increase by an additional 8.9 per cent, or $18.4 billion (undiscounted) over 20 years (Centre for International Economics, 2020). While most of this will go to high growth councils, lower growth councils are also expected to be better off”.

 

 

 

 

Comment

 

NSROC supports the inclusion of population growth within the rate peg system to meet the increased demands for services, but further work is required, including:

 

·          A review of the population projections in light of COVID and that immigration has virtually ceased. [Conversely, development may continue, but be partly excluded from paying full contribution costs].

·          Further detailed modelling to ensure that local settings and historical data inform the reforms.

·          Ability to levy rates on strata complexes at differential rates.

·          A delay in implementing the reforms anticipated 1 July 2022.

 

Modelling by GLN Planning provided for NSROC using actual local settings and historical information, estimates that NSROC councils face losses of $90 million over the first 5 years of implementation.

 

The Government’s model is based on pre-covid projections, which are overly optimistic, and assume a 4.75% growth against the rate peg. The rate peg set by IPART averaged 2.2% over the last 5 years and 2.5% over the last 10 years.  The overestimation has significant implications over the forward years given the compounding impact.

 

·    Section 7.11 contributions

 

Benchmarking for Section 7.11 Contributions Plan costs could be established by IPART so as to not impose construction and embellishment standards on developers beyond a basic standard.

 

DPIE have stated that: “… works that are not development-contingent should be removed from the essential works list (EWL)”. Other non-essential works would be removed from Contribution Plans.

 

IPART would consider standard rates for infrastructure provision, i.e. benchmarked efficient costs, and limiting the IPART review of section 7.11 contributions plans to be only ‘by exception’, rather than by a monetary trigger (i.e. currently over $20,000 per dwelling) - all will reduce costs and administrative complexity.

 

Forward funding infrastructure will also reduce costs and enable more timely delivery.”

 

The permanent deferral of contribution payments to occupation certificate stage will be done by extending the “current Ministerial Direction until legislative change can be implemented”.

 

Comment

 

Infrastructure (and its construction) costs vary considerably from greenfield to infill area sites, and also between regional and metropolitan areas. Therefore, standardised benchmarking (i.e. one-size-fits-all approach) across the entire State is not considered appropriate.

 

As per the essential works list (EWL), LGNSW notes that “as community facility buildings are not included on the current essential works list, local government faces significant funding shortfalls for providing community facilities.” This is because the internal fit-outs of these community facilities are not considered to be ‘essential works’. This also applies to indoor recreation facilities.

 

NSROC, through a report by GLN Planning raised concerns regarding limited types of infrastructure:

 

Infrastructure is proposed to be restricted to items on the S7.11 ‘Essential Works List’, excluding the capital costs of providing such valuable items as community [and indoor recreation] facility buildings. It would also exclude items not directly linked to the development such as some open space. Currently there is no such restriction only where contribution does not exceed $20k per dwelling.” During IPART’s upcoming reviews of benchmark costs, Council should where possible provide actual evidence of its infrastructure costs to IPART so that it can demonstrate the actual cost of infrastructure provision in its LGA and influence the cost outcomes.

 

LGNSW also recommends that the ‘essential works list’ be amended to include the capital costs of providing community facility buildings. However, at this stage it is uncertain exactly what infrastructure items will be excluded from the EWL.

 

As per IPART’s review of Contribution Plans, LGNSW agrees that “the thresholds that trigger IPART review of contributions plans should be removed so that plans are not required to go through the IPART process – this would result in a reduced drain on both council and IPART resources”. The process of preparing section 7.11 contribution plans would be cheaper, quicker and simpler.

 

Further, the Review acknowledges conflicting views on the value of the complex and time-consuming IPART reviews of S7.11 plans proposed over $20k per dwelling. However, LGNSW asserts that removal of the thresholds and the IPART review would significantly reduce the length and complexity of the process of preparing section 7.11 plans.

 

The forward funding of infrastructure in advance of S7.11 payments will mainly occur by borrowing, which will increase the costs for Council and developers, and is therefore opposed as a guiding principle. As discussed in its post-consultation report on the site-specific Section 7.11 Contribution Plan for St Leonards South, Council found that borrowing the money to fund its infrastructure upfront would have doubled the costs and rates within the Plan.  However, the pooling of funds to advance a particular item in a list of works can benefit the intended community. Legislation allowing interest rates to be recouped in contributions plans is suggested in the Recommendations, but will increase overall costs. Feasibility will require State Government subsidised loans.

 

As stated previously, Council directly opposes the permanent deferral of contributions payments until the occupation certificate stage. In July 2020 a new Ministerial direction, in response to COVID-19,  was made to temporarily defer the payment of local infrastructure contributions and levies until the issuing of an occupation certificate. However, the continued delaying of contribution payments until the occupation certificate has a detrimental effect on the timely provision of public infrastructure in the case of large precincts such as St Leonards South in particular. “The timing for the payment of infrastructure contributions should be determined and decided by each individual council.” (LGNSW) or at the very least, the reform should be delayed or phased-in. Positively, the measure should increase compliance for contribution payments.

 

·    Increase the maximum rate for section 7.12 fixed development consent levies

 

Current Section 7.12 levy rates are considered low and do not reflect the cost of infrastructure. “At only 1 per cent of capital cost, this contribution type is best suited to areas with low infrastructure need, or where developing a 7.11 contributions plan would be too costly”. Increasing the maximum levy to 3 per cent for residential development…”would create a S7.12 plan that is “simple and certain”.

 

 

Comment

 

It is important to note here that Lane Cove Council does not currently have a Section 7.12 Contribution Levy, although it is a recommendation of the Draft Local Housing Strategy. Notwithstanding that, advice received from NSROC (through GLN) notes that “raising the s7.12 levy from 1% of capital costs for residential development to 3% will not result in the anticipated increase in income due to the proposed limit of $10k on houses and $8k on apartments. It is more likely to be around 1.5% when the limits are taken into account. Income from resident development levies (s7.12) will be reduced due to the proposed exemptions for alterations and additions.”

 

Nevertheless, LGNSW agrees that the current 1% levy amount for section 7.12 contributions be increased, in consultation with local government.

 

NSROC notes that historically, councils use income from rates to maintain services, and income from infrastructure contributions to build infrastructure. The rate reforms were intended to maintain ‘income per capita’ to ensure services can be provided in line with the demand of increased population growth. However, the reforms create a “perverse incentive against development” and drive the cost of meeting increased infrastructure demand generated by developers to existing community members. That is because, restrictions on the essential uses of developer contributions (Section 7.11 plans) will drive councils to use levies from existing residents (Section 7.12 levies) to provide infrastructure to meet increasing demand.

 

·    Adopt regional infrastructure contributions

 

The review determined that Special Infrastructure Contributions (SICs) have been “inconsistent,” limited” and “unpredictable”. There could be “Greater cost recovery through broad-based state contributions will better leverage the State’s capital program towards growth enabling infrastructure”, and prioritised by Infrastructure NSW. Contributions should be directed to the growth areas most in need.

 

The recommended regional contribution rates for Sydney are:

 

·        $12,000 per dwelling for houses (detached, semi-detached, and townhouses),

·        $10,000 per dwelling for all other residential accommodation,

·        $10-$15 per square metre for industrial,

·        $20-$30 per square metre for commercial,

·        $30-$40 per square metre for mixed use.

 

DPIE has confirmed that these “final rates subject to confirming the charging methodology.

 

Comment

 

Currently, there is a SIC in place for the St Leonards and Crows Nest area of  $15,100 per new dwelling created in the precinct. The above rates would effectively be a reduction which, therefore, can be supported.

 

LGNSW also advises “As there are inherent differences between metropolitan, regional and rural councils, the impacts of the new infrastructure contribution framework on the diverse council areas across NSW should be considered during the review process.” Further, to guarantee that Lane Cove has an equable share of the new funding, Council should monitor the Government’s future infrastructure list to be funded by these contributions.

Conclusion

 

Within the next year Council intends to revise its Section 7.11 Contributions Plan, which will be affected by the proposed changes. Many of these broad-reaching changes are considered to have a negative impact on Council revenue and the administration of an efficient developer contributions system.

 

It is recommended that Council continues to support NSROC to seek from the State Government to make changes to the proposed reforms and in particular separate the issue of rate reform from the review of development contributions to ensure the cost of providing new facilities to meet the needs of a growing population is not shifted to the existing community.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:-

1.   Continue to support NSROC to seek from the State Government the following:-

 

a.   The issue of rate reform should be uncoupled from the review of development contributions to ensure the cost of providing new facilities to meet the needs of a growing population is not shifted to the existing community.

b.   No council is worse off under the reforms.

c.   Further detailed modelling being carried out by the State Government at the individual council level to understand impacts on each council, rather than at the higher, more generalised level done to date.

d.   A delay to implementing reforms currently anticipated to commence from 1 July 2022 so that the above points can be carried out.

e.   Restoration of payment of developer contributions at Construction Certificate stage rather than Occupation Certificate stage.

f.    Removal of the ‘Essential Works List’ from developer contribution plans, as it essentially prohibits the funding of social infrastructure.

2.   Make a late submission to the Parliamentary Upper House Enquiry in line with 1.

 

 

Mark Brisby

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Review of Infrastructure Contributions in NSW Productivity Commission

153 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑2 View

NSROC Submission Infrastructure Contribution Reform

6 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

Submission on Infrastructure Contributions Review LGNSW

23 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑4 View

DPIE Response to Prod. Comm. Review

6 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑5 View

FAQs – DPIE

2 Pages

Available Electronically

  


ATTACHMENT 2

NSROC Submission Infrastructure Contribution Reform

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 July 2021

NSW GOVERNMENT WASTE STRATEGY – FOOD ORGANICS

 

 

Subject:          NSW Government Waste Strategy – Food Organics    

Record No:    SU8078 - 40206/21

Division:         Environmental Services Division

Author(s):      Millie Saddleton 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The NSW Government’s, Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) have released the report - Waste and Sustainable Materials Strategy 2041, Stage 1: 2021-2027, that states that as part of domestic waste collections, that the provision of a separate food organics system will become mandatory for local councils by 2030.

 

To address this policy direction, Council alongside four NSROC councils are undertaking a food organics collection trial for 4 months commencing in mid-September 2021. Council will focus on food organic collections from single dwelling houses in the suburbs of Greenwich and Lane Cove North, with the other Council’s focusing on multi story residential units and commercial land uses. The results from the trials in all areas will be assessed jointly, to understand the performance of the system in various dwelling types. It is recommended that a report on the findings of the food organics trial be presented to Council at the conclusion of the project.

 

Background

 

The DPIE have released the Waste and Sustainable Materials Strategy 2041, Stage 1: 2021-2027 (see AT-1). This strategy introduces new targets that all NSW councils will need to adhere to in relation to their individual waste collection services:

 

·    Reduce total waste generated by 10% per person by 2030,

·    Have an 80% average recovery rate from all waste streams by 2030,

·    Significantly increase the use of recycled content by government and industry,

·    Phase out problematic and unnecessary plastics (single use) by 2025, and

·    Halve the amount of organic waste sent to landfill by 2030.

The report focusses on creating a circular economy within Australia, notably with food organics that will require a separate collection by Councils by 2030. The state government will release $65 million over a five-year period to assist Councils in transitioning their collection methods to remove food organics from landfill. Additionally, the state government will assist the waste management industry by planning for infrastructure to better process organics.

 

Discussion

 

The DPIE report requires NSW Councils to introduce a separate food organics collection system by 2030. Councils will have the option to implement a food organics (FO) only, or a food organics and garden organics (FOGO) collection. Both systems would require an introduction of a new household bin and new servicing and processing arrangements.

 

In September 2020, Council with four other NSROC councils secured funding to trial a FO collection research project for residents and businesses. The aim of the project is to examine the potential for separating food organics from mixed waste collection (red lid bin) to achieve a reduction in landfill and improved resource recovery through composting of food waste. A focus has been placed on food waste from multi-unit dwellings, as waste and recycling at these locations has the highest rate of contamination.

 

Lane Cove, Willoughby and Ryde Councils will conduct trials in which residents in houses or units are asked to separate food from general waste and present the food organics waste for collection via a separate maroon bin. Hunter’s Hill Council will trial the program in food businesses and Ku-ring-gai Council will manage the waste audits of the material collected on behalf of other councils.

 

Table 1 - Role of Each Council in the Food Organics Trial

 

LGA

Housing Types

Suburb

Trial Methodology

Lane Cove

Single dwellings

Lane Cove North

Greenwich

 

All residents in selected areas will be provided with FO bins, caddies, compostable liners and educational material.

Ryde

Low rise MUDs

Eastwood

Macquarie Park

Gladesville

West Ryde/ Willow Bank

Selected MUD buildings are to be provided with shared FO bins.

Willoughby

High rise MUDs

CBDs of Chatswood and St Leonard

The managers and residents of selected high-rise MUD buildings will be engaged and provided with bins to be collected at ground or basement level.

Hunters Hill

Non-residential and commercial buildings generating food waste

Across the commercial areas in Hunters Hill

Businesses in selected areas generating FO will be provided with food collection receptacles.

 

Lane Cove’s focus will be FO collection in 400 houses in Greenwich, and 400 houses in Lane Cove North. These suburbs were selected due to having a demographic profile that can be compared to the 4 other Council’s municipalities.

 

Each participating household will be contacted by an external communications team and advised of the upcoming trial. During this interaction, the residents will be presented a kitchen caddy, compostable liners and informational material. Residents will also be provided with a 60L maroon-lidded, food organics only wheelie bin. The bins will be rolled out to households prior to the commencement of the trial through the waste collection contractor United Resource Management (URM). URM will provide a truck especially for the food organics collections. Residents will be asked to present the new bin alongside their existing garbage bin on their normal collection days, for weekly collection.

 

Key Research Outcomes

 

The project aims to answer how much food is being correctly separated and presented by residents, and if this impacts the amount of waste going into the existing garbage bins. Additionally, the project will help determine what resource recovery outcomes will be achieved (i.e. contamination rates), how these outcomes compare to Council’s current waste processing arrangement and how much this new servicing arrangement will cost. 

 

Audits will be conducted for the participating households and will determine the average weight of food organics presented each week, the weight of the existing red lid/garbage bin during the trial and the quantities of food that already exist in the red lid/garbage bin before the FO trial. The audits will also reveal the levels of contamination in the FO bins and how residents are separating their waste in the home.

 

Conclusion

 

The food organics trial provides Council with the opportunity to thoroughly investigate the waste diversion opportunities and the logistical challenges that may occur in providing a separate waste collection service for food organics.

 

Upon completion of the project, a report will be presented on the outcomes of the trial for Council’s consideration.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.     The report be received; and

2.     A report on the findings of the food organics trial be presented to Council at the conclusion of the project.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

David Wilson

Manager - Environmental Health

Environmental Services Division

 

 

 

Mark Brisby

Executive Manager

Environmental Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

NSW Waste and Sustainable Materials Strategy 2041

 

Available Electronically

  


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 July 2021

Traffic Committee - June 2021

 

 

Subject:          Traffic Committee - June 2021    

Record No:    SU1326 - 42283/21

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Sashika Perera 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting was held on Tuesday, 15 June 2021. The Agenda is included as AT-1. The Traffic Committee recommendations are shown in the Minutes of the Meeting, included as AT-2.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council adopt the recommendations of the Lane Cove Traffic Committee Meeting held on Tuesday, 15 June 2021.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Terescenko

Executive Manager - Open Space and Urban Services

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Traffic Committee - Agenda - June 2021

17 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Traffic Committee - Minutes - June 2021

19 Pages

 

  


ATTACHMENT 1

Traffic Committee - Agenda - June 2021

 

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 2

Traffic Committee - Minutes - June 2021

 

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 19 July 2021

Love Where You Live Event Sponsorship Request

 

 

Subject:          Love Where You Live Event Sponsorship Request    

Record No:    SU4416 - 42403/21

Division:         Human Services Division

Author(s):      Corinne Hitchenson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A request has been received through Council’s Love Where You Live Event Sponsorship program. The Lane Cove Sustainability Action Group (LCSAG) has requested funding for the event ‘Climate Disruption – benefits of acting now’ to be held on 7 October 2021.

 

Currently the sponsorship program allows for new applications to be received at any time and reviewed at the next available Council meeting. It is recommended Council offer to partner with the Lane Cove Sustainability Action Group to deliver the event through Council’s Sustainability Event Series resulting in the cost of the event being fully covered by Council

 

Background

The Love Where You Live Sponsorship program aims to build community capacity to run local neighbourhood activities through the provision of financial sponsorship to help community organisations establish and deliver new events.

Examples of previous events funded include the Lane Cove Fun Run and Christmas in the Park at Hughes Park.

The Guidelines and Information for Applicants document identifies the selection criteria as:

Council will assess all applications against the following criteria. Proposed events must:

·    Be a new event (ie. less than five years old) that clearly links to the aims of Council’s Love Where You Live program;

·    Complement strategies within Council’s Operational Plan and/or Cultural Plan;

·    Clearly identify an area of need at a neighbourhood level;

·    Involve participation from local residents;

·    Target a minimum of 50 attendees;

·    Indicate Council’s support either financial or in kind;

·    Show evidence that the proposed activity is well planned and likely to attract the target audience

Preference is given where:

 

·    The event promotes innovative use of Council’s open spaces and assets; and

·    The event complements Council’s intention to share opportunities across the LGA.

The Lane Cove Sustainability Action Group (LCSAG) satisfy the eligibility criteria for organisations applying the funding.

 

LCSAG has requested $1,200 in funding for the ‘Climate Disruption – benefits of acting now’ event which features two expert speakers who will address the audience on the Economics of Climate Change followed by a facilitated Q and A session. The funds requested relate to catering, promotional flyers, gifts for guest speakers and incidental expenses. In addition the venue hire fee for the Terrace Function Room is proposed to be waived.

 

The application identified that the event complements Council’s declaration of a Climate Emergency and the Sustainability Action Plan’s goals of a climate resilient community. The group identify that “Bringing the wide community together in a positive and hopeful environment to discuss an often divisive and anxiety-inducing topic can promote community pride and social cohesion”.

 

A copy of the application form has been circulated to Councillors separately.

 

Discussion

 

This event format is similar to the style of activities Council would run as part of its Sustainability Event series with the primary difference being this one is community-driven and hence the organisation’s application for funding to run the event.

 

Unlike previous events receiving sponsorship through this program, the funds appear to be for the entire cost of the event with the exception of in-kind hours of volunteers who have sourced speakers and will promote/facilitate the event.

 

This is the first time under the program that Council has been asked to consider paying for catering or gifts for speakers. Initial concerns raised about the minimum attendee figure of 50 people not being met has been addressed through the inclusion of an online streaming format added as part of the event.

 

Given the proportion of event funding requested, Council could consider the following:

 

1.   Offering to partner with the LCSAG to deliver the event through Council’s Sustainability Event Series resulting in the cost of the event being fully covered by Council

2.   Covering the promotional costs (up to $200) and waiving the room hire fee through this Love Where You Live Event Sponsorship Request should the group prefer to run the event under their own direction

 

If option 2 proceeds under the Love Where You Live Event Sponsorship Request then Council would be required to provide public notification of the funding amount for 28 days as per the Local Government Act 1993. Subject to no objections being received, funds would then be provided.

 

Council’s Guidelines and Information for Applicants document could be updated to explicitly reflect that, although it aims to help community organisations establish and deliver new events, the intention is not to fully-fund the financial costs of the event.

 

Conclusion

 

The event proposed is not dissimilar to those provided by Council and as a result if full costs are to be covered it would be more beneficial to partner together to deliver the event.

 

If the independent delivery is essential to LCSAG’s event then Council should consider whether the event should be fully-funded by Council. By omitting catering, gifts and incidentals requested, the value of Council’s contribution would be $200 funding for promotions and $306 in-kind.

 

In any case Council can update the Guidelines and Information for Applicants to reflect the preference to help establish events rather than fully-fund them to provide clarity for potential applicants.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.   Council offer to partner with the Lane Cove Sustainability Action Group to deliver the event through Council’s Sustainability Event Series resulting in the cost of the event being fully covered by Council

2.   If a partnership approach is not agreed to then Council determine if funds are to be provided and if so the amount of funding. If funding is to be provided then Council advertise the funding as per requirements under the Local Government Act. Subject to no objections being received, funding would then be provided.

3.   Update the Guidelines and Information for Applicants to reflect the preference to help establish events rather than fully-fund them to provide clarity for potential applicants

 

 

 

 

 

Jane Gornall

Executive Manager - Human Services

Human Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.


 

Ordinary Council Meeting 19 July 2021

Council Snapshot June 2021

 

 

Subject:          Council Snapshot June 2021    

Record No:    SU220 - 42731/21

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 June 2021.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Monthly Snapshot - June 2021

27 Pages

 

  


ATTACHMENT 1

Monthly Snapshot - June 2021

 

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